It's all about tv:
Yeah, but
to re-invent consoles we need to "put the power back into the hands of the people who make things"
OK. But that's just WRONG.
No, I mean, what she says is just a bullshit snow-job because the OUYA does NOT put the power back into the hands of the people who make things. In fact: It's more restrictive in some ways than developing for the other consoles.
I was excited to make games for OUYA until I actually started porting a WIP Android game to it and realized that they take away choices and dictate how I can make and sell my games.
For instance: I want to sell a game, you then have the game, that's all we're done. You play it at your leisure after purchasing it -- No online service that can go down and prevent you from playing, no free to play (pay to win) micro-transaction funded BS that means I've got to add incentive into the game for folks to pay to get past arbitrary obstacles -- Add "Zynga Energy" limits. That's sickening to me.
I thought that I'd at least have the option to just put a price on a game and be done. Not so. Then I thought: Oh, so I'll make a free trial and full version and you can buy the full version if you want -- let OUYA handle the distribution stuff. Nope, that's wrong.
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).
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.
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.
Your millage may vary, but what I've found is that my applications with free trial versions don't sell nearly as well (they tank) compared to a similar app with no free trial, just an impulse buy price point. It's not just inde games and apps; See also:
Mirrors Edge, Little Big Planet, etc. The OUYA takes takes away choice in the way I need to market my works, and dictates that I must use disgusting funding models or a model that I know actually doesn't work.
I've done the math, and it's actually not worth my time to port a game to it as it stands -- I'd have to set up my own content delivery servers and host the "full version" content on my servers and use the "demo" as a stub down-loader client -- You download it, then pay to wait to download some more. I just want to make games and sell them; I agree to give Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, etc a cut of my profits because they're handling the distribution.
They may be successful on hype alone, I still won't give a damn if they still don't give me an option to sell my games the way I want to sell them. They're not giving developers power, they're taking that power for themselves and dictating the rules of engagement. Their plan shows absolutely no regard for market research to support their ridiculous presuppositions.
OUYA? OMFG! NOWAI!
Player
