Today I created an animation for the next pieces to test out my "Juice" (interpolation primitives) Library.

Video:

I wonder what business/software method you have patented for your game?

It has nothing to do w/ either DCD or Yoshimi (or game mechanics for that matter). As far as disclosing goes, I'm wrestling w/ the conflicting motivations of wanting to protect it as a trade secret and wanting to publicize it for various reasons.

What is your patent over?  You're protected by the patent system, right?  You're not afraid I'll be able to find prior art to invalidate the brilliant idea, are you?  If it's non patentable then it's not useful as a patent... So, what's the point of keeping it secret?  You don't have to fear anyone using the same idea because you created the prior art, right?

Unless... Unless the patent system doesn't actually work as advertized?  Isn't one of the aims of the patent system to keep people from having to hide valuable trade secrets by protecting them with patents?

You stated that you think it'll help you defensively against bigger corps with more patents.  Protip: 1 patent vs their 1000 patents is still a losing battle. 

You'll only be able to monetize a small number of patents if you're a non practicing entity (AKA Patent Troll).  If you actually make products, a few patents is as useless as having none.

The patent system and copyright system are totally based on legally enforcing artificial scarcity of ideas.

Your entire argument flows from several flawed premises. For one, while ideas are not scarce, good ideas absolutely are.

Sharing an idea is cheap.  Ideas spread at little to no cost.  In a digital enabled society duplicating bits is very cheap.  My argument flows from the idea that the artificial scarcity systems are inherently flawed.  Monetize what's scarce -- The ability to create good ideas, the ability to write code, not duplications of the ideas or code.  The latter are in near infinite supply -- Copies can only be monetized due to artificial restrictions placed on copying, whereas work is valuable without artificial restrictions in play.  Those who ignore copyright and patent law can not harm me if I do not rely on the artificial scarcity, and instead rely on the actual scarcity of my time.

From an economics standpoint it's a no-brainer. You can't sell ice to Eskimos.  Sharing ideas and copies is cheap.  You're rationalizing selling ice to Eskimos by pointing to legislation that states Eskimos can only get ice from ice dealers...

The patent system and copyright system are totally based on providing incentive for people who come up with good ideas. If there is no incentive (eg a bigger company will simply copy and ruin you), good ideas are much less likely to get to market (a ruinously costly proposition). People typically don't do things that will lead to their ruination.

The incentive to do work is the promise of payment for said work, not the ability to extort monies from others who come to similar solutions -- The latter is the tool of Patent Trolls.

Patents and Copyrights are totally based on providing the most benefit to society -- Says so in the US constitution, this section basically plagiarized the Statue of Anne (English copyright law).  I do hope this irony isn't lost on you.

Coming up with "good ideas" is fine, but if you're not solving anyone's problem or meeting anyone's desires by doing so then it's not worth anything to anyone but you -- Of course you'll have a problem selling something that no one wants or needs... Like a knifork.

When you move beyond opinion and deal w/ actual numbers, you can see that the GDP benefits of IP law can be quantified.

That's just an untested hypothesis.  Scientifically speaking it's worthless.  There's no experiment here at all to prove your point.  Correlation is not Causation.

Can you prove that removing said IP laws would harm the GDP, or that removing IP laws would increase GDP?  No, you can not.  Ergo, those numbers mean nothing in this context.  Come back when you've actually tested your hypothesis -- The only way to do so is to eradicate patent and copyright laws.  Personally, I think today is a much different world that when those arcane laws were written -- Copyright was created to keep greedy Publishers from exploiting Authors, and it did not restrict the general populous from making copies.  Now copy machines like computers are cheap and ubiquitous -- Everyone now affected by the laws meant only to restrict Publishers.

It's high time we tested the ancient hypothesis -- Working under these laws at this point without testing their premise isn't just illogical and silly, it's plainly Bad Science.


The Automotive and Fashion industries have no patent or copyright protections for their designs (just trademarks).  However, they're doing just fine.  If you look at the "numbers" they're even more lucrative than Software, Games, Books, Music, etc.  Other markets that do have these protections.  So, despite not having copyright and patent 'incentives' the Fashion and Automotive industries thrive.  Seems legitimate that software could also survive without patent protections since they didn't always have them (until the 80's in the US), and some countries don't recognize them (which has brought these countries more software developers, hmm).

