›

Suggestions: Nominal ODK Fee

sondersonder Posts: 12Member
in General Discussion
I think that OUYA should introduce a small fee ($20-50) to download the ODK.

Not to keep anyone out mind you but to put the money towards extra internal resources to make the process of getting started easier and make the product better sooner.

I understand that this is basically free beta testing for OUYA but so far I haven't even been able to run a sample program in the Android emulator (it crashes), and I think the presumption is I should be able to figure it out myself.  I am not comfortable getting too much into the guts of my own tools - it should be plug-in-and-go.  Nothing throws a wet blanket on enthusiasm more than tools that require a lot of setup and maintenance on the part of the user.

2 cents.  Not bitching, I know that eventually it'll get there.  Just thinking some extra income might be good for the company and who doesn't have $20?  (students maybe... hmm. can't help but think that too many people are downloading it to have their time "wasted" and then they walk away.)
«1

Comments

  • DreamwriterDreamwriter Posts: 768Member
    edited April 2013

    Really, it is basically "plug-in-and-go" - well, it will be once the Android SDK adds the OUYA to its official list of supported hardware in its drivers.  But the ODK is not designed to have anything to do with the Android Emulator, the emulator doesn't even support game controllers; the ODK is designed to be used with the OUYA hardware, which is why it isn't just "plug-in-and-go" for you.  

    I do agree about the fee, though, and in my case I'm suggesting it *should* be to keep people out - people who want to put crap in the store just to be assholes, the kind where if it costs even a little money they won't go to the effort.

    Post edited by Dreamwriter on
  • sondersonder Posts: 12Member
    Yeah, some guard against that kind of thing... I think I agree after all.  I guess I was thinking more of poor people, because I'm optimistic like that.  Maybe a fee to kill two birds then?

    I plan on ordering my OUYA after the consumer hardware is out and they've worked out some of the kinks, like the touchpad software and controller lag.  I'm in no rush. 
  • PixelMushroomPixelMushroom Posts: 6Member
    I agree for all the reasons stated above. I don't think this is a barrier for poor people as you would need a computer to even build software for the ouya, not to mention owning an Ouya to begin with.
  • Killa_MaakiKilla_Maaki Posts: 504Member
    Hm, I really don't care for this idea at all.
    I guess if you're going to charge at any step, DON'T charge for the ODK. Instead, charge to submit games to the store (but only if it gets accepted, so we don't have to keep paying over and over). And even then it should be a very small fee - VERY small.
    You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
  • DreamwriterDreamwriter Posts: 768Member
    edited April 2013
    Apple charges $100 a year to be able to make iOS builds which run on hardware, works well for them.  I think a one-time $20 development fee would go a long way to discourage pranksters, people who aren't serious about releasing a game, and potential malware.
    Post edited by Dreamwriter on
  • SpoonThumbSpoonThumb Posts: 426Member
    edited April 2013
    You can't really go "half-open". Whilst there might be downsides to having people put any old crap on the store, a nominal fee is still an annoyance if you want to try out the ODK before committing to doing a full blown project.

    Also people might want to use it for game jams, hackathons or maybe even just are bored one weekend and want to play around with something different for a few hours. Those kinds of things can often lead people into doing more substantial stuff because they get a taste, or lead to the sort of creative, "innovative" stuff that comes from experimentation and play. That won't happen with a fee, no matter how small

