As the thread title says, in this thread I'll try to present an argument as to how and why open platforms are better for the hobby of gaming, the medium of games and individual gamers. There are multiple factors contributing to this, and I'll try to cover each in some detail.
Preservation
For any serious medium (and fans of that medium) preservation of classic experiences is an important issue. Think about the collective loss for all of us if any books or musical compositions older than 40 years were no longer available, or only readable or available to listen to with lots of effort and highly specialized equipment.
Games are unique in that they are interactive, which makes their preservation significantly harder than anything that can simply be recorded and played back. To experience an old game on a proprietary platform, you need a working instance of that hardware platform, its accessories, and the game, as well as all the other devices (such as displays) from roughly the same time period so as to be compatible. Already today, the most convenient and viable way of playing old classics is via software emulation, usually on open platforms. However, modern hardware-assisted DRM schemes, highly complex hardware/software architectures and slow down in the progress of sequential CPU performance may make emulation an almost impossible task for current and future platforms.
Conversely, games on open platforms are usually compatible with a wide variety of hardware, and over long periods of time. Even if a point is reached where no directly compatible hardware is in circulation anymore, emulation is usually greatly simplified by documentation and a lack of hardware-level DRM schemes.
Creativity
On an open platform, software and hardware experimentation can proceed freely, unbound by the sluggish pace of change in a giant corporation. Since the barrier of entry in software is minimal, new concepts can be tried and iterated on quickly. Similarly, all kinds of new hardware can be designed and integrated by third parties.
I feel like this is a point which could be highly contested, so I'd like to look at recent history. These days gaming has matured to some extent, and new genres are born more rarely. If we look at the last two entirely new genres to be introduced, I'd say they are MOBAs (that DotA genre) and MMORPGs (I know they have "RPG" in their name, but they are really a distinct genre). Both of these were born on PC, and the most recent one (MOBAs) has arisen out of a freely distributed community mod.
However, I would extend "creativity" here to not only pertain to the type of software produced, but also how it is made. The most significant recent advances in the funding and building of software are -- at least from my point of view -- "early access" purchases during development (as pioneered incredibly successfully by Minecraft) and crowdfunding, which is similar but not quite the same in practice, as it asks customers to support an idea rather than a partially completed product. Both were introduced on an open platform, due to the freedom it offers in distribution and funding. Of course, one could go further back and say the same thing about digital distribution.
Competition
This also comes down to an issue of control. As in the lack of complete control for publishers, and the higher degree of control for customers. As the barrier of entry for new competitors is significantly lower, and distribution is not centrally controlled by a platform holder, gamers have far more choice as to how and where to spend their money. This fosters competition between distribution services, as we can say playing out e.g. between Steam and Amazon during their respective sales.
Obviously, the primary advantage gained from such free competition is pricing for customers, but it can also materialize in faster development of new features or services, and making them available freely in an effort to increase mind- and market-share. Additionally, fluid competition makes it much harder to implement anti-consumer practices on a large scale, as consumers can easily flock to a competitor without being affected by platform lock-in. Ubisoft's failure implementing their always-on PC DRM scheme is one instance of this.
Community
If a game is released on an open platform, it allows the community of its fans to achieve many things that are either impossible on or greatly hindered by closed systems. These include:
- Community patches, fixing issues in and improving games often years after the developer or publisher dropped them
- Graphical or gameplay mods that may drastically change the look or feel of games, and potentially increase their longevity
- Fan translations into new languages the original games were never released in
As I've pointed out previously in the creativity section, entire new genres can arise based on such community-created content. Note that some games on closed platforms (e.g. LBP) are also embracing community-created content (commendably!), however, such content will always remain "sandboxed" and require sanctioning compared to what is possible on open platforms.
This point is not just limited to the modification of individual games though -- a large number of out-of-game features were introduced or continue to be supported best on open platforms, such as voice chat, general support for screenshots or video recording of gameplay, and live streaming.
Choice
Unlike a fixed platform, where all the choices are made by a company during its design, with an open platform each player can in many ways customize their experience. This extends from a choice in hardware (including how much to spend), to a great variety of input devices, various display options, and software tradeoffs such as those between graphical fidelity and frame rates. I feel like this is a well-known point, which comes up far more often in gaming discussions than the other ones I mentioned, so I don't think it's necessary to go into further detail.
So what?
