next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i imagine a game that tried that zelda trick would be voted down to oblivion by angry ouya users saying it violates the ouya spirit

[feminazi]

develop for windows store it da futur

[Garthy]

easy to fix. example, using zelda:

you walk into old man cave: "it's dangerous to go alone! pay a one time fee of $5.99 to take this."

Your post inspired me to explore some other possibilities for Zelda. Here goes:

- Cash for rupees (pay to avoid grinding model).

- Bombs require in-app purchase (pay to bypass unbeatable obstacles model).

- In-app purchase required to carry more than one bomb at once. Blue ring is in a different place each game, but a blue-ring radar is available as an in-app purchase (pay to avoid tedium model).

- The magic shield is an in-app purchase (pay for game balance model). Good luck with a room full of Wizrobes without a purchase, by the way.

- Pay to enter dungeons after the second one. Pay to exit the lost woods (pay to continue model, classic demo).

- Blue ring and magic sword as in-app purchase from the start (pay for obscene advantage model).

- Mega ring and ultimate sword upgrade that gives 20x Defence and one-shots everything (pay to win model).

- Constant messages about how Zelda is suffering at the hands of Ganon, unless you pay (guilt model).

- Limit the resource you can gather (rupees, bombs), but also allow one-time in-app perks to be bought that overcome the limits (pay forever model).

- Reduce the cost of bombs and the bow. Increase the cost of the magic shield and blue ring to around 50000 rupees. Introduce thieves that steal money if you're carrying more than 200 rupees. Make the blue ring a hard requirement. In-app purchase keeps the thieves away and increases rupee gain by a factor of 50. If you don't log in every day, you lose rupees. Also, you gain rupees by spamming your (soon to be former) friends on Facebook. Plus all of the above. Guess the name of this model.

[s_l_m]

- Reduce the cost of bombs and the bow. Increase the cost of the magic shield and blue ring to around 50000 rupees. Introduce thieves that steal money if you're carrying more than 200 rupees. Make the blue ring a hard requirement. In-app purchase keeps the thieves away and increases rupee gain by a factor of 50. If you don't log in every day, you lose rupees. Also, you gain rupees by spamming your (soon to be former) friends on Facebook. Plus all of the above. Guess the name of this model.

The virtual crack dealer model? Because that's all the "free to play" business plan is to me. Charging money for the small chemical rush that comes with feelings of success  

[Uykered]

$5 and you can make 5 posts on Tigsource.

[poe]

Is there a bundle for Tigsource posts? I'd like a bulk discount.

[pxl]

Damn, this has to be one of the most unmotivational threads on this forum, you guys seem to really hate the OUYA, I personally look forward to potentially developing for it

[deathtotheweird]

Damn, this has to be one of the most unmotivational threads on this forum, you guys seem to really hate the OUYA, I personally look forward to potentially developing for it

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.

[mono]

Honesty strikes again.

[SundownKid]

The OUYA won't let me sell my game to you the way I need to sell it.  All games must be funded by in-game transactions.  The development API has these payment options:  Recurring Subscription, Replenishable Items (buy in game items & currency w/ real money), and Unlockables (one-time purchase items).

Once again: What the hell are the Ouya people thinking?!

The games work a lot like an app - you get the free demo and then buy the full game through an in-game transaction. I don't really see that much of a problem with making the rest of the game an unlockable. Many games have demos anyway. I just hate microtransactions.

I got to try out the OUYA at Indiecade, the controller was very comfortable even though the stick was a bit slippery. However, the games on display were basically just arcade phone games, nothing impressive enough to make me say "I want that!"

Of course, I wouldn't plan to buy it anyway since I don't have a TV. 

[Christian Knudsen]

The games work a lot like an app - you get the free demo and then buy the full game through an in-game transaction. I don't really see that much of a problem with making the rest of the game an unlockable. Many games have demos anyway. I just hate microtransactions.

If we look at the nearest comparison, the iOS store, then I've run into quite a few apps getting downvoted furiously because they were labeled as "free" but required an IAP to unlock the full game. I would definitely not want to be forced to sell my game like this. Especially not on a console that claims to be the most open platform to develop for.

