OUYA Is On Death's Door And Needs To Find A Buyer ASAP

Not supposed, Unity IS getting full support for it: http://blogs.unity3d.com/2015/04/29/announcing-support-for-microsoft-hololens/

 

And inherit millions in debt?

EDIT: Woops quoted the wrong person

 

Yeah, it's hard to imagine who is going to want to buy the company at this point. That debt they've got piled up doesn't exactly make it a tasty dish to swallow. The most valuable thing about the company is the branding, and even that's been somewhat tarnished. OUYA has decent visibility, thanks in large part to their successful Kickstarter campaign. (and slight retail presence) But the on-line store isn't particularly desirable as it is in its current configuration. And the hardware is less desirable than it used to be with so many capable competitors on the market. (in the micro-console and stick market) So we're pretty much just left with the branding, and I'm not sure that's enough to offset the debt.

Anyone who was looking to pick up the company and actually make something of it would have to do a near about-face on the direction that the company is going in. To saddle yourself with that kind of debt only to have to immediately back-peddle and do an immense amount of work sounds more like a headache than a value.

 

About $175 on Amazon and up to $300 on ebay so I guess it is dead and is now becoming somewhat valuable. I will pass. I did find something slightly interesting during my search: Mad Catz M.O.J.O.

 

Most gamers don't want a minimalist console, they want a console that can play decent looking games on their big screen TV on their couch, while not wanting to fork out $600 for an Xbox or PS4.

I get the minimalist niche, but it's exactly that, a niche. If you give that little console more power with later graphics tech, you expand that niche, and more developers put their games on the console, because it allows their games to look and run better.

The whole ecosystem improves and more people get a console for a low low price, and more developers make games for that ecosystem. A win win for developers and gamer's pockets.

 

Did you notice it supports Ouya content? I feel like Ouya may have stood a better chance if they had focused on making a quality content distribution platform and simply relied on third parties for the hardware.

 

What @Schneider21 said.

I just need to rename the company American Ouya Freedom Restoration and it'll get a free bailed out plus several million from Sheldon Adelsen. Then I can resell it for billions or declare bankruptcy close it down keeping the bail out money myself. Gotta live that American dream, yo.

Whoa there, the American education system has already patented that idea.

 

I'm the other way around. I think their hardware was fine, it's their software/documentation/services that really lacked. (Unfortunately when I was playing with it it seemed to lack because they only had one guy handling far more stuff than he could reasonably handle. Not sure if that's the case or if he was just a single point of community liaison.)

With Fire TV I was initially a little skeptical about the lack of documentation. It was something like "Install the Android SDK and here's the controller mappings." So I did that, and was super pleasantly surprised that there is no more documentation because there does't need to be. You deploy to and run on the device and... that's it. It's exactly the same as any other Android device.

On Ouya on the other hand... well, I'll just say it was a different story.

 

Towerfall did go to be succesful on steam. Sold 50k units at $15 a pop according to steamspy which aint bad.
http://steamspy.com/app/251470

 

Right, but the point wasn't that there weren't good games, it's that games didn't sell on the system. Towerfall is a great example of a game perfect for the limited Ouya platform, and yet it still couldn't succeed there.

 

To be honest it was destined to fail no matter what. Reason for that was that 95% of the people who were excited about it was constantly talking emulators. "How cool and awesome it would be to run emulators", "and even if Ouya were to fail I will have a console for my emulators", LOL. You can't build a business based upon these kind of consumers. Of course, Ouya shot themselves in the foot countless times to make things even worse after launch.

 

As someone who started gaming the late 8-bit, early 16-bit era, I totally believe the games of that time need to be preserved, and the emulation community, while legally and ethically in a grey space, can do that. I don't have a huge problem with emulators, or even the process of ripping a ROM for your own personal archive, or when enough time passes that the game cannot be easily obtained through standard/legal channels (e.g. the original Game Boy Color Pokemon games.) Appreciating games as they were, in the context they arose in is necessary to appreciate the history of our industry.

That said, emulators are not good for business, in general. If your platform's primary selling point is emulators, that means the classics or pirated material are getting played to the exclusion of new, paid releases. This is what happened with Ouya. This is ammunition against a community and concept that can preserve our history. In short, this is just bad.