    There is also something powerful about having something totally 100% free. Even a tiny monetary barrier can turn into a big psychological barrier or a point-of-principle thing, which is totally not worth it vs the money that fee brings in in terms of lost potential
    Post edited by SpoonThumb on
    Twitter
    Website
  • Killa_MaakiKilla_Maaki Posts: 504Member
    SpoonThumb said:
    [snip]
    Not to mention the media sh**storm that could happen as a result... which could seriously harm the console.
    You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
  • DreamwriterDreamwriter Posts: 768Member
    I don't get it, why would the media care?  Since other companies do the exact same thing, but to a much worse extent ($100 a year instead of a one time development fee).  It's a very minor thing, much more minor than the current shipping issues which are pretty much being ignored by the media.
  • Killa_MaakiKilla_Maaki Posts: 504Member
    Dreamwriter said:
    I don't get it, why would the media care?  Since other companies do the exact same thing, but to a much worse extent ($100 a year instead of a one time development fee).  It's a very minor thing, much more minor than the current shipping issues which are pretty much being ignored by the media.
    Because pretty much the whole time it's been a big advertising point of the OUYA.... anything the media can grab onto and use to poo on the OUYA they have a tendency to do.
    You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
  • arcticdogarcticdog Posts: 235Member
    edited April 2013
    "Open" doesn't necessarily mean free.  

    There are plenty of open source projects out there that are "free" for personal use or a limited number of licenses.  But require a license purchase after some defined tipping point.

    If anything, a fee would probably assist in the sustainability.  As @Dreamwriter said, it will keep the store from getting dumped with a ton of garbage apps.  They aren't going to review themselves for guideline violations.  

    I agree with @Dreamwriter. I don't think the media will care that much.  They're more concerned with the games that appear on the console rather than the financial burden of the developers.  The kinds of expectations and complaints they're making about the content is proof of that. 
    Post edited by arcticdog on
  • jayderyujayderyu Posts: 110Member
    Has there ever been done any surveys or research done to prove that a nominal fee would stop trash. Did a nominal fee stop trash on the App Store and is there much difference on the Play Store.
    Question the paradigm you believe in
  • SpoonThumbSpoonThumb Posts: 426Member
    A far more effective way to prevent garbage apps from getting on the store would be to have some sort of minimum quality in the review process. But then you've defeated the whole point of the OUYA, which is to open up console development to anyone and everyone.

    It just comes with the territory and is something we're going to have to accept. At some point, someone will upload some seriously stinky bad stuff onto the store. It's amazing just for the fact that no one has done that yet. How many fart apps are on the OUYA store? Zero afaik



    Twitter
    Website
  • Aiursrage2kAiursrage2k Posts: 58Member
    Compare the app store to google play and you will find google has more trash then appstore, or greenlight before they implemented $100 fee (there are still some stinkers on there but is someone really going to throw down $100 for a joke app).
  • EvgizEvgiz Posts: 184Member
    If there was a thumbs down button games that get bad reviews and little play time over long periods could be pushed down to an "Archive" category or something like that.

    Really bad stats would be required, so for serious developers this shouldn't be a problem as long as the game isn't VERY bad. 

    I made the OUYA exclusive games Cube and Creature and Hellworm!
    evgiz.net




  • DreamwriterDreamwriter Posts: 768Member
    edited April 2013
    I'm not just talking about bad games. I'm talking about malicious game submissions. What if, for example, someone started looking at announced games in development and started submitting his own crap games under those names? Sure a person would be caught if they submitted a game called Bioshock Infinite, but what if someone saw that I was working on a game called Mr. Flibble, so he submitted any crap and called it Mr. Flibble? A person could seriously troll the OUYA that way. Or maybe someone could just start submitting the same game 100 times under different names... imagine what this would do to app review times, and it wouldn't take too long before nobody would ever want to look in the Sandbox.

     There are many ways people could troll the OUYA, that would be discouraged by a small fee.
    Post edited by Dreamwriter on
  • SpoonThumbSpoonThumb Posts: 426Member
    edited April 2013
    At some point you cross a line into copyright infringement or malware and fail the submission process. Usually though there are terms of service type clauses that stop people from abusing the system in that way / allow OUYA to straight up bar them from spam-submitting. And in any case, OUYA can just change the rules if they clearly aren't working.

    I can't really see what problems a fee solves that aren't better dealt with in other ways that don't have the downsides.

