a curious question about consoles and PC standardization

[lord of the mark]

Ok, so everyone says that if youre getting a PC you want to build it yourself or have it built, so you can get the best parts available, have something you can upgrade easily etc.

OTOH folks say the Console is The Wave of the Future, cause it has, er, standardized parts. Which avoids all the hassles developers have designing for diverse PC's, and assures one of less hassle with games that wont run on your machine, etc.

So help me here. Why doesnt this also argue for going for a more standard PC, IE one from an established manufacturer?

Is it that console makers use better parts, etc than big name PC makers? Is it that PC designers will still be designing for diverse systems, and it wont help that I have a Dell or Emachines PC? Is it that the PC's problems only effect "dumb" users, and that this effects market size, etc, but not my personal experience?

I mean it just seems that the conventional wisdom on WHAT PC to get, and the advantages of consoles, seem in direct conflict.

(For those who are curious, yes Im back in the new PC market again - just bought a new DVD/VCR player, which took priority)

[snoopy369]

Consoles are 'better', from a game-design point of view, because they are *completely* standardized - ie, the game developer knows EXACTLY what the architecture is. That, and the fact that they are designed, physically speaking, from a games point of view, so there are a lot of things to be taken advantage of.

Until and unless PCs become the same - a single video card or at least card design for all PCs, a single motherboard architecture, etc. - they will never have this advantage.

However, PCs have the opposite advantage. While a console has a speed-to-speed advantage (a 3.0ghz 1gb ram console will beat a 3.0ghz 1gb ram PC hands down), a console *can't* be upgradeable - or you lose that advantage of known architecture. A PC on the other hand is built to be upgradeable, and the programs written for it are meant to take advantage of upgrades when possible. Thus, while a PC in 2002 would be whipped by a PS2, a current PC would probably whip a PS2 in a head to head contest, pretty soundly.

The reasons for custom-builds on the PC are that you can optimize each of the variables on your PC. You can get a fast, reliable motherboard, combined with a fast chip, and a fast and reliable RAM type (and brand). OR, you can get cheaper varieties of any of these - it's your choice, based on available money etc. You can *decide* where to cut costs - not the manufacturer's decision.
If you buy a Dell or a Gateway or an HP or whatever, you likely will get a top-line chip, a high quantity but poor quality of RAM, and the cheapest motherboard and video card available.

AND, you can use your brain, and make sure you don't have any conflicts that might mess up games (Of course, sometimes you create these conflicts - but if you built the computer yourself, you know how to fix them as well.)

TBH, at this point, computers are pretty darn good whether homebuilt or bought as is, if you know what to look for. You get a sligthly faster computer homebuilt, probably, unless you're willing to spend $2.5k on an Alienware ... but it's more that you really learn what each part does and where they are. It's a learning experience and a feeling of satisfaction from *making* something, not just buying it.

[snoopy369]

Re: a curious question about consoles and PC standardization

To answer some questions directly:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
OTOH folks say the Console is The Wave of the Future, cause it has, er, standardized parts. Which avoids all the hassles developers have designing for diverse PC's, and assures one of less hassle with games that wont run on your machine, etc.

Honestly, IMO it's mostly that consoles are EASIER to develop for, as you state, that causes developers to (often) praise consoles. I don't think they're the Wave of the Future - just the wave of the Now. The wave of the future is probably a Home CPU that runs everything for your entire home

Is it that console makers use better parts, etc than big name PC makers?

No. They use *standard* parts, but not necessarily better. Although many established PC makers do chince on certain parts...

Is it that PC designers will still be designing for diverse systems, and it wont help that I have a Dell or Emachines PC?

Yes. PC designers must always design for diverse systems.

Is it that the PC's problems only effect "dumb" users, and that this effects market size, etc, but not my personal experience?

I don't think there are 'problems' in the sense of PC being inadequate. Morrowind runs better on even a mid-line PC of today than it does on the X-Box (IMO). Next year, the X360 and the PS3 will probably look better running Oblivion than the top-line PC does ... and three years later, it will be the reverse again. But I don't think it's 'dumb' user problems, as most gamers talking about the difference are talking about their personal rigs. However, consoles certainly are easier to use for a, let's call them 'novice', user, and that is some of their attraction (especially for children). I'd never let my (future) kids near a PS2 until they have learned a PC and a Mac and probably Linux; but then i'm weird.

I mean it just seems that the conventional wisdom on WHAT PC to get, and the advantages of consoles, seem in direct conflict.

Just think of them as having 2 seperate goals. The console's goal is complete standardization, which if you go 100% of the way there, you get some benefits; the PCs goal is complete choice, which if you go that way you get some benefits. But there's no benefit to going halfway each direction - you just lose both benefits. (Although it's easier, so that in a way is a benefit too... )

[DrSpike]

Re: a curious question about consoles and PC standardization

Originally posted by lord of the mark
(For those who are curious, yes Im back in the new PC market again - just bought a new DVD/VCR player, which took priority)

Good, dig out everything I said last time so I don't have to retype it.

[Kuciwalker]

But still get the +1 for suggesting it again?

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: a curious question about consoles and PC standardization

Originally posted by snoopy369
To answer some questions directly:


Honestly, IMO it's mostly that consoles are EASIER to develop for, as you state, that causes developers to (often) praise consoles. I don't think they're the Wave of the Future - just the wave of the Now. The wave of the future is probably a Home CPU that runs everything for your entire home

No. They use *standard* parts, but not necessarily better. Although many established PC makers do chince on certain parts...


Yes. PC designers must always design for diverse systems.



