'OUYA' Android Console for $99

Just heard about this new Android TEGRA 3 console planned for $99

Designed to be hackable and all games free to play?

http://kotaku.com/5923135/a-new-99-...cally-different-from-xbox-playstation-and-wii

 

It should've been a tablet. They could name it Ouya board

 

Saw this this morning. Very promising. Not unlike a design I made a mockup of a few months back.

 

I've always had nightmaric dreams about a console at $100 with all free games that implements the recently surfaced Sony patent on 'game breaking advertisement injections' ...

I like the idea itself but free games and subpar hardware will not get it anything at all. At least a Tegra4 or Core A15 + PowerVR Series 5XT / Series6 gpu are a pure must for hd resolutions and anything lower than that isn't worth the volume the box wastes in storage

 

I see it as a $100 immobile "value" tablet that hooks to your Tv and gets people on Google Play, that can't possibly be a bad thing.

 

I don't think it's a tablet, no built in display!

 

Its a Quadlet with external display.

 

This is very cool.

Looks like its basically another next-gen console, like the PS4, WiiU, and XBox720. The difference being that, if I were to guess, it will not have discs. It sounds like it just connects to a library of games online that you can download and play via the console.

Makes me wonder if Unity will have to make many significant changes to allow us to build for it...

 

Unity already exports to Android, so my guess is not major changes.

 

I'm trying to figure out where either article mentioned Tegra...much less Tegra 3. Considering the price point of the Tegra 2 Trim-Slice, it's hard to believe you'd be looking at a Tegra 3 for $100. I run Android x86 on an ol' netbook - so I'd figure it being more a case of something along those lines, Android x86 running on old Atoms that never got sold...

 

Nintendo would like to introduce you to the Wii. The games aren't free, but they deliberately never even tried to compete on the beasty hardware/HD bandwagons, and the box is hardly a waste of storage as a result.

And if the thing is going to be approximately as powerful as the current average tablet, that's plenty of power for decent games. It might not be up to playing Skyrim or Gears of War 3, but somehow I doubt that those are the games it's intended for.

The whole "free" thing is what makes me dubious. Surely that means that the whole platform is designed around ad-based revenue?

 

But it's "easily hackable", so people would be able to easily turn off the ads if the system itself is displaying them.

I'm hoping there's at least some method available to put paid games on.

 

So, after all, it looks like the trend is starting to march "real console" out of oblivion!!
The death of console has started - next gen console won't be able to compete in price against these mobile offering.

Ngmoco's Cousins predicts the death of consoles within 5-10 years
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/14...dicts-the-death-of-consoles-within-5-10-years

 

If I were to guess, it will most likely display ads on the library itself (not necessarily in the games). Still not sure how developers would benefit from this (beyond exposure).

Google has always been all about open information and free service. I think this is a brilliant move that could prove to be a major landmark in the coming game era.

 

Google has always been about making money. It's a business.

 

Well, for starters, people who are able to "hack" with it would be the minority. PCs are "hackable", but how many people actually do it?

But more importantly, if games are monetised through adverts then I expect that the adverts would be built into the games as well as the dashboard, and I doubt that the games themselves would be "hackable".

Interestingly, while they're talking about their free-to-play model, the games they're showing in their promo image aren't free ones, and the image clearly refers to a "store"...

 

Of course they're interested in making money. They have to pay their bills too. But if you look at the evidence; an open market on their app store, Google Docs, SketchUp, Google Maps, etc, etc.

Google has almost always been the first to step up in nearly every category of technology and offer a free service. They're even working towards providing free internet to the world (one step at a time, of course).

 

You're looking at free versions. They have commercial/business versions of most items.

Think Unity. There's free and there's pro. That's Google.

 

Yes, and before companies like Unity came along, you'd be paying $500k for HeroEngine. $1 million for the CryEngine. $500k for Unreal. Its companies like Unity (and Google) that have stepped up to provide free alternatives (even if they are limited versions). This is a major reason why I support companies like Google and Unity so wholeheartedly, while finding companies like Apple and MS annoying at best.

 

You know what, I play 45% of my gaming on PC, 45% on Mobile, and 10% on consoles. And when I play on consoles, I usually play old PS2/1 Games, or old Nintendo games on my Wii!

Honestly, if I could get more better graphics and a controller out of my ios and android games, I would be down, both as a player and a maker!

 

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they're in the business of openly exchanging information. That's the value that they provide.

And it's free to individuals precisely because that's what makes it most valuable to the commercial users who pay for it. Almost everyone uses Google because it's free and useful, which means that they can easily collect aggregate information (which companies will pay for) and they have great market reach for advertising (which companies will pay for).

