Probably the capacity to install a regular Linux distro on it (Debian for example). One can never have enough cheap Linux systems around :D
What do you want in a Next Generation Console?
Probably the capacity to install a regular Linux distro on it (Debian for example). One can never have enough cheap Linux systems around
I'd be surprised if this console is not similar to Ouya (which has Android which is a Linux.... as you may already know).
I dunno how possible is to install a regular (ie, not Android) distro on the Ouya.
Anyway I mean't a more-or-less supported way to install a Linux distro on the device rather than just "Hack your way through it, we'll look the other side"
I've seen other distros installed on Android based devices but the procedure is not as easy as installing it on a desktop.
Just out of curiousity, how would you feel about a $15-$30 subscription that gives you access to any game at any time, but you don't own the games if you stop subscribing?Ownership of my games: Either DRM-free, so I can copy them, or at the very least, future versions of the same console shouldn't make me repurchase the same downloadable games.
I think it would be interesting if consoles opened up more ways for monetization. A lot of people think f2p is dirty, but I would love to see what might happen if f2p was allowed to exist. I think if the console manufacturers were still involved you could get some really high quality f2p games on the console without as much of the trash. Mostly I'm just interested in more viable models than what exists now; unlike phones where you have to be more democratic, consoles could keep a really high quality bar for their different models.
Just out of curiousity, how would you feel about a $15-$30 subscription that gives you access to any game at any time, but you don't own the games if you stop subscribing?Ownership of my games: Either DRM-free, so I can copy them, or at the very least, future versions of the same console shouldn't make me repurchase the same downloadable games.
The problem with this model is how does one divide up the subscription in terms of royalties, especially for such a small amount?
Just out of curiousity, how would you feel about a $15-$30 subscription that gives you access to any game at any time, but you don't own the games if you stop subscribing?Ownership of my games: Either DRM-free, so I can copy them, or at the very least, future versions of the same console shouldn't make me repurchase the same downloadable games.
OnLive's model? I think it's a good idea. I do the same thing with Netflix - I don't own any of the movies I watch, I just pay a monthly fee and access them as much as I want.
The problem is, it'd have to have the games I want for me to be interested, and live-streaming is most conducive to online multiplayer gaming (because the servers and the clients would run in the same datacenter), and unlikely to support many split-screen or local multiplayer games, which is what I enjoy most.
I recently started playing League of Legends, but I play it with one or two of my siblings sitting a few feet away from me on their laptops. It's just so much more fun that way for me.
I greatly enjoyed playing the old Halo games split-screen coop, and local multiplayer. Online multiplayer, while fun, was a different experience and just wasn't a good enough experience to be worth my time. I've played some of the Modern Warfare games online, just myself, and they're fun, but what I really enjoy (as a rather anti-social individual) is the social experience of playing with friends and family either competitively, or even better, cooperatively.
I think MMO subscriptions should be shared, though. Maybe two or three companies, each with a small MMO or two, unable to compete with World of Warcraft, let anyone subscribed to one of the games, play the others as well using the same account and subscription. $15 a month, and you can log into any one of 5 or 6 different MMOs of wildly different natures? If the user spends 75 hours online that month, his $15 is divided between whichever MMOs he played, based on how long he played. I think it'll be a viable strategy for smaller studios (50-200 employees) working together.
I think it would be interesting if consoles opened up more ways for monetization. A lot of people think f2p is dirty, but I would love to see what might happen if f2p was allowed to exist. I think if the console manufacturers were still involved you could get some really high quality f2p games on the console without as much of the trash.
Sony is permitting it with CPP's (maker of Eve Online) Dust 514 online FPS. It will be free-to-play, PS3/PS4 exclusive, and interacts with players playing Eve Online on the PC, but hasn't yet been released.
Just out of curiousity, how would you feel about a $15-$30 subscription that gives you access to any game at any time, but you don't own the games if you stop subscribing?
I haven't tried OnLive but I did this for awhile with shockwave.com. For quite a few years I felt like it was worth it then it seemed like the quality of the games started going down hill. Or maybe I felt like nothing innovative was coming out. I kinda also remember it being hard to search for games that interested me. Whatever it was, they didn't have games I wanted to play anymore and what they did have that caught my interest could be found on other flash sites for free. It was great for awhile and was how I found World of Goo, Diner Dash (original), and Plant Tycoon. Quite a few others as well. Probably not likely to do it again more because of gaming time being more limited these days.
I don't buy games at $60 or $50. If the game never decreases in price, I'm either going to buy it used (unfortunately giving you no money as a developer) or not buy it at all.
Personally, I don't mind paying > $50 for a game but when I'm done I had better feel like the game has enriched my life in the way that my English teachers had hoped that reading Shakespeare would. If I know that a game isn't going to do that then maybe somewhere around the $10 mark works for me.
Just out of curiousity, how would you feel about a $15-$30 subscription that gives you access to any game at any time, but you don't own the games if you stop subscribing?Ownership of my games: Either DRM-free, so I can copy them, or at the very least, future versions of the same console shouldn't make me repurchase the same downloadable games.
The problem with this model is how does one divide up the subscription in terms of royalties, especially for such a small amount?
My guess, a monthly payment based on how many players played your game that month. Or more accurately, how many hours your game has been played that month.
Though you'd probably be running the whole thing at a loss for a while.
I actually like it specifically because my game time is limited. As much as I wish I could play all the games as much as I want, I often either lost interest or want to move to something else.Quite a few others as well. Probably not likely to do it again more because of gaming time being more limited these days.
I was thinking more like gamefly originally, but yea I guess it's similar to onlive as well or netflix. What I had in mind was probably closer to playstation plus, but yea.
It would be nice if console manufacturers would stop thinking indie developers have cooties or whatever. We wont kill game sells by creating indie content.
Its frankly not the console manufacturers that are worried about it, its the publishers who threaten to take their ball and go home if they give indies too much sway--that's what worries the manufacturers.
The reality, of course is that there's plenty of room for both large and small titles to exist and to thrive, but the established powers in any market never like ceding away any of their power, and most are paranoid-delusional about masses of nimble, unknown competitors because its such a foreign concept that they haven't any idea of what to expect or how to respond.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
