Slashdot Mirror
Why We Should Remain Skeptical of the Ouya Android Console
An anonymous reader writes "We recently talked about the 'Ouya' console — a conceptual Android-based gaming device that's had a massively successful Kickstarter campaign. While most people are excited about such a non-traditional console, editorials at 1Up and Eurogamer have expressed some more realistic skepticism about the claims being made and the company's ability to meet those claims. Quoting: 'Even if we set aside the issue of install base, one of Ouya's selling points could make developers wary of investing in it. Through the pitch video and on the Kickstarter page, Ouya emphasizes the ability to root the system and hack it without fear of voiding the warranty. With a standard USB port and Bluetooth support, it will be possible to use controllers and peripherals with it other than the one it comes with. What this also opens the door for is piracy and emulation. No doubt a chunk of the audience interested in Ouya are those intrigued by the idea of having a box that hooks up to a TV and can run Super Nintendo or Genesis emulators. Others will look at the system's open nature as an invitation to play its games for free; if it's as open as advertised, it should not be difficult to obtain and run illegally downloaded copies of Ouya games.' Ouya CEO Julia Uhrman has responded to the skepticism, saying, 'Ouya will be just as secure as any other Android-powered device. In fact, because all the paid content will require authentication with Ouya's servers, we have an added layer of security. Hacking and openness are about getting what you want to do with the hardware. Rooting the device won't give you any more access to the software.'"
"all the paid content will require authentication with Ouya's servers"
So it'll have Ubi-style always-on DRM. Nice.
I was kind of interested in this project, but upon reflection I'm getting increasingly more sceptical. Too many spurious claims, not enough hard detail. I'll see how (if) it pans out, but I'm glad I'm not a backer.
Well, it's a device sold for a purpose. As long as its satisfies that purpose, it's all good. Console are the epitome of hardware that's not frequently updated, because the goal is to play games, and good games don't need bleeding-edge hardware.
If the console can play good games when you buy it, it will still play good games 4yrs later. No need to obsess about specs.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
I'm an electronics designer and the first thing that jumps out at me is that they want to use a Tegra 3 processor. From having detailed conversations with another SoC manufacturer in the same class I'm certain there is no chance in hell they will be able to purchase that processor with only, say, 50k consoles being produced (35k Kickstarter backers at the time of writing).
When we tried it the SoC manufacturer was willing to deal with us at a level of 1 million units and stated they might _consider_ 500k units/pa if we could guarantee a ramp-up.
So this sounds like a total load of shit based on that single glaring fact.
Well I would say the plus of kickstarter is it fills a need that wasn't being met. The companies with the money, have stopped listening to the fans that buy their products. The same crap has been rehashed 500 times because people with money, will not invest money until after they have seen evidence that the fans will buy that product. The end result came the new methods of selling. Including the method games such as minecraft and project zomboid used by selling the very rough alpha of the game with the promise of future updates, and kickstarters. The end result is that games that otherwise had no way of coming into being have been funded and several released, as the fans have more or less purchased the games in advance to fund the development. While I do agree it shifts the burden of risk onto the fans at least it is shifting the risks onto fans that want to take that risk. Compare that to the banks etc... who gamble with our money whether we want them to or not.
The big cost in hardware is development, not manufacturing.
It's like venture capitalism without the capitalism.
It's not hard to understand. It's like Free Software and attempts to pidgeonhole it along very rigid lines will always fail simply because it serves multiple purposes.
I helped fund a film which is now being made. From my point of view it's just distributed patronage.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Kickstarter is not meant to replace venture capitalism... it is an alternative to venture capital for types of projects which wouldn't be attractive to capitalist investors, such as art projects, or very small scale manufacturing, or as in this case, projects that venture capitalists might consider unrealistic but in which enthusiasts might have enough faith. Those who contribute don't do it for a "trinket"... we do it either because we simply want to see the project succeed, or because we want the product enough to pay for it in advance and take the chance that it'll never materialize.
