• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Google developing Android-based gaming console - Wall Street Journal

I imagine the consoles could produce Xbox (original) level graphics and that is about it.

Tegra 5 was shown to be running Battlefield 3 real-time. If they're releasing it next year and will be using mobile platform cpu/gpu, then this will be the way to go for Google.

They could also go with Intel's Haswell and equip it with HD5000, which is even better than what Nvidia has to offer.

Although, not sure what Apple will do.
 
note i said released and viable. The Jag was technically "pulled from shelves" by Atari in december of 1995, but no one was making games for it by then, retailers had long since banished it from shelves if they carried it at all, advertising had ceased, etc.

Wiki has it selling less than 250,000 units from 1993 to 1995. This is beyond abysmal. Most of those sales would have been at launch or christmas- and you can be reasonably certain sales were basically zero for the last year to six months or so. On average you're talking way less than 5K units a month outside of holiday season. The vita sold 6 or 7 times this amount in march, for reference.The 3D0 wasn't *quite* this bad, but the story is the same. Once the Saturn and PS1 launched, it was dead. FAR more expensive but with noticeably worse looking games, it wasn't long for retail.



It wasn't. The CD-i was what you might call an interactive media device. Philips ran hour long (?) infomercials to sell the thing, and the vast majority of it was focused on things like the encyclopedias, video CDs, and educational software it could run. It had a handful of token games- mostly the type full of TERRIBLE live action FMV, but that wasn't the point of the unit.
Note that for a "console", not shipping with a game controller at ALL is a very bad sign. The "controller" for the CDi was simply a remote control- to give you an idea of how essential philips thought gaming was to the unit.




as i noted before, Philips sold the thing primarily via infomercials. It didn't tend to show up in places like Sears, Wal mart, Kmart, Department Stores etc. where most consoles were actually sold. There was a revision later on that was targeted more towards gamers (you might be thinking of this version of the Cdi) but by then, it was hopelessly outclassed. No 3d capabilities, and 2D capabilities that were somehow worse than even the SNES and Genesis by a good amount. It's competition by then (the PS1 and Saturn) were far cheaper as well as being more powerful. It sold less than 500K over its lifespan- this is extremely rare for a console. I think the jag is the only major console with weaker sales- as Atari was basically insolvent and collapsing, this is not a good comparison.

Lol- and the pippin sold a grand total of 42K units and was pulled in less than a year. I'm pretty sure there actually ARE more unicorns than this.

Everything your saying is true but I do remember the original CD-i being in stores. I remember using that dumb remote controller to play some casino card game that they had on display. I think it was at Fedco or Sears.

And like you said they did release a controller for it:

cdicont.jpg


I mean it had Zelda and Mario on it along with several other games. I think for a brief time it even had it's own section in Gamepro and EGM. It was a legit game console.

Pippin I never saw on person I only saw its pics in the back of magazines.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I'm a pretty big Google fanboy, but this seems like a bad idea. Microsoft demonstrated that having a major name doesn't guarantee you any success.

What I would like to see is Google create some actual game development studios.
 

Darryl

Banned
I'm a pretty big Google fanboy, but this seems like a bad idea. Microsoft demonstrated that having a major name doesn't guarantee you any success.

What I would like to see is Google create some actual game development studios.

the ps2/xbox/gc generation shouldn't be used as a reference for anything. ps2 cannibalized everyone that gen. a perfect storm. sony proved that a name with mass market recognition was a powerful thing during the PSX era as well and microsoft did later prove that it mattered going into the 360. i think the new console generation switch in addition to confusion from both apple and google could upset things a lot. i imagine a $250 console with modest specs meant to last only 2-3 years rather then a decade could upset things quite a lot. the upgradable model combined with a heavy digital push could be end up being quite powerful. it's untested, i think?

i'm not sure if i believe that google would build any development studios. they may work up a team of professionals and use those guys to work with outside developers to publish games but i don't think we'll ever see a Google Studios. that's a huge investment for a plan that may end up being a throwaway idea.
 

