Micro game consoles have always been "voluntarily" and it is not easy to go out

Today I would like to talk about what the micro game console is going through.


As early as early 2013, I said that the era of micro-game consoles has come. Technology house owners love to investigate OUYA, GamePop, GameStick, Mojo, and what the low-cost open source game consoles of various Android systems mean. Maybe they represent something new that we are not yet familiar with, and we guarantee the freedom of the app store's economy in the TV field and game developers. Sadly, two years have passed and micro-game consoles have been forgotten. What happened in these two years?






First of all, it is because the machines that lead this trend are too weak and their performance does not pass. Those micro-game console companies are eager to occupy the market quickly, and their main technical leaders are software engineers rather than hardware engineers. In a world dominated by software, this is a typical model: you introduce the most basic and primitive products, observe the market demand, and then quickly update the introduction of higher-end versions.


In the scientific and technological community, this model is a universal rule in the fields of mobile phones and computers. There is no shortage of "swans" (those mature products), but more of them are used to "hold pits" and continue to improve. However, the game industry is obviously not so tolerant. The concept of the game industry is that hardware determines the future development of products from generation to generation, and the so-called “prospects” are likely to fail completely.


"Teasing" is one of the reasonable ways to solve the problem. The path taken by the Oculus Rift and Kickstarter was similar at first, but the difference lies in how they cleverly kept the product in an "imminent" state instead of immediately. This is a good way to overwhelm the consumer's appetite. Consumers can't wait to buy, and people look forward to the changes it will make, even after selling it to Facebook at a high price. Although I personally are a VR skeptic, I still think that Oculus's approach to attracting customers is quite smart, and in stark contrast to the micro game console. Developers of micro game consoles always sell products into the market and study whether they have business opportunities, rather than patiently create their own business opportunities. Afterwards, this step was so wrong that all subsequent efforts became illusions.


No one expected a $99 machine to compete with a $399 machine. Never did it. The problem is that micro-game consoles always give people a bad impression, rather than a carefully crafted and promising product that can withstand scrutiny. Those products are cheap, give people an impression of cheap, and they give users a cheaper experience. Sadly, there are technical problems with the most basic functions such as connecting to Wifi and sensor sensing. Therefore, for many commentators, the term "micro-game console" is equivalent to "junk" and is awful. The business community may have also commented that micro-game consoles are "a new product worth looking forward to," but in the eyes of consumers, micro-game consoles have quickly become jokes, just like those of 3DO, CDi, Phantom, and Gizmondo. "I just bought my eyes." It is a delusion that micro game consoles want to re-whitewash their fame.


What is even worse is that developers quickly lost confidence in this series of products. Initially, the compatibility of the Android operating system of the micro game console with its engine is a key breakthrough for everyone, which means that micro game consoles can use multi-port and open connections as selling points. This is where the Xbox 360 is far behind. However, there is a problem here. Many micro game consoles used Tegra 3 processors at the time, and this caused a lot of problems, such as incompatible processors and coloring technology. More importantly, the production team values ​​more than openness: money.


When OUYA and GameStick logged into Kickstarter, their premise was that the indie game production team was in danger of being squeezed out of television. Indie games originally did a good job with Steam and mobility, but they gradually lost ground on platforms such as Kinett and TV integration. Sony's PS3 platform is open to only a handful of people, while Nintendo is completely closed. The business models of these three companies are biased toward cracking down on independent production teams (expensive development equipment, custom hardware, high-cost TRC implementation, unfriendly income sharing, etc.), leaving independent development teams with no foothold in the App Store. Ground.


Micro game consoles appeared at this time. However, things have turned a corner. Previously, Sony would only choose to have very little project funding such as Journey, but then Sony was much more active in independent game production. Sony Corporation began to sign an agreement with the independent game production team, and launched PS4 with this plan, while reflecting on the company's policy deficiencies and technical limitations. For games like Unity, the engine runs so well that the port is no longer the main problem. Sony Corporation has therefore won the favor of the game industry. Microsoft initially underestimated the importance of this point, but it soon changed. The same goes for Nintendo.


For independent producers, this result is no better. It is estimated that this momentum will continue until the end of 2015. But this also kills the most basic and important selling point of micro game consoles. They originally wanted to create a stronghold for the independent production team to attract their cooperation, but when the producers suddenly had strongholds, things became “What can you guys (micro-game consoles) do for me (the production team)? I did it with others.” So most of the micro-game consoles are B-level or even C-level, and A-level games are dismissive or even spurious.


There was another way out at the time: perhaps only TV or streaming media players could provide the missing link. However, this did not succeed. Apple does not seem to intend to make any improvements based on the existing Apple TV, Roku is focusing on making the best video box. Amazon's Fire TV started in the game world and started making controllers, but these are sold separately. In short, the streaming media market seems to prefer the $39 HDMI TV stick that can watch YouTube and Netflix, instead of the $150 mini-game system. Smart TV may lead the new trend, but at present, it still stays at a shallow level.


In general, the micro-game consoles were forced out of the key talent by their heavyweight competitors and out of the market. It is only the reputation of the sweeping and apparently interesting market. Many early market players have already been eliminated after ignoring dismal sales. Competition in the field of game hardware is not generally fierce.


But after all these things, I still think that the micro game console still has hope. Indeed, it is already bruised and has experienced vicissitudes. Need to rethink, it is inevitable. But OUYA survived. It has recently successfully pushed into 1000 game rankings, and has also released game stream packages on the Playcast platform. It mainly recommends games such as Lego Lord of the Rings and GRID. These games are really old, but they are not out of date or worth losing. They are still working hard. I think this little game box can still do something.


I have to say that this hacking box has a sustained appeal. In all respects, a casual gaming market may not exist, and media streaming players and smart TVs are still far away from us. But is there a market for these cool devices? I believe there are. This analogy may sound strange, but we have forgotten that the people who pioneered micro-game consoles on Kickstarter are actually very similar to those who support Rusberry Pi. They don't necessarily need a professional platform. They just want a place where they can quietly develop games and try. In a period similar to that of a miniature game console, the Rasberry Pi has used this belief to hand out nearly 4 million machines and has been used by customers for all sorts of weird uses. These consumers are just curious about the machine. What can be used to make something.


I think that micro-game consoles, like the “my first development machine” tune-up product, combine the niche and literary content that the family platform evades, and it still has a market. I can see that it has educational uses - it can teach game production skills and provide developers with a social platform. Does this mean that I think that micro game consoles will counterattack and defeat high-end consoles? Unfortunately, it is very difficult for them to do that. For some time I really thought so, but perhaps more is out of my own dissatisfaction with some of the game industry's stupid behavior. But what about micro-game consoles and what it is.


Although I was once one of the most loyal supporters of micro game consoles, the fact is that the conditions that may allow micro game consoles to survive have been turned into illusions. Maybe these conditions will change and change again, but perhaps not. We can only wait and see.