Kain, with Halo 4 you mean releasing it now?

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

Halo is arguably Microsoft's most popular and durable exclusive brand. Pushing Halo 4's release back and porting it to their next console could have given them a popular exclusive launch title. Launching it at the tail end of 2012 instead erodes the brand somewhat, and denies them the ability to leverage the franchise for their next hardware launch. Another Halo title, or an upgraded port of Halo 4 will be too little, too late. (or in the case of a new Halo title, too soon) Annualizing franchises is good for bookkeeping, not branding. The only people you please with that kind of policy are accountants.

Sony has the option of releasing The Last Guardian as a PS4 launch title. I strongly suspect that is the reason why so little has been shown of the game for the past few years. They intend to pull an Ico with this title. The Last Guardian won't have nearly as much pull with general consumers as Halo would have. But it will likely be a critical darling, and making it a PS4 exclusive would be a powerful selling point for Sony fans.

Without Halo, what powerful exclusive franchise is Microsoft going to pitch as the reason for upgrading to it's next hardware platform? Madden and Call of Duty won't cut it, neither franchise is exclusive. Ditto for Mass Effect. Fable just doesn't have the same clout.

The Wii U is perfectly positioned to be the go-to console for local multiplayer. Everything about it seems to have been designed with that purpose in mind, and I can attest from experience that it is excellent in that capacity. That is a niche that it will most likely be able to hang onto, even if the PS3, 360, PS4, and Durango beat it out in other areas. Of course, that is tacitly admitting that it the Wii U isn't going to be trouncing any of the competition in the near future, but that's just the way things seem to be shaking out.

The PS4 has plenty of potential. The possible last-minute decision to up the RAM in the system to 8 GIGs is going to make a lot of potential developers very happy. It's the one thing they are always clamoring for more of when developing for consoles. Several other architecture decisions of the PS4 are also targeted at developers. The constant-on feature is going to be huge for developers, and will free them up to make as many updates to their software as they please without interrupting the end-user experience. The choice of processor is also an obvious olive branch, cross-platform porting for the PS4 will be much easier this time around. This could result in fewer exclusive titles, but it will also mean that the performance of the PS4 versions won't be hamstrung.

The changes to the controller are nice. The alteration to the tops of the analog sticks will be popular. One of my biggest complaints for the PS3 was the continued use of domed analog sticks. Having an indentation in the middle will make them much easier to manipulate. I could have done with a shift in the position, though. Shifting my thumbs downwards on Sony's controllers has always bothered me. I honestly prefer the Wii U's approach to this better than anyone else's. But the same approach wouldn't work with the general structure of the Dualshock line.

Sony's done a good job so far of focusing on garnering developer support. While a lot of end-users might not be as impressed with what has been displayed, this was a clear appeal to the development community. And games will always be what sells systems. With the direction they're taking, it's clear that Sony understands that now.

Of course, the Durango is still a big fat question mark, and no hardware exists in a vacuum. The strong focus on game development and end-user experience will serve the PS4 well against the Wii U and the last-gen systems. But Microsoft still has a chance to wow everyone with the next XBox. I am slightly concerned that they made the wrong decision with Halo 4.

EDIT : I just read the gamasutra article. I didn't realize that Mark Cerny was the systems architect for the PS4. That's interesting.

Yes it is. And I can't help but wonder why everyone else is focusing on the less important details from this presentation. This fact was huge, and anyone familiar with the development of the previous Playstations would understand why.

Sony has always been a rather fragmented company. They're trying to move away from that business model, but progress has been slow. And the architecture for their Playstation line has always been designed by their senior Japanese engineering teams. Ken Kutaragi was famously responsible for spearheading the design of the PS3.

