Independent Game Developers

[dodgyville]

Technically, Pandora is a very impressive machine. However, I feel it is a step backwards from the gp2x in gaming "ethos".

Consider that the gp2x was an attempt at an open-source gaming system. It was a natural platform for independent game developers to get started. Sadly I think pandora is more of an attempt at an open-source *emulation* system (as evidenced by all the input methods). Yes there will be hobby games for it, but I feel there will be few *original* commercial games for it all, which is a pity.

I think it will do well, but it is a lot different to the gp2x. Maybe it's the New Year brandy talking.

 

[Alex.]

Allow the New Year's daily vodka to do a little talking back :blink:

Your concerns regarding Pandora also apply to the GP2X. The GP2X's primary audience is emulator users, and very few commercial games came out for it (discounting ports of small PDA games). The original commercial games that did come out are of very high quality though, that's something nobody can deny. I'm curious on the sale numbers of the more prominent titles such as Payback, Vektar, your own retrovirusRTS, and W&W. Also, I am a bit confused on whether you're concerned about a lack of freeware, commercial, or both kinds of original games.

I agree that the GP2X is the ideal starting point for any kind of handheld/console games programming. But why shouldn't the Pandora be just as good, if not better? I don't see the two analog sticks and the keyboard as incentives for emulation and as distractions from original games, but rather as new and fun control methods that a lot of different software could take advantage of. I'm also excited about the package distribution system and online capabilities - that means delivering your games, their updates and extra content such as new levels to your audience in a much simpler and compact manner. Online access may even mean multiplayer homebrew games, and how immensely cool would that be? Let's also give some attention to the impressive hardware: strong graphics acceleration means that you can carry out your ideas exactly as they are in your head, without the need to scale anything down, and that includes running speed! I know that optimization and careful design can go a long way, but some things are simply impossible on the GP2X. Also consider that many people (me included) would rather do as many things as possible (while not neglecting quality, of course) rather than slave away on specific little things for months and months.

The GP2X seems to have developed a fair audience for homebrew games. Obviously that of emulators is far greater, but I imagine that thanks to the Pandora's added versatility the scales will be more balanced. I think the case on the GP2X was that once the major emulators reached maturity, more people took the time to seek new software they didn't pay attention to before.

Cheers for the topic, this can become a great discussion

 

[dodgyville]

Allow the New Year's daily vodka to do a little talking back :blink:

Your concerns regarding Pandora also apply to the GP2X. The GP2X's primary audience is emulator users, and very few commercial games came out for it (discounting ports of small PDA games). The original commercial games that did come out are of very high quality though, that's something nobody can deny. I'm curious on the sale numbers of the more prominent titles such as Payback, Vektar, your own retrovirusRTS, and W&W. Also, I am a bit confused on whether you're concerned about a lack of freeware, commercial, or both kinds of original games.

I agree that the GP2X is the ideal starting point for any kind of handheld/console games programming. But why shouldn't the Pandora be just as good, if not better? I don't see the two analog sticks and the keyboard as incentives for emulation and as distractions from original games, but rather as new and fun control methods that a lot of different software could take advantage of. I'm also excited about the package distribution system and online capabilities - that means delivering your games, their updates and extra content such as new levels to your audience in a much simpler and compact manner. Online access may even mean multiplayer homebrew games, and how immensely cool would that be? Let's also give some attention to the impressive hardware: strong graphics acceleration means that you can carry out your ideas exactly as they are in your head, without the need to scale anything down, and that includes running speed! I know that optimization and careful design can go a long way, but some things are simply impossible on the GP2X. Also consider that many people (me included) would rather do as many things as possible (while not neglecting quality, of course) rather than slave away on specific little things for months and months.

The GP2X seems to have developed a fair audience for homebrew games. Obviously that of emulators is far greater, but I imagine that thanks to the Pandora's added versatility the scales will be more balanced. I think the case on the GP2X was that once the major emulators reached maturity, more people took the time to seek new software they didn't pay attention to before.

Cheers for the topic, this can become a great discussion

I guess the reason I think it is less a developer's machine and more an emulators' is the large number of different types of input systems. Let's not kid anyone, the designers have "simply" mashed together the 8 bit, 16 bit and 32 bit consoles with a PC and then thrown a DS in on top of that. The only reason is so it can emulate the widest number of old systems as possible. It's an impressive machine, and I think well designed (better designed that I thought possible).

You raise some really good points that any games developed for pandora could way better than ones developed for the gp2x. I completely agree - more memory, CPU, wifi and 3D are drool-worthy additions. Although the larger screen will really need it anyway.

But ... and I find this hard to describe ... I don't think pandora provides it's own "platform experience". Instead, it provides a dozen platform experiences for other systems. What I mean is that when targeting a game to the gp2x it felt like you were really making something *for* the gp2x. With pandora, I get a vibe you'll be making something that just "runs" on pandora. The unique "platform user experience" has been dumped in favour of better emulation experience. That's not a complaint. A dedicated emulation device is good idea. I'm just trying to get into the head space of why I so much liked the gp2x (as an independent game developer) v. pandora ...

most drool-worthy: pandora has wifi, which IMHO is the most lacking feature in the gp2x.

