A lot of apks are widely available on the web without any compensation to the developer. OUYA being a android based device, how will the OUYA help to suppress the pirates?
An OUYA apk won't help pirates at all, because all apk's are free to download from the OUYA store anyways.
For now they are, but in the future this will change.
Are you sure, I was in the understanding that everything on the store would remain free and users would be able to BUY unlockables (IAPs). I don't think this will change.
As for the unknown sources. I would be amazed if it wasn't, as you can just install any APK off the web.
An OUYA apk won't help pirates at all, because all apk's are free to download from the OUYA store anyways.
For now they are, but in the future this will change.
... No, it won't. I'm not sure where you heard that. The entire point is that you can download games for free. Purchases are handled via IAP. This will not change.
You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
I am hoping that it will work much like it currently does on the PSN (Playstation Network) Store. You can download a game, and it can be called a demo and in fact only allow you to play up to a certain point. However, if the full game package has already been downloaded (which is likely to stay the case with OUYA, although perhaps "demo-only" packages will one day become available for large games, i.e., ones over 1GB), then you could simply download a small file (in the case of PSN it's a license file that is smaller than 100KB that unlocked the complete game, but ties it to your system and user at the same time) and let the good times role.
The problem with apk files as they exist now is, for the most part you have a "lite" version that is freely distributed, as well as a "full" version. While some apk files do have some sort of DRM protection, the vast majority do not, and will happily run on one system and then easily copied to another. My feeling on piracy has always been this though. If you create a good product, work hard to get the word out, then you will likely be successful regardless (although I do die a little bit inside when I come across a website with links to a filehost or torrent that contains a cracked version of a game I worked on). I'm really hoping OUYA will learn from the Steam model. Yes, with enough effort any application can be pirated, however the use of a simple unique serial number system as well as a protected centralized database has proven to be one of the best anti-piracy methods I've personally experienced in my last two decades of gaming. I can't wait for the first "OUYA Humble Bundle" =p.
"The problem with apk files as they exist now is, for the most part you have a "lite" version that is freely distributed, as well as a "full" version."
But, that's nothing like how the OUYA APK files work. All OUYA APK's are free to download, the store has no way to charge for file downloads, and there are no plans to ever do so. That's one of the OUYA's big selling points, everything you see in the store is free to download and try out. So there is no security issue with APK's on the OUYA. Any security issue will be on a game by game basis, since every game will handle purchases in a different way.
The problem with apk files as they exist now is, for the most part you have a "lite" version that is freely distributed, as well as a "full" version.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you didn't read any part of this thread before posting. Regardless, I will summarize. This is not how OUYA works. On OUYA, there isn't 'full' or 'lite' APKs. There is just one APK, and only one. Purchases are handled via an IAP system, that is a paid game will query the OUYA servers and check if the user has purchased the 'full-game' item or whatever, and if so will unlock all features and levels, otherwise it limits the game to the free demo. That means there is no 'full version' APK the hackers can rip. Instead they would have to find a way to spoof the IAP servers which is much harder.
You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
The problem with having a local "license" or "purchase receipt" file is that it makes for a good target for pirates to use to get past your game's security. It makes it too easy for pirates to just bundle the game apk with a helper program that will find that file and swap the UUID or whatever other numbers are in it.
If you rely purely on using the OUYA IAP, then as soon as someone decompiles your code, they can just find the places where the IAP is called and take it out, recompile and you have the game for free.
You can of course obfuscate your IAP code to make it harder for people to read the decompiled code and work out where the IAP calls are coming from, but that will just slow pirates down rather than stop them
Another solution is to take out critical parts of the game code and assets, and put them behind your own authentication server. Upon authenticating your purchase directly with the OUYA servers, the rest of the code is downloaded. That way you're only using OUYA IAP as a payment provider.
However, all that is a lot of effort to go through, and you have the cost of running your own servers.
I just don't care about piracy. People who pirate your game would never, ever buy it anyway and they might give you free advertisement to their friends and family.
I just don't care about piracy. People who pirate your game would never, ever buy it anyway and they might give you free advertisement to their friends and family.
Piracy sucks, piracy walls suck. IAP checking can be spoofed. Some people can pay and won't, some people can't pay and developers think they shouldn't. Heck there are concert operators that feel a crowd close to an auditorium(yet not in) should not be able to hear the music without paying. It's all just a huge can of worms.
My personal belief is that purchasing a game or IAP's should offer incentive features. Without offering a Pay2Win. That sounds like the best solution. There is just nothing that will out right stop piracy.
