There are plenty of well-meaning people who want to do a lot, but are incredibly poorly positioned to do it. Or do we want to limit crowdfunding to near slam-dunk ideas?
I think it's a problem that Kickstarter has brought out a lot of very, very green entrepreneurs with little experience actually shipping product. But what can we do about it without throwing the baby out also?
The level of funding popular KS projects are getting almost leads me to be concerned that someone is going to game the system and promise the earth, and then just run off with all the money. Which, AFAICT, would be perfectly legal.
Not to be unfair but it could be sort of like with Diaspora. The inability to deliver on the kickstarted campaign caused one of the founders to take their own life. It would be very sad if something like that were to happen again only because a group massively over promised and was unable to meet their own goals.
I read a CNN Money article which said suspect suicide (with confirmation from coronar coming later). If I am incorrect I will edit my post and apologise.
I'm not disputing that it was suicide. I'm pointing out that your claim as to why he committed suicide -- an "inability to deliver on the kickstarted campaign" -- is pure conjecture.
I think they were expecting something hugely successful. When it turned out to be just average with so much publicity attached it must have been difficult.
I think they might actually be able to pull it off. $99 is probably too low a price point, but they might be able to attract some investment based on this so that they can get away with selling the first million at a loss. In that scenario there is a good chance the company would eventually go bankrupt, but they would still be able to ship what they initially promised. So in short, I think there is a fairly good chance of at least a break-even scenario.
What is a successful delivery? I guess that depends. I would say a successful delivery is releasing the product. Given they've got a very aggresive schedule and are promising delivery for September 2012, I'd say a successful delivery would be getting the product out to backers before the end of the year (ie, the holidays).
I do think they are setting themselves up for some serious pain - it's very difficult to turn down money. I think originally Ouya had a 5,000 limit on the $99 reward. Now they are offering 80,000, and the estimated delivery date hasn't changed. If their delivery was to slip (not all that surprising) the number of vocal angry customers who maybe don't fully understand the nature of Kickstarter funding is going to be much greater.
Good luck to them - but it's important to go into this sort of thing with some sense of proportion. Even the best intended and funded projects can and do go a bit awry on the way to delivery. Just look at the team behind Ouya - their designer, Yves Behar, is a talented man, but two of his most well known projects (OLPC and the Jawbone Up) had significant delivery issues.
Whatever you think of the console itself, that's an impressive amount of fundraising. I think Ouya has shown one thing for sure and that's making your Kickstarter a pre-order of sorts definitely encourages people to donate in larger sums. Of the 36K backers, only ~2000 have donated less than the $95 that gets you a console.
I personally think that this is the greatest value that kickstarter has brought us.
We now have the option to forego the traditional cycle of [product development -> promotion -> sales] and instead pursue a [promotion -> sales -> development] path, which reduces the risk of irrecoverable sunk costs significantly.
In a way, it shifts "risk" from the producer to the consumer.
It's also one of the worst things about kickstarter. The risk is moved to us, the consumer, and if it falls through, kickstarter isn't doing anything about it. We've basically funded some employee salaries, etc. with nothing to show for it.
Definitely agree that said risk is the big question mark about the whole platform.
Do you think that perhaps a few future scandals at Kickstarter would spur a "staged release" of funds to the project? (somewhat like how Greece receives its bailout funds in successive packages upon hitting milestones, rather than in one lump sum)
Very true. I do think in some circumstances it's valid for the consumer to take on the risk. There are a lot of fan projects out there where, from a profit perspective, it just doesn't make sense for a large backer to take a risk bringing it to market. However, if fan interest is high enough and potential customers are willing to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, it's an interesting option.
I'd personally love to see Kickstarter take it a step further and offer incentives where the backers can become more like Angel investors, but I'm sure there are a lot of difficulties involved in that...
Kickstarter is perfect for products that fall into the "disposable income" budget.
They're perfecting the definition of "disposable", with products that fall into a range of "If this turns out, I'll be in on it, if it doesn't, I'm out x-hundred bucks, so what?".
I really don't get the level of enthusiasm for this device, and struggle to see it really taking off mainstream (which may not matter, since it's just an android box).
Yes, we haven't seen an android device targeted for gaming yet, but AFAICT, there is nothing this will do that you can't already do with something like an mk802[0]. Similarly, decent tablets can be had for $100[1]. Now, both of these have slower GPUs (mali 400, as SGS2), but come 9 months when this is actually meant to be available, i'm certain there will be better-than tegra3 hardware available in that price range. Further, most people could just connect their phone via hdmi and a PS3 controller to get the same result.
Another angle of looking at it could be as reference hardware, like a nexus device for gaming. That would have advantages.. (better dev support etc etc) but its userbase is going to be a drop in the ocean compared to other android devices- take the SGS3 for example-- 9m pre-orders. This is currently at 0.05m.[2]
I do wish these guys luck however.The fundraising is impressive however you look at it. I do see ARM devices taking over a large chunk of the conosle space[3], and i do see a mobile OS involved. A greater degree of freedom than the big boys (although not than android) is welcome, as is the competition. I really hope we get some quality in-room multiplayer back-- and this could help to spur that-- which hasn't been a first class citizen since way back in the n64 days(!). But there is no guarantee that anything will change.
