How much would it cost to add wireless to the Xbox 360?

[Squilliam]

The market share for wireless technology is increasing, in 2006 it was 20% of the households with broadband internet and now 3 years on it should be much higher than that.

The Premium/Elite SKUs must have a far higher proportion of internet useage than the Arcade SKU and they make up ~50% of sales. These two are also produced on the CSON production line whereas the Arcades are all produced on the FDOU production line so there is no issue in seperate feature sets for the base consoles as the Arcades already come with built in Flash since the Jasper revision.

I know that the wireless adapter isn't a big seller, the real question for me are the customers selecting a better value alternative and purchasing PS3s instead or is wireless just not that big of a deal?

Also how much would it cost now to add in the functionality? I recognise value was a big reason for the absence of wireless in the first place, however the cost of the wireless units must have come down and the penetration of the networking technology must have increased rapidly since 2005 so perhaps it finally makes sense now.

Lastly, when do you see as the best time to add this functionality if they did? Would it be better to add it earlier in the year when the turnover of consoles is much smaller and the price-cut to move the older units acts as a tempoary sale as consumers are more price concious now or later in the year as a kick start to the holiday season?

 

[Sonic]

I'd say now is as good a time as any to add wireless functionality to the 360. Maybe when they revise the model with a better manufacturing process.

I'm guessing it would maybe add $10 if even that to give it wireless capability. It really shouldn't be super expensive considering I can get a wireless B/G card for the PC for $10.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I'm sure the actual hardware cost would be only a few dollars.

 

[makattack]

Personally, I wouldn't want built-in wireless. If the 360 had it built-in, I'd disable it in my configuration. I have a 802.11G network at home, but my console is right next to it, so I might as well use ethernet and not worry about interference affecting the bandwidth... there are many other routers in my vicinity so that has been a problem -- along with leaky microwave transmissions and other wireless signals (phones, etc).

It also seems like wireless standards change frequently enough that I'd rather be able to select my own WiFi NIC/adapter.

 

[Squilliam]

On Newegg you can purchase a B/G usb adapter for $13 and a B/G/N adapter for $20-23. Wouldn't it make sense at this juncture to go straight to the N standard and ensure compatibility with future wireless networking standards?

What would the price difference be, between these two standards?

 

[RudeCurve]

Future revisions of X360 should have WiFi built-in but it should come with the option to disable it for those who are concerned about latency and radio interence. The WiFi chip only costs a few dollars.

 

[tha_con]

I don't think it will happen, ever.

If the Wireless adapater cost them $3 a piece to put in the console, then they will have to spend $3 Million for every 1 million consoles produced with Wi-Fi. They would make $3 Million dollars fewer than they currently make.

If they spend $25 to make and package the WiFi adapter they sell for $99, and they sell 500K, they've made $37,500,000 (Is my math right here? About $75 a piece right?).

Given that discrepency, I think it'll be a cold day in hell before we ever see MS put a WiFi adapter in the 360, given they are in the business of making money.

 

[Squilliam]

I don't think it will happen, ever.

If the Wireless adapater cost them $3 a piece to put in the console, then they will have to spend $3 Million for every 1 million consoles produced with Wi-Fi. They would make $3 Million dollars fewer than they currently make.

If they spend $25 to make and package the WiFi adapter they sell for $99, and they sell 500K, they've made $37,500,000 (Is my math right here? About $75 a piece right?).

Given that discrepency, I think it'll be a cold day in hell before we ever see MS put a WiFi adapter in the 360, given they are in the business of making money.

A higher price lowers demand as per economic theory. If the price of wireless and a premium SKU is identical to that of a PS3 one could see people instead purchasing a PS3 rather than wearing that $100 cost for the wireless.

Furthermore if it only costs $3 then they will gain money from people who would have otherwise purchased the Arcade purchasing the Premium due to the extra features and the extra live revenue to go on top.

 

[BadTB25]

Also, if the consumer doesn't use WiFi then its a feature that is wasted. Built in would have been nice, but I don't really hold it against MS for not having it in there. Also, having it external and separate should allow MS to offer a wireless N adapter at some point...right? I do agree that it severely overpriced.

