While there are similarities between each one of these game development hardware platforms, each one still has its own unique set of features. The similarities, unfortunately, stop at horsepower and cost, and I am not referring to cost to the consumer.

Game Developers need to become certified by the hardware manufacturers as capable developers for their hardware. Successful certification – for most but not all hardware platforms – is met with the requirement that those developers pay fairly steep prices for what are called "dev kits."

These are work station versions of the gaming hardware that consumers purchase. The differences between versions can come down to physical size and color, built-in optical drives or CD / DVD / Blu-Ray disc recorders, and – most importantly – the ability to “debug” or track in real-time when and where problems arise in your game builds as you are developing them.

I have worked with companies who had the available funding to purchase individual dev kits for each and every developer on their teams. This would normally result in a high degree of productivity with all assigned assets, as well as the testing of each asset in an isolated game build.

I have also worked with companies where 2-5 game developers - from different disciplines - would share one dev kit.  If organized properly, that group of developers would all be connected to the same set of production assets, thus encouraging collaborative reviewing of assets on the dev kit. More often than not, however, this group would be working on a disjointed set of assignments, forcing longer development time, and encouraging shortcuts in quality.

"Get the hardware manufacturers to allow developers to work from off-the-shelf PCs," you say? It is a nice thought, and it may actually come true – some day – in the face of ever-mounting yearly hardware losses. Until then, everyone must continue with the legal goal of certification on and procurement of their dev kits of choice.
 

Go To Part 1 – 2 – 3 – 4