    Post edited by SpoonThumb on
    Twitter
    Website
  • sondersonder Posts: 12Member
    Personally, even after reading all the arguments against, I still think a small fee either to use the ODK or submit games is at worst, harmless.

    Basically if a person deigns not to use the ODK because they don't want to fork up $20 or even $30 then I consider those people not serious.  Investment is a powerful motivator.  Personally, I *do* want OUYA to have a filter in some form to keep the garbage out of the marketplace and I don't consider that to be against its open nature simply because in 5 years time no one is going to look back and say "wow ... shame OUYA put in that fee, we'd have so many more games now."  $30 doesn't compare to weeks or months of development time, which is what any self-respecting platform should expect of its developers open or not.
  • Killa_MaakiKilla_Maaki Posts: 504Member
    I don't think it's really going to do a good job of "filtering out" people who aren't serious. It may every so often catch the person who was just going to spend 5 minutes making a fart app and decides $20 isn't worth it, but in other environments that do similar things the $20 or $30 does nothing to actually raise the quality bar... let's face it, iOS still has some pretty terrible apps.
    You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
  • Volte6Volte6 Posts: 29Member
    A better question is whether there is evidence of a problem that needs to be solved. If that can be identified, maybe a policy is a better preventative than a dollar amount. Particularly if the dollar amount is so small as to be "nominal", and an Ouya approval policy wouldn't prevent it, would it necessarily prevent somebody who was willing to put the effort into creating something malicious to begin with?
  • Aiursrage2kAiursrage2k Posts: 58Member
    edited April 2013
    Even if we had a 100 or even 1000 fee per game you would still see crap apps although I doubt as many if it was 1000 per title (but you would see a sort of "pay to win" in that scenario -- where its shovelware). Its not about stopping everyone its reducing the number of bad apps.
    Post edited by Aiursrage2k on
  • zipper559zipper559 Posts: 3Member
    or what about we stick to the whole, 'open' game console idea that the developers of ouya were gunning for.

    open to hackers open to everyone for modding etc etc.

    they said the development kit would be free for anyone to use to get your games out there.

    if they change that business model and now say "hey guys, i know we said our development kit was going to be free but you know what... its not free anymore, you need to pay us $50 to use it.

    i dont mind paying the money but the point of it being free was so everyone has a go, if you charge money for the kit, then your gonna have 50% of people paying for it and 50% of people using a cracked version (because not everyone is going to pay), making it unfair for people who have paid the money.

    the sandbox menu for the new games can be maybe a bit better to try and filter out the "crappier games" as people put it.

    and then give room for the legit releases by actual people that are making games.

    Or.. i suppose if charging would stop some silly game submissions to the store, then make it some online once off payment weather it is to upgrade your account to a Dev status and recieving a unique cd key for the dev kit, or somthing like that, because charging to use software will just end up in piracy and not everyone getting a fair deal.

    and then with a cd key status, even if somone pirated the software, before uploading a game it should check with the server if your using a valid cd key and then if your using a fake copy it wouldnt allow the uploading of a game.
  • OrikuOriku Posts: 263Member
    edited April 2013
    Charging for developing for the platform is a bad idea IMO. It separates people into haves and have-nots, and as a matter of principal, I don't like that. 

    It also means there is no longer equal opportunity. Even if the charge is small. But if the charge is sufficiently small to solve the above, your not stopping anybody from doing anything and you might as well make it free anyway. 
    Post edited by Oriku on
  • arcticdogarcticdog Posts: 235Member
    edited April 2013
    Developing should be kept free.  But charging for distribution is another story.  OUYA has overhead related to storage, review, administration, upgrades to the ODK/firmware, etc.  None of this happens for free.

    If a game is good enough to publish, surely someone would find the money to do it, even if it's $5 a title or something of that nature.  Haves and have nots really doesn't apply here.  This is a console.  Not a cancer drug.  And businesses that run like charities quickly find themselves out of business.