 

[ledro]

QUOTE
The GP2X seems to have developed a fair audience for homebrew games. Obviously that of emulators is far greater


I don't know if it is that obvious that the audience of emulators is greater than that of hombrews. I for one, did not buy my gp2x because of emulation, but because of the hombrew scene.

 

[zacaj]

I'm curious on the sale numbers of the more prominent titles such as Payback, Vektar, your own retrovirusRTS, and W&W.

Me too. + the # of GP2X's sold

 

[b._.o._.b]

but I feel there will be few *original* commercial games for it all, which is a pity.

I don't think Pandora or GP2X needs commercial games. For the GP2X I never bought any of the commercial games, but I did donate to some developers who released the source code of their program. For a small niche market I think that is the way to go.

When Pandora's sales will be very high it will be more interesting to develop commercial games for it. I don't think there is a difference between GP2X or Pandora because of the "multi-input factor". That the GP2X and Pandora are both open and Linux games and emulators can be ported does contribute to a variety of free quality software available for it. Because of the power of the Pandora more ports are within reach, so the necessity of commercial games will be even less.

 

[Orkie]

For the GP2X I never bought any of the commercial games, but I did donate to some developers who released the source code of their program. For a small niche market I think that is the way to go.

Do you actually have any idea how few people donate? Whenever there is a big release on here, people say "I'll donate as soon as I get my wages through!" and they never do. I have been very fortunate to get several donations of hardware, this is not a general rule.

 

[Pickle]

To me the Pandora is no different than the GP2X, it just opens the door to so many more possabilites. There will be so many more options with it.
You could reverse your argument the other way around, its concievable that comm. dev's were turned off from the GP2X because of its limitations. With this handheld there shouldnt be a reason not to develop for it if you can.

 

[Alex.]

But ... and I find this hard to describe ... I don't think pandora provides it's own "platform experience". Instead, it provides a dozen platform experiences for other systems. What I mean is that when targeting a game to the gp2x it felt like you were really making something *for* the gp2x. With pandora, I get a vibe you'll be making something that just "runs" on pandora. The unique "platform user experience" has been dumped in favour of better emulation experience.

The fact that an entire repository of software (Debian ARM) will run on the Pandora out of the box definitely questions its uniqueness as a platform. I know this can be seen as narrow-mindedness on my part if wrongly interpreted, but don't get me wrong, I'm not thinking of this as a strictly negative aspect, because having such a large amount of mature software and tools already developed and ready to use can be a good thing. Hopefully there'll be enough original software designed with its inputs and screen resolution in mind so that it won't be seen as just a portable Linux box.

I don't think Pandora or GP2X needs commercial games. For the GP2X I never bought any of the commercial games, but I did donate to some developers who released the source code of their program. For a small niche market I think that is the way to go.

[...]

Because of the power of the Pandora more ports are within reach, so the necessity of commercial games will be even less.

But then you'll keep having the same old things, again and again. Why not support something new?

 

[mrsnature]

i think the fact that pandora will allow games to run with very few portability issues, is something that will attract potential commercial game developers. Commercial developers are very unlikely to spend much time and effort on something that will only work on pandora.

I know from a user perspective it would be nice to say to people "Ha! This game is great but you can only play it if you buy a Pandora " - as i think most people like the gp2x because there aren't that many people with one...but from a commercial developers point of view that is not attractive..

 

[Pickle]

i think the fact that pandora will allow games to run with very few portability issues, is something that will attract potential commercial game developers. Commercial developers are very unlikely to spend much time and effort on something that will only work on pandora.

I know from a user perspective it would be nice to say to people "Ha! This game is great but you can only play it if you buy a Pandora " - as i think most people like the gp2x because there aren't that many people with one...but from a commercial developers point of view that is not attractive..

Thats where SDL should come in.

 

[kfuse]

heh funny, I said it before you gotta get a company to want to develop for a product before anything major happens... First off there are plenty of psp's and ds's out there. Most of you will say well yea thats friggin obvious, but it will take a lot to get this handheld to even remotely compete commercially, give or take a few years...

I mean to convince even an indie dev to go after something like pandora unless they have nothing on the table seems kinda out there...

 

[emphyrio]

IM(not so)HO pandora has a very good chance of attracting indie developers who already develop linux versions of their games.

With the keyboard there is one more obstacle removed (less work to get text input for savegames and other text).

An other option may be liberating source code from existing games or hiring indies to port their games. Both these options guarantee an income for these developers as they simply only deliver when sufficient funding has been provided.

 

[b._.o._.b]

Do you actually have any idea how few people donate?

Only Franxis shows all the persons donated on his site, but I'm sure the money that he receives is not his motivation. There are better ways to make money if you're a dev than developing for the GP2X/Pandora.