When Sony greenlit the design of the PS3, they were out of touch with the direction that the modern game industry was taking. The appointment of Mark Cerny as the lead systems architect for the PS4 speaks volumes about the direction that Sony intends to take with their latest hardware platform. For starters, Mark Cerny is not a Japanese engineer. He is first and foremost a highly experienced game designer/programmer. He's also not from Japan, and can bring an understanding of Western cultures and business to the design of the PS4. All of these are positive developments, given the areas where Sony has lost the most ground in the current console cycle.

probably, but u were talking about tokenism which is "uh guys, i just noticed all our presenters are men, lets get one woman to speak at our event too so feminists dont complain"

If you are a Public Relations professional, this is the sort of thing you get paid to think about. That is the sort of observation that such professionals are required to make.

And as Paul pointed out, there are options when it comes to female game developers. For my part, I am just fine with a "token" female coming out on stage as long as she clearly knows what she's talking about. The fact that she is female, or the fact that a company invited here to tick off a checklist doesn't bother me. Insincerity or incompetence are what I find grating. Show me a woman who is obviously familiar and comfortable with the subject matter she is presenting, and I will be happy as a clam.

i've heard things like this in the comments to that kotaku article, on facebook, etc., and i find it ridiculous -- is it *really* a choice between no female devs and token female devs? what about actual real female devs, of which there are many in the industry?

the industry has about 11% female employment. by that ratio, you'd have expected that 1 out of every 9 speakers be female. but they aren't even being represented by the already poor percent of females in the industry. 1 out of 9 wouldn't just be a token, it'd be representative of the females already in the industry

A valid point, certainly. It was not my intention to give Sony a free pass on this one. This was clearly a failing on the part of Sony's PR department. With the clout they have with developers, it shouldn't have been a problem for them to encourage a few of them to bring some capable female developers along for the show. How hard would it have been for them to mention to Ubisoft that Jade Raymond would be a welcome addition?

Sony does deserve a portion of the blame for this faux pas. While I do appreciate that they didn't try to pass off a mouthpiece as female representation, they also dropped the ball pretty hard. And that failing is going to make things prickly for developers the world over for the immediate future. (at a time when it is critical for them to cater to the development community)

Well...it was a bit of a sausage-fest up on that stage. There's no denying that. And it doesn't exactly reflect well on the gender diversity of the industry, that is true. It's entirely possible that none of the developers they were trotting out had any women on staff who could capably present. That is a more practical explanation, but it still doesn't speak well of the video game industry at large.

I would personally prefer that they provide capable speakers who are familiar with the subject matter. I think Sony did just that in their presentation. They trotted out real developers who knew what they were talking about. I would far prefer this approach than some transparent attempt to thrust a female presenter out on stage just to make themselves seem more diverse. (as we've seen at some other press conferences)

At the same time, it is a bit embarrassing for the game development industry when an event like this one has no high-profile ladies to represent.

The dream of using computers instead of consoles for the living room isn't going to come true until computers are as easy to purchase and maintain as consoles. Consoles are appealing to average consumers who just want to plug in a box and play games. They are convenient.

A full-on computer is not only quite expensive, but not convenient in the slightest. For tech nerds such as I, that is half the appeal. I actually enjoy taking computers apart and tinkering with them. But I am definitely a fringe case, a small minority in a world full of people who are afraid of a computer's insides.

This is actually an area where I feel Sony is moving in the right direction with the PS4. It's clear from their presentation that they have put a lot more thought into the smoothness and convenience of the user experience. They are putting hardware into the PS4 specifically for that purpose. The "sleep-mode" on the PS4, as well as the background downloading, and even downloading and updating while the system is inactive, are all very positive and forward-thinking developments.

Sony still has a lot to prove. But I felt pretty good about this presentation. I was impressed at the level of developer feedback they sought out for the architecture of the system itself. Sony coasted without serious competition through their first two consoles. With the PS3, they got their nose bloodied, and found out what it's like when your competition isn't screwing around. Now they seem to be thinking carefully about their new system.