Zee-Row

Banned
Android is wonky as hell as an OS. I'm dumping my Android for an iOS phone next chance I get. I have no confidence in a gaming console powered by that OS.
 

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
7-8 years into the generation, I can't find a single console that costs $99 (on best buy's website). The Wii is dead and it's still listed at $129. The videogame manufacturer's have vacated a low end price point and that should give anybody interested an opportunity. It seems stupid for Google or Apple to not look into it.
 

davepoobond

you can't put a price on sparks
im sure google's console will have a better business model than Ouya.

but i dont think it'll do much better.
 

Somnid

Member
Everything I hear just tells me Google's hardware strategy is a mess. They are either trying to build me toos or products that really just have no actual thought behind them but seemed cool at the time. They should really just sit down and work on making a single cohesive product before trying to make everything (or contracting others to make everything).
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
the ps2/xbox/gc generation shouldn't be used as a reference for anything. ps2 cannibalized everyone that gen. a perfect storm. sony proved that a name with mass market recognition was a powerful thing during the PSX era as well and microsoft did later prove that it mattered going into the 360.

Good point.

i think the new console generation switch in addition to confusion from both apple and google could upset things a lot. i imagine a $250 console with modest specs meant to last only 2-3 years rather then a decade could upset things quite a lot. the upgradable model combined with a heavy digital push could be end up being quite powerful. it's untested, i think?

I imagine the initial investment would still cost a pretty penny, though.

i'm not sure if i believe that google would build any development studios. they may work up a team of professionals and use those guys to work with outside developers to publish games but i don't think we'll ever see a Google Studios. that's a huge investment for a plan that may end up being a throwaway idea.

It would be surprising and a shame if Google didn't create their own first party development house. Sure, there's no requirement that says a console manufacturer has to have such a thing, but all the major players have their own. Not to mention that it's usually their own studios that would have the best selling games.
 
I'd be interested in a cheap box (like my AppleTV) that lets you play your iOS/Android games on it. If Google was able to provide something of the same quality I'd definitely pounce.
 

Paertan

Member
I think they should be focusing on making it easier to connect your phone to your tv and having standard accessories. Turning your phone into the console. It is pretty easy to do already but not for the general public.

Parents would not need to buy a new console to get lots of games for the kids. I don't see a standalone console from Google becoming a huge sccess. Well unless it is really cheap.
 

tino

Banned
If google can do 149 then its entire different market than the current consoles. Kind of like how people have iPads but also e-ink kindles and Nooks since they are so cheap.

It should be both a set top box and a game console. I think it just need to have a few good ganes to justify it. For example if you can get Plants vs Zombies 2 for 99 cents and you have to pay $10 on a real console then thats already a seller for me.

The thing about Apple's AppleTV/Console is that Apple most likely will use the iPhone/iPod touch +logitech addon as the controller. I really don't want that, I want a traditional controller.
 

Log4Girlz

Member
So basically an Ouya?

Yes, its exactly the same thing. The manufacturer of a product is meaningless really. Just because Google is a better known company with billions of dollars which can potentially back a product that may look totally different and have totally different innards doesn't mean it isn't the exact same product.
 

tino

Banned
While I don't think the big three will lose (any more) sleep over this, if I was on the Ouya team, I would be shitting bricks over this news.


The whole OUYA business model was designed to be brought out (by google or Samsung) anyway. too bad nobody took the bait.
 

Caayn

Member
Oh boy, is anyone really waiting for an android based gameconsole? I'm not really waiting for a fourth competitor in the console business.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
It will go the way of the OUYA.

I think there are key differences given Google has the capital to properly launch and support a new platform, and they already have Google Play to plug into with de facto developer support.

The Ouya's shortcomings have nothing to do with the fact it is based in Android.
 

stef t97

Member
I always kinda wanted Sony and Google to get into bed together and make a console jointly...seemed like the best way to go after all their main rivals...maybe one day.