But then you'll keep having the same old things, again and again. Why not support something new?

If there are programs / emulators I really like and often use, I'm very willing to donate. Also dev competitions give us great new homebrew (like your sqdef).
Btw, I love the homebrew for the GP2X, but there are so many games I haven't played on lots of emulated systems I can spend the rest of my life playing the 'old things'.

 

[dodgyville]

QUOTE
The GP2X seems to have developed a fair audience for homebrew games. Obviously that of emulators is far greater

I don't know if it is that obvious that the audience of emulators is greater than that of hombrews. I for one, did not buy my gp2x because of emulation, but because of the hombrew scene.


Same here, so do you think pandora is aimed at people like us, or emulation people?

 

[Chip]

But ... and I find this hard to describe ... I don't think pandora provides it's own "platform experience". Instead, it provides a dozen platform experiences for other systems.

I'm not sure how this can possibly be a bad thing. This is a device that is, at the very least, partially geared toward emulation. Providing a more realistic "platform experience" for more systems is pretty much the end goal of a device like that. Granted, you may not personally be a huge fan of emulation, but many users are. Emulation has been a large part of development for the GP32 and GP2X, and Pandora is obviously a device that is being designed with emulation in mind. And your complaint is that it is too much like the machines that it is trying to emulate? That doesn't make sense.

When the GP32 came out, one of the 1st things everybody asked was "Can we add a keyboard to it?" When the GP2X was released everybody said "It uses SD cards? Will it work with SDIO WiFi cards? Can we use the USB port to add storage or keyboards or analog controls?"

Now we have a bunch of guys that listened to those requests, and are working on a device that has all the stuff we wished the previous generations had. They added all the bells and whistles that people have been trying to tack on to the outside of the GP32/GP2X for the last 4 years.

So now everybody asks "Does it have to do so much stuff? Why can't you make it simpler?"

Sheesh.

As to the poster's original statement, I don't quite understand how having multiple options for input and control could hurt independent and commercial game developers. How exactly does having more power and more options make the device less desirable to developers? I agree that it is better suited to emulating more classic systems than the GP32/GP2X, but I don't see why emulating prowess and homebrew prowess need to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Orkie]

How exactly does having more power and more options make the device less desirable to developers?

More power == more boring.

 

[Pickle]

How exactly does having more power and more options make the device less desirable to developers?

More power == more boring.

I think your statement is too broad, for example GP2X < Pandora < PC.
So the Pandora is not boring cause its weaker than a full PC, but it is boring because its stronger than a GP2X?
Or maybe Pandora will be boring to a 2D game dev, but not to a 3D dev?
Maybe you need to explain your point more...

 

[quartercast]

But ... and I find this hard to describe ... I don't think pandora provides it's own "platform experience". Instead, it provides a dozen platform experiences for other systems. What I mean is that when targeting a game to the gp2x it felt like you were really making something *for* the gp2x. With pandora, I get a vibe you'll be making something that just "runs" on pandora. The unique "platform user experience" has been dumped in favour of better emulation experience. That's not a complaint. A dedicated emulation device is good idea. I'm just trying to get into the head space of why I so much liked the gp2x (as an independent game developer) v. pandora ...

I really don't understand your gripes about this system. Look at any current commercial gaming platform and its gaming controls will consist of d-pads, joysticks, buttons, touchscreens, trackballs or sensors. These are all standard components which are well suited to gaming or any sorts, and the Pandora has most of those things - in addition to a keyboard, which in itself is unseen as a stock console component these days. In Pandora these components appear to be arranged in a usable manner (although I have personal gripes about this), but you don't seem to have any specific problems with layout.

What would you envisage as a unique "platform experience"? A crystal orb which responds to the body's electric field and temperature? I'm not quite sure what level of abstraction you are working at.

 

[cappuchok]

How exactly does having more power and more options make the device less desirable to developers?

More power == more boring.

I think your statement is too broad, for example GP2X < Pandora < PC.
So the Pandora is not boring cause its weaker than a full PC, but it is boring because its stronger than a GP2X?
Or maybe Pandora will be boring to a 2D game dev, but not to a 3D dev?
Maybe you need to explain your point more...

Just my 2 cents here...
One possible explanation I can think of is that to many developers interested in the GP2X, one of the main points that make the machine interesting is it's very limited resources. It's an interesting challenge to squeeze as much out of such a box as is technically possible, and then some; an approach not unlike that seen in the demo scene (the C64 and Amiga scenes in particular) where the aim is to push your hardware of choice to it's limits in various imaginative and inventive ways. So, to developers with that particular mindset (they are highly prized in the game industry for obvious reasons), the Pandora may seem ridicilously overpowered and therefore fairly uninspiring to work with (since it's less of a challenge because you don't have to pay as much attention to optimising your code properly).

In all fairness, a developer with this mindset that does develop for the Pandora will be able to achieve totally amazing things on the platform.