

Why Do Dedicated Game Consoles Exist? - FigBug
http://prog21.dadgum.com/181.html

======
ChuckMcM
I was once contracted to be an expert witness in a case involving the
definition of an "appliance" versus a "computer."

The bulk of the argument was than an appliance was designed (and often
constrained) to doing the 'thing' it was designed to do, and a computer was
designed to embrace doing many different things.

As the author points out, a game console is a computer which has sacrificed
generality in order to achieve a cost advantage in the market where it
competes. As the cost of generality goes down, the comparative advantage
slowly evaporates.

An example of how this plays out is with robotics. You can consider your
dishwasher to be a robot, it reacts to conditions (dishes, no dishes) it has
various schemes for cleaning them, and that is pretty much what it does. A
clothes washer is another robot of the genus 'washer' but works only on
clothes. A general purpose robot could, in theory wash clothes, or dishes, and
pretty much anything else if you programmed it to do so. So where do you draw
the line between robot and appliance?

I posited the line was based on the relative cost/complexity advantage of one
over another. When a computer was targeted to a particular task, and could do
that task at a significant market cost advantage over the general purpose
implementation, it went from being a 'computer' to being an 'appliance'.

Game consoles are appliances that play games, which is not to say that iPhones
don't play games, but if you _only_ want to play games then a console has a
cost advantage over a phone.

------
georgemcbay
As to why a system like the 2DS or 3DS or Vita is compelling when we all have
iPhones or Android devices, for me it comes down to the control systems.

Touchscreens are fine for a narrow band of game types, but I wouldn't want to
play the latest Mario platformer or Little Big Planet or 3D FPS with one. For
lots of games I'll take the physical d-pad and/or analog sticks and physical
buttons any day.

And while you technically can get such controllers to sync with touch-centric
devices, it isn't quite the same if you have to carry around a separate
controller. Even more importantly, it isn't the same if the controller type is
not completely standardized so that games for the platform can expect it.
External controllers are a fine solution for emulation on phones and tablets,
but not for core games on the actual native platform.

~~~
macspoofing
>it isn't quite the same if you have to carry around a separate controller...

As opposed to carrying around a separate game console?

------
NoPiece
Speaking to the portable gaming space, I'd also add that a big part of games
is the controls. Phones don't have a d-pad and buttons (or analog sticks,
etc..). That pretty much makes games like Super Mario Brothers impossible. You
can have your simplified endless runners, and that will probably satisfy most
people. But for serious gamers, you need more precise control than a non
dedicated console can provide.

~~~
ekianjo
Check The Open Pandora Pocket Gaming Handheld. It has physical controls and IS
portable. Way better than a phone for Gaming, and it comes with a full Linux
distribution for more serious applications.

~~~
sliverstorm
Still a dedicated gaming handheld.

