Why I Think The OUYA Will Succeed (And Get Better)

A COD/HALO experience is missing? Really? Don't you see the opportunity in this? It's now possible for you to create such a game and possibly drive the masses to Ouya. Halo was a launch title for the original Xbox (it was initially an RTS). Do you know what the main difference is now? You don't have to be bought byb Microsoft in order to be a launch title on Ouya.

 

Yes, please! Somebody go make Halo for OUYA. And then shut up and take my money.
I would myself, but I'm a bit busy with a different project XD

 

To be fair: The original Xbox was "successful"* because of Halo, not the other way around.



*The original Xbox was not that big of a success and often referred to as a "Halo TV Adapter"

 

Highly debatable.
I think Halo did do a great job of helping drive Xbox sales, but Halo was not the sole reason Xbox was successful.

Again, highly debatable. In North America they completely sold out in-stock units very quickly after launching.

EDIT: Anyway, this is kind of off-topic.

 

You couldn't have one without the other. Microsoft decided the game should be an FPS. If it wasn't for promoting the xbox, Halo would be an RTS for the Mac.

 

Phobic, this isn't really off-topic, it's a reason why I believe the OUYA won't be ALL that popular.

I believe it is going to have a pretty decent base, but as far as "sky rocketing", I just don't see it to be honest.

I would love to see it be successful though, I hope it does skyrocket and take off.

If you can make a Halo/COD game with a small team I would really love to see that.

For the time being, Halo and COD aren't on the system, so again, the little kids won't want to leave it just to go on the OUYA.

 

I wasn't saying that talking about no halo or CoD on the system would limit it's potential, I'm saying that discussing how Halo made the original Xbox successful is a bit off-topic.

Almost surely somebody will. One only has to look at N.O.V.A and Modern Combat to see that not only is it entirely possible, it's almost guaranteed to happen.

 

Oh yes, I also agree, that portion of the conversation was off-topic.

While N.O.V.A and Modern Combat are both awesome games, and well developed, they aren't anywhere near a COD/Halo type of design.

Games like NOVA and MC will SURELY be made, but they aren't really what some people are looking for, some people prefer to stay with COD/Halo, because I guess you could say "the name of the brand"

 

Halo was actually already a FPS when it was first shown in Mac World by Steve Jobs. (Interesting trivia, Jobs personally called Ballmer to scream at him when the announcement of Bungee’s purchase came through, Apple at the time was touting Halo as The Holy Grail that would redeem the Mac as a gaming platform.

 

Oh you are in for a treat:

http://www.polycount.com/2012/11/20/the-environment-art-of-halo-4/

The latest Halo was made by a team a lot smaller than usual. The development was smart, not massive. Read through the article. You can't make a single player experience like the ones in COD or Halo, with a small team, that's certain, but you can certainly create a top mutli-player, shooter with a dozen levels, without the need for 50 people. Actually if you plan it right you can do it with 10 people using Unity, mainly because you won't have to write key tech from scratch and there are already examples. code and tutorials to help you through.

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/103421-Unity-Lesson-1-Draft
http://www.gamertogamedeveloper.com/gtgd-series-1

This is without taking into account ready made code (which the above tutorials provide), nor assets from the asset store or even models from the asset store.

- 1 concept artist (can usually help with textures)
- 1 coder
- 1 character modeler (you only have to make two factions, he can double as prop modeler after that)
- 1 animator
- 1 ui artist (can usually help with textures)
- 3 level/prop artists
- 1 sound
- 1 QA lead (now this is a problem since 1 isn't enough, he will most likely coordinate volunteers or a dedicated team near the end of production, team members would need to double as testers and a closed beta would help too)

Now making the game stand out and have a unique hook that will draw in the cod/halo players is another story, but you can certainly get something up
and running.

Basically nothing is stopping you. Not tech, not access, not knowledge, not publishers, no one is in your way.

 

It isn't off topic if you are discussing precisely how a new console managed to break into the tough TV Gaming market. Also, it's relevant to your argument that the fact that there is no halo is an oportunity for others. You cited Halo as an example, and to do that you first got to come to a solid ground that indeed it was the lack of any other great game that made Halo popular (but we know Halo was hyped way before MS bought the company and turned it into an XBox exclusive.)

Those games do sell, precisely due to the lack of any big equivalent game. They are the generic pill for many that would love Halo or Modern Warfare on their phones, but they are no Halo-Level success stories. In fact, they spend very little time in the top grossing lists when they launch. So they are opportunities, but they are no Halo/XBox level of opportunities (and mind you, if Gameloft is committed to the platform then forget it, no indie is going to pull out a competitive FPS that can go head to head against Gameloft's.

