Porting P:E to OUYA?

[Shattered_One]

I don't know if anyone brought this up already but has anyone considered porting P:E to the OUYA console. They don't have to change any of the functionality of the game to be more console/controller friendly as long as the OUYA allows for keyboard and mouse use. As a side note I believe they already announced the Fallout series and possibly other IE games (but I'm not sure on the details anymore).

[80Maxwell08]

Considering how low the Ouya's specs are compared to PCs I'm going to guess it won't happen. It would just be constricting the game.

[Althernai]

Same problem as tablets: it certainly doesn't have the RAM and probably not the CPU/GPU either.

[Karkarov]

It also won't have the user base to be worth the effort. If you are going to do this type of port it needs to be for tablets which is already a pretty sketchy idea, not Ouya.

[evdk]

No.

[Shattered_One]

Ok lol! I agree!

[Frenetic Pony]

I'm pretty sure it will be ported to consoles with millions sold, tablets OS's, internet browsers, and other before it's ported to the Ouya.

 

I know the OUYA's makers sold you on some sort of dream vision of an indie gaming machine. We already have one, it's called the PC and/or smartphones.

[Gibbscape_Torment]

I'd rather see it ported to a tablet.

[Nomine Vacans]

Hell with OUYA, go for ZX Spectrum or... Atari 2600!

[AwesomeOcelot]

I suggested this in another thread. The problem is that the OUYA has 8GB of capacity, but hopefully there will be a solution to that when we know more details about it. It really depends on the fidelity they decide on, because obviously the OUYA is not going to be able to handle the 3D and animation that a PC can, but since this game is 2.5D, it's not going to be that intensive. I'm pretty sure I heard some comments from Obsidian that they don't want to the game to require that much PC power. They're probably already going to be supporting 720p for PC, they're already supporting Linux, Unity supports Android. If they have scalable graphics that mean an Intel HD Graphics 4000 would play it at 1080p, then it's not much of a stretch for a OUYA to play it at 720p. They'd just need to port the 3D assets and animations to something the Tegra 3 can handle, which if you've seen the demo graphics is quite impressive.

 

If they do it for Project Eternity, and the OUYA is a success, then having the capacity to make squad based RPGs driven by mouse+kb on a platform that's only $100, and is only going to get cheaper, is an exciting proposition. This is not what I got a OUYA for, when I got it I was thinking about 2D platformers, which I play a lot, but having a generation of isometric/oblique RPGs would be incredible for me.

 

Hell with OUYA, go for ZX Spectrum or... Atari 2600!

 

I still have a working ZX Spectrum, retro demake Project Eternity!

Edited November 2, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[Elerond]

Problem with PE and consoles is usually minimalistic graphic memory in consoles. As large (15360x8640 from 6x6 screen map [used in IE games] where one screen is 2560x1440) 2d background consume lot of graphic memory. And when you add enviromental animations and 3d characters and objects consoles just run out of graphic memory. So to get game to run on consoles backgrouds and background animations must be renered on smaller size (which means lose of details) or game must use partial loading technics that cause map to flow unsmoothly or slowly and this can also cause need to change how pathfinding and etc. things work.

 

PE will not probably cause high load to cpu or gpu, so prosessing power will not, probably, be a problem.

 

Then there is of course problem of point and click and paint and select interface solutions, as they are not perfect for console controller, but are optimal for mouse. And of course keyboard will over lot of shortcut keys, when console interface much be developed so that skill/spell/talent/menu/map/journal/window/inventario/etc. selection are fast to do with few clicks from the controller.

 

So for optimal gaming experience, consoles and pc need separate interfaces.

 

And then there is of course testing which console version would add considerably

 

Then there is of course that fact that PE will need quite much harddrive space, so it will not fit in OUYA's 8 GB, and it will be too big for Xbox live or PSN. And physical distribution for consoles is expensive and difficult for indie studio to do in first place.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Problem with PE and consoles is usually minimalistic graphic memory in consoles. As large (15360x8640 from 6x6 screen map [used in IE games] where one screen is 2560x1440) 2d background consume lot of graphic memory. And when you add enviromental animations and 3d characters and objects consoles just run out of graphic memory. So to get game to run on consoles backgrouds and background animations must be renered on smaller size (which means lose of details) or game must use partial loading technics that cause map to flow unsmoothly or slowly and this can also cause need to change how pathfinding and etc. things work.

 

OUYA has twice the RAM of the PS3 and the Xbox 360. Project Eternity will support lower resolutions than 2560x1440 on the PC, probably as low as 1280x720. 3D textures and water will lose detail compared to a PC version. Games like Project Eternity don't require as much memory as FPS games, Infinity Engine games didn't consume a lot of graphic memory, the backgrounds themselves wouldn't consume a lot of graphic memory.

 

Then there is of course problem of point and click and paint and select interface solutions, as they are not perfect for console controller, but are optimal for mouse. And of course keyboard will over lot of shortcut keys, when console interface much be developed so that skill/spell/talent/menu/map/journal/window/inventario/etc. selection are fast to do with few clicks from the controller.

 

So for optimal gaming experience, consoles and pc need separate interfaces.

 

OUYA supports keyboard and mouse.

[mstark]

Seeing as PE will be compatible with Linux, it'll only be a question of time before some fan ports it to the Android platform. I doubt the PE team will spend any resources doing so, and I wouldn't like them to. It's something that can, and likely will, be done by the fanbase.

 

The OUYA is basically a cheap, low voltage, computer with a HDMI port, running the Android OS (which is based on the Linux kernel).

 

You can install Ubuntu on most android devices, though most of them don't run it very well due to the OS not being well optimized for mobile hardware. There's little hindering a PE port to Android, as long as the device has the hardware to run it.

