120°

5 Reasons why Android TV could be the future of gaming

Google's Android TV, coupled with a gaming controller and optimized games will take the mobile gaming world by storm, as it will be the future of gaming, ushering in a new era of home entertainment.

HoldenZA3641d ago

Interesting take on Android gaming. I think people are a bit too restricted to the idea of change. If its good enough I will have no problem moving to android gaming.

Sillicur3641d ago

Hopefully it will be amazing. Android is such a great, open platform to work off that it could open up a lot of opportunities!

PeaSFor3641d ago

1 Reasons why Android TV wont be the future of gaming:

its "Android gaming", nuff said.

NextLevel3641d ago

Android will be the future of gaming. Just make the gameplay good.

Blues Cowboy3641d ago (Edited 3641d ago )

Interesting. See, I love Android as a mobile/tablet OS (at least, not for work, hopefully Knox will make it more secure), but as a gaming ecosystem it's utterly shocking. Too much piracy -- or perceived piracy -- and too many devices/OS versions to optimise efficiently. Android gaming is months if not years behind where it should be.

Great for F2P, though. Piracy is just free client distribution.

However, Google TV addresses most of these concerns while still emphasising the open nature of the OS. What sets this apart from other Android microconsoles is that it can be included in Smart TVs as standard. Great move.

3641d ago Replies(3)
chrissx3641d ago

Android can never be my future of gaming. Unless sony, nintendo and finally ms some how evaporate from existence

JBSleek3640d ago

Not really. Android TV has the potential to simply dominate the living room period. Mobile processors are climbing at such an alarming rate as well. Tegra K1 is simply a monster.

Android commands 80% of the mobile market. Therefor their are many people who are in their ecosystem already who already has games for this.

They will be cheap, powerful, and connected to many future TVs.

I'm not one to bet against Google.

Sillicur3640d ago

Exactly, the Tegra K1 is a beast. I think google will dominate the world, let alone our living rooms soon enough !

Show all comments (18)
90°

Why Epic's Win Against Apple And Google Paves The Way For The Future Of Mobile Gaming

Epic Games winning its cases against both Apple and Google is shaping the way forward for the future of mobile gaming.

shinoff218396d ago

I feel alot of mobile gamers are kids which will at some point probably turn to console or pc. Mobile gaming just doesn't cut it for me.

AlterRecs95d ago

tru dat, but i feel like it's gonna be a lot more viable for people who travel a lot or don't want to invest in a full gaming rig. Think of it as a Switch on drugs, with a LOT more room for free illegal downloads.

170°

Why The Sony And Google Lawsuits Are A Win For Gamers

from eXputer "These multi-billion-dollar cases mean more savings for both devs and consumers. Public reactions to these lawsuits have been mixed, with some in favor/against the points being made"

mastershredder172d ago

They lost one, won one, and are about to go do sony. Yeah, Yeah, so where is the win part for gamers? This is about industry dividend regulation and enforcement, and has nothing to do with gamers (Studios will take a larger cut before you get a discount). The win and gratitude should be diplayed by the creators/publishers; way, WAY before the cosumers or a game jurno. Good Grief. Most of this is correct, but who it is really aimed at is misleading in its inclusivity as some kind of shoe-in for future savings/discounts for gamers.

Petebloodyonion172d ago (Edited 172d ago )

The argument is pretty easy for why it's a win for the consumer
More competition often equals reduced prices for consumers which is not the case here since Sony established the price point for the whole industry due to the price parity clause.

Here's an easy example of what could happen if it went through.
MS wants to acquire more market share and decided to reduce the 30% cut to 20% for publishers willing to reduce their price by 5%.
Sony would have to follow suit
or feel that their consumers would be okay with paying more for a Playstation product (like often the case for Nintendo).

Right now this scenario can't work because the publisher would have to offer the same price on Playstation despite them still paying 30% due to the price parity clause So there's no pressure for MS to reduce their 30% cut.

mkis007172d ago

Now you're just arguing for the biggest corporations model. Not everyone can afford to follow that model. Some rely on game sales not subs.

Petebloodyonion172d ago

@Mkis007
I fail to see what my comment has to do with sales versus subscriptions.

In my example, MS reduces their 30% cut (the same one Sony charges) to 20% because they want ppl to buy Xbox instead of publisher.
MS gives the 10% reduction to publishers who will reduce their Xbox price by 5% (so consumers pay less and publishers still make 5% more profit on a sale.

Eonjay172d ago

We already know from real life that Activision had a deal with MS to reduce their 30% platform fee to 20% for Call of Duty. That did not result in lower prices for Xbox gamers. It only mean a wider profit margin for Activision. In addition, it did not result in Sony having to follow suit and lower its platforming fees. Activision still wins because paying 10% more to triple your sales is a win. Here, the actual end users (gamers) are not made better or worse just because companies are negotiating platforming fees. In fact the only way for competition to reach the consumer is for Activision to offer its game cheaper on the platform it pays less for... which it obviously doesn't (you know because its actually the PUBLISHER who sets the price). Ubisoft already cut the price of Avatar. Games are constantly on sale on PSN without being on sale on Xbox and vice versa.

There are some potential arguments to make but you don't make any of them and you conflate corporate welfare with consumer advocacy. In a real world example, it turns out Sony does not have the power to force Microsoft to charge a higher platforming fee. You made it up. Or you were lied to and you didn't do your own research. You have a real concern over competition but misrepresented it in your example and made us all worse off.

mkis007172d ago

Xbox would be more likely to cannibalize sales for subscriptions. Especially if it would get rid of the competition who does not have the ability to play with fire.

Petebloodyonion172d ago

@eonjay
Of course Activision would not reduce the price on Xbox due to price parity clause.
Meaning that if Activision would reduce the price on Xbox ( because it’s cheaper to produce) they would have an obligation to match the price on PlayStation ( despite costing more).
https://www.ign.com/article...

Sephiroushin172d ago

a win for consumers 🤣 … you lost me at reduced prices but read a bit more and the cut fee to publisher doesn't benefit consumers on anything at all dont kid yourself!

tagzskie172d ago

@peterbloodyonion
What i fail to see is how can MS console exclusive have the same price as sony exclusive? If you say MS reduces the cut at least do it in their console exclusive first so we can actually see that they actually do it, not wishful thinking because of parity. More competition is good? yeah i agree but not all because MS is the one who indroduced pay to play online and the others follow it. As long i dont see any price reduce in games i dont see any benefit in consumers period..

zaanan171d ago

@pete
I read that IGN article you linked, and nowhere does it mention “price parity,” console cut, or anything of the sort. Just a clause in the Sony contract not to make the RE Village game worse on PS. Stop making shit up.

JackBNimble171d ago

Reduced prices ... lol ... that's so naive.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 171d ago
AlterRecs172d ago

The case is against monopolies.

When you have a monopoly, companies can charge as much as they want knowing they have no competition.

If you are able to buy PlayStation games from places other than the PS Store, then Sony will lower their prices to make people continue to buy games from their store.

It's not rocket science