Steams games can be pirated, but the entire point of Steam is that steam games offer more than just the game. They offer the entire community support, match making lobbies, what friends are playing and so on. A pirated Steam game needs to be offline. This is why Steam offers the best piracy protection and is considered successful. Not because the serial key check online. But because it's just more of a hassle.
it's also the reason why XBox Live continues to run with a subscription fee. Sure you can pirate an Xbox game, but your console will get banned from the online service. I still know people with bannded Xbox(apparently they purchased them that way, uh huh.). But it all comes down the value's of the individual. Can you provide purchased features that are worth more than a pirated version of the game.
To me and it's my opinion. DRM piracy protection or even IAP serial authentication just doesn't carry as much weight. As missing out on fabulous community features and the whole that Steam or Live provide.
But that's just my opinion and the entire subject is a big messy, argumentative can of horrible, flesh eating, worms :P
If you rely purely on using the OUYA IAP, then as soon as someone decompiles your code, they can just find the places where the IAP is called and take it out, recompile and you have the game for free.
Arguably, by the time people have decompiled your code you have lost the battle, and really nothing you can do will stop them from breaking whatever DRM you have in place.
Also, the way I was thinking about the license file would be to encrypt it with the gamer UUID rather than just storing it. Also include a specific 'security word' at the beginning of the file, like 'banana'. It's encrypted with the gamer UUID, and then later decrypted. If the decrypted word is still 'banana' it's the same gamer.
You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
Yep, a hash of uuid+licence+salt is enough. It will stop homebrew pirates and won't cause any problems to your legitimite players. And experienced pirates can't be stopped anyway, so why bother? You can also add device id to the hash just to be sure.
Another solution is to take out critical parts of the game code and assets, and put them behind your own authentication server. Upon authenticating your purchase directly with the OUYA servers, the rest of the code is downloaded. That way you're only using OUYA IAP as a payment provider.
I don't believe it is possible for an app to run additional code downloaded from a remote website. All code must be supplied in the apk and have gone through certification. Assets are fine, but I don't believe it is possible with code.
To me and it's my opinion. DRM piracy protection or even IAP serial authentication just doesn't carry as much weight. As missing out on fabulous community features and the whole that Steam or Live provide.
But that's just my opinion and the entire subject is a big messy, argumentative can of horrible, flesh eating, worms :P
Hi all, first I think there was some confusion. I was talking about general Android piracy when I was talking about lite/full versions. I know that's not how OUYA works and hope I didn't confuse anyone, however I think it's important to look at existing methods of how games are released compared to estimated piracy rates. Also I completely agree with Magnesus. Right now if I wanted to I could download an iso of an Xbox 360, burn it onto a disc, sign-up for a free Xbox Live trial and play the game online using a console that has specially designed modified firmware on the DVD reader (a modified version of this goes for playing pirated games via PSN). However in both methods it took a lot of work by experienced coders to get to a point where this is even possible, and there will always remain a fight between the pirate and the publisher (often times Microsoft will sneak in code that unmodified firmware and modified firmware respond to differently, and *boom*, you have a mass banning of consoles). Also yes, it's possible to pirate Steam games (sometimes even using their internal network of servers to download the encrypted files), but not only does this again take a group of talented coders to decode and make playable for the average game but you remove part of the community experience by not being able to access many of the multiplayer features. This lead to a trend of developers cramming in multiplayer features that were no fun to play in hopes of decreasing piracy (this trend has mostly come to an end).
I think unique serials/keys provide the simplest form of reasonable piracy control (I don't think anyone here can argue that always-online DRM is a sound idea), and Magnesus' idea of having a salted uuid+license hash is perfect. Of course it's possible that some major security flaw could be found that makes this moot and piracy could be as simple as it is on the Wii for example. However, outside of a couple of homebrew fanatics, I don't personally know of anyone that has a modified Wii. Even when I would tell friends how it could open up their console to commercial titles and homebrew (on my Wii, WiiMC probably clocks in as the most used app/game/etc run in terms of total hours compared to everything else combined) and how easy it was to do they did not seem interested (even the technically minded ones). This was the case even a few years ago when new games were still being released.
I remember when a friend's 5 year old accidentally broke the DVD of "New Super Mario Bros". I offered to exploit their Wii so the game could be pirated and played (the legitimacy of fair-use in terms of backups and such is a huge grey area), I was politely turned down. About 5 months later the child's grandparents bought him a new copy of the game for his birthday and he was thrilled to be able to play the game again. This is starting to go off into ethics, morals and the value of a game (I certainly know I don't value a game found on the street as much as I would one I paid my hard earned money for; which what has lead a lot of gamers to endure buggy games or just plain awful titles in the past =p).
