The Console and PC: Separated at Birth?
by Richard Rouse III

Each time a new generation of console gaming systems is launched the death of the PC gaming market is predicted. Since the vast majority of the people in the industry have a long term memory of only a few years, the PC market each time temporarily succumbs to the hype of the Ataris, Nintendos, Segas, Sonys, and, most recently, Microsofts of the world. This new console system, the hype machine proclaims, will be the one no PC can hope to compete against, either technologically or in terms of the games that are produced for it. In the end, though, the PC market survives and evolves, maintaining its position as a separate and unique form of interactive gaming. It may be consistently less popular and profitable than consoles, but PC gaming always manages to persist. But for the latest onslaught of next generation console launches, things may be different. The new consoles have come at a time when the development costs for PC titles has ballooned out of all rational proportion, with two to three million dollars widely considered the budget required to create the content for a game which can compete, at least in terms of graphical quality, in the marketplace. Just recently PC publishers and developers have come to the realization that there is no way to recoup a three million dollar development budget (not to mention a sizable marketing budget on top of that) if PC games are considered hits when they sell only one hundred thousand copies. For years the myth has persisted that, if your PC game was a big hit, it would certainly sell a million copies. The cold fact is that, in a calendar year, relatively few games sell that many. In the year 2000 in the US, only two titles sold more than a million copies: The Sims and Roller Coaster Tycoon. Both are worthy and deserving games, but the fact remains that many other great games didn't sell close to that many units. Indeed, only 15 games sold more than three hundred thousand copies. Admittedly, this does not take into account international sales, which can easily double domestic sales. Nonetheless, without sales numbers significantly higher than that and with development budgets as high as they are, there is little likelihood of a publisher or developer making any sort of a profit. Popular console games, on the other hand, frequently sell more than a million copies, with even multi-million unit sellers not out of the ordinary. And so the allure of the console market becomes strong indeed, and many a PC developer have recently come to the same decision: switch over to console development. "Console development, PC development, how different is it really?" they ask. But here is where the mistake is made: console games are an entirely different beast from their PC brethren. This is not merely because PC developers haven't had the chance to develop console games and make them more like PC titles. No, it seems much more likely that the fundamentally different nature of console gaming has formed a type of game that seems similar yet is really quite different from the type of games found on a PC. Input, Output, and Ease-of-Use The most commonly cited differences between console and PC gaming are in the equipment used, with advantages and disadvantages being present on both sides. Most obvious are the controls: the primary control devices for PC games are the keyboard and mouse, while all console systems come with relatively similar game-pads. The keyboard contains far more buttons than the game-pad and gives the user the ability to type in full commands if necessary, such as for an online multi-player game with chat functionality. The mouse is a precision analog input device, and compliments the entirely digital keyboard well. Game-pads, on the other hand, have a relatively small number of digital buttons and use imprecise analog control sticks. This means that analog control is never as pleasant in a console game as it is on the PC. Furthermore, the mouse's standard "point and click" functionality is not easily replicated using a game-pad, which prevents strategy games, quite popular on the PC, from being successful when converted to console systems. Furthermore, the limited number of buttons on a console controller forces the designer to limit what the player can get the game to do. A console can never provide the immediate response of pressing one of 160 keys on a keyboard, meaning console games can never have immediate access to as much functionality as PC games can. On the other hand, the game-pads have many advantages over the keyboard and mouse combination. The very complexity that PC controls allow can be a detriment, as games become too complex to learn, forcing the player to remember a barrage of keys. There are great advantages to designing an elegant and simple control scheme for a game, and console games force designers to do this by limiting the number of buttons they have to work with. Of course the console game-pads are devices specifically developed for gaming, meaning their layout lends itself better to game-style manipulations, unlike the keyboard and mouse combination which, though powerful when mastered, are significantly less intuitive as gaming input devices. Finally, using a keyboard and mouse requires the user to be sitting in front of a flat surface on which they can be placed (a table or desk), while a game-pad allows the user to lie on the floor, recline on the couch, or even hang upside down. This effects the way the player can play the game, and in turn influences his mood while playing. I'll discuss how this placement of the gaming system effects the way games are played in a bit. On the flip side of the input/output equation, PC and console