Ouya's conceit is that it does not have a "store" - the games have their own stores. Yet I'm fairly certain Ouya takes a cut of whatever games released on their platform make, so what this effectively means is that devs and consumers are being screwed - gamers don't know how much they're going to (or even might) pay until they wait for the game to download, developers have to implement whatever store system their games have on their own, and Ouya rakes in the profits without any real effort on their part. From my perspective, it's an excuse for the Ouya people to be lazy and pawn off responsibility to their devs.
As far as I'm concerned, the "Discover" system is a problem with the Ouya, and it threatens the platform's long-term viability far more than even the controller's lack of Start and Select buttons (which, if you'll consider the platform's touted emulation and OnLive capabilities, is a rather baffling omission - seriously, it's been a year and no one at Ouya thought the concerns about the lack of these buttons was worth revising the controller over?)
OUYA is providing the platform in which you consume games and for developers to deliver games. This doesn't happen for free, and would doubt very much that the costs of that are covered exclusively in that $99 + peripheral cost console price. For example, they don't have volunteers curating the content for the store, or adding features to the firmware. And hosting the content is an on-going cost. I believe the word you're looking for is maybe "higher margin" (and even that's debatable). It's certainly not "lazy". OUYA, like any business, needs sustainable income to survive, and they have a substantial financial role here even if you're not quite seeing it from your perspective.
I've read your biggest complaint here to be "it's not like Steam". You should consider that this is deliberate. Under the covers, the differences don't stop there. Games are ranked by engagement rather than how much they sell (though that might be an element to their secret formula, OUYA's not really disclosed any of that).
As others have stated, the idea behind this is to remove the pre-conceived notion of monetary worth out of the picture, and let you sort of decide as you play how much you'd pay for it. Most people would dismiss a game immediately based on price and screen shots. Many games fare better in motion and when the user is engaged. If you later find the price is out of your range or doesn't live up to what you think it's worth, but you were still entertained on the way to that conclusion, you've not lost anything. If you're not entertained, odds are you just stopped playing altogether, and price wouldn't have even mattered. How many people buy crappy games just because it's cheap? I'd hope not many.
I realize that change is difficult for some to digest. That doesn't mean this is superior to Steam or vice versa. Just different. I'd urge you to give it more of a chance and try to see the value you're being presented rather than judging it because it's not like something you're used to.
There is an emulator in the "founding members" section of the store. So it is there. As far as OnLive, I imagine, like the delivery of any apps in the store by external developers, OUYA has little control over when they decide to publish that. I don't think there was any commitment by OnLive to make their product a launch title. But if you're impatient for it, your complaint would carry more significance if you directed it at them.
My problem isn't about the availability or lack of availability of emulators and OnLive; I'm just wondering how exactly anyone expects OnLive to work on an Ouya controller.
I agree completely with the OP. There are no price tags in the store. There is nothing that says "this app is 100% free and that one is a free demo". The game's don't even bother to write it in their descriptions. Its a big PITA to have to download a 500MB game before you can tell if you'll get to play 30 seconds, or the first 2 levels, or if it will pester you for IAP.
Even if Ouya doesn't come up with a way to make this more transparent for end users, it really would be nice if app developers could put this sort of stuff in their descriptions for us. If there are any developers reading this, you should know that the users will appreciate that. And happy users usually means more $$$ for you.
I've noticed a few games that are completely free actually do state this in their description.
If they don't, it's probably safe to assume there's a fee involved at some point. How soon that happens is not something you're going to be able to determine by how big the download is or by some up front disclosed price.
To be honest, the best feedback you can give is to download and pay or not pay or thumb-up. Rank is based on engagement. If a developer sees a lot of downloads, that implies interest. If most users stop playing at the paywall, that can imply the price is not right, and allow the developer to adjust to expectations.
Since games are based on engagement, it's not really in the best interest for a developer to immediately require you to pay. It could be that you encountered some games where that wasn't very clear to the developer. But when they find themselves down-ranked because you and everyone else quit early, they'll figure it out soon enough. And as I said before, if you find some enjoyment on the way to the paywall, but don't want to pay when you hit it, you're not out anything. Not even time because nothing stops you from ending the game before you get there. :)
I noticed that X-Box's experiments with free-to-play are priced as free in the store and you don't get to see how much it will cost you with IAP until you start playing. So this is a challenge not unique to OUYA.
Comments