If someone else comes up with the same idea independently, preventing them from using their own idea is harmful to them.  Weaponizing the ideas for protection or defense is not the original purpose of the patent and copyright laws.

You're simply spreading FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) because you can't say what it would be like with no copyright and patents in today's software industry.  We'd have to ban them first and find out -- You know, use logic and reason and the Scientific Method, instead of FUD and conjecture.

Additionally -- Jim Crow was a law.  Segregation.  Even Slavery laws have been on the books.  It's been proven time and again that established laws can be very flawed.  I believe laws granting idea monopolies are just as flawed as other artificial arbitrary restrictions, like segregation based on skin color.

In short: Prove the law is just.  Let's do without it for a while and see.  THEN you can prove if limiting our freedom of speech and creative output with copyright and patents is beneficial to society or not.

There's so much that's wrong with your argument that I quickly got bored w/ it. It's evident it's little more than back-door bragging about what a blue-collar champ you are. But just throwing some darts at it, here's what I come up w/;

Get in tune with EVERYONE else who works for money.

Let's say you work concrete, (it's like ditch digging, except that the lye in the concrete eats your flesh) a job I've actually had; it's still not as difficult as learning and implementing patent law in conjunction with developing an invention, building a business, and bringing it to market. You know, work.

I'm not bragging, just making a comparison to other jobs I've had that follow the same payment for work system.  It works everywhere is the point.

So, what you're saying is that creating software is more difficult and expensive due to the complexities of working with patent law...  I see.  So, without the patent system to worry about, it would cost you less to, you know, do your work?

Copyright and Patent law allows people to try and get paid multiple times for the work they did once,

You code once but get paid for each time your software sells. But I'm sure that's somehow different.

That's a pretty big assumption, and it's WRONG.  I don't get paid for each time my software sells.  I don't have to.  I get paid enough to create it in the first place, thus I only sell it once.  Hell, some of the code I get paid to create is released as free and open source software.

I am a problem solver.  I have a reputation as a good solver of problems.  My ability to come up with good ideas is how I market myself as a problem solver.  This is why I get paid to do work.  Once the solution has been created and I've been paid for doing so, I don't seek further payment for each deployment of the solution.  I get paid enough up front.  I can then begin solving other problems i.e. doing more work for more money.  That I'm able to post this is proof enough for me that software developers don't need copyright and patents to make a living.

I'm not saying my way is the only way.  It did take a bit of bootstrapping to get from "pay for each copy" to "pay for my work".  You have to make do with the market that you have available.

I may have to bootstrap myself again for the games market in order to build my reputation.  I believe free games will be an important component in addition to sales.  However, the primary objective will be to make sure each sale is made because people want me to make more games -- funding future development, Not arbitrary greed ($60 for a disk with bits on it?).  Thus, prices can be adjusted fairly, and eventually all the games I make can free -- The work to create them having already been paid for.

This method worked in business software, so I'm willing to try it on game software.

get paid enough up front

Lol, by who? A company like 6waves? Zynga? Why should they pay you when they can just steal your ideas?

I get payed because the idea hasn't been created or implemented yet.  Typically a problem exists that needs to be solved, I think about it a little and say: "Hey, I can solve the problem for _X_ monies"

In case you didn't know, this is pretty much the same way games and movies get pitched to publishers. So, I'm not sure why you have a problem with this established system.  Look up "Game Treatment", or "Movie Treatment", etc.

I've been paid by some larger companies you've probably heard of, but I'm not bragging, so I won't list them.  Mostly I do work for smaller companies with unique problems that need solutions the bigger software houses don't want to address.  It's a niche I prefer, and I'm able to afford to live comfortably working within it.  Other teams of developers tackle bigger projects than I'm capable of, but follow the same methodology. In other words: It's a scalable strategy.