games also use radically different visual output devices. The difference between a computer monitor and a TV may seem slight to someone who only uses them casually, but for anyone experienced with computer graphics the discrepancy between the two is enormous. For example, a TV is incapable of displaying a truly sharp image, even when compared with the cheapest monitor, as anyone who has tried to read a small font on a TV screen can attest. These discrepancies directly effect the types of games that tend to look good when viewed on a TV screen, in part leading to the proliferation of brightly colored, simple cartoon worlds found in console games such as Super Mario 64, Spyro the Dragon, and Sonic the Hedgehog. A moodily lit, detailed, "grim and gritty" world such as is found in the PC games Deus Ex, Thief, or Myth: The Fallen Lords is simply not going to read as well on the TV screen. As a result these sorts of games seldom find success on console systems. Furthermore, the color, aspect ratio, and even viewing space differ radically from one TV to the next. Anyone trying to present an image on a TV has no idea of where the actual edge of that image is going to be, since the drift of that edge from one TV set to the next is enormous. So creating a distinct frame to any image is out of the question. I could go on about the differences between TVs and monitors, but the points I make will be readily apparent to anyone who carefully examines the differences in the image quality they provide. Of course, perhaps gamers won't mind downgrading from monitors to televisions, since the viewing public as a whole seems to not mind the image quality loss between 35mm film projection and the images produced by a TV tube, as evidenced by the success of "home theaters" and video rental as alternatives to film going. To a film buff, the difference is so great that it barely seems worth the time to watch a movie on TV. Certainly, one gets a sense of the plot, dialog, and mise-en-sc�ne, but any notion of how the director used light and shadow, color, sharpness of image, or framing is all but destroyed when a film is shown on a television. I recently watched DVDs of Dead Man and Manhattan, works whose steely black and white cinematography was completely destroyed on the television. The viewing experience served only to recall much more pleasant theatrical viewings of the films in the past. The public's embracing of the television as the primary purveyor of visual media in the United States indicates that perhaps PC gamers may not mind switching over to console systems, since the image quality loss between a monitor and a TV is much less than that between 35mm and the same. But with a TV tube as the only display option, a game artist's ability to generate exactly the visual effect he is looking for is made all the more difficult if not outright impossible. Another significant difference between console and PC gaming is the nature of the hardware they provide to the developer. A console system remains commercially viable for a span of at least four years, meaning that a developer can learn how to develop for a system and then reuse and refine a game engine for the next few years. A PC developer, on the other hand, is constantly faced with shifting technology targets, where each year or even half a year new hardware becomes available which allows for more impressive graphics. The prevailing wisdom is that these snazzier graphics must be delivered if the PC game is going to compete in the marketplace. Since a given console system is the same as all the other systems of its type that are manufactured, the console programmer is also at an advantage and can code "straight to the metal" for a console game, resulting in highly optimized game code. A PC programmer cannot know exactly what video, sound, or even screen resolution the user has, often leading to compatibility nightmares. Console systems are also much easier to operate for the user: pop in a CD or cartridge and the game plays. PC games require installation and then are frequently unstable and sometimes hard to get working at all. The nature of the console as a dedicated game system gives it a distinct advantage both in development as well simplifying the user's experience. Though Windows has come a long way toward simplifying the technical and installation aspects of the PC gaming experience, it still cannot match the ease-of-use that consoles systems provide. Social and Spatial Thus far I have discussed some of the core differences between console and PC systems, the differences that game developers are most aware of and consider when they think about making the switch from developing for one type of system to the other. And rightly so, as these are some fairly significant differences. Yet beyond the input/output systems and the nature of the hardware used, there are other distinctions that have a profound effect on the way players use the gaming systems and expect the games on them to behave. These are considerations that developers are far less aware of and tend to overlook, yet which end up dictating the form games must take if they are going to enjoyed by the majority of players. Central to this difference is how PC and console systems are used in the home. PC games are, of course, played on PCs, systems which have usually been purchased primarily for work or a "serious" application of some kind, whether this means doing taxes, writing school papers, or for a home office. Whatever the motivation, the computer is typically set up in homes at a desk with a straight-backed chair in front of it, which allows for a viewing distance from the screen of a foot or two. The placement of the computer is customarily in a quiet environment