    If they can sustain these efforts on hardware and app store cuts alone, that's cool.  But I wonder how they'll do that when other more established app stores don't operate on that model.  What differentiates OUYA from them to be able to do that?
    Post edited by arcticdog on
  • jayderyujayderyu Posts: 110Member
    I have an idea. instead of seeking exclusion how instead we discuss the topic from another angle. 

    Why are these games put on the market. Can we give these developers what they want without polluting the the store with a glut of games. What constitutes of a crappier game that shouldn't be on the store.

    Question the paradigm you believe in
  • zipper559zipper559 Posts: 3Member
    all games in one way or another suit different people, one person may think the game is bad, whereas another person loves the game.

    for every game in the sandbox and in general, your either going to love or hate or just enjoy games of all genres.

    having ouya as an open platform to develop for will find hundreds upon hundreds of game submissions from all over the place which is fine in a way, because you may only like 2/100 new games uploaded into the sandbox but somone else might like 20 of those games.

    the management system just needs to be cleaned up instead of dumped all around eachother, so you can discover a good game out of 100+ submissions

    what about when submitting the game having a seperate menu for premium submissions to be displayed in there own section for a small fee, that would surely filter out the "better games" and help the more legit developer get there game out there?
  • zehazeha Posts: 36Member
    sonder said:
    Just thinking some extra income might be good for the company
    they already got 8 million instead of 1 million they were asking for
  • SpoonThumbSpoonThumb Posts: 426Member
    zeha said:
    sonder said:
    Just thinking some extra income might be good for the company
    they already got 8 million instead of 1 million they were asking for
    Yes, but if they only got 1 million, they'd only have to make 1/8th of the consoles, so it's not like they have $7mil just sitting around
    Twitter
    Website
  • sondersonder Posts: 12Member
    jayderyu said:
    I have an idea. instead of seeking exclusion how instead we discuss the topic from another angle. 

    Why are these games put on the market. Can we give these developers what they want without polluting the the store with a glut of games. What constitutes of a crappier game that shouldn't be on the store.

    You bring up a great point.  

    I don't know what causes people to make shitty apps but I think it's a combination of lower intelligence, over-confidence, and a dash of desperation.  

    What do they want?  Probably mostly money.  A portion of that segment probably just like kicking over sandcastles, or the idea that they get some amount of delusional attention just from the idea that they have a presence on the store.  

    And maybe even a portion of that are failed creative people who wanted to do great things but found the tools over their heads.  I blame the programmers.  The hurdles are more difficult and more complex than ever, because the system was built by self-assured eggheads who only do this stuff, therefore they are willing to put up with much more than the average artist.  

    I don't know what to do about any of these cases.  I'm just surmising on who these people are.
  • jayderyujayderyu Posts: 110Member
    I think zipper89 brings up a good idea. Leave the system open. People however who pay(per game/yearly/one time) get a premium offering. Maybe they can skip the sandbox entirely or maybe they can get out of the sandbox faster.

    This doesn't exclude any developers from making there game. I guess it can still be weighted that the big named or already successful developers can leverage there financial might. But then again they already do with marketing.

    agreed. Maybe the entire situation is that these developers are putting some hard work into the app. but it's not on par with other teams. I know I feel like that as a solo developer with near 0 art talent :D  I just having nothing released to be criticized yet :D 

    Question the paradigm you believe in
  • Aiursrage2kAiursrage2k Posts: 58Member
    jayderyu said:
    I have an idea. instead of seeking exclusion how instead we discuss the topic from another angle. 

    Why are these games put on the market. Can we give these developers what they want without polluting the the store with a glut of games. What constitutes of a crappier game that shouldn't be on the store.

    Well heres something over 60% of the apps in the app store dont even have 1 download.

    "Would you be surprised to hear that more than 60% of the apps in the App Storehave never been downloaded, even once?"
Sign In or Register to comment.