Well, not much really. I just wanted to share my thoughts on this, and I hope that some people will consider these aspects and maybe think about the state they want their hobby -- or their favorite medium -- to be in over the long term. I'm looking forward to theflame war well-reasoned responses and stimulating discussion.
Preservation
For any serious medium (and fans of that medium) preservation of classic experiences is an important issue. Think about the collective loss for all of us if any books or musical compositions older than 40 years were no longer available, or only readable or available to listen to with lots of effort and highly specialized equipment.
Games are unique in that they are interactive, which makes their preservation significantly harder than anything that can simply be recorded and played back. To experience an old game on a proprietary platform, you need a working instance of that hardware platform, its accessories, and the game, as well as all the other devices (such as displays) from roughly the same time period so as to be compatible. Already today, the most convenient and viable way of playing old classics is via software emulation, usually on open platforms. However, modern hardware-assisted DRM schemes, highly complex hardware/software architectures and slow down in the progress of sequential CPU performance may make emulation an almost impossible task for current and future platforms.
Conversely, games on open platforms are usually compatible with a wide variety of hardware, and over long periods of time. Even if a point is reached where no directly compatible hardware is in circulation anymore, emulation is usually greatly simplified by documentation and a lack of hardware-level DRM schemes.
Creativity
On an open platform, software and hardware experimentation can proceed freely, unbound by the sluggish pace of change in a giant corporation. Since the barrier of entry in software is minimal, new concepts can be tried and iterated on quickly. Similarly, all kinds of new hardware can be designed and integrated by third parties.
I feel like this is a point which could be highly contested, so I'd like to look at recent history. These days gaming has matured to some extent, and new genres are born more rarely. If we look at the last two entirely new genres to be introduced, I'd say they are MOBAs (that DotA genre) and MMORPGs (I know they have "RPG" in their name, but they are really a distinct genre). Both of these were born on PC, and the most recent one (MOBAs) has arisen out of a freely distributed community mod.
However, I would extend "creativity" here to not only pertain to the type of software produced, but also how it is made. The most significant recent advances in the funding and building of software are -- at least from my point of view -- "early access" purchases during development (as pioneered incredibly successfully by Minecraft) and crowdfunding, which is similar but not quite the same in practice, as it asks customers to support an idea rather than a partially completed product. Both were introduced on an open platform, due to the freedom it offers in distribution and funding. Of course, one could go further back and say the same thing about digital distribution.
Competition
This also comes down to an issue of control. As in the lack of complete control for publishers, and the higher degree of control for customers. As the barrier of entry for new competitors is significantly lower, and distribution is not centrally controlled by a platform holder, gamers have far more choice as to how and where to spend their money. This fosters competition between distribution services, as we can say playing out e.g. between Steam and Amazon during their respective sales.
Obviously, the primary advantage gained from such free competition is pricing for customers, but it can also materialize in faster development of new features or services, and making them available freely in an effort to increase mind- and market-share. Additionally, fluid competition makes it much harder to implement anti-consumer practices on a large scale, as consumers can easily flock to a competitor without being affected by platform lock-in. Ubisoft's failure implementing their always-on PC DRM scheme is one instance of this.
Community
If a game is released on an open platform, it allows the community of its fans to achieve many things that are either impossible on or greatly hindered by closed systems. These include:
- Community patches, fixing issues in and improving games often years after the developer or publisher dropped them
- Graphical or gameplay mods that may drastically change the look or feel of games, and potentially increase their longevity
- Fan translations into new languages the original games were never released in
As I've pointed out previously in the creativity section, entire new genres can arise based on such community-created content. Note that some games on closed platforms (e.g. LBP) are also embracing community-created content (commendably!), however, such content will always remain "sandboxed" and require sanctioning compared to what is possible on open platforms.
This point is not just limited to the modification of individual games though -- a large number of out-of-game features were introduced or continue to be supported best on open platforms, such as voice chat, general support for screenshots or video recording of gameplay, and live streaming.
Choice
Unlike a fixed platform, where all the choices are made by a company during its design, with an open platform each player can in many ways customize their experience. This extends from a choice in hardware (including how much to spend), to a great variety of input devices, various display options, and software tradeoffs such as those between graphical fidelity and frame rates. I feel like this is a well-known point, which comes up far more often in gaming discussions than the other ones I mentioned, so I don't think it's necessary to go into further detail.
So what?
Well, not much really. I just wanted to share my thoughts on this, and I hope that some people will consider these aspects and maybe think about the state they want their hobby -- or their favorite medium -- to be in over the long term. I'm looking forward to the