I never even thought of this. Wouldn't be too far of a stretch either seeing as how Sony are supporting cyanogenmod and have good relations with the aosp side of things.
 

dorn.

Member
I expect Google to release a successor to the Nexus Q with access to the Play Store in anticipation of a new AppStore enabled Apple TV. This is not as drastic as releasing a gaming console complete with first-party games and everything but I disagree with people saying this won't have an effect on "real" home consoles. Once Apple decides to make their own A-series chip for ATV instead of using binned iPad chips these things could get surprisingly powerful.
 

nkarafo

Member
Wow...

These companies really think Android/smartphone games are good enough to justify a gaming system for your living room.
 
the ps2/xbox/gc generation shouldn't be used as a reference for anything. ps2 cannibalized everyone that gen. a perfect storm. sony proved that a name with mass market recognition was a powerful thing during the PSX era as well

This is the exact opposite of what happened with the PSX era. Sony succeeded because they brought out a system that stood out on capabilities and price point. Sega and Atari had better brand recognition (among gamers) and Panasonic had equivalent recognition among the general public. All three got destroyed. Even nintendo got outsold 3-1 by the PS1- and again that wasn't a "brand name" issue- it was an issue of cost to consumers, and costs to third parties bringing in support. smart business.

to put the "Brand name" thing into perspective, imagine that Samsung announced a console tomorrow. They have tons of brand recognition, but not in the gaming sector- the success of the Galaxy SIII phone or their televisions wouldn't really mean anything. without standout hardware, software, and a competitive price point they'd get obliterated.

I don't think the console we're looking at will be competing with Sony or Microsoft in any meaningful sense.

I mean, we can call it a console in that it's a box that sits in front of your television (or maybe not), but otherwise I suspect the similarities in approach will end there. I would be very surprised if Google was interested in pulling away hardcore gamers and attracting AAA developers.

no argument here. If there's a box coming, it won't compete in the console space. Maybe google's equivalent of the appleTV or something.
 

wildfire

Banned
1993 all over again.

1993 was a bunch of $500 minimum expensive consoles. You can bet that these will be in the same or lower price range of the primary 3.

Why would third parties do that? Nintendo doesn't seem to be having much success at convincing them, or convincing consumers. Think about why this is.

*If this new console comes out with technical specifications below the PS3 and 360, with the intent to just run iOS or android play games- forget it. we've already seen how phone games work on TV with Ouya, and it's terrible. customers can also already play all of these games on existing hardware. why buy a new console?

This is silly. People like you are declaring the failure of Ouya when a week has barely passed.

Atleast wait until after the holiday season to see what type of legs it got. Preferably you should wait until March-April after that holiday period.
 
I reckon most game developers will go for Apple's platform first, due to how much EASIER it is to port to Apple's wide variety of form factors at once. iPad, iPhone, iPod.

If I was a small start-up developer, I would choose iOS over wonky, buggy Android platform that's riddled with diverse hardware sets in phones, tablets, etc... Hardware side on Android is such a mess.

1993 was a bunch of $500 minimum expensive consoles. You can bet that these will be in the same or lower price range of the primary 3.

I'm expecting them to be for casual gamers so $200-250. Ouya will do just fine as long as they stick to $99 imho.
 
1993 all over again.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Reminds me of when everybody and their cousin decided to make a console or handheld in the 90s.

These things will sell to casuals, but mostly as media devices that happen to play games. I don't think they are a threat to PS4 or XB1.
 

Nirolak

Mrgrgr
I don't think the console we're looking at will be competing with Sony or Microsoft in any meaningful sense.

I mean, we can call it a console in that it's a box that sits in front of your television (or maybe not), but otherwise I suspect the similarities in approach will end there. I would be very surprised if Google was interested in pulling away hardcore gamers and attracting AAA developers.

Yeah I would expect this to just be a logical extension of going after the tablet gaming and old Wii audiences.
 

twofold

Member
Wow...

These companies really think Android/smartphone games are good enough to justify a gaming system for your living room.

They will be for a lot of people. You know, the millions who bought the Wii and the PS2 and made them the huge success stories that they were. Those people.
 