 

I completely agree with you that a multiplayer version of a game like Halo can be made with a decently small team, I never questioned that.

But the thing is, the game is Halo. As you stated, they have to have an AMAZING unique hook that will draw in the Halo/COD players for the simple reason, Halo and COD are great games and everybody loves them for them.

Some ones going to have to come up with an insane idea to really make people go "wow that games sweet, I'm going to buy the OUYA just so I can play that game".

If there isn't a killer game like that, nobody will purchase the console for a bunch of little "arcade" games, there has to be ONE KILLER game that will really draw people into buying it.... and that game doesn't currently exist, which is why I believe it won't be all that successful.

Each platform has a pretty sweet unique game to it, which is why people buy that platform.

I know for a fact a majority of people bought an XBox JUST TO PLAY HALO, and of course they would also have access to COD, but Halo is a big selling point for XBox.

I mean do you really think people go to a store and go "WOW LOOK AT THE GAME!!! Ski 4 Fun!! I HAVE TO GET AN XBOX NOW SO I CAN PLAY SKI 4 FUN".

That doesn't happen, they buy it for the games like Halo etc, which again, for OUYA, a game like that doesn't currently exist.

 

Yes, my point though is: there is nothing stopping you from doing it. Coming up with it is a different story and I don't think money is required to come up with it.

 

I agree with that point completely, nothing is stopping you from doing it.

 

I don't know how big the team was, but the game had the biggest budget Microsoft ever put in any game ever. Not a very realistic level of quality to aim for.

 

They haven't made big announcements yet when it comes to games. I'm curious to see how Human Element turns out.

 

Also as a gamer who has played Black Ops for 207 hours and MW 2 for 311, MW 3 for 39, I can tell you I didn't play the single player. I started playing the single player of BO a couple of months ago, I have 3 hours on it.

Basically I don't think the hook is the single player.

There isn't something new in COD, mostly improvements and Halo has also mostly gotten improvements. So I don't think it's some novelty or originality.
Half Life introduced novelty features and story - but this is single player. Crysis used graphics.

So it's probably a combination of
- critical mass (large fan base)
- marketing hype (money and word of mouth)
- title history, (can only be obtained with prior titles)
- developer legacy (can only be obtained with prior titles)

So since you won't have title history or developer legacy, you need critical mass which will probably come from word of mouth and some marketing hype.

In an ordinary situation this would be a no go, but in this case - IF YOUR GAME IS GOOD - you will have both Ouya and Unity backing you, simply to promote their products. I don't know if this will be enough, but it's something.

I think your best bet would be weapons and art direction.

 

Half of it was marketing and of course hiring top industry talent is expensive, I'm not going to go into corporate culture and spending, I will just say that the larger the company is, the more overhead you have and if you are aiming to target a giant you would need to go this route and spend accordingly, simply to keep up.

This is not the case though.

The costs of developing on the xbox360 and ps3 are different, the cost of creating an engine from scratch or maintaining your own tech is different. The franchise work that goes into these titles is outstanding. You have game themed consoles, game themed cars and conventions. This is what happens when you have 2-3 large players, trying to dominate the top. It's a race to the peak, not the bottom. The franchises are simply too big too skimp on.

But and this is a big but.

Angry Birds is a huge franchise too (and a lot of highly polished, highly successful indie games). You couldn't spend comparable amounts of money on them even if you wanted to, but they worked.

I'm not saying you bet on the fluke, just that investing $30 million isn't the only way. Actually it becomes the only way the bigger you get, because people get worried that they haven't spent enough to make it good enough, big enough etc.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that: it's closer to reality than it ever was. Previously it was close to impossible, now it's plausible.

 

+1. I've never purchased any of those games, and I can tell you without a doubt I would never even consider campaign mode when deciding whether or not to buy (which is a good thing for the publishers, because the story in all of those games seems to be not a whole lot more than "go here, shoot the brown and/or russian guys")

 

I'm the other way around. I buy a game like Halo 3 or Gears of War and I simply play the campaign, never touch the multiplayer modes.

For me, the cinematic epic pitch they toss at me during the marketing campaign is the hook. I don't think either of us can say we speak for the majorities, not without some solid data (not anecdotes about friends) to back it up.

 

I understand and it is certainly part of the appeal, but the real reason these games aren't "opportunities" - as you described Modern Combat and NOVA - the reason people wait outside a store to get the next Halo or COD sequel is not the single player experience, it's because they have been playing the game for weeks, keeping up the hype. How many times do you think they have played the campaign? Do you think they have been playing the campaign all along?