Ultimately, the success of the fundraising could be its own downfall, attracting google/apple/microsoft to compete. We all know how much they want presence in the living room.
OUYA's interface is more suited for a game pad, but it's nothing that couldn't be matched with an app, or an android update.
--
0. $74 USB-stick PC.
1. I would post retail links but i don't want to come accross advertising. Check out cnx-software.com or armdevices.net if you wish to learn more.
2. based on a lazy $5m/$100. Extrapolate linearly over the 30 days and you still only have 0.3m.. a case which would smash all kickstarter funding into oblivion. People buying this would be expected to buy more games.. but we are looking a 30:1 ratio to match the big boys in the most optimistic case.
3. IMO the days of the monolithic console are numbered- mobile OS's have made gaming on an upgradeable platform as simple as the consoles, which will be soon out-dated by the relentless pace of progress in the ARM/mobile GPU world.
Can someone explain how this is different from any other Android thing? Is it not the same thing as my phone/tablet hooked up to the TV with a Bluetooth gamepad?
Usually when someone describes a new product as "the same as x through y while z", it means the new thing is solving a pain point. Like, "isn't Heroku just git hosted on AWS which runs a Rails server after a push?"
The process you're describing is definitely workable and some games take advantage of it, but the Ouya focuses solely on making the experience of playing and downloading games painless. Whether or not they'll succeed is a different argument, but the Kickstarter proves that there's demand for such a product.
Ah, are they providing their own UI, then? I'm guessing Android is just the backend, from what you say, is that correct? I.e. you won't have access to the rest of the apps and the system itself except through their custom launcher?
Never seen anyone hook up his phone with a TV (also never seen one do that with a tablet, but I don't know many tablet owners). Maybe because most people already have a console on that port. Which could actually be the bigger problem for OUYA - that game console space is already taken up in many living rooms and I doubt somewhat it will be easily competing with the consoles already taking up that space.
The thing is, I have a $200 phone that has Android but isn't very powerfull. I don't own a tablet, buying one would cost me $200.
For $100 they are offering me a console that I could also use as a TV media center.
I think you are narrowing your view to people that own multiple gadgets, in my country that isn't the norm and I know that a cheap console could have a huge impact here.
Are you easily able to connect your mobile phone to your TV? And does anyone even make games for phones that would benefit from being on a TV? I think OUYA could change how the platform gaming landscape looks like, and it certainly won't hurt for more competition to enter that market, hopefully putting some pressure on the existing companies.
Do that many phones really have HDMI output? Mine does not as far as I know. My point is that with the current games on phones, I do not feel any of those would directly benefit from being on a TV. Angry Birds wouldn't suddenly get more fun just because it's on a big screen.
A open console that's easily to hack on, be it software- or hardware-wise, would only be a good thing. And judging by the insane amount of money that has been pledged in this short time there is also a good market for one.¨
I think the OUYA will be a good thing, and the main benefit over just connecting your phone to the TV is that the console is created for being connected to a TV.
The games are created for being on a TV, which changes the genre of games from Angry Birds style phone games to games like Quake or whatever else you might usually play on a console.
That's sort of what I was trying to say with my previous questions, you might be able to connect your phone to the TV and have a equally good device, but the market and community the OUYA will create is what makes it valuable to me.
There is no company that will make a videogame that suits the TV on the off-chance that you connect your mobile phone to one. :/
> And does anyone even make games for phones that would benefit from being on a TV?
If it's an Android phone, then, yes, because Ouya is likewise an Android device and (unless they are tragically stupid, but I don't know for sure because they still have no developer information) is using the Android gamepad API so you could do the exact same thing with your phone.
I feel like most games on my phone are not the kind of games I would want to play on a TV. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and so on are mobile games. With a open hardware/open source gaming platform for TV games we could get past Sony and Microsoft dominating the market.
I can't connect my phone to a TV as far as I know (SGS2), it might be possible but honestly I have not researched it because it's not something I would be interested in.
A open console with a good controller that is easy for independent developers and others to get into would be great.
Your SGS2 can plug into a TV with an HDMI adapter. Your SGS2 (if running 3.0+) can also support a Bluetooth controller. Your SGS2 is a little pokey compared to a Tegra 3, but there's just not that much difference between a HTC One and this console.
The optimism is nice and all, but the console is nothing special and it has a laughably small userbase. Even XBLIG is a better bet than this, and XBLIG is terrible. There's no way Ouya, or any other "open source gaming platform", is going to disrupt, or even come on the radar of, Sony and Microsoft's game groups.
You're in "year of the Linux desktop" territory, and it's important to realize when you're doing that and stop wishcasting.
It all sounds very doable to me so I totally don't understand all the negativity. Tablets have expensive screens and phones have complicated cellular capabilities.
I just hope I can get my product prototype to a meaningful place in time before a bunch of people collectively realize that most people selling shit on Kickstarter have no idea what they're doing and stop throwing money at these.