I also hear that Kickstarer exists.  It's the same principal, except that it's enabling anyone to fund ideas that haven't been fully realized yet.   I believe there's also opportunity for other models where people get paid up front to do work... Eg: Perhaps users submit ideas -- These get voted up / down, and devs get crowdfunded to work on the good ideas.

you: I've got this great idea. A knife/fork!

corp: Brilliant! Thanks, goodbye!

you: Wait, don't you want to pay me upfront? 

Again, proving that the ideas themselves have little value...

If all the game and movie remakes / clones are anything to go on, different people can use the same idea for profit...  The idea is not its execution.

Simple things like a knife/fork hybrid or removing expired entires from a hash tables as you iterate it, etc don't deserve patents for many reasons -- Yet absurd things do win patents all the time.  Swinging on a Swing sideways was patented, as well as the hash-table cleaning software -- Thus proving that patent examiners aren't a good judge of obviousness or prior art.  "Winning" a patent isn't impressive in the least, you can get a patent on anything.  It really is for the courts to decide if it's actually a patentable idea.  This is why without a big legal budget having a patent is useless.

Fully formed implementations of games, software or mechanical devices can't be expressed in a sales pitch -- The funding will be based on your credibility via past works, and whether or not the idea sounds like a good one or not.

"Hey, I'm a game creator.  You might have played __X__, which I created, so I have some credibility.  I have a good idea for a game, which I'll make if you give me __Y__ monies"

^- Doublefine's Kickstarter pitch in a nutshell...

Who cares if someone uses my idea for a knife/fork?  In this fictitious example I would have been employed by a dinnerware company to make innovative cutlery.  Even if other companies make a knifork it doesn't prevent us from selling our own higher quality or cheaper version.

And that's just it. Without IP law good ideas get stolen. If your ideas aren't getting stolen, that means they're not good enough. The only people unconcerned w/ good ideas getting stolen are those w/out good ideas. Unfortunately, that's the vast majority of people.

If you can't make money with your idea without extortion, it's not a good idea.

I can't be bothered with this thread but the offer from my first post still stands.

Protecting game ideas with patents won't work.  It doesn't work because gameplay isn't patentable.  Even if you win a game patent, it's useless as protection against Zynga because they have a bunch of other bogus software patents that you're likely infringing (having independently "invented" the same things).

It's sad that you can't be bothered to examine your own stance.  I'm not sure why you even created the thread if you didn't want to learn something new.

Honestly, I wouldn't have replied if not for this interesting Groklaw Article about how the legal fiction that enables software patents to exist is totally bogus.

They break things down to a fundamental level and show just how ridiculous the idea of software patents is to those who know how it all actually works.  You can enriched your mind, but it unfortunately seems very closed and tied to the established system no matter how flawed it actually is.

It's a good thing we all weren't as close minded about slavery and segregation, eh?

@Nix: Modern OS's are retarding progress.  Instead of distributing binary images of executable code, why not standardize on a .OBJ (.o) intermediary format, and link programs into executable code at install-time? TADA: Every program can be cross platform and also run in native machine code -- No slow VM required.

Malware relying on hardcoded (or even obfuscated) program offsets is defeated by design.  Additionally, buffer overruns are exploit vectors only because the stack grows down and heap grows upwards...  Since memory access is virtualized on nearly every architecture why not just have the stack and heap grow in opposite directions -- TADA: Overflowing a buffer no longer shits allover your stack -- It causes an access violation instead: No more malware. 

TL;DR: Morons designed modern OS's... It's time for one designed by hackers.

@fraxcell and @TrampolineTales : Neat fonts!

I just happen to be working on the default console font codepage for my new Operating System.  Although my OS runs on x86, x64, and ARM, I'm primarily targeting devices like the Ardruino and Raspberry Pi.

There's some quirks in the old IBM BIOS font rendering system (The text you see at boot on most motherboards).  There's bitmap alignment to deal with and other issues, but I've managed to work around the limitations to create a much better dither for the shading characters (176,177,178).  The original font in motherboards has unsightly seams, as shown below.



