GAMING: Which is better, Console (Nintendo, Playstation, Xbox) or Personal Computer (PC)?
Image from Steam's official website
If you are a gamer, you are probably well aware of the ongoing joke of comparing video game consoles (Nintendo, Playstation, Xbox) to PC gaming. We all know that it comes down to preference where we should be more concerned about enjoying these video games instead of trying to determine which is better, console or PC. In many instances, you are either going to lean one way over the other.
One of the reasons that skews our preference on whether we play video games on a particular device is because the activity of playing video games takes up a good amount of our leisure time, the same way that movies, music, sports, books, etc also do. Video games and these other mediums for leisure often have an ecosystem that combines them together so that people can enjoy them even more.
A great example of a brand that keeps people within an ecosystem is Nintendo's Pokemon, introduced in Japan February 27, 1996 on the GameBoy1. Pokemon quickly expanded beyond the handheld device to cartoons, playing cards, toys, and across Nintendo devices. One of the long standing successful releases by Nintendo, not released on one of their licensed devices is "Pokemon Go", developed by Niantic, exclusively available on mobile that continues to be played by all ages alike. I point to Pokemon, particularly, as an example of how Nintendo maintains loyalty for their brands and more specifically on their device(s) like the Nintendo Switch, having only a handful of video games being released on mobile. If someone wants to have the full experience that Nintendo provides, you more than likely have to, literally, buy into their ecosystem by having one of their devices.
This blog post is not a criticism on Nintendo. I love Nintendo. Going over the reasons why Nintendo has a closed ecosystem is outside the scope of this post. While having a better understanding of those reasons could still better illustrate describing this topic, having awareness of the closed ecosystem is the main point, considering that a closed ecosystem is not exclusive to Nintendo. Sony does it with Playstation as well. You can probably rattle off, in your mind, several companies of products and services with the same philosophy.
Today, the only "console" I have is a Steam Deck that functions more as a handheld portable PC than a standalone console. The other game machines I have are PCs, with no actual consoles. Why?
The simple answers are flexibility and choice. Flexibility and choice are being referred to in a more general context where consoles can't provide them at the same capacity that PC gaming can on many different levels. For example, on PC, I'll buy a game on Steam, I decide that I want to upgrade to a new PC then I can quickly migrate that game on the new hardware; for a console, you often have to "re-buy" that game to experience it on the new console. Another example, is getting exposure to other games that otherwise are not available on the consoles. Below are more pros and cons of console vs PC:
CONSOLES
Good
- The games typically ship to console first (or only to PC) before PC.
- The experience is more polished and "complete". Curated games before ever being published.
Bad:
- Vendor lock in when purchasing games.
- Can't carry over to a different device.
- Need to rebuy games already purchased.
PC
Good
- Explore larger variety of games.
- Tons of flexibility and options.
- Experience revived old games.
- Multi-usage of device.
- Used/old hardware are sufficient to play many titles.
Bad
- Possibly more troubleshooting.
- There are too many options!
- Costly upfront purchase to acquire a PC.
- With Linux, may need more technical skills.
- Compatibility issues can be experienced because of the variety of devices.
- Performance or bug issues out of the box.
I mentioned Steam several times earlier. They are one of the most successful game companies in the world for all the right reasons, despite failing at early attempts to launch their own "consoles". They author some of the best games, "Half-Life" series, "Counter Strike", "Portal", "Left 4 Dead", and "DOTA" to name a few2. Steam Valve is also the de facto standard for playing games on PC. Their ecosystem is deep and unrivaled, known for being a platform for gamers (Gabe Newell the President/CEO is also a gamer). Along with the Steam Deck, they're first successful console release, they are set to release the Steam Machine and Steam Frame later this year.
What sets Steam apart from it's competitors?
In simple terms, Steam Valve as a company has provided an insurmountable amount of goodwill in the gaming community and more often than not is well perceived by the community they serve. Steam Valve continues to fund and participate in the development of projects (often available as free and open source) that improve compatibility of games originally developed for Windows only (x86 architecture) to be playable on Linux and different architectures. This makes sense because the Steam devices' operating system, "Steam OS", is a modified version of Arch Linux3. Notable projects that they are a part of are Proton (a compatibility layer to run Windows applications on Linux) and FEX (compatability layer to run x86 architecture on ARM).
To further emphasize Steam Valve's community goodwill, as part of their marketing strategy, they emphasize when you buy one of their devices, it's yours, you own it, contrary and disregards to how most of the tech industry approaches purchases of software and hardware, that the "product is licensed to you" rather than you owning what you bought. What might seem strange, they also encourage users to install competing services to their own. By their admission, because it is your device, you can do what you want with it.
This post is not a direct endorsement of Steam Valve, or I am trying to portray them as a benevolent company, however they demonstrate that flexibility and choice that expose the cracks of the walled gardens of closed ecosystems. Large companies put a great amount of effort to protect IP typically at the expense of the consumers they serve. This "open" ecosystem that Steam Valve provides can be interpreted by consumers and companies alike, as being foreign or nonconventional. Steam Valve lowered their walls instead of fortifying them and as a result greatly benefited and amassed a loyal community of developers and gamers alike.
In retrospect, the very boogie man that many large companies try avoid by creating walled gardens, often results in the opposite affect they intended. Rightfully so, one of the biggest the reasons for the walled gardens is to prevent piracy of IPs, where in many instances this is unavoidable. In an interview, Gabe Newell expressed that, "piracy is a result of bad service..." and also described that piracy helped Steam's games expand in Russian speaking countries because the gamers were better at localization by translating content to their native language and at the same time distributed the games to others. The strange outcome, Steam Valve was able to expand and sell into these markets with little to no resources or marketing to speak of.
I am not trying to promote piracy. I don't have any particular preference of what devices people choose for gaming. Instead, I offer reasons to further support the argument that PC beats consoles for gaming in the context of flexibility and choice. The gap in this regard is wide, incomparable, even. Flexibility and Choice put enormous amount of trust between the company and the customers they serve. The feedback loop between company and customer goes in both directions, in many regards, parties involved respect the conditions laid out. Steam Valve continues to prove the open ecosystem of having Flexibility and Choice pays dividends, especially if it further supports the community it serves.
Steam Valve is aware that their model invites competition when they are not building walls or digging a moat. The gaming community perceives many actions that Steam Valve takes often favors the consumer, situations that are often at the expense of Steam Valve, thus attracting more customers to their platform organically. You don't have to use Steam's platform to play games; heck, you don't even have to use Steam's devices either! To that extent, people still choose to use Steam's platform despite having the flexibility to avoid it all together.
What device are you on to play your games?
Comments
Post a Comment