I apologize for going off-topic and promise to keep any further responses on a purely technical level! Hopefully my words were of some us to someone.
KonajuGames said: "I don't believe it is possible for an app to run additional code downloaded from a remote website. All code must be supplied in the apk and have gone through certification. Assets are fine, but I don't believe it is possible with code."
Well, yes and no. You have plenty of games in the Android Store being less than 25Mo downloading on external servers files >25Mo after IAP; those 'data' files are most often (lua) scripts + gfx assets, but they definitely can be whatever they decide: updated managements rights do pop up once in a while after the downloading phase... Meaning one actually reinstalls a new version.
The OUYA submission review process as it is now focuses (a guess) on the install process and "quality" of the program being a game, but OUYA team is not ready, their 'checklist' being incomplete - some games do not even handle pause when back to OUYA menu, music still running, while being promoted as 'staff pick'. A step up of their game would be welcomed, for sure, and the $15 million (congrats OUYA!) maybe, will help a bit.
+1 to SpoonThumb - one solution would be to deport critical assets/code on a private server side, unlocked solely after the transaction system done OUYA's side; one other solution would be to stream critical assets and code through a socket at boot of game, stored in ram and not disk.
One can get more than just uuid+purchase ticket: the console has unique id systems, as Magnesus reminded, that can be called/transmitted and mixed in as a digital signature - compilation on the fly from a remote server of a unique binary including this digital signature, allowing the game to run on solely one id'ed specific OUYA device, is today possible. Why not?
There are plenty ways to protect one's creation - and OUYA will certainly not disagree if one wishes to keep his/her business running. Where are the written guidelines, signed by us devs, stating one cannot protect his/her game the way one sees fit again?
I feel like I'm repeating what a lot of replies say here, but piracy is already an issue that's basically been taken care of and well by essentially adopting piracy to start with.
From what I understand, there are many who pirate something to see if they want it at all in the first place and have no real means to try it out anyway. Of course there are those who simply pirate because they want free stuff but I think it's pretty safe to assume that if you can prove the value of something to someone, they'll be willing to pay for it.
The model that Ouya's market uses is basically already like this. The degree of how close it is depends on how the developer handles it but the best example I can think of right now is Stalagflight. The game is entirely free to download and there's actually no limitation to playing without paying. The developer gives players the option to pay (buy him pizza) if they think it's worth it. In fact, this is a pretty brilliant way to monetize your games on Ouya because the developer for Stalagflight offers multiple tears of donations from 99 cents to 15 bucks. This means that not only do people have the option to be cheap as hell or generous, but since it's a donation they have the option to pay more than once if they feel the game has enough value to warrant donating more money to the developer.
I will grant though that the majority of developers will like have in-app add-ons to make money for smaller, casual games and limited demos for larger games like RPGs which changes things a bit. The purpose of the market and its freemium model though is to lower the barrier of getting the game they want as much as possible to make piracy unattractive.
Lastly another huge reason for piracy on Android is the Google Play market is limited in some countries and those countries tend to be where the piracy is concentrated the most. I imagine Ouya won't be launched in countries that can't properly support its market so all together there's very little reason why piracy would be a huge issue for this console. It certainly will be at least a small problem, but not nearly as bad as what we've seen on Android phones/tablets in general.
@jayderyu is on to something with the thought that piracy deterrence lies in something a bit more substantial than DRM.
What OUYA has in place will deter most casual piracy. And if they turn on Jellybean's app encryption features, it adds another layer of complexity for de-compilation since the APK and assets will be stored in a machine-specific encrypted folder. This is also the most "traditional" way to sell app-store software. But if OUYA's claiming to be something other than traditional, this might be a way to differentiate as well.
I think the best deterrence is to provide a service worth the money. Think about all the piracy Netflix probably sees on their streaming services. I'd guess the convenience of streaming and no real loss to you other than your time when you see a bad movie trumps any desire to pirate here for most of the cases.
If OUYA existed as a subscription service like Netflix, where every single game (or a lot of games) on the market was a full version included in that subscription for the duration of the subscription period, a few things could happen:
- Much more realistic statistics of game popularity because there would be no paywalls. It may also remove the question of where to put the paywall for the developer. Some gamers might be completely content with playing up to the paywall over and over again without paying past it.