- give up the restrictive sales model where everyone is forced to make games free to play or use a loophole in the terms of service to make it equivalent to a sale of a full game

A "restrictive" sales model? You can do anything you please within those guidelines. You can make a game where everything is locked except a big button on the splash screen that says "Click here to buy this game." How is any of that restrictive. You're quibbling over semantics. The only restriction here is that the end-users have to be able to access some portion of your game from the word go, even if it's just the splash screen. You can still control everything else. And all of this is presuming that you even bother to use the OUYA's on-line store.

- give up releasing a new one each year and go for a new one every 5 years or so

Why? Releasing a new model every year keeps the platform fresh in the minds of consumers. Any developer shooting for maximum compatibility can just use the OUYA model 1 as their base target. iOS has been doing this since it first launched and hasn't had any issues. As long as the price of new systems remains consistent the consumers aren't going to complain about it either.

- take measures to prevent piracy

What measures? It's an open hardware platform without restrictions. That's half the point of the platform in the first place. Taking overt measures to curtail piracy would make them no different than any other console manufacturer.

also, you make it sound like only "haters" are saying this stuff about ouya. but the same exact stuff we're saying about it is being said by figures like john romero here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p9lY-o6V2U -- he's not being any less or more harsh with his words there than we are here

The man responsible for the design and marketing of Daikatana? Yes, I'm sure his stance on the release of a new hardware platform is going to be prescient. [sarcasm]

All I'm hearing from you is that you want the OUYA to be more like every other console. If that were the case, what would be the point? The idea of a budget-priced console is something Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should have pursued years ago. Now that we have a fourth party trying their hand, you can't be happy unless they follow suite with their far better funded competitors?

Let the experiment happen. If it doesn't work out, it's no skin off of your teeth.

How come dislike is an invalid feeling towards the product but constant praise is not? There is a bit of hypocrisy in some of your arguments.

No one is saying you can't have a negative opinion toward the product. But a lot of people just seem to want to ascribe some manner of evil to it. There's a difference between not agreeing with a product and outright reviling it. Preaching doom and gloom, and railing against a product that hasn't even seen commercial release is going a bit far.

Perhaps more importantly, many individuals don't seem to want to think constructively about the very arguments they bring up. Proposing positive solutions is much better than just pointing out short comings.

It's the difference between being critical of something, and being a hater. Being critical is prudent and cautionary. Being a hater is just nothing but destructive.

what about releasing a new version of it each year? it can still be a scam while also being a real product; plenty of real products are scams (for example, pet rocks)

By that logic, I would argue that the iPod/iPhone/iPad lines are enormous scams. Overpriced hardware that is sold at a huge markup, and uses style and marketing to sell. (rather than substance and features) And those get new versions each year. (or every two years, gotta time it right for renewing phone contracts)

Everything about the OUYA was made possible by the explosion in the mobile industry. The operating system, the CPU, the diminutive size. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that they might seek to emulate that industry's hardware cycle as well. Development for iOS and Android hasn't been hampered by new hardware coming out every year. (well, possibly for Android, but that problem was there from the beginning) It's a hardware cycle that has proven successful in that industry. Given the budget nature of the OUYA, it is possible that it will work for it as well.

Crying foul and tearing out your hair at this juncture is silly, though.

Yes. What Paul is worried about now is not the physical product, but the "dream" that the OUYA team is going to be selling going forward. And he may be right where that's concerned. While the OUYA team has shipped a physical product (albeit, as an early beta specifically for development purposes) they have not yet delivered on the de-facto digital storefront for their console. For an indie developer looking to possibly earn a living off of OUYA development, this is a very pressing issue.

For me it's not as much of an issue. I'm a hobbyist, not a professional. I'm not quitting my day job. I'm also cautious enough not to drop all my eggs in the OUYA basket. But some others might not be as wary, and might commit all their resources to developing software for this new console. I don't think they will be as numerous as Paul fears. But the possibility is there.