Kickstarter is filling a needed niche... Iit's a large niche, and it seems to be working. And it it works for enough types of things, it'll start inspiring venture investors to go after some of the same markets, which will mean that it's "working" in yet another sense for society.
So I think Kickstart is a brilliant idea. We'll have to wait a bit longer to see if history will vindicate it, but early indications from recent successes are that it may be a real game changer.
as it has been said on here before many Kickstarter projects are a scam
Zioneyez used Kickstarter to steal $350,000 and delivered nothing
When people complained, Kickstarter said "no refunds"
If it sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true. Problem is word is not getting out about all the scams on Kickstarter. All we hear are the successes, so people think everything on Kickstarter is legitimate when it's not, there are plenty of scams on Kickstarter.
How many stories did Slashdot run on ZionEyez? Answer: One, and even then the story was "Has this failed?" rather than "Kickstarter project stole $350,000"
How many stories did Slashdot run on Disapora? Answer: At least seven, even though Diaspora never met it's Summer 2010 deadline and many would argue it never achieved what was promised despite receiving $190,000 more than their goal
Is everything on Kickstarter a scam? Of course not, but Kickstarter promises nothing on any project, they just give the information. In that regard it's a lot like Craigslist. Craigslist doesn't guarantee the guy you hired for roofing is going to do a good job. Difference is Kickstarter is presenting the information like it's legitimate, and I think that's where the problem is, why people are offering millions of dollars on projects that are obvious scams, because they believe Kickstarter has somehow verified these people when they're really no different than the guy offering to wash your windshield for a buck.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
I think you underestimate the difficulty of establishing a charitable hub, running a website that can handle thousands of simultaneous page views, getting potential customers to trust you, and getting public awareness of your site so people know to check it for projects of interest for less than 5% of the overhead of the actual projects.
I don't like that Kickstarter itself and Amazon each take a percentage of the funds. But I think creating a successful alternative is very difficult.
I've never understood why people fund projects where the outcome is the establishment of some proprietary asset
Okay. I'm part owner in a tabletop gaming company.
We recently kickstarted one of our properties (quite successfully I might add, since our backers completely refunded the project in the last 24 hours of the campaign).
Had we not kicked it, this property would have been put into our normal production pipeline and been out sometime next year (if it didn't get bumped by funding needs for one of our "core" properties).
Our Kickstarter success means it goes into production NOW. It means that this is a game that people find interested and want to play now.
You can play the basic game for free already. The Kickstarter allowed us to fully fund production costs and bring in a couple of valuable properties as add-ons/expansions.
All our backers will be given access to the final form of the downloadable game rules and pieces. But over 97% of our nearly 600 backers opted for higher tiers of support where they get a full copy of the game and some of the premium Kickstarter exclusive one-offs. A huge swath of them also spent out for the add-on/expansions in excess of their basic contribution.
Do they "own" the company that built it?
No.
But they're getting a copy of a game they REALLY like and they're getting it THIS YEAR instead of "maybe next year...ish". And, because they're getting it this year, they're paying for this year's production costs (and kickstarters are getting a bit of a discount off the final on-box price) and not next year's (higher) costs.
This form of funding allows my company to be more agile in our releases and allows our customers to say "I want this NOW! Shut up and take my money!" instead of going "Man! Wish it was coming out now and not NEXT year!"
Does that mean we're going to kickstart everything in our product line? Nah. That's why we have our traditional funding model. But this is an additional avenue to allow us to do MORE.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
This article starts with completely the wrong premise. Platforms don't become popular because of DRM. DRM gets put on popular platforms because there is nothing the purchaser can do about it other than do without. The idea that EA would choose not to earn a million dollars on non-DRMed software because they could have gotten 2 million if DRM was in place is ridiculous.
I point to http://www.gog.com./ If an inexpensive console had just that DRM free library of games, it would be a viable platform. There is no question that DRM free software can make money.