For example:
The characters are 9 by 16 pixels on the actual terminal, but this means a 50% dither checkerboard doesn't line up seamlessly.  The trick is that the font has an alternate dither in character #255.  When writing a #177 char (50%) the OS replaces it with #255 on even numbered columns.  This effectively gives a 18 by 16 swatch, which tiles nicely.  Character #0, #32 (space) and #255 are typically blank in the original IBM 437 codepage font, but in my OS's font the locations #0 and #255 can be utilized as special characters by simply printing a #32 (space) when #0 or #255 is encountered.  This only affects display -- Reading the video memory pages directly (@ B800h+) will yield the written byte values.

I can also load this font on BSD and Linux as an actual console font -- not just in a Terminal emulator -- but they don't take advantage of the 177/255 trick.

[For example:]

If you've already got most of the tech done, then what's your aversion to "pushing through"?  You're reading too much into my examples -- It doesn't matter if you have a full game engine or are starting from scratch in assembly:
There is always room for a prototype.

For example:
Your main character is now Vectorman.  There are only point sprites that make him up -- Your IK is replaced with just interpolation -- It doesn't look like the final version will at all but the core concept of moving the hands and feet will work.

If you find the core game mechanics are fun, then proceed.

Next, you give Vectorman an articulated stick figure with fixed length appendages and springs for joints, but the number of joints has been drastically reduced from the target version -- Maybe do vertex weighting and bone animation here.

The next version you finish out your IK solver with the full skeleton & meshes, and rigid joints with flex limits.

------

Divide and conquer (top-down or bottom-up design) is the most fundamental solution to issues of overwhelming complexity.  Only you can decide the best boundaries along which to split up your workload -- There's no one size fits all silver bullet solution.

If you're just determined to work on something for ages until completion before being able to see any results, then why ask for suggestions?
Stop procrastinating and get to work <- Best suggestion in this case.

If you want to know how to "push through" any massive task while mitigating boredom the answer is going to be: Break it into little chunks, or start with something small and add layers.

If what you have is just a lack of motivation -- Try removing distractions.  Decide to work on the project exclusively for a specified length of time then reward yourself by taking a break to do something else you enjoy, repeat as needed...

...Oh, Look, It's another application of divide and conquer. 

@boxedlunch: Neat colors.  Seems a bit muddled, lacking contrast, but that's not the final bg, eh?

@Hima: I liked the prototype.  Jenga-esque gameplay?

@Delko: Great stuff as usual.  I've always liked your work.

----

Today I created a Marching Squares implementation:



All the cells are the same size blocks. I'm using marching squares here to join islands of similar colors.
Although a more advanced application of the algorithm is needed in a larger game, I'm testing it out in a simpler game first.

It would be nice if pushing out an update were free, but they do cost man hours to test.  MS isn't certifying your game is functional so much as they're ensuring your patch isn't the new way modders get root on the 360...  There's no fucking way MS is going to stop the certification process.

Didn't modders already get root on the 360?  Also, Apple has a closed platform in iOS and doesn't charge 40k for updates, so security concerns don't really seem to validate a 40k cert process.

Yes and No.  MS periodically revs the firmware for new shelf units, as well as via patches to existing units.  This means modders have to find a new way to get root frequently -- You have to check your serial numbers for known crackable batches before buying a new 360 if you plan to mod it.  In other words: Unless you lucked out and have one that is known to be exploitable, and haven't applied any firmware updates, then you can't get root.  The cert process does indeed detect buffer overrun errors and access violations, which are possible exploit vectors (not just for root, but also for malware).

Apple does have a closed system in iOS, but it is exploited days or hours after a new version of the firmware is released. Protip: "Jailbreak" == Security Exploit.  360 firmware tends to stay secure longer... I'm sure marketshare is also a factor.

Additionally, my words are somewhat out of context.  I agree the 40k cert process is too expensive; It's pretty well known that the elevated price is meant to incentivise proper QA instead of letting devs create an endless stream of patches.  However, my comment was about the idea that MS should NOT certify patches at all, and just let Polytron worry about QA issues themselves...  That makes no sense since QA isn't the certification process's goal -- It's primarily an automated test harness to ensure the patches aren't opening up vulnerabilities, or bricking the consoles after a crash.