I think subsequent generations of microconsoles should police the emulation scene on their console. It would be better to have a "virtual console" setup similar to Nintendo - in fact, negotiated with Nintendo, since most of the emulated games are for Nintendo systems - and get those classics on said microconsoles on an affordable price. I think that will do much to help clean up the negative consequences of microconsole emulation, and allow new generations to enjoy the great games of yesteryear. Everyone wins!

 

To be fair, you could release demo with ads. Would it be free to download? Yes. And the fact it'd display some ads would be meaningless. And since it was basically an Android device, you could use any Android ad network.

 

You're making the same mistake that the large-scale game developers and publishers made in 2006. And the same mistake that the NeoGeo made in the early 90s.

Better tech != better games. Quality games are produced through careful thought, creativity, and artistic style. Graphical rendering power is just a small part of that equation, and not nearly as important as many people think. Complicated graphics != good graphics. Advanced rendering power can make graphics more complicated, but it can't make them good. It takes carefully considered and applied artistic vision and style in order to make graphics appealing. Graphical rendering power is a useful tool for this, but that is all it is, a tool. In the right hands it can make a masterpiece. In the wrong hands it can make a mess.

In 2005-2006, Microsoft and Sony decided it was time for the "high-definition" generation. They released the XBox360 and PS3, and focused on high-resolution rendering and more powerful graphics. For consumers, a lot of this seemed great. They were getting much more graphically impressive games. For the industry, it was a waking nightmare. Production costs on games skyrocketed. Adapting to higher resolutions produced a huge number of new challenges and hurdles to overcome. A lot of studios ended up shutting down over this transition. And the console manufacturers themselves lost a huge amount of money selling their hardware at a significant loss. All over an obsession with pushing the latest tech.

Meanwhile, Nintendo took dated tech that was cheap to produce, and made the Wii. They followed the same strategy that had helped make the NES and GameBoy a success. And it worked spectacularly. They were able to make appealing games that people bought millions of, and the consoles flew off of store shelves. The Wii didn't end up having the same shelf life as the PS3 or XBox360, but who cares? They sold more Wiis in four years than the PS3 or 360 did in nearly a decade. And every one of them was sold for a profit.

If you want to make a console for less, you have to make it less powerful. Simple mathematics. You can't try to slug it out with juggernauts like Sony and Microsoft on power. They simply have more money and resources to throw at the problem. Attempting to focus on power for a bargain-basement system like the OUYA would be a terrible idea.

But you don't need powerful graphics for good games. We've been having this lesson pounded into our heads with innumerable examples over the past decade, and still some people don't seem to be able to "get" it.

 

Not to mention the games actually innovated. Every other company wants to sell us the same thing every year and try to make a profit after investing too much into making it look pretty. Nintendo has new ideas (besides the obvious new mario games coming out constantly) and they run at 1080p60fps! lol

And you're not kidding about dated hardware. It's the 1 recent system that actually runs better on an emulator, haha!

 

It's a tech strategy that has been used to great effect before. Instead of trying to push the tech forward, use dated tech that is stable, cheap, and well-known. The processor for the GameBoy was a Z80, one of the most common and widely-used processors in the world. Because it was so prolific, Nintendo was able to buy them in bulk for very little. Also because they were so common the documentation for the Z80 assembly programming language was extensive and already very well understood. (and not particularly difficult)

With the Wii, Nintendo stuck to the same basic processor family that the GameCube had used, as well as the same chip manufacturers. It was dated tech, but it was already extensively understood and established tech. And by focusing on low-end, low-resolution graphics, they drastically reduced the expensive of development for the Wii. Developers could easily make three or four Wii games for the same price that they made a single PS3 or 360 game.

Of course, the esoteric control scheme and internal competition scared off a lot of third-party developers from Wii development. But that's another story. And Nintendo's internal development teams still got to benefit from all of those advantages.

Having better tools is nice, but it's not the do-or-die requirement that many tech-obsessed gamers and developers seem to think. Lesser tools used properly can be extremely effective, especially in terms of cost. It's always better to focus on what you can do with what you have, instead of pining for what you don't.