Edited November 2, 2012 by mstark

[JayDGee]

With big picture mode in steam, why use Ouya?

[AwesomeOcelot]

Seeing as PE will be compatible with Linux, it'll only be a question of time before some fan ports it to the Android platform. I doubt the PE team will spend any resources doing so, and I wouldn't like them to. It's something that can, and likely will, be done by the fanbase.

 

It's not something that can and likely will be done by the fan base. PE is being developed for the x86 platform, OUYA is ARM based. The Tegra 3 GPU has a limited feature set, if PE uses OpenGL extensions that the OUYA doesn't support they'll have to be replaced. The OUYA has 1GB of shared memory, a PC version of PE will probably require at least 2GB. The only way this is getting ported is if they release the source, or they do it themselves.

 

With big picture mode in steam, why use Ouya?

 

They're two entirely different set ups for me, different rooms. My desktop case is steel, four of the components cost more than the OUYA, it's heavy and has 8 leads going into it. The OUYA is cheap, low power, and small.

[mstark]

May be wrong about this, but I think that by supporting the Linux kernel (which runs on both ARM and x86 architecture) it will be possible. They wouldn't be able to port the PC version, but there should be no problem what so ever porting the Linux version to an ARM device.

 

If the device can then run the game will be a whole different issue

Edited November 2, 2012 by mstark

[AwesomeOcelot]

May be wrong about this, but I think that by supporting the Linux kernel (which runs on both ARM and x86 architecture) it will be possible. They wouldn't be able to port the PC version, but there should be no problem what so ever porting the Linux version to an ARM device.

 

If the device then can run the game will be a whole different issue

 

You are wrong about this. Windows has versions that support ARM (WinCE, WinRT), so does OSX. You can't take the Linux kernel, compiled for x86, or a x86 version of Ubuntu, and run it on an ARM based device. They're different architectures with different instructions, you'd need to compile the game for ARM, but there's a variety of differences between the Tegra 3 hardware and a typical PC that would need to be accounted for in the software.

Edited November 2, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[mstark]

Windows for x86 uses a different kernel than WinRT/CE (It also switched kernels from 9x to NT with the release of Win 2000). Linux, in all its forms, uses one (monolithic) kernel, everywhere. OSX and iOS also use different kernels, as far as I'm aware. Chromium OS, Android, MAEMO, Linux (and all its distros) use the same kernel, for all devices. The Linux kernel.

 

I don't pretend to know all the technical details, maybe the kernel doesn't make any difference. I thought simply compiling the game for the Linux kernel should make it possible to port any architecture supported by the kernel?

[AwesomeOcelot]

Windows for x86 uses a different kernel than WinRT/CE (It also switched kernels from 9x to NT with the release of Win 2000). Linux, in all its forms, uses one (monolithic) kernel, everywhere. OSX and iOS also use different kernels, as far as I'm aware. Chromium OS, Android, MAEMO, Linux (and all its distros) use the same kernel, for all devices. The Linux kernel.

 

I don't pretend to know all the technical details, maybe the kernel doesn't make any difference. I thought simply compiling the game for the Linux kernel should make it possible to port any architecture supported by the kernel?

 

Using different kernels doesn't matter to this, you don't compile the game for the kernel, you compile it for the processor. You can compile software for Windows Server 2008 (Windows NT 6.0 like Windows Vista), but for AMD64, x86, or IA-64. Obviously you have to develop software with the features of each kernel in mind, like the differences in OpenGL extensions.

 

Does Windows RT use a different kernel than Windows 8? I don't think so, that's not what's been reported.

 

A good example of how this works are virtual machines like the Java VM, they exist because you can't run the same code on different architectures without compiling them to the different architectures.

Edited November 3, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[mstark]

Alright.

 

Concerning the Win 8/RT kernel, I'd guess Linus Torvalds would know, but he doesn't really give much information on his statement:

 

Minute 40:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA

 

I remember reading something else about it around the time of this talk, but I can't find the source. I don't think Microsoft has announced outright that the editions use the same kernel, just that they are unifying their platform, but some tech blogs do say its using the same kernel. I may be misunderstanding Linus' statement.

Edited November 3, 2012 by mstark

[mstark]

When you say you compile the game for the processor; the kernel is the lowest level of software that will be communicating directly with the hardware. AFAIK, any OS/software can only communicate with hardware by going through the kernel, thus making the kernel capabilities the limiting factor (in addition to the capabilities of the hardware of the machine)?

 

I'm not arguing this would make it possible to port a game from x86 to ARM without having the source, just asking.

 

 

I suppose you'd actually have to compile the kernel for ARM and x86 respectively, even if it's the "same" kernel.

Edited November 3, 2012 by mstark

[AwesomeOcelot]

When you say you compile the game for the processor; the kernel is the lowest level of software that will be communicating directly with the hardware. AFAIK, any OS/software can only communicate with hardware by going through the kernel, thus making the kernel capabilities the limiting factor (in addition to the capabilities of the hardware of the machine)?

 

I'm not arguing this would make it possible to port a game from x86 to ARM without having the source, just asking.

 

You compile software into instructions for the processor, you need an operating system (OS) to give those instructions meaningful context to be able to do anything, but the instructions themselves are sent to the processor as you compiled them whichever OS you use. So you can make a program using just pure x86 instructions, on the same computer running both Linux and Windows, the OS won't execute them without you interfacing with the kernel, but after that those instructions are sent to the processor in each case. ARM and x86 use different instructions, you can't throw x86 instructions at an ARM processor, also there's features that aren't present in both. Even though they're very closely related, AMD64 (x86-64) compiled programs will not run on x86 processors, that's why you get different compiles of Windows and Linux for each of these, AMD64 is backwards compatible with x86.