Were I Microsoft's Game Devision lead, I would suggest drastically reducing or eliminating the patch fee for the first N patches in T unit time.  Say, You get 1 free patch every two months.  This way, urgent patches could be applied if the cost warrants it -- Said cost being free if you haven't recently patched the game.  (Also, instead of "XBox 360", I'd start calling it the "Ad-Box 24/7" in internal correspondences, but that's just me.)

This is what typically happens when I try to get a bit of code in while waiting for the coffee to brew.

Shishido Rumi -



On repeat, loud enough for my reclusive neighbor to hear.  I'm leaving to run some errands now.

Hopefully, with repeated application this will drive him out of the confines of his apartment, if for no other reason than to get me to shut off the music.  Hell, maybe I'll get him to help me finish that visual novel project...

Hmmm, I dunno.  Would a millionaire think twice about blowing $40 grand on patch?

Oh that file save bug in the new patch?  Yeah, it's not getting fixed.  If you bought the game, let's hope you're also not a One Percenter -- It's said that they're the ones that encounter the bug.

So, Fish is basically saying: We're not fixing it!  The patch is good for the 99%, so we're not fixing it.  We're sorry to the 1%, but screw you.

Sounds more like an unemployed protester than a millionaire to me...

Tim Schafer says MS shouldn't test the patch, just let Polytron take the risk of it screwing up the game.    Wow, he's just shown how clueless he really is about this...

It would be nice if pushing out an update were free, but they do cost man hours to test.  MS isn't certifying your game is functional so much as they're ensuring your patch isn't the new way modders get root on the 360...  There's no fucking way MS is going to stop the certification process.  IMO, MS has been super nice already.  They gave Fez one freebie update.  If you don't like the rules, don't play their game.  It's not MS's fault if you don't know what you're getting yourself into.

I agree with both eigenbom and bateleur.

I use these same techniques when doing any project; From back-end website code to game engines.

Our team is working on a series of smaller games as major milestones leading up to the larger actual game.  The bigger game would just take too long with too much waiting with little reward in the interim; So, we came up with a few more simpler games and elaborated part of the story we otherwise wouldn't be able to tell.  Hell, we even cut out a few of the dimensions of gameplay from the lesser games.  If you don't want to butcher the pet project into some smaller subset, then create a different game that utilizes said subset of features.

Furthermore, you probably really do need to test gameplay mechanics if you care about fun.  In order to find out what works from a gameplay perspective we build a prototype of JUST the gameplay, no art at all.  Once we used basic particle effects and bounding boxes (not even any models), this was enough to quickly start

. 

Eg: We picked one enemy type, and one weapon to implement. Then, hacked together a crappy editor that's a VERY long way from what the finished product will be, but can just barely create content for the basic concepts.

Even though it's just some colored boxes and some particles we were able to decide that flying was much more conducive to the frenetic fun we wanted than platforming + limited "jetpack" boost.  We didn't need the "Jump" mechanic, and that double jump to boost sucked, etc.  The initial designs all sounded pretty good in the design doc and in our heads, but  playtests don't lie -- It doesn't matter how cool you think something will be if it's not fun to play... unless you're doing an art game and being fun isn't important?

Test early, Test often.  Make a bare bones prototype and save yourself oodles of time re-engineering stuff later.  The pride and joy you'll get from actually playing with working concepts will be well worth it in terms of motivation.  Who knows, you might discover something neat you hadn't thought of along the way.

Even little working tech demos can help you power through the next batch of mundane code.

For example: Some

got us through the boring cross platform windowing abstraction layer.  Playing with the tweakable animated sky got us through the input binding system.  Play testing a few gameplay prototypes staved off boredom through implementing the UI event delivery system & networking code.  Adding little features to a cheesy Tetris clone will keep us from being bored while we build out the 3D GUI widget library... etc.

TL;DR: Don't underestimate the motivation power in small bits of working code.  Treat tech demos like the rewards they are, and get something playable as soon as possible.

"Ultimately, pirates refuse to compensate authors for their work" -- Gotcha.  Blam, dead. That's a bogus argument. You don't blame Eskimos for not buying ice.  If your business model is selling ice to Eskimos, then there's no real argument -- The model will eventually fail.  The sooner the better.