OUYA definitely still has a lot to prove. At its best it could end up being a household name. At its worst it will be a minor footnote in the history of this industry. (and a desirable curio for the shelves of collectors)

This is just another example of needing to be a little more careful in communication. Using terms or phrases that you aren't familiar with can lead to misunderstanding.

I was familiar with the origins of the phrase "drink the Kool-Aid." I didn't call Paul out on it because the intent of his statement was clear, and it was an appropriate use of the phrase given the argument he was making. It was a bit of an exaggeration, but within the context it got his point across effectively.

There is inherent danger in crowd-funding. It's a very new approach to financing, and there haven't yet been enough successful crowd-funded projects to consider it a sustainable business model for general use. And while the OUYA project appears to be going rather well, there is still a very real danger that it could fall through or implode in on itself.

For my part, a lot of my doubts were put to rest after the initial OUYA dev kits were shipped off to the developers who had sprung for the development tier. In my mind, successfully shipping the initial run of units to developers so that active development could begin for the system was a concrete milestone.

The time to wring your hands over whether or not OUYA was a "scam" was several months ago. At this point we've seen a decent degree of progress on the project. Physical products are in the wild. It's already passed beyond smoke and mirrors. There is still much and more for the OUYA team to prove about the long-term viability of what they've created. But its clear now that the OUYA will not go the way of the Phantom.

that's the thing i'm most wary of: well-meaning and creative indie devs wasting their time developing games for a console that will either never be released or will have a limited audience, when they believe they are participating in the dawn of a new era or a revolution when they're just participating in either an intentional money-hungry scam or a quixotic delusion. after it disappoints, all that wasted effort will be a tragedy, it's just as bad as when developers enthusiastically learned microsoft silverlight and made games in it

I'm currently developing using Unity, one of the most cross-platform friendly engines available. A large reason for me settling on Unity, despite the learning curve required, was it's strong cross-platform support. In this day and age, it's silly for any indie developer to go all-in on a specific platform. And most indie developers with a shred of experience have already learned this lesson.

The kind of fringe case you're describing would just be for inexperienced developers who are in need of a wake-up call. And the exact same argument can be applied to any and all hardware platforms. (such as the Kinect)

And as for no default controller for the Raspberry Pi, you can buy 5 generic USB controllers for 50 bucks which for the same price you could only afford one(1) Ouya controller.

As I already pointed out, the Raspberry PI is still not convenient to acquire. It's supply-constrained, and there is a wait list for ordering one and having it shipped to you from the UK.

And I shouldn't need to explain the importance of de-factor control standards to anyone familiar with modern game development. The controller that a system comes with defines the hardware platform. We've seen this with every major console release. The standardized input is one of the most important aspects of any home console.

You can do all the same things on a PC. But any capable gaming rig is going to cost more than the OUYA. And none of them will come with a standard controller either.

Why on earth would anyone be opposed to a company expanding the market by offering a more budget-friendly, affordable console?

if you want customizable hardware though, why not just develop for raspberry pi?

No default controller.

No support for major game engines. (I'm currently working in Unity)

I want to develop games, not tech demos. The Raspberry PI was designed with low-level programming education in mind. I would prefer to work in an existing game engine that divorces me from low-level code as much as possible. I'm trying to cobble together prototypes and tools, not optimize collision engines.

Also, the Raspberry PI is continuously back-ordered, on account of it not having serious financial backing. It's also not available in retail stores. If the OUYA manages to do decent business, it could be a regular fixture at the local WalMart.

I think most criticisms are aimed at the software and business side of things, not the hardware itself?

With a system that makes no attempt to close off the hardware, the hardware is what you are really paying for. Whatever distribution system they saddle to the base package is significant, but it also isn't the end-all-be-all for the system. The original PSP proved that a less constrained hardware platform can be very appealing even if software for the system never sells that well.

If you want to create your own custom store front for the OUYA, you can. If you want to make games that only work on the OUYA after it's been rooted, you can. It's a hardware platform without the constraints that usually limit what can be done with most other commercial systems. And while even a budget PC would normally run you $300 for parts, the OUYA comes in at a much more reasonable price point. It's essentially all of the benefits of a Raspberry PI, but with more processing power and features, and a controller.