 

I have been playing Modern Combat games in campaign mode exclusively. Once I'm done, the game is off the iPhone.

I think it was Quake 3: Arena that proved that forgoing the campaign was a bad idea. That game only had multiplayer "because that's what FPS players cared for" and it was heavily criticized for it (by disapointed players, the press seemed to loved them either way.) Needless to say, every single id Software FPS after that featured a single player campaign.

Edit to add: Halo 3: ODST also faced some heavy heat due to it's extremely short campaign.

 

Yes, but people are still playing Quake 3. I don't think people are playing the latest Doom, Quake or even Rage anymore. Quake Live on the other hard is swamped.

I think a single player experience can work of course, but realistically single player has:
- story/dialog
- voice acting
- quests/npcs etc
- motion capture
- cinematics (in-game or otherwise)
- full score
- larger levels

If we are talking about an AAA experience here, you will have to throw in a lot more to compete. It's certainly possible and manageable, but I don't know if you can make it big enough without going all out money wise.

It's possible and for example something like Metro 2033 would be a good idea, I just don't know if it would be enough to carry the console, create the critical mass needed.

 

We aren't talking just about making a title, we are talking about a console carrying title. I agree that foregoing the campaign might hurt the experience, not sure on how much and if the lack of a campaign will stop the title from exploding.

 

Here is a counterpoint:



This is a game without dialog, no voice acting, no quests, no npcs (other than the enemies,) no motion capture and next to no cinematics, also levels that are not exactly large but instead simply laberynth-esque.

Music is also not exactly an epic score.

Multiplayer games can keep a select group of people playing for years, but I don't feel they really sell machines. It's that campaign that gets people through the front door.

 

You are forgetting Golden Eye here.

 

In fact, Golden Eye was not only famous for its multiplayer, but also for its great campaign. It was not a game you would only pull out when friends were over.

But you missed my point: Metroid is prime example (no pun intended) that a game can have an epic campaign without most the things you listed.

 

Quake 3 didn't "prove that not having a campaign was a bad idea" (paraphrasing here). If it were a bad idea, Quake 3 would have failed. It didn't. Quake 3 was hugely popular, and still is even to this day in the form of Quake Live. And it's not just a "select group of people" either. If anything, it proved that you didn't need a story to make a great game.

But yes, it is possible to have a campaign without having a story (L4D campaigns, for example, are primarily just shoot the zombies. dialogue that isn't generated from AI or player actions is very rare, and each of the campaigns are very modular)

 

I'm not saying there is a fire-proof solution, as a matter of fact I would suggest going through an intermediate route:

- co-op like left 4 dead

and in reality you need more than one title to really be sure, we are just discussing feasible solutions and I guess trying
to establish what could be done within a reasonable time frame with a projected high rate of success.

The idea being that you are trying to define a "best bet scenario" with an indie budget in mind.

 

It seems this thread is mainly about FPS game stories for whatever reason, but this seemed like the best place to reply for something OUYA related.

I haven't been too excited for OUYA but after going to a Unity LA Meetup I have a more positive outlook. I'm mainly excited to see other people's excitement for it.

I tried to summarize what the OUYA team told us and hopefully it answers some questions or concerns you had about the platform.

http://blog.sokay.net/2013/01/23/unity-la-meetup-meet-ouya/

 

Interesting info, thanks sonofbryce.

 

I think I puked a bit...

IMO: very bad choice. These kind of things should be there day one. One reason for Xbox Live success is being part of the system since day one, and requiring all games to implement achievements too. PSN is not as successful precisely because it was patched in much later, by that time it was not something players cared about since too many games did not support it.

 

Lol, seriously what page did it go from talking about ouya to talking about AAA low quality games.

But the ouya has all the right things going for it, Its cheaper than most consoles, it has a game database appstore system in it, and it has extremely good graphics. I think it will be a massive hit, if there are games that are developed well for it and make it seem inviting and fun. All it will majorly take is one big hit game that gets talked about all over.

An exaple of the big game is with the PS3, I thought it was stupid and a moronic idea. But then everyone started talking about little big planet and truly thats what made the PS3 a major hit, other than it bieng the third tier in the playstation series.

 

On one hand I agree. On the other hand, I've rolled my own because I want my game to be cross platform seamlessly, and that's the only way to go for that.