This makes no sense. Apple isn't interested in gaming, they never have been. We don't need an iOS or an Android console. I wish Google would take these resources and put them into growing Google Fiber, or launching a cell service that isn't terrible and/or run by douchebags.

They will be for a lot of people. You know, the millions who bought the Wii and the PS2 and made them the huge success stories that they were. Those people.
False equivalency alert! Most of what we've seen from smartphone gaming doesn't even come close to what the PS2 did, let alone the Wii.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
If Google is going to continue to compete in the TV space with their Google TV product, enabling a legitimate game interface for that product line and capitalizing on most of the games available to the Android platform is the next logical step. And, as others have pointed out, with likes of Sony, MS and even Nintendo seemingly abandoning the market for "discount" console hardware (let's say $149 or less) it leaves an opportunity for someone to also capitalize that space. And given that Google just revamped their gaming services to offer a more unified, centralized XBL/PSN/Gamecenter -style approach, I doubt they're abandoning the space anytime soon.
 

LAMBO

Member
The set top box is DEAD. There are Smart Tv's for knuckleheads. You can just plug your pc into your tv is you want the full capabilites of your PC. And if you like console games you buy a console. If you like tablets and their software and smart phone crap you have one that probably plugs into your tv too.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
The set top box is DEAD.
They're hardly massive boxes these days. No one is going to balk at adding something the size of a Roku or Apple TV device to their setup. The box is fading into the background and, in another year or two, they'll be little more than inline HDMI sticks that plug in to the back of a TV like a dongle, rather than requiring any shelf space of their own.
 

Subitai

Member
Sounds like this is initially aimed more at emerging markets and last gen where the big make money selling older systems.

It will be interesting to see mature PS+ and XBL ecosystems competing with them.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I was thinking the exact same thing. Reminds me of when everybody and their cousin decided to make a console or handheld in the 90s.

These things will sell to casuals, but mostly as media devices that happen to play games. I don't think they are a threat to PS4 or XB1.

Well, in fairness, Google actually has the muscle to pull it off to some degree.
 
If the games are still made to be compatible with mobile, what's the point for consumers? As seen by Ouya, consumers who barely care about Android games don't need another box to tether them to their television screens.

If the hardware is so high end that it targets high end gaming and leapfrogs phones/tablets, what is the point for Google? There is no money to be made as an open source console manufacturer.
 

Darryl

Banned
This is the exact opposite of what happened with the PSX era. Sony succeeded because they brought out a system that stood out on capabilities and price point. Sega and Atari had better brand recognition (among gamers) and Panasonic had equivalent recognition among the general public. All three got destroyed. Even nintendo got outsold 3-1 by the PS1- and again that wasn't a "brand name" issue- it was an issue of cost to consumers, and costs to third parties bringing in support. smart business.

to put the "Brand name" thing into perspective, imagine that Samsung announced a console tomorrow. They have tons of brand recognition, but not in the gaming sector- the success of the Galaxy SIII phone or their televisions wouldn't really mean anything. without standout hardware, software, and a competitive price point they'd get obliterated.

yea i don't really agree with you there. i remember back around the first PlayStation the Sony name was thrown around a lot. the Sony name meant cutting edge tech back then like Apply or Google mean right now. i see what you're saying, though.
 

Polari

Member
Eh, it's a low-risk strategy. Put it out there, if it fails it fails. Best case scenario the Android ecosystem gets a shot in the arm gaming-wise. I only hope they don't half-ass it and make a great Google TV box that comes with a gamepad.
 

Tempy

don't ask me for codes
Will only be successful if it gets games/apps made specifically for its features, and not just quick ports of existing Android games/apps.
 

Coolwhip

Banned
Google wont even need a Kinect to know what you look like, what your heartrate is and who you are with. They already know.
 

JordanN

Banned
So is this really a console or what?

The industry really doesn't need anymore underpowered crap so going weaker than PS4/XBO would be a waste.
 
Top Bottom