- It would discourage developers from making pay-to-win experiences. (even though Micro-transactions could still exist for other purposes)
- Developers would be paid based upon how much a user plays their game (taken as a percentage of the subscription for that user, which should eliminate a developer's ability to cheat their way to undeserved sales). With this model, developers could nearly be guaranteed sales for every app that gets downloaded without having to worry about it's conversion.
- Users wouldn't necessarily feel like they got burned paying for a bad game because it isn't one specific game their subscription is paying for. If a user rage-quits, or loses interest, the developer stops getting paid (perhaps encouraging the developer to properly balance their games and continue to tweak them and update them over time).
- Might encourage exclusivity to the platform. Especially if a download would usually mean a sale for a developer, even if it were a couple of cents worth of play per user. This is more than can typically be guaranteed for most free-to-play models.
- Subscription gives OUYA a means of sustainability for their store. They'd take a certain amount of this price per user, and leave the rest to be divided between the developers who's games the user plays. Their cut could help pay for company overhead, content review, and improving services along the way.
- To maintain the "free" aspect, this could still co-exist with the traditional paywall model already here. OUYA would just have to extend the ODK API to include checks for subscription so developers could opt their games in if it fits the model well.
- To some degree, this has been done with success in the form of Playstation Plus (though I doubt the pay-out model I've suggested here is the same).
Pirates are going to find a way to pirate your game no matter what you do. As another commenter said, just let it happen. Pirates probably won't buy your game under any circumstances, but they might generate enough word of mouth to get someone else to buy it.
Also, even with everything you can do to prevent it - whats to stop one person from buying your game and then sharing his account login with all his friends (who can then use his original purchase to unlock your game)? Putting less time into DRM and more time into making an awesome game will probably work out better for you in the long run.
Also, I'm totally up for an OUYA Humble Bundle sometime in the future.
I don't disagree entirely. A good product will find money some way. If it's not through the software itself, it will be through more tangible things such as merchandising.
However, I don't think the piracy problem is always 100% due to malicious behavior, and therefore shouldn't be ignored entirely. Convenient/"honest" Piracy will be a problem if there's not some sort of casual deterrent. Android has been criticized over the years because in a lot of cases, you can literally just file-copy the package from one device to another. Those who might pirate without fully understanding that they are "stealing" will do it simply because it's easy to do.
There is a level of knowledge and access required to acquire "stolen" software. Those with this kind of drive are the kind of pirates we'll never stop. Most consumers are not invested in it enough to seek it out, and will just pay the money to get what what they want because they value their time more. But only if it's not easy to just get a copy of something from a friend or co-worker.
The server level DRM OUYA currently provides is more or less sufficient for this level of deterrence. If we ever get stand-alone full version installs, app encryption would disable the ability to file-copy.
There is mainly two ways in which Pirates justify their actions. Typically the argument is, it's too expensive to begin with, or the quality just doesn't match what they expect to pay. And sadly, those are actually valid complaints a lot of the time.
That's why I think a subscription model would do well here. It could be profitable for OUYA and the devs with a steady stream of income. And the consumers would get a lot of content for their money. A bundle accomplishes this too to some extent. But only if the bundled games beat the arguments above.
One must always ask what kind of effect a particular kind of monetization will have in a game design. What does it incentivise the game designer to do?For a time based payment will it unnecessarily increase length of the game? Grinding?
There are good parts to what you would propose, and you do well to suggest that it be opt-in, but I would suggest that there are few games that really benefit from this kind of monetization (in a game design purist sense, even though in a practical sense it may be helpful for revenue)
Not the first time I've heard that argument. Remember that there is another aspect of this: the gamers/end-users.
THEY will decide how much they're willing to tolerate "unnecessary" increases in game length. Since their monetary investment is in the subscription and not tied to any particular game, there is going to be a lot more freedom to choose where they want to spend their time. A player is never obligated to spend all of their time on any particular game. Just like any other entertainment medium, it's up to us as developers to make compelling experiences and content to hold their attention. A game may be successful in "exploiting" timing in the first day or two. But like a good looking, but bad movie, that popularity will go away after word gets around.
Besides, this already exists today in a number of free to play games out there (they prey upon the impatience to skip through the "you must wait before you can play again"). Of course, this disrupts those who've gotten comfortable with this approach and model for income. But that would mean they would have to approach their games differently, or not be part of the subscription model.
But I argue that approach does nothing to promote the game design (in the purist sense).
