Today I will feature a discussion that I happened upon on the internet. Developers were having a heated exchange about an age-old argument that most often causes bloodshed between gamers. For the sake of constructive intellectual exchange, I will curb my PC bias and look at this objectively. Note also, Console v PC. I will make fun of Mac gamers. That is comedy that writes itself.
Gamers often get into heated debates over which is better: PC or Console gaming. Console gamers often cite titles and communities as the strongest factors favoring console gaming, while PC gamers will fill your screen with chart after chart displaying the raw power of a PC compared against consoles, or grab screenshots to illustrate the visual differences between the graphics. While each side certainly has a compelling argument, which really is better and , more importantly, where is it leading us? This exchange focused more on the evolution of the various facets of the industry, rather than an argument over which is better. Joining the Crotchety Old Gamer in the discussion, we have three fine gentlemen: Joe Yeats (@ProceduralJOYE via Twitter), a developer from the UK currently working with Autelia LTD on Human Orbit, a procedurally-generated simulator about shaping a computer-controlled utopia. Max Krieger (@MaxKriegerVG via Twitter), an Indie Game Developer from Chicago and student at DePaul University. Drake (@DMODP via Twitter), a programmer, designer and writer. I came late into the discussion, but some very intriguing points were made. Feel free to join the discussion in the Crotchety Gamers United Steam group!
Lightly paraphrased, Max said that the time-proven model of Mac vs PC illustrates why Console and PC gaming will coexist. While Drake and myself were somewhat confused by the statement, Max was happy to provide a more detailed explanation on his viewpoint:
“[…] In this age where computing platforms are all headed in the same direction, the differentiating factor that will be key to platform sales remains the image and curated experience of that platform. I used Mac OSX as an example because it shows how illogical this thinking can be – OSX is really cumbersome for a lot of simple tasks, doesn’t play nice with industry standards, and only runs on a very closed line of hardware, but people lap it up because of the image it supports: a creative, media-oriented one that strives for intuitive use over flexibility. Make no mistake, I am not an Apple/OSX fan, but they’re one of the biggest proven examples of the curated platform image in the modern tech industry.”
Max does make a good point. Essentially, he is saying that the biggest difference between the PC and console crowds is the image they use to represent themselves. With the development of the Steam Machine, this viewpoint was never better supported. Steam started as a PC gamer’s wet dream, but recent implementations in the retailer (such as Big Picture mode) reveal a strong push toward console gaming. Not to mention, the fact that the Steam Machine plans to license its construction out to third parties, which will create a variety of hardware builds, make it a bit of a frankenstein PC-esque Console. With companies bridging the gap between the two worlds, one has to wonder when the differences will be declared null and void. Drake had a similar thought process, but with a different approach.
Drake also did me the favor of elucidating his view:
“The reason people often side with one or the other and not both is […] because they’re polar opposites. They have their own unique control schemes. Consoles and computers are polar opposites not [just] because of their difference in controls, but in their difference of experience. First, [PC gamers] don’t have to move to a different part of the [house] to experience games. They’re right there on the same machine we use for work, surfing the web, social media, etc. Second, [PC gamers] can open windows […] for reference material […] but this is also good from a social standpoint. [PC gamers] can take screenshots and post them [on the internet], we can respond to [people] on our favorite social network, etc.”
So, as you can see, Drake has a solid point, too. Despite consoles, such as PS4, recently enabling access to other forms of media and direct internet streaming capability with the touch of a button, there are still a myriad of things that PC’s can do that still remain unavailable to Console gamers on just their consoles. Drake continued, elaborating on the features of the console camp:
“I feel consoles are the extremist response-time choice. […] For response-time challenges, the question is: Who can execute the highest number of actions in the shortest amount of time? It provides a completely different experience from computers.”
My personal experience with computers, however is totally different. The mouse offers pinpoint accuracy while playing a game. How can you get more direct than pointing at it with your mouse? The answer is getting a touchscreen and pointing yourself. Of course, Drake had his own response to this:
“[…] A controller’s reaction time is far more demanding. It’s more than clicking a billion times a second. It’s about hitting the right buttons at the right times and getting your fingers everywhere they need to be without looking down at [the device]. Console games often assume the player’s really good at this activity to the point they make [players] do everything all the time. [Console gameing] is about just doing.”
Of course, I would offer that this depends on the player. I grew up on PC gaming first, so the ‘WASD’ model is practically gospel for me. Sure, different games have different controls, some even have demanding hotkeys, but use of them is up to you. You can customize the experience to your own play-style, and the majority of games tend to use the keys immediately adjacent to the ‘WASD’ keys for additional actions where applicable. Not to mention, the sticks on a controller can’t be as accurate as a mouse. A mouse is literally point-and-click. Controller sticks are more indirect.
Joe’s thoughts on this topic were a bit of a combination:
“It’s obvious that some genres are better aided by certain input hardware than others. This is certainly the case with simulators and strategy games, which usually do better with a keyboard and mouse. I don’t think it’s necessary to expound on this.”