 

Well said although based on these forums I'd say most people don't seem to "get it". There seems to be a huge number of people who think the graphics are the most important part of the game heck almost like the graphics ARE the game. Lol

The popularity of games with very low res pixel art should have made this clear by now. I think maybe people confuse their appreciation of awesome graphics and FX with a requirement for a good game. At the other extreme there are many people who firmly believe any game that looks awesome and fancy will suck as a game. While this is not always the case the belief came out of many years of buying games based on the graphical wow factor only to be disappointed with the actual game. Few people/teams can do more than one thing exceptionally well. They can focus on making an awesome game with barely passable graphics or they can focus on making an awesome gee whiz wow presentation that is supposed to be a game but never quite comes together unless the game itself is fairly simple. Not always true but certainly more often than it should be.

 

I can tell, the 'wii emulator' is actually the gamecube emulator lol. It's also hinted at by support for gamecube controllers

Most of my favorite games came out for gamecube. Mystic heroes, the zelda collection on that weird thick disc, metroid prime, super mario sunshine and so on. The water in super mario sunshine from 2002 is still beautiful today.

 

You're totally missing my point. I'm not saying you need good graphics for good games, the foundation of a good game is good mechanics, and the delivery and execution of those mechanics to the player. I'm well aware of this.

I'm saying that if the ouya wants to survive or get a second wind, their best bet is to make their console more appealing to the masses and the best way to do this is to showcase some really good looking titles on a newer more powerful console that still costs the fraction of an Xbox or ps4.

 

I'm not sure who would buy out Ouya... what would they do with it that the current Ouya company/Julie etc couldn't do with it.

 

You don't appear to have grasped the basic economics here. More power = more cost. No exceptions. It might be possible to cut out some of the profit, but making a loss is what gets you into the current situation Ouya is in. Which ever way you spin it they are in trouble because they haven't made enough money to cover their expenses.

If you make a console that rivals the power of Microsoft and Sony, the cost will also be pretty close to that of Microsoft and Sony. As Microsoft and Sony have been at the game for a long time, trying to out do them on cost efficiency will also be challenging.

 

Your analysis is sound, your solution is not. More powerful hardware is not the correct solution for making the system more appealing to the masses. And I'm not even talking about competing with Microsoft and Sony. Several other manufacturers have already handed OUYA their asses at exactly what you're describing.

Amazon Fire TV, the new Nexus Google TV player, even Nvidia's Mojo and Shield micro-consoles. All of those devices are comparatively priced to the OUYA, and have more rendering power under the hood. If OUYA attempted what you're describing, they would be walking right into their grave. We're not talking about what might happen, we're talking about what already is. That market is already flush with larger, more capable competitors who have far more experience and reach. And that trend is only going to continue, with even more companies getting in on the game in the next few years. And you're still banging on about more rendering power...

The only possible thing that could turn OUYA around is more developer support. And for that they need to provide more support and options for developers. What they need to revise is their software back-end, not their hardware. The infrastructure of their on-line services, their programming API for their custom build of Android, better software tools to empower OUYA developers, those are all the areas that would help.

But of course, none of that will happen because they're looking to bail.

 

Too bad as I kind of like the whole idea behind the OUYA.

 

Really? How could I have missed that all these years?? So is that why when I buy the cheapest graphics card in the store I don't get 60 FPS on all the latest games like my friends do? Amazing revelation.

You don't appear to have grasped basic economics in the sense that the prices of hardware have come down in the 2-3 years since the OUYA had the Tegra 3 bundled with it.

They could probably get a Tegra 4 for cheaper now and even a Tegra K1 for a good price bundled in if they negotiate things correctly with the manufacturers. Those chips are way ahead in graphical performance and features than the Tegra 3. And remember the Tegra 3 didn't have shadow support, something I know pissed off a lot of Unity developers (even though there is an Asset Store package for this).

I'm not saying make a console that rivals Sony or Microsoft. Make a console that is at a much lower price point that still looks good and appeals to more gamers. In there the OUYA will find a good segment of the market. I'm thinking all those people still stuck on an Xbox 360 or PS3, that can't cough up the money to buy an XBone or PS4.

If you can make games that have more shinies and look better than the games on the 360 and PS3, you immediately have a larger market. The K1 is light years ahead in terms of graphic capabilities, hell even the Tegra 4 is way ahead of the 360 and PS3.

 

Unfortunately the big game companies don't seem too keen on preserving their history compared to the film companies, which I think is a bit weird. But the biggest problem with emulators is that people download games that can be purchased today on the eShop, PSN, XBL etc. I do agree that games that are not possible to purchase anymore should be ok, but you never know if a company is working on it as we speak.