For instance, today, I was told I had to wait 4 hours for my new Iron Man suit to build before I can use it in Iron Man 3 on my mobile phone. So I switched to another game, got a little farther in Western Story before I was told I had to wait 30 minutes for my house to build. This adds nothing to the game play. The only thing it does is tempt me to buy my way past that clock.
Then again, maybe there are people who enjoy this kind of stat grinding. If a developer can hold their attention with that, then why not let them? It's about delivering an entertaining experience. If they're entertained by that, then the mission has been accomplished.
Strangely enough, GamePop has opted for a subscription model EXACTLY like the one I've proposed here and in other places on this forum (months ago). I think their mistake is not having an option to buy rather than subscribing. OUYA is well positioned to provide both experiences if they chose to.
An opt-in subscription model sounds ideal for the types of games I plan on trying to develop once my pre-order unit arrives (still waiting...). Especially as my target audience is very small. (Cherokee Language related stuff).
OUYA did say a while back that they'd have subscriptions as a way for players to pay. So the ideal would be if users could buy one subscription that could then be checked by all of your smaller games or apps
OUYA did say a while back that they'd have subscriptions as a way for players to pay. So the ideal would be if users could buy one subscription that could then be checked by all of your smaller games or apps
I think that was per game. So your users would essentially buy an "item" that acts as a subscription, and continues to bill them regularly.
You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
Remember that products are shared for your entire company, not per game, and so you could have a subscription for multiple games, but only with one company.
I like the idea of a "per company/developer" subscription.
But.
I think giving the end user an option to subscribe to an Ouya "any participating game play" master subscription and you get back based on percentage of plays out of all other plays for that day for that user could be very beneficial, especially for consumers who have kids they want to hand the thing over to. Kinda like the Kindle thing perhaps?
jwalinpandya
Posts: 3Member
Comments
Instead of ripping APKs, pirates will have to figure out how to spoof the IAP server instead. A much harder task.
The problem with apk files as they exist now is, for the most part you have a "lite" version that is freely distributed, as well as a "full" version. While some apk files do have some sort of DRM protection, the vast majority do not, and will happily run on one system and then easily copied to another. My feeling on piracy has always been this though. If you create a good product, work hard to get the word out, then you will likely be successful regardless (although I do die a little bit inside when I come across a website with links to a filehost or torrent that contains a cracked version of a game I worked on). I'm really hoping OUYA will learn from the Steam model. Yes, with enough effort any application can be pirated, however the use of a simple unique serial number system as well as a protected centralized database has proven to be one of the best anti-piracy methods I've personally experienced in my last two decades of gaming. I can't wait for the first "OUYA Humble Bundle" =p.
"The problem with apk files as they exist now is, for the most part you have a "lite" version that is freely distributed, as well as a "full" version."
But, that's nothing like how the OUYA APK files work. All OUYA APK's are free to download, the store has no way to charge for file downloads, and there are no plans to ever do so. That's one of the OUYA's big selling points, everything you see in the store is free to download and try out. So there is no security issue with APK's on the OUYA. Any security issue will be on a game by game basis, since every game will handle purchases in a different way.
Regardless, I will summarize.
This is not how OUYA works. On OUYA, there isn't 'full' or 'lite' APKs. There is just one APK, and only one. Purchases are handled via an IAP system, that is a paid game will query the OUYA servers and check if the user has purchased the 'full-game' item or whatever, and if so will unlock all features and levels, otherwise it limits the game to the free demo. That means there is no 'full version' APK the hackers can rip. Instead they would have to find a way to spoof the IAP servers which is much harder.
If you rely purely on using the OUYA IAP, then as soon as someone decompiles your code, they can just find the places where the IAP is called and take it out, recompile and you have the game for free.
You can of course obfuscate your IAP code to make it harder for people to read the decompiled code and work out where the IAP calls are coming from, but that will just slow pirates down rather than stop them
Another solution is to take out critical parts of the game code and assets, and put them behind your own authentication server. Upon authenticating your purchase directly with the OUYA servers, the rest of the code is downloaded. That way you're only using OUYA IAP as a payment provider.
However, all that is a lot of effort to go through, and you have the cost of running your own servers.
Website
Piracy sucks, piracy walls suck. IAP checking can be spoofed. Some people can pay and won't, some people can't pay and developers think they shouldn't. Heck there are concert operators that feel a crowd close to an auditorium(yet not in) should not be able to hear the music without paying. It's all just a huge can of worms.
