4 ms·

Now things are going to get interesting. Games distributed to the Google TV via the Android Market, using an existing Android-powered smartphone or tablet as a

Now things are going to get interesting. Games distributed to the Google TV via the Android Market, using an existing Android-powered smartphone or tablet as a controller. Hell, developers have already figured out ways to get the Wii remotes and other console controllers to work with Android. If Google plays their cards right, especially with some more powerful hardware in their next iterations, they could accidentally become the next big contender in the Console Wars. If nothing else the Wii proved that the casual, indy market was a completely untapped niche that exploded overnight. The machine basically printed money for Nintendo for the past few years.

ConstantineXVI 15y ago
Remember that (at least on existing Google TV boxen), games that use native code (most of them, including almost anything ported from iOS) will, at a minimum, have to be recompiled to run on Google TV as it's x86 based (unlike all the current ARM-based Android devices). In a small bit of luck, it happens that the particular chipset in Google TV (the CE4100) uses a PowerVR GPU (the SGX535 as seen in OMAP, and Apple's A4) so GPU compatibility won't be as much of an issue as the arch.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  Seems to me that the medium is different enough that you'd generally want games specifically developed for the TV, rather than a straight port of a phone game, anyway.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Actually, Google TV 2.0 has native support for game controllers and USB host, too. They could really push Android/Google TV into becoming a "console platform", too. They could use the same strategy they've used against the iPhone to beat Xbox, PS3 and Wii - just get everyone to make TV's and set top boxes with high-performance ARM chips. Everything is laid out for them. They just need to act on it. So far I don't see them promoting it too hard, which is a shame, because Apple will probably hype it up hard when they launch Apple TV with iOS apps and games, and then everyone will think Google is playing catch-up again. What's sort of ironic, is that Google "TV" might actually be a lot more successful as a console platform than a "TV" platform, meaning that there would be a lot more customers buying it for the "console" promise, than for the "improving TV experience" promise. If they were smart, they would take full advantage of that, get millions of units in people's homes, and then figure out the TV part.
- mikeryan 15y ago
  They could really push Android/Google TV into becoming a "console platform", too This strategy can be problematic. Google and their hardware partners will have to choose if its going to compete with consoles on the high-end or with cheaper internet boxes (Boxee/Roku) on the low end. Currently its price point (when it was first launched) is the same as the Xbox and PS3 and I have no idea why you'd get a GoogleTV box instead of an Xbox. If they can get down to $200 they'd be closer to Boxee but this wouldn't be a "console gaming" machine. Remember the Consoles (Xbox/PS3 even Wii) are all subsidized platforms and sometimes the consoles themselves are actually sold at a loss since MS/Sony/Nintendo can make up the difference with game license fees. So its not as simple as you lay out.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    I don't think Google TV set top boxes should be higher than $150 anyway. They can probably make it for $100, too, and it might be possible if Apple is going to put an A5 in their Apple TV, while keeping the price. Android already has quite a few console-like games, that to be honest would be played a lot better with a gamepad than on a touch screen. I'm sure it would open up another market at the $100-$150 price, and disrupt all the other consoles. It doesn't have to compete with them at the "high-end" on performance. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't treat it as an afterthought, when it will still use more or less the same hardware that is going into a set-top box. They just need to show intent and support it, and get developers to modify their phone/tablet games for TV. There's a difference between letting it happen by itself, which Google tends to do in general (unfortunately), and announcing it all at launch, like Apple does, and with many partners.
    - mikeryan 15y ago
      Without subsidizing the price they can't sell GoogleTV boxes for $150 bucks they'd be losing money. Not with any decent sort of processing power. Remember all those Android smart phones out there are subsidized by contracts. Apple's box is subsidized by iTunes sales. I'm telling you a lot of those console like games on Android smart phones aren't going to work on a GoogleTV with a $150 price point. EDIT: I'm not saying the BOM on the boxes are over $150 but total costs involved (marketing/manufacturing/support) would run at a loss. Or even that Apple is selling their box at a loss but the platform is subsidized.

ConstantineXVI 15y ago

Remember that (at least on existing Google TV boxen), games that use native code (most of them, including almost anything ported from iOS) will, at a minimum, have to be recompiled to run on Google TV as it's x86 based (unlike all the current ARM-based Android devices). In a small bit of luck, it happens that the particular chipset in Google TV (the CE4100) uses a PowerVR GPU (the SGX535 as seen in OMAP, and Apple's A4) so GPU compatibility won't be as much of an issue as the arch.

joebadmo 15y ago
Seems to me that the medium is different enough that you'd generally want games specifically developed for the TV, rather than a straight port of a phone game, anyway.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Actually, Google TV 2.0 has native support for game controllers and USB host, too. They could really push Android/Google TV into becoming a "console platform", too. They could use the same strategy they've used against the iPhone to beat Xbox, PS3 and Wii - just get everyone to make TV's and set top boxes with high-performance ARM chips. Everything is laid out for them. They just need to act on it. So far I don't see them promoting it too hard, which is a shame, because Apple will probably hype it up hard when they launch Apple TV with iOS apps and games, and then everyone will think Google is playing catch-up again. What's sort of ironic, is that Google "TV" might actually be a lot more successful as a console platform than a "TV" platform, meaning that there would be a lot more customers buying it for the "console" promise, than for the "improving TV experience" promise. If they were smart, they would take full advantage of that, get millions of units in people's homes, and then figure out the TV part.

mikeryan 15y ago
They could really push Android/Google TV into becoming a "console platform", too This strategy can be problematic. Google and their hardware partners will have to choose if its going to compete with consoles on the high-end or with cheaper internet boxes (Boxee/Roku) on the low end. Currently its price point (when it was first launched) is the same as the Xbox and PS3 and I have no idea why you'd get a GoogleTV box instead of an Xbox. If they can get down to $200 they'd be closer to Boxee but this wouldn't be a "console gaming" machine. Remember the Consoles (Xbox/PS3 even Wii) are all subsidized platforms and sometimes the consoles themselves are actually sold at a loss since MS/Sony/Nintendo can make up the difference with game license fees. So its not as simple as you lay out.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I don't think Google TV set top boxes should be higher than $150 anyway. They can probably make it for $100, too, and it might be possible if Apple is going to put an A5 in their Apple TV, while keeping the price. Android already has quite a few console-like games, that to be honest would be played a lot better with a gamepad than on a touch screen. I'm sure it would open up another market at the $100-$150 price, and disrupt all the other consoles. It doesn't have to compete with them at the "high-end" on performance. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't treat it as an afterthought, when it will still use more or less the same hardware that is going into a set-top box. They just need to show intent and support it, and get developers to modify their phone/tablet games for TV. There's a difference between letting it happen by itself, which Google tends to do in general (unfortunately), and announcing it all at launch, like Apple does, and with many partners.
  - mikeryan 15y ago
    Without subsidizing the price they can't sell GoogleTV boxes for $150 bucks they'd be losing money. Not with any decent sort of processing power. Remember all those Android smart phones out there are subsidized by contracts. Apple's box is subsidized by iTunes sales. I'm telling you a lot of those console like games on Android smart phones aren't going to work on a GoogleTV with a $150 price point. EDIT: I'm not saying the BOM on the boxes are over $150 but total costs involved (marketing/manufacturing/support) would run at a loss. Or even that Apple is selling their box at a loss but the platform is subsidized.