I don't think there are 'problems' in the sense of PC being inadequate. Morrowind runs better on even a mid-line PC of today than it does on the X-Box (IMO). Next year, the X360 and the PS3 will probably look better running Oblivion than the top-line PC does ... and three years later, it will be the reverse again. But I don't think it's 'dumb' user problems, as most gamers talking about the difference are talking about their personal rigs. However, consoles certainly are easier to use for a, let's call them 'novice', user, and that is some of their attraction (especially for children). I'd never let my (future) kids near a PS2 until they have learned a PC and a Mac and probably Linux; but then i'm weird.



Just think of them as having 2 seperate goals. The console's goal is complete standardization, which if you go 100% of the way there, you get some benefits; the PCs goal is complete choice, which if you go that way you get some benefits. But there's no benefit to going halfway each direction - you just lose both benefits. (Although it's easier, so that in a way is a benefit too... )

So its essentially a "corner solution" thing? Full standardization, and full customization are good, but partial standardization gives the disadvantages of both, more or less?

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: a curious question about consoles and PC standardization

Originally posted by DrSpike


Good, dig out everything I said last time so I don't have to retype it.

I was hoping much would have changed in the last 6 months, but im afraid it has not. I went to the local build a PC shop again and got their new price lists. I was hoping for some good Moores law driven price declines. While RAM is down alot, and optical drives are down some, very little decline in cost on CPU's. High end AMD chips down alot, but low end AMDs down only a little bit, and Intel chips down not at all.

Isnt there supposed to be a new gen of chips out?

[Carolus Rex]

I don't know anything at all about the technical aspects of the answers to your questions, but from a practical point of view surely there must be huge coordination problems to overcome?

Not only that; I suppose every manufacturer in the computer industry wants to be the provider of the standard within its sector (CPU's, video cards, RAM, hard drives etc)...

Who is to stand down and who is to continue? Which manufacturer would voluntarily give up their knowledge and position to someone else? Hence the need to coordinate efforts and pool resources (at least at the surface), but I suspect there would be a fierce battle to stay in the race and grab the larger part of the pie...

Isn't there two competing standards for high definition TV battling it out right now? Each one supported by different constellations of major japanese, european and american players? Each side trying to convince the public and decisionmakers (politicians) that their standard is the better one...

Carolus

[snoopy369]

Corner solution indeed, LotM(ath)

[child of Thor]

In the old days you had a standardised home computer market(Spectrums/C64's etc/AtariST etc). It was the PC's abiltiy to be upgraded that killed those computers off to a greater extent.

Consoles are only easier to design for from the big developers point of view, you have to purchase all the relevant software/hardware from the console manufacturer to program for it - that rules out the possibilty for many developers.

So in this respect this makes the PC a better platform to develope for in that all you need is the PC itself to get going.

But with all the differing hardware configurations out there it can be diffiecult to balance your software to run well on a majority of PC's.

Also the importance of PC's in helping people to develope their programming skills can not be overstated(just look at the projects/Mods we have here on poly for examples of this).

With a growing console world you are in effect creating a generation of passive computer software consumers, this again only helps the big developers/producers who can afford to buy all the available talent, it wont help the grass roots programmers

In this respect the world of non standardised pc's will continue - people will always want pc's to actualy do stuff on

[DrSpike]

Re: Re: Re: a curious question about consoles and PC standardization

Originally posted by lord of the mark



I was hoping much would have changed in the last 6 months, but im afraid it has not. I went to the local build a PC shop again and got their new price lists. I was hoping for some good Moores law driven price declines. While RAM is down alot, and optical drives are down some, very little decline in cost on CPU's. High end AMD chips down alot, but low end AMDs down only a little bit, and Intel chips down not at all.

Then buy a mid-level one. You do get best bang for your buck that way anyway.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: a curious question about consoles and PC standardization

Originally posted by DrSpike


Then buy a mid-level one. You do get best bang for your buck that way anyway.

a midlevel CPU, you mean? a 2.6ghz P4, say, as opposed to a 2.6 ghz Celeron? I'll have to check the price difference.


or perhaps you mean the AMD's? I think i was unclear - the midlevel AMD chips arent down much either - ONLY the top of the line AMD chips were down significantly - that was what was disappointing. And no, Im not buying a PC with a $500 chip, even if its a bargain compared to its price of $700 6 months ago.

[DrSpike]

You know you want to.

[snoopy369]

AMD, don't look at speed - look at the 2800 number. That's its theoretical equivalent speed of a P4.

A 2200 1.8ghz AMD chip is roughly comparable (according to them) to a 2.2ghz P4.

They're not quite accurate, but indeed they are better than their speed rating, as that's mostly irrelevant.

You can play anything at all, at all, on a 2200 chip. At least I haven't found anything I can't play, including Morrowind and several MMORPGs like FFXI with somewhat big graphics reqs for some parts (well, the cutscenes in FFXI )

2200 Athlon: $80
Motherboard: $60
PC2400+ RAM 1GB: $100 (could go $60 on 512MB, but i rec 1GB)
GeForce card: $60-80 (anything from that range is good enough)
HardDrive 80GB: $60-$80
--
Under $400. Then add in a case, power supply, and other things that you can probably cannibalize, and for under $500 you have a very decent computer. (Heck, you can probably go up to an AMD 2800 for under $500 easy.) (Still need a monitor, but you have one that you're staring at right now, right?)

I made a P4 3.2ghz 800FSB system for $600 about a year or a year and a half ago ... similar setup otherwise. It's really not that expensive, if you stay away from top-of-the-line crud that's just not worth it ...

[DrSpike]