 

This might use Android tech, but it's not a mobile. Its intended use cases fit into the 10% of the time you tagged for consoles, not the 45% you tagged for mobiles.

 

https://www.dreamspark.com/
http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/
http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-editions/express
http://www.microsoft.com/web/webmatrix/
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-live/essentials-home
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-HK/skydrive/home
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/web-apps/

edit: Man, I hate the UDN crap on the forums - this is my third try (going to copy and paste it) to post this edit. It keeps sending me to the front page when I hit save...meh.

It's not a case of trying to push one over the other or another; rather it is a case of recognizing the competition pushes each to continue innovation. Where would Google be without MS? Where would MS be without Google? Etc, etc, etc.

As for the Ouya, I'm not sure that's innovation as much as socialism.

 

I'm all for competition too. I know that Google wouldn't even be considering half of these moves if someone else (like MS) hadn't already defined the market. Not sure where the socialism comment comes from...?

I think of it this way. Millions of years ago, there was bountiful amounts of food all over the world (especially in the ocean). This lead to crazy amounts of mutations and new species. Now look at the wide variety of life in the ocean. All the different sizes, shapes, colors, behaviors; and those are just the one's that survived this long. It's crazy! It's all because someone would mutate (try something innovative) and, even if it was completely impractical, there was enough resources to support it. It could then thrive long enough for these crazy mutations to become more refined and turn into something truly new and useful. (The miracle of evolution.)

The point, of course, is that when there is more opportunity for new ideas to emerge (and survive), then and only then, will we truly start seeing a new era of innovation. I believe that the Ouya is a great step in that direction.

 

I'd call it innovation.

I don't see it as "making a cheaper Xbox", I see it as "bringing a mobile-style market to bigger screens", which is a completely different proposition despite the consumer-end results looking pretty similar.

I'm very interested to see how it pans out, too. Mobile stuff seems to me to be successful because it's mobile as much as because it's bite-sized.I can only buy from PSN or XBLA when I'm in front of the relevant console, where I have access to the iTunes App Store in my pocket all day.

 

Many tablets have HDMI connectors for TVs - you can hook up a BT keyboard/mouse combo.

It's not bringing something new. It's not bringing better performance or anything of the like.

It's bringing a cheaper option to the masses.

A Tegra 2 Trim-Slice will run $210-340 or so. You can run Android or Linux. Heck, I believe you can even run MeeGo. We're going to have Windows 8 that can run on ARM. The Tegra 3 is already out there and the Tregra 4 with DX11 should be out Q1 2013.

Then we have the $99 Ouya...offering what? A cheap option for the masses. It's akin to OLPC laptop/tablet - but aimed a little higher, since it's going to be looking for folks with a TV and internet, etc.

 

Cuz no one these days has TV or internet.

First, this will have far greater computing power than your phone. Also, I would love to be able to sit down on the couch, browse through a huge library of crazy new games and play them on the big ol' 50" with a game controller. Who wouldn't want a constantly refreshing library of free game in their console?

I'm constantly looking through the PSN library for new demos, but all you can ever get are demos (or pay $10 to $50 for a game). I'm absolutely going to get one, and I'm sure millions of others will too. Evidence that there is certainly a market for this.

 

You realize that you can currently connect a device to your TV to do that (that there are even TVs that do not require you to connect a device, they have the device)...?

It's not creating a new market in the least. It's providing a cheaper solution within that market. With cheaper, what comes to mind is worse performance than what is already out there.

I find this whole discussion kind of mind boggling. Step away from the code, browse the internet from 3-4+ years ago...

 

Actually , I like the option to just pay for games sometimes , . Better then dealing with ad after ad

 

Yes, I have one of those fancy shmancy internet tvs with their fabulous "game market". Its laughable really. The nail biting tension of "can I move the right block to get the mouse out of the room?!" Painfully lame.

Again, this device will also have much more computing power than plugging my phone into the tv.

 

I run adblockers when I surf. I go to the bathroom, go for a smoke, make a sandwich, etc when commercials come on the TV. I tune out ads when they play on the radio. When I get crap in one of my email accounts, I mark it spam.

If there's something that I believe I may need - I'll head over to Google or Bing and search for it. I'll read up on it. If there's something newsworthy, I'll see it on one of the sites that I visit.

Etc, etc, etc.

 

We do realize, of course, that ads are what make free radio, television and games possible. Personally, ads have never bothered me, and I don't see why people get in such an uproar over them.

How dare they tell me about coke's new product line! Those sadistic, invasive corporations! Really?