~~~
ekianjo
Not sure what you mean here. It runs a linux distro so you can use it as a
computer (more like as a netbook replacement) and not just a "gaming only"
console. Plus, being open, you can create and port your own applications on it
using standard languages.

~~~
sliverstorm
What I mean is you're plugging how it's open and uses standard languages in a
thread titled "Why do dedicated game consoles exist?". That stuff is
irrelevant.

------
LarryMade2
Because a lot of people aren’t technoweenies like us.

The reson why consoles sell is because largely they "just work" Hook it to the
TV pop in a disc and you are rivalling the arcade. No dealing with popups,
driver incompatibility, installations, etc.

Why are consoles are popular for developers? Because if they write some super
spiffy game for console X it will run on ALL of them since they all have the
same hardware - no-brainer to buy, not too hard to support, etc.

Where if they write something for a PC you have to cross your fingers everyone
knows what sort of system they have (even Aunt Edna buying little Tommy's Duke
Nukem Forever game), that their system is relatively virus free, they have the
proper controllers, a decent monitor, understand what it means when they need
to update a driver, etc. etc.

As far as quality, a lot of folks, don't really care. As long as the game is
reasonably fun and they can take it out of the box and have it playing in
under a minute. Heck I appreciate the resolution of DVDs, but frankly I don't
give a darn about blu-ray, the ability to see Leonardo DeCaprio's nose hairs
doesn't make really make the movie all that more enjoyable to me. Only thing
that sometimes compels me about blue ray may be some exclusive feature... But
again, like consoles, most blue-ray stuff is also on DVD primarily because all
the DVD and Blu-Ray folk can use it and there is better potential sales.

------
chrischen
Here's my guess: 1) It's easier to say here pay $300 and you'll be able to
play graphically intensive games vs here pay $200, install this video card
into your computer, update your PC and drivers, etc.

2) Much harder to pirate console games. <\-- probably the main reason.

------
derefr
A good reply to such articles: [http://www.lostgarden.com/2005/09/nintendos-
genre-innovation...](http://www.lostgarden.com/2005/09/nintendos-genre-
innovation-strategy.html)

> As a side note, folks who argue Nintendo should just make games for other
> platforms are completely missing the point. Nintendo needs to control their
> hardware platform in order to force innovation to occur in the control
> mechanisms. Other console manufacturers who rely on the hardcore audiences
> and standardized genres don’t see this need. They would happily standardize
> the console platform and make it into a commodity. Microsoft has
> historically made major comments about having one universal development
> platform.

> The moment Nintendo loses control over their hardware, they lose a major
> competitive advantage in terms of creating new genres.

~~~
untog
I feel like PCs are a sliding scale. You have to keep updating them to play
the latest games. Wheras consoles are a known - you pay once, and it's good
for what, 5 years?

~~~
ekianjo
That's less and less true for PCs. I had to update my PC every year or so
before to keep up with the latest games, but nowadays it's clearly a slower
moving target, and even with a 2 years old PC (equipped with a good graphics
card at the time) I play most games in full/medium details in Full HD.

~~~
sliverstorm
This seems to be kind of artificially introduced by consoles. The current
generation of consoles stuck around forever, and they so dominate the gaming
market that games were basically anchored to that rough level of computing
ability for years.

~~~
ekianjo
Yeah, totally agree. But this is also because the PC has lost a lot of
exclusive games which were usually pushing the specs higher and higher.
Nowadays most games are made for consoles and ported later (or at the same
time) for PC. The PC is not a target platform anymore, except for a few
genres.

------
aaron695
Because people are still buying them.

Once they do, they have to buy your product and it's harder to pirate, so
publishers win.

Why do people buy them

A. People get a quick high when they buy objects, this is big part of
capitalism.

B. They are only game machines. When you use a console there's no emails
coming through to stress you out, your body relaxes in game state. (Why ebooks
readers if they are smart won't add features, books are meant to be stress
free)

C. 80-20 rule. The little bit of extra work on a PC can be a deal breaker,
even if it's cheaper and better.

~~~
trekky1700
Also, they're considerably cheaper than a gaming PC. I can get an Xbox 360 for
$250. I'd need at least twice that for a modest PC. While the PC would be more
powerful, the optimization allowed when having every user on the same machine
with the exact same specs on a closed platform makes a big difference too as
far as performance goes.

~~~
hayksaakian
You could probably buy a hardware equivalent PC for $250, or even less.

~~~
wvenable
$250 PCs (I own one) suck for games.

~~~
nitrogen
$250 _gaming_ PCs are possible, if self-built.

~~~
hetid
Really? LogicalIncrements says that kind of money only gets you Intel HD 4000
power with no peripherals. How is that in any way a gaming PC?

~~~
nitrogen
Skimp on CPU, buy AMD and budget mobo, go to eBay for GPU.