Protip: Don't work unless you know you'll get paid.  One way to achieve this when you don't trust the people you're working for is to get all (or most) of the money up front before you do the work...

When I do work in business software, I get paid for the work I do.  I don't get paid for each copy thereafter.  Copying isn't work.  I'm a programmer, I get paid to program (not copy); I do more work, I get paid more.  What's valuable is my work configuring the bits -- The bits themselves are in near unlimited supply.

Now, this whole thread is about a project that's being funded (at least somewhat) by the payment model of which I speak.  Games can be funded this way too: Get paid up front, don't work for free then ransom bits.  The old model where "piracy" can even exist is due to artificial scarcity.  Extorting users into purchasing something that's in limitless supply is like charging people for air -- It's dumb.  Economics 101: That which has a relatively unlimited supply has a price of Zero, regardless of cost to create. It's not rocket surgery: Selling bits is D.U.M.B. dumb.

Make a pitch, include a small free demo (check), put it out there and see if there is interest (check), get funding before you do the rest of the work (check).  Don't waste time on it if there is no interest, make a new idea / pitch / demo.  This is one way you can get paid to do work in games... It's the same for artists and architects and landscapers.  A Kickstarter goal is basically a "bid" to do work.  If you under bid, then you can run out of funds -- Don't under bid, you can get paid to do the work.

Copyright infringement ISN'T A PROBLEM.  Eg: Musicians make music -- It airs on the radio and Internet (myspace / youtube) for free... The artists get paid when they perform the music (do work) via concerts (and this is where most of their money actually comes from).  Artists/Coders working for Software Businesses and Game Studios get paid when they do work too.  It's the publishers that try to get paid by ransoming bits (They have to support their unnecessary existence by inflating the price).  Its retarding to go Indie and get rid of the middle-men leeches, then adopt the very same artificial scarcity racket of said Publishers.  Getting paid to do work is already a proven model -- Don't ransom the bits.

This is the beginning of the Information age.  Things are changing.  True, we're still adapting to the fact we now have global digital distribution systems.  So, people who deal in information are only slowly realizing they should sell their labor not their 1s and 0s.  A ditch digger doesn't get paid for each rainstorm.  The information industry will eventually adopt the strategies of all the other labor industries.  "Piracy" isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the real problem: The artificial scarcity price inflation racket.

Notably: Ouya requires games to have a free component.  If they let you distribute free demos to prove you can do the work, then it's possible to do the majority of your work after you've been paid.  If they really want to make this console work, it would have a crowd funding integration where you could play a demo, then select a price to donate to fund the game if you like it.

You talk of "Piracy" hurting a market that's build upon artificial scarcity -- It doesn't!  We have no definitive proof that it does.  The burden of proof is on the claimer of harm...  Even if it did harm: Good!  That bogus model and all the backwards-thinking arguments that go with it need to die.  Only a fool would participate in such a scam.

@Player 3: I thought that was the premise of the Street Fighter series?  The moves are just choreographed, like professional wrestling -- Its the shouts that actually do ego damage.  How else can you explain Dan damaging you with taunt combos?  Those are sound wave visualizations not "fireballs".  The move "Sonic Boom" is a dead giveaway...

Twitter is so mainstream, you sheeple can follow @VortexCortex, or join the hipster club on identi.ca, which you've probably never heard of.

140

@ANtY: Congrats on Rune Master!

Does Rune Master run natively on Linux now?  The comments on Desura left me wondering if it only runs on Linux via Wine... Which is no big deal, I'd just rather not advocate being a Wine-o.  Also: Native Linux support means you could upload it to the Ubuntu Software Center (yes, Linux has an "App Store", several in fact, most are free).

I just realized I haven't watched TV via Satellite Dish in over 2 months, then canceled the service.  I'd say I was a "cord cutter" -- But satellite is wireless via microwave, so...

[Easter Eggs]

@sigvatr: You're missing the point.  I made Tetris just to test out a few features of the 3D GUI library.

Retro games are so fucking simple that anyone can whip them up in a few hours... Which is what I did.  Every time I encounter a new platform / library I code up Tetris or some other retro game to get a feel for the system.  Tetris is the equivalent of "Hello World" to me.