where work is possible and a single user is accustomed to spending a block of time alone with the PC. This is the same environment that games are played on the PC. On the other hand, a console system is typically hooked up to an already-used appliance in the home: the television. Of course a TV is usually placed in an entirely different location than a PC, typically the living room or den. Here people are accustomed to watching television as a group, making movie renting or prime-time TV viewing a social experience. The TV is set up with comfy chairs or sofas around it, usually at a distance of six feet or more from the screen. An average TV is a bit larger than the average computer monitor, yet the size of the image the user watches relative to his viewing location is actually smaller than it is for a computer. And, of course, the TV's placement in the home is in a space where people come to relax and socialize. So what do these differences in TV versus PC mean about the games people will play on them? One of the most marked differences is the types of multi-player games each system provides. Modern multi-player gaming on a PC means networked games, with people playing death-match games such as Quake or massively multi-player games like Ultima Online against people in other parts of the world who are also sitting alone with their computers. Multi-player games on the console is an entirely different affair, typically meaning friends in the same room playing on a single console with multiple controllers, battling against each other in a fighting game like Soul Calibur, a racing game such as Mario Kart 64, or a sports game such as Madden. The experience of playing a multi-player game is entirely different on the two systems, and necessitates that the design of the games be similarly unique. For example, any sort of "blind" play (where one player doesn't know what the other is doing) is effectively impossible on a console, while the social interaction possible from playing against people who are also physically present is impossible on a PC. All of the console manufacturers are talking about the future possibilities for players to play networked multi-player games, PC style, on consoles, but thus far the Sega Dreamcast is the only system to actually deliver on that promise. But the Sega gaming network has not exactly been a monstrous success, however, and was not enough to save the console from being prematurely discontinued by Sega. But the differences between the way consoles and PC games are played goes beyond multi-player games. People, at least in the United States, are used to an interaction with the television which is punctuated by breaks. People watch TV for a bit, then the commercials come on and they can go get a snack from the kitchen, flip through a magazine, or talk to the other people watching television with them. Beyond even the commercials, many non-dramatic TV shows are broken into still smaller sections, be they a single video on MTV or a single story on the evening news. On the other hand, non-gaming PC use is less sporadic in nature, typically being engaged in for an hour or more. These use patterns seem to also translate over into the types of games played on the systems. The most successful PC games are those that provide the player with a shorter, more compartmentalized gaming experience: a single match in a wrestling game like WWF Warzone, a single race in a snow-boarding game such as SSX, or a single bout in a fighting game like Tekken. Even console action/adventure games, which unlike wrestling and fighting games have similar counterparts in the PC world, tend to present the player with shorter levels loaded with "mini-games" which can be played one at a time. PC games, on the other hand, provide a more continuous, immersive experience such as is found in the first person shooter Half-Life, the adventure game Myst, the strategy game Civilization, the "builder" game SimCity, or the role playing game Baldur's Gate. None of these extremely popular PC games have a popular counterpart in the console world. It seems that console players are more interested in a game they can play for fifteen minutes and then put down, satisfied, while PC gamers are more interested in a truly immersive experience they can truly get lost in for hours at a time. Beyond the image quality issues, any film enthusiast will tell you that the experience of watching a film on a large theater screen towering to the ceiling is entirely different from watching the same film at home, while customarily looking horizontally or even down at a smaller screen. In terms of screen size alone, films which seem wonderfully impressive in the theater will loose their sense of grandeur when reduced so dramatically in size. Similarly, TV shows seen on the big screen are less satisfying because their constant close-ups, poorly composed frames, and brightly lit sets are ill-suited to the larger format. (Indeed, many modern film directors, knowing that commercial success relies as much on video sales as box office receipts, have opted to direct their films in a format which works well on both a large screen and a small one, often meaning it does neither very well.) Similarly, the player's proximity and orientation to the screen has a significant effect on the type of play that can occur on a PC monitor versus a TV. Though the difference is not as enormous as that between a TV and a theater screen, a PC user has a larger space to view relative to his proximity to the monitor, and that screen is usually directly at eye-level. Thus playing a game on a PC is much more likely to be consuming and compelling than playing the same game on a TV screen at a farther distance from the viewer. For one