Max largely agreed with Drake’s assertion of their differences, but had his own interpretation of how this affects gaming. The tech he refers to is more the innards and less the interface devices:
Max got more specific in explaining this part of his thought process:
“The Playstation 4’s success also may owe itself to [platform image], but it’s too early to tell. Sony has always given the PlayStation brand a mild sense of curation by endorsing or even producing avant-garde titles on the platform, moreso than any other console maker in history. Going forward, this curation may end up being the PS4’s largest difference when PC hardware overtakes it again at an equivalent price point.”
Around here, Joe had some relevant input on the topic:
“The technical boundaries between a console and a desktop machine have become increasingly blurry over the years – but we’re all still pretty sure what they each are and when we make a decision about how we want to play a game, we know how to compare the ‘desktop experience’ to the ‘console experience’. We all know that we can hook our PC up to the TV and use a bluetooth controller for a ‘console-like’ experience: but most of us aren’t going to do that. The reputation and image of the formats has been accrued over a generational time period – we couldn’t shake that easily and there may not even be a good reason to do so (even if all games were available on all platforms). When I play a game on a console, I know that it has been tailored for the specific controller that I’m using, for the hardware that it’s running on. I can expect a reliable game experience without having to faff around. The experience has been designed for me down to the slightest detail. I don’t even have to tweak the graphics settings. I just need to switch on, plug in & tune out.”
The conversation gradually drifted in the direction of mobile gaming. Drake disagreed that mobile gaming had a different target demographic and said that it targets everyone, presumably everyone with a mobile device. Of course, just in the virtue that targeting “everyone with a mobile phone” is a task achieved differently than targeting “everyone with a specific console”, it logically follows that it is a different target demographic. In fact, because of the similar situation of iOS v Android, console and pc gamers might find themselves on either side of the mobile discussion depending on their devices. In this way mobile almost has a market that is totally separate from, but still noticeably influence by the gaming market comprised by PC and Console gamers.
Of course, Drake also touched on a separate issue that abounds in the mobile gaming market: the quality of games:
Now, before someone starts cluttering the comments sections with cries of Angry Birds adoration, Drake is referring to the fact that simple, casual games, like Angry Birds, currently dominate the mobile market. And while he is right in that great mobile games are hard to find, they are far from non-existent. The greatest example of a mobile-specific game that uses its functionality is Ingress. Read about that game here. And Ingress isn’t the only one, but, to my knowledge, it is the first. Windows phones will be able to play QONQR, a game that wants to be Ingress, and X-Tactics, a game that is just like “Fuck Ingress! And now for something completely different!” Of course, location-based games are certainly not the only angle mobile gaming could take. The fact that progressive-thinking developers have tried, and failed, to make augmented reality games more accessible overall shows that we are still a long way from making it work effectively, even with Google Glass. So, Drake definitely has a point with mobile games being “designed to waste time while you [wait] or short experiences.”
Of course Max breaks back in and asks for a thought experiment:
“[…] If all consoles disappeared overnight, could mobile [gaming] fill their place? Yeah. But they’d have to cater to both convenience and involvement – two contradictory ideas that dilute platform image.”
This is true, but if gaming were to be forced onto mobile devices, I find it believable to find games evolving to replace what was lost – FPSs utilizing the mobile device in question combined with the player’s surroundings, RPGs that focus more on tap-controlled characters, etc. In short, mobile games wouldn’t stop being the simple, casual games, but these types of games would be joined by an overwhelming number of widely varied games and genres.
There was more discussion about Mac OS vs Windows, of course. This piece of the discourse was meant to display how the image-focus model has affected other markets aside from gaming. Max posited that Mac OS continues to sell primarily because it does “normal user” better than Windows. He continued saying that Windows tried to retake that ground by creating Windows 8. This undermined the “pro” part of Windows, which upset their users. Then, when Windows repaired the alterations to their OS, the image of a “jack-of-all-trades” OS persisted. Max maintained his standpoint, saying “image is everything.”
Max’s final thoughts on the discussion were pretty broad, but still relevant.
“Ultimately, I believe that the current trend of consuming media in any environment is one that will plateau once our near-omniscient media viewing capabilities lose their novelty. It’s an undeniable phenomenon that certain forms of media are better consumed in certain environments and settings. The biggest obstacle to a unified platform for all gaming is not the tech, nor the interface, but human nature itself – not something that can be so easily overcome. Nobody expected the PS4 to be doing as well as it’s doing right now, and I think that alone is proof enough that human nature has a lot more twists left in the evolution of gaming tech than we expect right now.”
Drake came from another angle, though, saying that games are a form of media. And if there is one thing that is true now more than ever, it’s that people want their media no matter where they are.
Joe broke into the conversation here, pointing out the relevance of the feature of PS4 where it can be played remotely from the Vita. Drake admitted that he hadn’t tried it, but named a relevant issue with that right off: not every PS4 owner has a PS Vita. Drake also suggested that the Vita isn’t the best handheld to carry around with you. Joe threw in some more thoughts of his own regarding the PS Vita.
Drake added saying that it really needs to be a native experience that still feels extremely great. But to do something like that, you’d have to take the ‘app’ structure and generalize the controls, then change the controls so they cater to every device the game might appear on. He had a lot to say about this especially, and there was also a considerable piece of discussion about porting. That will be included in another piece since this one is long enough already.
If you’ve made it to this point, please remember, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this topic! Come join the discussion on my Steam Group, and let’s see if we can get some interesting exchanges started!