[feminazi]

wouldnt every ouya game get downvoted then, cancelling out each other

[Christian Knudsen]

It's not the downvoting in itself, but that a lot of potential buyers seem to really hate that way of selling a game. And that's the only way to sell a game on the Ouya.

[ham and brie]

But there might not be that hatred if there isn't a divide on the platform between free and paid apps when you're choosing to download them. It tends to be a matter of expectations.

[Richard Kain]

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.

[Christian Knudsen]

For my part, I'm enthusiastic about the OUYA simply because it's a non-closed piece of hardware to play with.

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

[Richard Kain]

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.

[VDZ]

For a dev like me who has done the research and just wants to find the "impulse buy" price point and sell you the damn game, OUYA doesn't give me the option I need to sell via.  Their rationale is that you can make a game demo, then use an in-game unlockable purchase to let the players buy the full game.

OK: Let me tell you something about Demos.  They Kill Sales.  This is not only my anecdotal evidence, but it's a phenomenon that's actually been experienced by many well received games with demos, and led to less sales than other well received games that don't have game demos.  This effect is magnified for cheaper / indie & mobile games (and even applies to Applications, not just games).

It's the same reason why the shareware model isn't such a great model, it's VERY hard to pull off a game demo.  You're working against yourself:  You have to let the players experience enough mechanics that they don't think your demo is shit, while at the same time contending with the fact that if you give the players enough content to be satisfied with they won't feel compelled to pay for your game -- You miss the impulse sale.  They'll think: "Man, that was great, I'm gonna buy this later," then play 50 other demos and totally forget about yours.  

What works to drive excitement, curiosity, and thus sales is footage of gameplay -- You want to experience that cool stuff you just saw, you have to buy the game.  Oh, but won't someone think of the players?!  What if they buy a crap game based on misleading videos?!  We already solved this in every damn app store: Satisfaction Guarantee Refunds.  You (impulse) buy the application / game, and try it out.  If you don't like it you get a full refund.  This is BETTER than the demo model because they don't need to wait to download the rest to keep on playing the game if they like it, and if the users hate it they can get a refund.  The end result is less work for the developer, streamlined sales, and more customers.

As a developer, I'd just disagree with you. But as a gamer, I just can't put it any other way than simply: fuck you.

You want me to buy your game out of ignorance; you want to omit the demo not because of any problems that would be involved in the creation of the demo, but because otherwise it would allow me to make an informed decision of whether or not I'll actually like the product I'm about to buy, instead of just forking over my cash and hope I didn't make a mistake. I pay you for providing me with entertainment, but you want me to pay even if I will not actually be entertained by it. You know what they call it when you trick people into buying something they do not want, and try to prevent them from making an informed decision? It's called a scam.

Now, there are many valid reasons for not making a demo. Perhaps you don't have the time to make one. Perhaps a demo wouldn't be representative of the full game. Perhaps the amount of material required to be representative would make buying the full game unnecessary. But if you are an indie developer, rather than just some greedy corporate asshat, 'to make sure the customer doesn't find out he doesn't like the game enough to buy it' is NOT a valid reason for not releasing a demo.

I understand your point from a business perspective, detached from morals. But trying to profit by pushing your players into making purchases they regret is despicable.

I, myself, love the Ouya's business model - it guarantees there is always a demo of some sort that I can try before purchasing a game, and it will drastically cut down on the amount of game purchases I regret.

Oh, but what about Minecraft? It was basically a demo while in development, right?  Uh, Notch got payment up front for access to the Alpha versions -- It wasn't a free demo.

Then please explain to me how I've played a lot of Minecraft a long time ago despite never having sent a single penny in Notch's way? Back during Alpha there were two versions - Survival mode, which was exclusive to people who pre-ordered, and was the alpha of the entire game; and Creative mode, which was only the building aspect of Minecraft, and was completely free (and you could even host your own private servers for free). People played the free Creative mode, and then paid for the complete experience.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

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

[Richard Kain]

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.