Sure there are plenty of valid complaints about the software and business side of things. And there should be. Push-back from the development community is how those sorts of systems can be refined and improved upon. Steam is celebrated today, but even it gets that kind of resistance. And it certainly didn't start off in the state is has reached.

OUYA has been an incredibly divisive enterprise. Many are excited by the possibilites it presents, while others seem to actually fear it. At the end of the day, it is providing something that we didn't have before. I feel confident in saying that we will all be better off for having it in the market. It may rise or fall, but as a hobbyist developer that doesn't really effect me. What I can get from it is what I want. The rest is immaterial for the time being.

The people who are "hating" on the Ouya have provided sufficient evidence as to why they do. You, on the other hand, have not provided a single reason as to why you are looking forward to 'potentially' develop for it.

So whose posts are more useful here? Certainly not yours, fucktard.

This is the kind of rampant negativity that is bothering me. On a development-focused board, you'd think more people could come up with solutions, rather than harping on the problems. Instead we get this manner of unwarranted hostility. It boggles the mind that anyone could get this angry over a product that doesn't yet exist.

I think it stems from the growing divide between the "traditional" and the "casual" branches of the game development community. A lot of more traditional developers seem to react with a distressing degree of rancor to modern advancements in monetization models.

For my part, I'm enthusiastic about the OUYA simply because it's a non-closed piece of hardware to play with. At it's diminutive price point, it makes it a convenient solution for all sorts of development experiments. I'm personally planning on using it as the core of a new type of arcade cabinet. (that is designed to be played with smart-phones) Having a piece of tech like this available at an affordable price is convenient for me.

If they're going to apply the mobile approach to hardware to the console market, releasing regular hardware updates is the way to do it. The obvious drawback for developers is that they will be developing for a moving target. It won't be nearly as difficult as other home consoles, but it won't be as easy as developing for a static hardware spec. The good news is that they aren't going to be reinventing the wheel with the Ouya 2 and up. Those revisions are going to be to increase the power, efficiency, and affordability of the hardware spec. Insuring compatibility across platforms will make things easier on developers.

This whole model is similar to what has already happened with iOS and the iPhone. The obvious difference is that the Ouya isn't going to be changing out its screen and/or resolution with every other update. For a standard console, this approach to hardware would be disastrous. For the Ouya though, it could work out fine. This approach is much easier to pull off when the hardware is within impulse-purchase range.

I started playing around with Unity's animation system today, and was pleasantly surprised with how quickly I was able to pick up on it. I'm thinking now that I will return to the lip syncing system I had developed and re-tool it to use Unity's native animations rather than the Tweening library I had been using.

Quick question, I've been hearing that Mecanim is the new hotness for Unity animations, and that the previous animation system is now legacy. But I don't know of any way to properly script custom animations and timing events using Mecanim. And it seems like Mecanim is very much geared toward bipedal character animations. Is it still safe for me to use the legacy animation system? I think it has everything I need to script capable timing-based animations.

Pity they're using a Tegra 3 in mid 2013, when Tegra 4 is so much better.

The latest and greatest is always better in terms of power. But being the most powerful is rarely ever the most desirable state for a consumer product, even more so in this depressed global economy. The Ouya is hoping to target a broader, more price-shy market with a product that they can sell at a profit. Packing it with the latest tech would be a terrible idea.

This is the same approach that Nintendo employed with their handhelds. The GameBoy was behind the times in terms of technology when it came out. But that line was able to survive quite well despite this. The Ouya is never going to be a technical wonderland. It is just powerful enough for what it needs to do.

What is really missing from this equation is a Tetris or Pokemon-esque title to help drive sales. Even with older technology and a budget-conscious price-point, the Ouya is still going to need some solid software to convince consumers that it's worth their money.