 

Its not that im in an uproar , id rather just pay up front and have an add free experience

 

Given there are no specs for it... how on Earth are you going to say that?

It's a proposal to build a $99 Android Console.

 

You still have free TV there?

No such thing in NA anymore lol.

 

In the US...ahem: http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/

I like this part: "Signal strength calculations are based on the traditional TV reception model assuming an outdoor antenna 30 feet above ground level. Indoor reception may vary significantly."

In some areas, it will work great - in other areas...forget about it.

 

That wasn't directed at anyone specifically. Just my general experience with gamers when they see ads in games.

 

So? This isn't a tablet. I know I *can* plug my mobiles into my TV, but none of them are designed to be used that way and, as a result, I don't do it. Even if I did, if I were using that for anything other than watching videos I'd still end up looking at the tablet itself most of the time, because that's how they're designed to be used.

Anyway, sure, it's technically possible to do everything this can do without this device in particular. Nobody's arguing with that. But a lot of people won't bother to do it unless the device in question is purpose specific for it, which renders it irrelevant.

 

This is, of course, an assumption. However, considering its sole purpose is to play video games and is about ten times the size of my phone, I believe its a safe assumption.

 

NVIDIA learnt from the Tegra2 fiasco, the 'Xoom is an overpriced piece of garbage, let it die' problem they caused themself by selling the tegra chipset at a completely unrealistic, insane price, given the crap performance it had.

Tegra3 really is this low cost nowadays in the lower versions, thats why the Nexus7 tablet gets away with 200 bucks for a 7" tablet on a Tegra3 1.3ghz

 

It's important to consider what the Nexus 7 does to get to that price point: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/t...the-ipad-state-of-the-art.html?pagewanted=all

Much like Amazon did with the Kindle Fire, they're hoping on subsidizing the cost. In this case, they're looking at Google Play - in a manner that Amazon looked at...well, Amazon.

There's no HDMI. No expandable storage. No back camera.. No Flash. Lack of landscape.

No doubt it's faster than other tablets at that price point. Nice resolution, responsive, etc, etc, etc. It's a Kindle Fire killer...so to speak.

For $50 less though, I can get HDMI - expandable storage - landscape - Flash...

 

These things pop up every so often - usually they're scams. Does no one remember the "Phantom" game console from infinium labs? or the Indrema?

 

Nah, not a scam. Behar will eventually get it built. The issue's more about the expectations that the announcement is likely to create in potential customers versus the reality of what the finalized product will eventually be...

 

Potentially but the material costs are still below it. Google simply has no margin and wouldn't recoup their own R&D and Dev investments with the $200 but unlike sony and MS they at least don't lose hundreds of dollars per sold device like back in the first 3+ years of the X360 / PS3


Also this is somewhat unrelated if you ask me cause it does not change the fact that the tegra 3 is not capable of powering 720p+ if its meant to look better than Quake3 with slight graphical enhancements and on that level its not usable for more than a OnLive - Gaikai stream box
Its the same thing Google is to sell with the NexusQ in the end

 

Seems like you're all missing this vital clue: how do developers get paid?

I sure as S*** won't support any platform I can't monetize. I got food to buy and mouths to feed. This device will bomb without developer and publisher support, just like every console in history that bombed without developer support. 3DO anyone? NO? how about jaguar.

In any case, you can buy a nice nexus 7 tegra 3 powered tablet in the uk for just £160. That can plug into the tv as well. This confusing box is going nowhere fast. No retailer with a brain will see it as anything more than a quick buck.

Short of the dpad being a touch screen, I really don't see how it'll run existing software properly either. And if the dpad is a touch screen... what's the point again?

 

Definitely the first thing that I caught on to. Why would I develop on this? no reason. I'm assuming there is some sort of ad-share going on. However, these are notoriously bad for revenue.

 

Given the current market they need to have a backend e.g. Google Play or better still a game streaming provider so it can run games that look amazing without having the latest and greatest hardware.

 

It has Google Play, that's how you get paid. Or perhaps they "subsidize" the free games for purchasers of the consoles and work out something with devs. I can't imagine they expect people to make games for it and expect nothing in return...

 

But shouldn't any and all media publications be taken with a grain of salt unless supporting evidence is available? Anyone basing decisions on the vague information we've seen so far is gullible beyond belief.

All we know is that, while there's some big name power involved, there's a concept floating around which may or may not go ahead and will probably change significantly from this initial idea if it does. The fact that some of the information we've seen is in conflict (the articles talk about a free-to-play based model, but the images show a shop and games which aren't free) kind of reinforces the super-early stage that this is in.

 

Adds?