Friday, May 24, 2013

PC vs Console: What Makes them different?


What makes a console? What makes a PC? There is no special chip or hardware that distinguishes the two. Rather they are terms meant to highlight fact that both PC and consoles solve different problems of gaming. Each having a different answer to how we should distribute games and how to make the hardware for playing those games.

Making Hardware for Games
So how do make hardware for games? Well, generally consoles are specialized specifically for gaming needs. Focusing on higher processor speeds and graphics card for the cost. Like being able to choose a processor architecture based on performance rather than having to take in account non-gaming related software. Or creating controls that only focus on gaming tasks, and not having to worry about typing or other tasks. But its more than just good specs, or specs per dollar ratio. Console uses unified hardware to distribute the games. Basically, having one (or very few) hardware device(s) and having all games tailored to that device. This allows for the underlying game programming language to take in account fewer device configurations. Which means games require less testing and run commands faster. Leading to better performance and allows for mass production, leading to lower costs.
While PC devices focus on ambiguous hardware. Allowing for the ability to upgrade hardware. And allows code to run on more devices to hopefully reach a wider audience and allow developers to take advantage of more hardware when developing games. And take advantage of it earlier. Allowing new ideas on how to use hardware for different play models.

How to Distribute Games.
Distribution asks “Who is allowed to develop for that device?” and “What Obstacles are needed to overcome for your game to be published?” Consoles usually focus on a single distribution channel. Allowing for more control over what games get published. There is generally more risk in developing a game for this system. Licensing, and publishing fees eat into the profits, With higher startup costs to ensure you meet a minimum standard of graphical fidelity and Quality control. Creating this standard can discourage new developers or publishers, but it can also entice them. If your game gets published, its easier to find, and potentially has a larger audience than if you tried to a more open distribution channel. And your game may look better as part as curtailed library of games.
While PCs focus on an open distribution models. Allowing anyone to create a distribution model for there game and join a part of one. It could be as simple hosting your own website, or burning CD and selling your game from you home or at gaming events. To something like trying to sell your game to a professional publisher. There are still various obstacles to overcome in the PC market, but there is a variety of different choices you can make when deciding on which distribution channel you pick. You''re able to decide how much restriction on your game quality is acceptable and which system you the think will get you the most coverage and/or gives your game the best chance of succeeding. You may still be limited to what the distributing site wants, but you still have quite a few choices.

When Will the Line Between PC and Console blur until they're indistinguishable?
I'm not sure its really a “when”, more of an “if”. Consoles and PCs have been moving towards each other for quite some time. Console have been becoming more open with there distribution channels. Trying to appeal more to 3rd party developers. While increases in technologies have made the performance advantages of consoles, less and less important. Forming a kind of hybrid, where Consoles are taking more roles traditionally associated with PC, and vice a versa. But before they become one, we have to answer which method is better.
For instance, its a little difficult talking about the advantages and disadvantages of open distribution, when I have a bias for open distribution. I would gladly go through hundreds crappy games, to find that one game that I would of not have found in a closed distribution channel. On the other hand, I'm sure there are people who would give up one higher quality game, for a higher average quality of games in a system; or not having to find a game under a certain threshold of quality. In order for consoles and PC to merge, we have to pick which way is the right way. But what if there is no right way to find games? If there a reason to appeal to both people types of people, in separate ways, maybe they should remain separate. Or can we find a way to combine the advantages of both without adding more problems or disadvantages?

Will the lines blur?
Consoles and PCs have problems that could be solved without radical changes. For instance, Consoles have opened up to Indie developers more, by allowing digital distribution and smaller fees for smaller studios. However, smaller Indie developers (like teams of less than 10) might be attracted to a profit sharing model with no upfront cost. Console maker could offer both models to attract both smaller and bigger teams. If they really are committed to the idea of attracting Indie developers, console makers could create a really solid IDE and release it for free or perhaps for a small increase in profit share. It is a big upfront cost for the console maker who does it, but attracting new games and IP might be worth the cost.
On the PC Side, We have seen a very fractured distribution system. However, steam has unified this process significantly. Maybe just having one large repository of games, like consoles do, doesn't exclude smaller distribution. Perhaps what we need is one unified interface, that allowed user to add and delete gaming repositories. Similar to what Linux does for its packaging system. Now, you have one applications that can install, search, and buy games. And if you thought the search results were to board, you could remove repositories as need be. Customizing the amount of curtailment you want.
While there has always been a variety of APIs for cheap or low cost on the PC side. I have noticed the idea of a programming language that can build native applications off of one code base, spring up. I'm fond of Haxe/NME due to its free and open nature. However, unity is a very similar system. Perhaps this will create a system where code base is irrelevant to the desired platform. Or, at least only relevant in terms of controls and display output. Of course, I thought the code once ideals of Java would be the language of the future, and that really never panned out. And there are certainly lots of competing ideals of how to program a game. HTML5 might be the next big thing in gaming. Maybe OpenGL will get good enough to solve performance and other issues to make cross OS programming as viable as native coding.
Also, The Steam box and ouya might question the benefits of closed hardware with their ability to allow hardware modifications. Perhaps having a default configuration will allow for the benefits of unified hardware while providing support to hardware moders. Or perhaps its openness will invite the same problems that PCs face. It depends on how large of a percentage of people will actually modify the default hardware configuration. And if these consoles will provide the benefits of upgrading without becoming overwhelming for developers to test.

Apple, Android, and more
How do android and apple tablets and phones fit in the mix? Are they PC or consoles? Well, They're both and neither. PC and Consoles Roles can be thought of more as a scale than absolute terms. Apple iOS leans more towards a console. It has a limited amount devices, not one unified device, like a traditional Console, but they are all very similar devices. The distribution is very limited, with only one method to distribute apps (that being the app store). Although, it is more open than traditional console system. As there is a publicly available description on how to distribute your apps, and allows anyone to join for a fee. It could be consider low cost compared to other, only $100/per year. (Plus the cost of a mac computer, of course). While the android has a more diverse set of devices, but still fairly limited compared to a traditional PC. And a much more open distribution system. It not only allows you to publish through your its Google play. A very similar system the app store, but with less obstacles (i.e. 20 one time registration fee). But you can distribute apps through existing methods. Such as allowing people to download files from a website or transferring files from your computer or an SD card to the device.
I bring this up because it's important to remember that that while both PCs and Consoles have there advantages, there no need for a system to commit fully to either one side or the other. You could choose a system that is in between both ambiguous hardware and one device. Between a limited distribution system, to a completely open one. Or even a moderate system for the ambiguity of hardware, but a completely closed distribution system, or completely open, etc. There are lots of ways to look at how you distribute games and how you make hardware for game. You shouldn't think of it as just PC, Console, and in just between.

Why does this matter?
Whenever the PC vs Console debate comes up, there is always people who argue, thats it an unimportant. That games should be enjoyed no matter what system there played from. But I feel like that argument misses the importance on how games are made. (And also the economic limits of most gamers). I think a better understanding of the system of distribution and hardware making, leads to better systems of games. And you achieve that understanding, by finding and discussing each systems flaws and advantages. In a civil manner of course, but how to argue is discussion for a different time.

No comments:

Post a Comment