Just a bit :)

http://blog.ericlamb.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/center_gravata r.jpg

I don't see anything one way or another about a license fee on their site, but you can download the preview SDK (which has no license attached anywhere I can see).

It works by running a bindable service, I don't see how you'd charge a fee for using that (except developer keys and always-online requirements for DRM, which, I really hope no one is seriously considering that).

Joe,

Either they charge a licensing fee, or only allow games that are sold on their store to work with the controller.

They have to make money somehow.

"They have to make money somehow."

Uh, how about by selling the controllers and adapters?

I realize a simple exchange of some cash for a thing is not the cool new F2P decentralized whale-driven pay-what-you-want crowd-sourced IAP ad-based monetization model, but surprisingly enough, it works.

The problem with a licensing fee would be that somebody just makes a bluetooth controller and TV adapter without one and undercuts you. Really there's no shortage of cell phone->tv adapters or controller standards.

Too hard to keep locked down imo.

double post woopsies.

If they simply planned to make money off the hardware, they wouldn't be spending the money developing the green throttle arena app. It's clearly an app store. Just look at their website.

Taking a cut on games is how the console market works. It's the only way they'll be able to afford the marketing expenses necessary to get the widespread adoption of a standard.

@Ian: I really don't think that's what the app is. It seems much more geared at promoting games that support their platform than selling the games and providing a good interface for TV use rather than touch use.

Considering their website doesn't even hint at their app distributing anything (including their own games), I really doubt they are trying to push their own app store.

@Michael

Like TegraZone then.

I think they realize that you won't be able to hold your phone in your hand while it's being used as a console.

If you really need to answer the call that minute, and you don't want to use speakerphone, you simply unplug it from the tv. Not a big deal dude.

Bigger than you think. The people invented the remote control, so we wouldn't have to get up. The people invented the mobile phone so we wouldn't have to walk to a phone.

Any bit of inconvenience built into a platform based on convenience is, you know, inconvenient. A deal breaker for some. And is increasingly a backward step in a wireless world. Now if you could plug it in to ANY wall socket, as you annoyingly still have to to charge, and somehow it used power line networking to connect to your TV with low latency, THEN you might be onto something seamless and magical.

I'm sort of hoping the future phones work a little bit differently.

Instead of buying an expensive phone with a large touchscreen and phone capabilities, why not take an idea like the Ouya or Raspberry Pi, and allow a sort of pluggable touchscreen/3G (though with a better form factor so it ends up looking like a phone).

That way I can take my little mobile device, and have it hooked up to a small touchscreen for mobility, large touchscreen to watch movies on the bus/car, tv to play games/watch tv. I can use NFC to transfer between little devices regardless of what it's used for, and I can turn just about any tv or monitor I can find into a singular, super-portable device.

And if I want to upgrade I can make it run faster or have a larger screen separately.
This idea feels backward since a huge portion of the price of the smartphone(Touch Sensors, Screens, 3G Antennas, Accelerometer, Microphone, etc...) are going to sit there in an unusable state to play games on your tv with the design they propose.

As-is, the system the propose seems like a sort of Frankenstein of parts and electronic components to make a single workable unit.

Also,
"Instead, it's using the phones and tablets that players already own, allowing players to play the same game on their television and on the go."
This says to me that they aren't particular familiar with mobile game design. I've yet to see a game with solid touch controls that translate properly to a game pad or vice versa (Virtual thumbsticks are an awful design substitute for a controller that have 0 feedback, and obscure the screen).

That's a rather good point, very neat. I wonder if it would work for phones, though I suppose an ultra thin touchscreen bluetoothed or something to an ultra slim mini pc thing still in your pocket would work.

A big change in business model though, there's a sort of trajectory going on, integrated screen/computers make a lot of money. Maybe someone will be brave enough to try it at least.

I totally agree Tom. It seems so silly to repurchase things like the 3g connection every time you buy a phone.

Tom, have you chacked out the Asus Padphone... somewhat similar to your concept in that a phone can be turned into a tablet or "laptop" with conparatively cheaper hardware extensions. Still not thenost elegant solution, but we may be getting there.

And why would I drive a honda civic when I can just drive a lamborghini gallardo? Why am I eating this mac & cheese when I could be eating lobster?

I get your point first point, but about the second, who decided "phone games dont translate well to the giant screen"?
Mobile game development is a broad broad industry, and to my eye plenty of developers target exactly the type of experiences that more "serious gamers" ask for on their more traditional gaming devices...and despite some inspired efforts, many of those games would still work better if they had physical controls.

I dont know if Green Throttle can solve this riddle, but their idea is something that can be great for a lot of mobile games (especially ifey can tap the iOS market)