Did opening up destroy the PC market? No. But opening up another console market probably would destroy it; there's no reason to separate a hypothetical new PC market from the old PC market. So if you have a PC market and a PS4 market, and then you open the PS4, you have a PC market and another PC market, and then you just have the PC market.
Eh.. no, I think this is reductive.
In addition to being closed PCs, consoles are also an OS and collection of services that make playing games easier and make the process of configuring the device easy.
They also often come with unique hardware (3DS, Wii U, Switch, Vita) that offer dedicated features that don't make sense on PCs.
Most importantly, consoles are standardized PCs. It's not that they're closed, it's that if a game says it works on the Switch, and you have a Switch, that's it. That's all you need to know. PCs offer a lot more complication because there are multiple hardware variations and because the OS isn't specially designed to provide a lot of dedicated frameworks and interfaces to make running games and taking advantage of the hardware easy.
I don't think any of those benefits would go away if 3rd-parties were allowed to make compatible games without asking permission.
It would be a lot harder to loss-lead the hardware, sure. And it would maybe have some implications for quality-control if anyone could start selling unplayable games at Walmart. I'm sympathetic to those arguments.
But I think it's reductive to say that the only reason anyone would ever buy a console is because it's a closed market.
Yes, I'm familiar with the economic reasons for the existence of consoles. But look at the parent comment:
>>> I'd happily invest in consoles if I could build it myself with open hardware.
And poof, all the benefits of standardization are gone. This is just an ordinary PC. You put in the parts you want. And developers suddenly have to support every part anyone might want.
> I don't think any of those benefits would go away if 3rd-parties were allowed to make compatible games without asking permission.
As I read inetknght, he's talking about making the hardware open, not letting people sell games for it.
My apologies, I misread inetknght's comment.
Agreed, a user-built console without any standardization is just a PC, maybe with a different OS.
I disagree about unique hardware not making sense on PCs. Can you provide examples? 3DS and Vita are about the size of a raspberry pi and with some added sensors and controllers. The Wii's controller is pretty similar to the HTC Vive's wand which connects to a PC just fine.
> consoles are standardized PCs. It's not that they're closed, it's that if a game says it works on the Switch, and you have a Switch, that's it. That's all you need to know.
PC games often provide minimum/recommended requirements. PC games often compiled for the x86 or x86_64 architecture just the same as most modern consoles use. Rendering APIs, hardware controllers, and sensors are all standardized. What more do you need?
> PCs offer a lot more complication because there are multiple hardware variations and because the OS isn't specially designed to provide a lot of dedicated frameworks and interfaces to make running games and taking advantage of the hardware easy.
No; I absolutely and fully disagree. The OS provides an operating system. Consumer operating systems are specifically designed to provide a lot of dedicated frameworks and interfaces to make running any software and take advantage of any hardware.
Xbox uses x86 based hardware. The same goes for PS4. Modern controllers are well known to be just simply USB or bluetooth, both of which have PC interfaces. The only thing that ties games to a console is the proprietary vendor-locked API.
https://www.hardkernel.com/shop/odroid-go/
The fact is that besides some enthusiasts no one into games for money cares that they exist.
Sure, you could create these things in a PC format, but what I'm getting at is that nobody has. They don't make sense in the current PC market. Selling games that need special non-universal peripherals is really hard. Not impossible (Guitar hero pulled it off), but very difficult.
The HTC Vive is a good example of that. It's about as close to a general peripheral as you can get on the current market (and even it strays irritatingly close to "platform" status). But VR is a wildly niche market. It's nowhere near the market penetration of the 3DS or Wii.
I don't mean that those peripherals can't be built for PC, I mean that we don't have compelling evidence that it makes sense to build them primarily targeting PCs.
> to make running any software and take advantage of any hardware.
You can tune a game way more if you're not targeting 'any' hardware -- it's a lot easier if you're targeting one piece of hardware that works one way.
Take a look at the incredible work that emulators like Citra and Dolphin are doing right now. Reverse engineering the API is only one piece of that puzzle, another big challenge is dealing with the games that are designed to take advantage of hardware quirks and undocumented behaviors.
It's a huge simplification to say that those emulators/games are just based on the API and nothing else. They're often emulating wildly specific behaviors that wouldn't be standardized across multiple implementations of the same API on multiple pieces of hardware. That's why its a such a huge engineering challenge to build an emulator in the first place -- you're constantly balancing accuracy and performance, figuring out when you need to load and emulate specific hardware features.
> Rendering APIs, hardware controllers, and sensors are all standardized. What more do you need?
If you make a game for Switch today, you need to target one aspect ratio at two resolutions, and a very small, finite set of controller layouts. If you tried to release a PC game with those kinds of restrictions, you'd be laughed out of the market.
As someone who's currently working on supporting multiple controllers for a PC game, it's really stinking annoying. Even aftermarket XBox controllers will occasionally just report entirely separate button layouts depending on the OS they're being used with. I can't even just read the hardware codes and base the layout on that, I have controllers that map buttons differently depending on whether I'm in Ubuntu or Manjaro. Libraries like SDL2 help a bit with that, but even then the situation isn't perfect and you often end up making multiple control schemes that degrade gracefully when features are missing.
And from a consumer perspective, minimum requirements for PCs aren't really a scientific thing. People don't know what their GPUs are, they don't have that information in front of them when they go to a store. They buy games as gifts for other people who's PCs they've never seen.
Compare all that to, "does Billy have the Wii U? Cool, then Smash Bros will just work on it."
You could have something like that in the PC space if everybody got together and we had industry-wide standardization on certain requirements or parts for PCs, I can imagine that existing. But it doesn't exist right now, and it's not clear to me that most PC game developers would want that (I wouldn't), and it's not clear to me that current PC-gamers want that (I don't).
It's not a propriety vs Open thing. If someone wants to make a console that has all of its specs completely open and uses off the shelf parts, then fine. Consumers won't care either way. Consumers care about being able to look at exactly one logo on a game disk that indicates the game will play perfectly on every device that shares that logo.
The PC market is not even close to that goal, you're greatly overestimating how standardized even the average Windows install is, and that gets even worse once we start talking about more freedom-friendly OSes like Linux.
And the claim that consoles are just closed down PCs is absurd. Consoles can play AAA games at a fraction of the cost of your average PC. The hardware that goes into building a console is significantly different than a PC.
there was a time when consoles didnt require internet tethering, were media capable, and could be used for common PC tasks.
Still are. I watch nearly all my TV through my PS4.
If consoles were not price subsidized like now, their prices would go up and sales would be affected. Presumably there'd just be fewer people who could afford to buy the latest one. You might see lower or higher specs in consoles since the market would be a little more niche. Xbox might merge fully into Windows 10 and the line between console and gamer PC may disappear.
At the very least, I think we can all agree that the console ecosystem would change. Maybe "destroy" is too strong, but maybe not.
I'm not convinced that the console ecosystem would be destroyed if you forced them all to open up. Quite the contrary: I'd happily invest in consoles if I could build it myself with open hardware.