I'm not even going for "futuristic", that's just how shit looks in my Widget library.  I planned on just stashing some easy classic games like this as Easter Eggs in the actual game or its editor -- It's not like the classic game clone is the focus at all, It's just some trivial crap I may throw away or keep at a whim.

"everyone does it", No shit sherlock.  There's a reason for that.  Why waste time designing a whole new game just to put a framework through its paces?  The game design is done, and all that's left is implementation. Since it's a well known game, you know when the implementation is off.  The simple game makes a good test because it has sound, input, graphics, timing / animation; Basically every essential feature any game needs.  Sorry if Hello World isn't indie enough for you...

Put it this way:  Say you're coding up something as a test which also happens to be a fully functional game -- Wouldn't you let folks play it?  I mean, seems sort of dumb not to put it out there just because it can't join the hipster club.

----

Today I created a starfield in HTML + JS to test DOM tree manipulation performance.

200 stars
500 stars
1000 stars

Performance in Firefox really tanked since they've killed multi-threaded JS in favor of a single thread per tab.

This could actually work, but I'm not sure these inexperienced folk will figure out how to pull it off before falling flat on their faces.

I do use a wireless controller with my Android mobile devices because touching the damn screen isn't the best way to control every type of game...

If I could have my mobile games synch to a dedicated home console that would be great.  Also, if it's hackable then folks will be installing stock android and cyanogen on it during the release week.

I don't see this working out well for multi player games though, which is one genre I really enjoy.  Open source games & hardware lead to more cheating.  On several projects I've witnessed the rampant cheating problems destroy an online community with too much openness, and return to manageable levels after closing the platform up...  An account system for online play helps (so you can ban people), but with an open platform that will get subverted quickly.  Single player games or local multi player don't have the issue, so if that's all you like, then Ouya might work for you.

As for games, it's Android, so deploying will just be uploading it to their market.  If they have special code for the controller it might require a separate build, but the changes will primarily be in only the control interface.

Given that I actually know precisely how things like XBL matchmaking work, it enrages me that MS charges gamers to use their own Internet connection... And raises the price while adding more ads?! With all the ads in the new 360 dashboard I haven't turned it on in months -- I expect a similar reaction to Ouya if it's got tons of ads -- Actually, I'd expect people to just block the ad servers at the router (as I do with the 360) and/or install stock ROMs to remove ad trash (and ad funding).

Netflix has to make deals with the content providers.  Being too hackable means no Netflix.  Eg: Where's my damn Linux Netflix client?  No such animal, content providers are fools (I run windows in a VM -- that's less hackable?)  The trick is having a secure boot loader that the user has the option to disable, that's how the Google Nexus line does it.

Additionally, Hook my Android device to TV... Use wireless controller... And, why am I buying an Ouya again?  Ethernet ports?   Locked down console upgrade cycles?  (One can get a new faster mobile device every damn year -- Hell, every month.)

That said: I see the Ouya as a good idea with several serious issues and I don't have my hopes up, but I'm already planning to hop on board with some of my games if it takes off -- Gamepad + Android IS a compelling use-case...

There's also the technical side of the postmortem on GDC Vault.

It was kind of boring, actually. For instance, Bedard drones on for quite some time about his Action Classes -- He could have just said: "We use a state machine for actions".  He talks about some culling engine when he could have just said: "We use Depth Sorted Occlusion Culling."

I guess what's interesting is that novices can make console games now...  Which isn't news, but it is nice seeing indie games in the mainstream.

@Endurion: Screw glasses, if you don't want to see things blurry just disable that effect in the options menu --  The Matrix, 101.

I agree though to a point: The blurry glow I did was a quick and dirty hack, over-exaggerated to ensure I could see it was working -- It'll look a lot cleaner eventually, and should be toned down a bit too.

Now, here's the interesting thing: You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.  Ergo: I make the game the way I like it, and try to toss in some options here and there if something could be annoying, but for the most part I just realize: There's so many other games to play, I don't worry if someone doesn't play mine.

So, to answer your question: Some people like what you don't like.