~~~
rodgerd
At which point your PC costs $250 only if your time is worthless.

~~~
nitrogen
If you need a $250 PC, your time probably _is_ worth less. If you're buying
$60 console games instead of $5-$30 PC games, I hope you're saving a _lot_ of
highly valuable time.

Why would you want to waste your time with a retail PC anyway, loaded down
with time-wasting adware and free trials?

------
city41
I've found it interesting that arcade games have gone in the opposite
direction. Most modern arcade games are released on the Taito Type X, Sega
Lindbergh and other similar platforms. These are basically just PCs with Intel
processors, Nvidia or ATI graphics cards, and Windows or Linux.

A good example is Street Fighter. Street Fighter 3 was release for the CPS3
[0], a completely proprietary platform that ultimately only had 6 games
released for it. Street Fighter 4 was on the Taito Type X2 [1], which is
pretty much a PC.

[0]
[http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=799](http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=799)

[1]
[http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=903](http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=903)

------
mistercow
This ignores another big part of the equation historically (I don't know if it
applies today, and AFAIK it never applied to Nintendo) which is using a clever
business model. Many consoles have been sold at a significant loss at launch.
An equivalently powerful PC would have cost much more, and did, in fact, cost
the manufacturer more than they were selling it for. The cost would then be
recaptured in game royalties.

------
overshard
It's simple, they're cheaper and easier to use.

------
JL2010
Besides the cost advantage due to the economies of scale, specialized gaming
consoles offer something that both developers and gamers want: a consistent
experience due to a common hardware platform.

The QA effort that goes into PC games vs a Console games is a considerable
difference. The myriad of hardware configurations (amount of RAM, GPU types
and its capabilities, processor speed, etc) make for complicated debugging and
graphics quality compromises to capture the mean population of computer
performance capability. Contrast this to console development, developers can
guarantee the performance of their game and optimize accordingly because they
only have to account for one hardware and OS configuration (or 2, if they are
going for multi-console release). Likewise, gamers can be confident that they
won't run into performance or compatibility issues.

Due to the specialization and simplification of these computer systems, gamers
also get to enjoy the sheer convenience of gaming consoles. They boot quickly,
jump strait into your game and are fairly no-nonsense.

At a low enough price point relative to general purpose PC's or smart phones,
they are still the best experience for enthusiast-level gamers.

------
alwaysinshade
> Is the custom hardware so fundamentally critical to the experience that you
> couldn't provide it otherwise?

You could spin the question around and ask why do point & shoot cameras
(analog: consoles) or SLR's (analog: PC's) exist when you're always carrying a
camera in your pocket? The answer is level of control, depth of experience and
quality. Such hardware will be used by enthusiasts, whereas those who just
want something to snap selfies, dinners out etc will stick with whatever is
most convenient.

I can play games on my phone anywhere I go but they lack the richness and
intensity of playing a multiplayer FPS or RTS game on a stable wired
connection and dedicated controller.

A way around this was mentioned in the article - tactile displays. A display
or bezel that can raise parts of its topography into customizable shapes that
react to touch. This will largely solve the input issue. It might even make it
better than the fixed human-machine interface like a controller because it
provides freedom for the developer (or user) to craft the input mechanism to
perfectly suit the game/app.

------
shurcooL
Probably because the iPhone lacks tactile input buttons/joysticks.

Isn't iOS 7 supposed to add some sort of support for bluetooth gamepads? Will
that help out?

~~~
yareally
Android has had support for bluetooth game controllers for years and has yet
to get widely adopted by end users. I think there's even been some companies
that have tried specializing in controllers for Android.

~~~
shurcooL
To be fair, developing for an iPhone is a lot closer to developing for the
3DS, because there tends to be one per year. Android devices vary, even if not
by much, it's not the same. Especially when it comes to demanding games.

So while Android wins out on bluetooth support, it loses on the standardized
console platform aspect.

------
Kaali
Tactile controls are something that most phones are missing. But there seems
to be a problem of culture. The games developed for mobile phones are targeted
at mainstream casual markets. And there is also a culture of free beer with
mobile gamers. When the client won't pay a proper price for the game, it is
too much of a risk to create a large game. Which is why developers target
simple casual games, and tries to nickel and dime with some targeted
psychological tricks.

I enjoy more complex game, even with mobile platforms such as Nintendo 3DS. My
most played games are Fire Emblem Awakening, Etrian Odyssey IV, Devil Survior
Overclocked and Monster Hunter 3 U. The first three games would not even
require tactile controls; but I don't think any mobile gamer in the current
culture would buy them for 30 to 40 dollars.

With dedicated game consoles the culture of actually paying for a good large
game is still alive and well. And I think that is the reason why developers
make games for them. If the day comes when free-to-play casual games are the
only mobile games available, it will be a sad day for me.

------
qq66
The reason I prefer console games is the control. I prefer a controller where
my hands are upwards, like a Playstation, instead of a keyboard and mouse.
There are peripheral controllers for PC, but since games are built with the
expectation of just a keyboard and mouse, they don't make maximum advantage of
the peripheral control (except flight yokes and steering wheels).