Also, the way I was thinking about the license file would be to encrypt it with the gamer UUID rather than just storing it. Also include a specific 'security word' at the beginning of the file, like 'banana'. It's encrypted with the gamer UUID, and then later decrypted. If the decrypted word is still 'banana' it's the same gamer.
Hi all, first I think there was some confusion. I was talking about general Android piracy when I was talking about lite/full versions. I know that's not how OUYA works and hope I didn't confuse anyone, however I think it's important to look at existing methods of how games are released compared to estimated piracy rates. Also I completely agree with Magnesus. Right now if I wanted to I could download an iso of an Xbox 360, burn it onto a disc, sign-up for a free Xbox Live trial and play the game online using a console that has specially designed modified firmware on the DVD reader (a modified version of this goes for playing pirated games via PSN). However in both methods it took a lot of work by experienced coders to get to a point where this is even possible, and there will always remain a fight between the pirate and the publisher (often times Microsoft will sneak in code that unmodified firmware and modified firmware respond to differently, and *boom*, you have a mass banning of consoles). Also yes, it's possible to pirate Steam games (sometimes even using their internal network of servers to download the encrypted files), but not only does this again take a group of talented coders to decode and make playable for the average game but you remove part of the community experience by not being able to access many of the multiplayer features. This lead to a trend of developers cramming in multiplayer features that were no fun to play in hopes of decreasing piracy (this trend has mostly come to an end).
I think unique serials/keys provide the simplest form of reasonable piracy control (I don't think anyone here can argue that always-online DRM is a sound idea), and Magnesus' idea of having a salted uuid+license hash is perfect. Of course it's possible that some major security flaw could be found that makes this moot and piracy could be as simple as it is on the Wii for example. However, outside of a couple of homebrew fanatics, I don't personally know of anyone that has a modified Wii. Even when I would tell friends how it could open up their console to commercial titles and homebrew (on my Wii, WiiMC probably clocks in as the most used app/game/etc run in terms of total hours compared to everything else combined) and how easy it was to do they did not seem interested (even the technically minded ones). This was the case even a few years ago when new games were still being released.
I remember when a friend's 5 year old accidentally broke the DVD of "New Super Mario Bros". I offered to exploit their Wii so the game could be pirated and played (the legitimacy of fair-use in terms of backups and such is a huge grey area), I was politely turned down. About 5 months later the child's grandparents bought him a new copy of the game for his birthday and he was thrilled to be able to play the game again. This is starting to go off into ethics, morals and the value of a game (I certainly know I don't value a game found on the street as much as I would one I paid my hard earned money for; which what has lead a lot of gamers to endure buggy games or just plain awful titles in the past =p).
I apologize for going off-topic and promise to keep any further responses on a purely technical level! Hopefully my words were of some us to someone.
The OUYA submission review process as it is now focuses (a guess) on the install process and "quality" of the program being a game, but OUYA team is not ready, their 'checklist' being incomplete - some games do not even handle pause when back to OUYA menu, music still running, while being promoted as 'staff pick'. A step up of their game would be welcomed, for sure, and the $15 million (congrats OUYA!) maybe, will help a bit.
+1 to SpoonThumb - one solution would be to deport critical assets/code on a private server side, unlocked solely after the transaction system done OUYA's side; one other solution would be to stream critical assets and code through a socket at boot of game, stored in ram and not disk.
One can get more than just uuid+purchase ticket: the console has unique id systems, as Magnesus reminded, that can be called/transmitted and mixed in as a digital signature - compilation on the fly from a remote server of a unique binary including this digital signature, allowing the game to run on solely one id'ed specific OUYA device, is today possible. Why not?
There are plenty ways to protect one's creation - and OUYA will certainly not disagree if one wishes to keep his/her business running. Where are the written guidelines, signed by us devs, stating one cannot protect his/her game the way one sees fit again?
www.yummycircus.com
-=Hicsy=-
PM me Facebook
However, I don't think the piracy problem is always 100% due to malicious behavior, and therefore shouldn't be ignored entirely. Convenient/"honest" Piracy will be a problem if there's not some sort of casual deterrent. Android has been criticized over the years because in a lot of cases, you can literally just file-copy the package from one device to another. Those who might pirate without fully understanding that they are "stealing" will do it simply because it's easy to do.
Website
But.
I think giving the end user an option to subscribe to an Ouya "any participating game play" master subscription and you get back based on percentage of plays out of all other plays for that day for that user could be very beneficial, especially for consumers who have kids they want to hand the thing over to. Kinda like the Kindle thing perhaps?