I think Mame should become a legit platform where publishers can sign up and sell their old games. Maybe they could pay the people the who made the games run on Mame a fee for their work, and the publishers would take care of the licensing and things could work out. Kind of like GOG but for console and arcade games instead, most of the work is done already anyway.

Just a side note, bought OutRun 3D for my New3DS (Yes I am playing in 3D), and it's pure heaven , runs at 60fps to boot, original was "only" 30fps.

 

Even before that, their main selling point to players was "Everything will be playable for FREE". Even thought it only had to be a demo, they were doing a great job of targeting audiences who weren't interested in paying for things.

 

I don't remember which developer it was, but there was a video covering the history of developers trying to dissociate with older games. They hype the crap out of one game until they're working on the next one, then they go on about how horrible the predecessor was. And they did this for a few games in a row!

It was probably EA or Ubisoft and the source was probably Jim Sterling, because of course it was.

 

No I think it was about Peter Molyneux. He did this with Fable series.

Anyway. Either Apple or Microsoft will buy Ouya. Google may do that, but wouldn't count on that. Most likely Apple though.

 

What on Earth would they want with it? Any or all of those could easily enter the market with no baggage and a fresh reputation if that's what they wanted.

 

Why would they? They've had their own equivalent since November.

https://www.google.com/nexus/player/

 

Oh trust me, they would. Don't forget the only reason we have PlayStation is because deal with Nintendo for SNES CD addon fell through. The situation isn't quite same here, but is similar enough that they wouldn't want risking for someone who can make Ouya a huge success (say Facebook) to buy it. Also I have inside info, but won't tell who as I don't want cost this fine man her job.

 

How is this even remotely relevant? Deals fall through all the time. This isn't a matter of a deal falling through, this is a matter of a company failing to make it. That happens all the time too.

The Ouya has nothing special about it that could bring value to any company. The hardware can be found in many mobile devices and the user base, as mentioned by @angrypenguin, wasn't even interested in paying for games.

The most popular Ouya game, Towerfall, didn't even make close to the same number of sales it made on Steam.

 

The question was: why? What risk is there for any of those companies in any of the others picking up this brand in particular? Even aside from the rumoured state of the business, Ouya had a very different brand positioning from any of the others you've mentioned.

 

That's what it was! Thank you for reminding me. It was him and it was fable, lol. It's called the Molyneux Cycle and it is indeed a Jimquisition video.

 

Why would any of those companies touch OUYA? Apple is a premium brand. The OUYA is a non-premium product, so it would be off brand for Apple. Also, the OUYA has a modified version of Android, a competitor to iOS. Microsoft already owns the profitable XBox brand. Google would not want to use an OUYA. If anything, Google would design a new reference design that used a stock release of Android and directly used the Google Store for games instead of OUYA. Maybe Google would go further and release a standardized micro-console in the same way they released smartphone designs and Android. (and call it Nexus Player) But I highly doubt OUYA would add to that strategy for Google. OUYA would probably just be legacy baggage that none of those three companies would want to drag along.

 

Ok. I could believe Facebook might buy OUYA. But I cannot imagine Apple, Microsoft, or Google buying OUYA.

 

The only people who were excited about OUYA were indie devs dreaming of selling games and pirates dreaming of emulating roms. There was no one excited to actually buy games for it, and that's sort of the most important group.

 

They will, if only to stop Facebook/Amazon/etc. from succeeding. Also see you in a month or so.

 

A dying product is not valuable to anyone when the technology it presents is so readily available. The Ouya is little more than a mobile phone without a battery. The user base is practically non-existent and the software isn't anything special.

 

Amazon already has two that are already more successful in sales of hardware (fire tv and fire tv stick). Needless to say they won't be buying an inferior competitor. As far as the others I really doubt they will purchase. Like you said though see you in a month or so.

 

Succeeding at what? You keep going on about risk mitigation (without using those words) without ever articulating what the risk actually is. Why would any of those brands care if someone else succeeded with something they're not interested in?

 

One thing I can see potential value in is Ouya's partnerships with vendors distributing into China. I don't know how much actual value is in that (I hear that "If we can capture just 1% of the Chinese market..." is a common failed newbie pitch to VC funding), but it could maybe be useful to someone even if they're not interested in any other part of the business. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a business was purchased to gain access to existing contracts.