 

http://androidcommunity.com/ouya-console-april-deliveries-close-to-selling-out-20130131/

 

Kind of a good sign I guess that they're selling out, although they're going to have to ramp up production to not fall behind.

 

Well I have to wonder how many units did they sell. With freemium games the conversion rate is usually 1 to 3%, so unless it sold a few million units you are going to be making peanuts. With the kickstarter there are about 50k units from the original 80k.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ouya/ouya-a-new-kind-of-video-game-console

 

Wow, let's hope they do well.

 

This . I don't like the idea of forcing Freeium .

A demo should be enough . I can wait for it to appear on a store shelf ( a new company taking my money without a solid ship date.... um no ). The thing is I'm already saving to get a nexus 4 . I don't see why I need this too.

Honestly , i'd rather wait for Oyua 2 , by then all the kinks will be worked out .

 

Well this is a console that isn't out yet. From a company that didn't exist. It wasn't google or apple or microsoft or sony. These are behemoths and that's why they sell millions of consoles. Once it's out, if they are able to spend some money on marketing they might be able to push the numbers, but the current numbers are a success for who they are and what they are doing and how they did it.

I'd like to see any of us sell 80K hardware units and be sad about it. The Raspberry Pi had a goal of selling 10 thousand units (10K). Once they reached 100 thousand they were in the clouds, they eventually surpassed 1 million units. This is a niche device. With no real mass market appeal, at least not as much as the potential market for Ouya.

You have to understand that it was an epic task for microsoft to roll out the original xbox and even though it was successful they didn't skimp when they brought out the 360, they know it's hard and they are a company with quite a stockpile.

Just put things into perspective before you judge.

 

A demo IS ENOUGH. All you need to do is OFFER A FREE COMPONENT LIKE A DEMO.

 

They aren't forcing freemium. You can basically use the In-App Purchase API with a single 'full version' item they can purchase. From the point of view of the user, they are simply clicking a 'Buy this game' button, under the hood it uses IAP but who cares?
You can also set up more "items" for stuff like expansion packs you can purchase. It's actually pretty flexible.

Cause the OUYA isn't a mobile device, it's a game console
That's like asking why you should get an Xbox if you already are planning on getting a PC.

 

The Nexus 4 is a pretty powerful phone, I can just plug it into HDMI and get a bluetooth controller .

Like i said, I'm just not ordering one till i see it on a shelf

 

Yes, yes you can.... but I think you'll find a relatively small number of Android games actually fully support gamepad input (they are, after all, designed with touchpad support in mind since 99% of their users will be using the touchpad to play)
Additionally, you cannot play splitscreen games on a mobile device. Or, rather, you technically COULD, but no game will support such a feature (the userbase that would actually plug their device into their TV and have four bluetooth controllers they can connect is way too small for any sane developer to justify the effort).
However, on the OUYA every game you could possibly download will support the controller out of the box. And a good number of them will support splitscreen as well (developers are specifically encouraged to take advantage of the four controller support).
Not saying you absolutely have to get one though. Just pointing out the pros of doing so.

 

I like the idea, but as a consumer( don't really have time to dev full time right now) its better to wait and see . I'm guessing Ouya 2 would be the best thing ever , since the business model would be fixed .

Plus 8gb of data is nothing , thats 4 Gameloft level games .

 

You're talking about some broken business model but all you've done is shout "FREEMIUM!" when everyone has explained already many times in this thread that all you need to do is offer a free demo at the very least.

 

The only demo example I know of is gasketball where they had 200k downloads and had a conversion rate of 0.67%, that means only 1340 bought it from 200k downloads. I really dont think its going to be much different then then 1..3% CR even if its
http://penny-arcade.com/report/edit...how-an-app-with-200000-downloads-led-to-devel

Look at temple run 2 it got 50 million downloads in less than 2 weeks, you throw a CR rate of 1..3% with that and you are laughing all the way to the bank. I did buy an ouya anyway
http://toucharcade.com/2013/02/01/temple-run-2-downloaded-50-million-times-in-less-than-two-weeks/

 

But why not wait for Oyua 2 which is going to be refined, I'm not a beta tester

 

"Why buy the xbox when I can get the xbox 360?"

 

Because if you decide to wait, and all your friends decide to wait, and all their friends will wait....who will actually buy it? You have to support it because you like the idea of it, and why not spend $100 for a nice movie streaming and emulator game console? My personal view is the situation is win-win all around. Then there's the added bonus of me being able to make fun games for my kids and other family and friends.

That said, the console is not for everyone. It's for people like me, who enjoy the occasional (suprisingly) good XNA game.