example of how this effects the gameplay possible on the systems, consider the use of in-game text. While many popular PC games have included large chunks of text for the player to read, console games have had less luck with such text, instead focusing on no more than one or two lines, if any at all. This is both because of the image resolution the TV provides, as well as the distance the player is from the screen. Recently, when I was playing the game Oni on my PlayStation 2 (a title which started its development cycle as a PC-only game), I found that I was entirely uninterested in reading the text back-story the game provided since I was sitting far enough away from the screen that reading the text was unpleasant. But if I had been playing the game on my PC, I'm sure I would have wanted to read the text, as I have in many PC games in the past. Thus a gaming experience I would have enjoyed on the PC becomes tedious on the console. Corporate Regulation and Approval One of the least discussed differences between PC and console development is the discrepancy in the costs for someone to develop for one system or the other. On the PC, one needs only a decent-speed PC and a compiler as a bare minimum, something which can easily be had for less than $3000. On the other hand, for console development one must also have a development kit for the console one is interested in developing for, a device provided by the console's manufacturer. One cannot even get a development kit without first having established a relationship with a publisher since console manufacturers are not typically accustomed to handing out development kits straight to developers, except in special circumstances. And those development kits are not cheap, typically starting at $20,000. Publishers typically cover this expense and lend the kits to the developer. Of course that means that if the publisher decides they don't like the way the game is turning out, they can cancel the project and demand their development kits back, effectively killing the developer's ability to keep working on the game. This necessity of development kits for console development reduces the chances of a team of unknowns starting work on a console title. This means that innovative games by garage developers such as id Software's Wolfenstein 3D, Cyan's Myst, or Maxis's SimCity will never appear first on a console, since developers who start out small have no way of developing for the systems in question. Beyond the cost of entry is the fact that console manufacturers keep a watchful eye on what titles are developed for their system. Since the console manufacturers legally retain the right to manufacture the final goods (the cartridge, CD, or DVD and accompanying manuals) for all of the games published for their system, every game has to go through a rigorous approval process at the appropriate manufacturer. Though the console makers typically approve a wide variety of games, the fact that all games must go through a central approval system is still a level of regulation that is entirely absent in PC development. Whereas publishing a PC game can be as simple as developing it and then selling it over the Internet, a console developer not only has to first obtain expensive and rare development kits, they then also must have their game idea and final product approved by the console manufacturer. This may explain why, traditionally, almost all of the most innovative and revolutionary games have appeared first on the PC before they made it to the consoles, if they made it there at all. Different Mediums Historically, the games available for consoles have been a bit more "kid" oriented: think of popular console characters such as Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog, and Link from the Zelda games. These are characters which adults may enjoy, but only in the same way they would enjoy watching a kid's movie or reading children's literature. Games that take themselves a bit more seriously and expect their audiences to have a higher degree of sophistication and maturity have typically been only available for the PC: consider Balance of Power, The Sims, Civilization, and A Mind Forever Voyaging for just a few examples. Not coincidentally, these are also some of the games with the most grounding in reality, with the most ability to show us something about human experience and effect the way we live our own lives. Could these games be released for the console systems? Of course. Would they succeed commercially there? Perhaps the forthcoming PlayStation 2 port of The Sims will show us the answer to that question, but I'm not very optimistic. In his seminal book, Understanding Media, Marshall McLuhan asserted that "...the medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium-that is, of any extension of ourselves-results from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology." McLuhan's argument was that it was not so much the content of the mediums artists used, but the mediums themselves which dictated the resulting effect on the audience. Though, to the casual observer, the mediums of PC games and console games may seem nearly identical, I think the differences I have discussed fundamentally change the way the games effect the people that play them. Readers may think absurd my griping about inferiority of a TV when compared to a monitor both in resolution and proximity to the viewer. Yet I believe that it is these subtle differences that, coupled with the others I have discussed, combine to turn console gaming into a significantly if not fundamentally different medium from PC gaming. Whether a console or a PC, developers would do well to fully consider the nature of the medium for which they choose to develop.