~~~
ineedtosleep
> There are peripheral controllers for PC, but since games are built with the
> expectation of just a keyboard and mouse [...]

These days, that's simply just not true. Sure there are a good amount of games
that are just kb/m, but the many of the newer games support the have full 360
controller support (or PS3 controller if you want to fiddle around with some
settings).

~~~
rodgerd
Indeed. My living room XBMC/Steam PC has a Logitech wireless controller, and
Steam highlights controller support as a feature in the game pages these days.
It's pretty common, especially given so many games are cross-platform.

------
dsugarman
The quality of games are significantly lower on mobile than dedicated
consoles, a lot has to do with hardware, a lot has to do with strategy. A PC
was a lot closer to the ps2 than an iPhone is to the ps4. Casual games may be
the hot new thing, but you should be able to see the difference when you
compare the production value to a Naughty Dog title.

~~~
TwoBit
There are very few mobile games that I want to play, and lots of console games
I want to play. Most mobile games are small and simple. And I think the $1-$4
cost of most apps has killed much of the market for serious apps. Apple's 30%
cut is far too much for apps over $20 and further drives developers away.

------
pmarin
Lukas Mathis has a series of articles about Nintendo that I think is worth to
read:

[http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2013/08/29/nintendo/](http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2013/08/29/nintendo/)

[http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2013/09/03/more_nintendo/](http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2013/09/03/more_nintendo/)

[http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2013/09/05/lateral_thinking_wi...](http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2013/09/05/lateral_thinking_with_withered_technology/)

[http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2013/09/07/where_do_people_use...](http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2013/09/07/where_do_people_use_portable_gaming_systems_/)

------
Justsignedup
Nintendo DS vs iPhone comparison:

Nintendo DS can be a gift to a 6 year old. I am not giving a phone with open
data and calling capability and store to a 6 year old.

Also a NDS costs $200 while the iPhone is $450 for cheapest model without a
phone contract (was more until recent anouncement).

A PS3 cost 400 at launch. And still plays new games till this day. SURE they
are not as good quality but they work well. Meanwhile you keep having to
upgrade your PC, and since I assemble my own, I can make a $600 / $700 pc,
most people end up spending 1.5k+ for that.

So cost is still a huge factor.

------
iamshs
Set design spec sheet allows developers to target their games more
appropriately. Engines like Unity come in, drive more innovation. Low price
point compared to a PC, and no additional hassle of making sure drivers are
compatible etc.

------
kenneth_reitz
Phones can take pictures. Why do cameras exist?

Because a phone is a shitty camera.

------
wmf
If the controls are the thing, maybe Nintendo should make a controller that
docks to an iPhone and have exclusive games that require their controller.

------
InclinedPlane
The same reason modern smartphones do. PCs (whether windows, Mac, or linux)
are horrid from a usability perspective. It boggles my mind how regular people
manage to put up with the shit that it takes to use a computer effectively.
But I know that the answer is that they don't, and the result is that they are
exposed to a vastly degraded experience of using a computer compared to an
expert who can easily troubleshoot and solve the vast majority of problems
that they run into day to day.

Gaming consoles (and DVRs, and every other device which is basically just a
computer) are simplified systems which remove a lot of the hassle of using
them. Even a PS3 or a Wii-U (which are excruciating to update) is orders of
magnitude easier to use than a general purpose computer.

------
uvTwitch
Because games that aren't shit require buttons.