I did purchase the official WiFi adapter, but that was mostly because of my previous House. I don't really need it now as my X360 and router is in the same room.

 

[Nano]

Its a shame, due to the high cost (anywhere literally between £35 and £65) over the last few years, I refused to purchase Wifi for 360.

 

[infinity4]

They make huge money out of accessories. They will never do it even if people choose PS3 over 360 simply because PS3 can do WiFi out of the box.

 

[silhouette]

I do not mind MS does not include Wi-fi out-of-the-box. But the current 100$ is a clear rip-off. I do not mind again they are trying to make some money out of it, but if some other company can make money while offering a similar device at quarter price tag, this is a rip-off in my book.

Btw, Eastman claims in another thread that the following works with 360 out-of-the-box as if it is the official wireless adapter:

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0243527

I have tried another brand 3 years ago with little luck, but I think as long as the wireless chips in adapter match, 360 can recognize it as the official one. Given the price, I think it is worth trying...

 

[tha_con]

Also, if the consumer doesn't use WiFi then its a feature that is wasted. Built in would have been nice, but I don't really hold it against MS for not having it in there. Also, having it external and separate should allow MS to offer a wireless N adapter at some point...right? I do agree that it severely overpriced.

I did purchase the official WiFi adapter, but that was mostly because of my previous House. I don't really need it now as my X360 and router is in the same room.

It should be held against MS. They made the choice to do it, and they should be held accountable for their short sightedness. They've never really been a visionary company though, just kinda "do what you can and buy what you can" company.

 

[makattack]

It should be held against MS. They made the choice to do it, and they should be held accountable for their short sightedness. They've never really been a visionary company though, just kinda "do what you can and buy what you can" company.

Those who require WiFi for network connectivity will hold it against MS, those who don't will generally thank MS (as I do) for not including it.

You can't satisfy everyone. Case in point: the one feature I dislike most about the laptop I'm using is the useless bluetooth feature -- which is currently disabled in the bios -- but I had to do that myself. It came out of the box enabled. How silly is that?

If MS weren't "visionary" by excluding WiFi, what about their including a built-in ethernet port on the original XBox? It wasn't even really well supported when they launched, but allowed them to launch XBox live. I think that really changed the console space. Granted, it was just a PC bulging out of a console skin, but even PC's back then didn't all come with ethernet NICs.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Those who require WiFi for network connectivity will hold it against MS, those who don't will generally thank MS (as I do) for not including it.

Why? Is it really that bad to have an added feature that you don't use if it doesn't affect the cost of goods much? Especially if there's a fairly good chance of maybe using it at a later date?

 

[tha_con]

Those who require WiFi for network connectivity will hold it against MS, those who don't will generally thank MS (as I do) for not including it.

You can't satisfy everyone. Case in point: the one feature I dislike most about the laptop I'm using is the useless bluetooth feature -- which is currently disabled in the bios -- but I had to do that myself. It came out of the box enabled. How silly is that?

If MS weren't "visionary" by excluding WiFi, what about their including a built-in ethernet port on the original XBox? It wasn't even really well supported when they launched, but allowed them to launch XBox live. I think that really changed the console space. Granted, it was just a PC bulging out of a console skin, but even PC's back then didn't all come with ethernet NICs.

The Bluetooth did nothing to you by being enabled, except adding functionality to your Laptop. By having Bluetooth connectivity, you can hook up printers, phones, headsets, and many other wireless devices. How is that silly? Especially when Bluetooth is becoming a standard among multiple devices.

Seriously, when the DS, PSP, Wii, and PS3 all have WiFi built in, you are being stupid for excluding it.

Comparing the original Xbox to PCs is a bit ridiculous, since a PC is not a standard piece of hardware among all manufacturers. Comparing it to the PS2 would have been more likely, but at least Sony had the gull to add it in later models (even though it took them forever and a day).

Seriously, there is no excuse to exclude it unless you intentionally planned to sell it at a high price as an add-on (which of course is good to do for business, so I can't hold that against them).

 

[makattack]

Why? Is it really that bad to have an added feature that you don't use if it doesn't affect the cost of goods much? Especially if there's a fairly good chance of maybe using it at a later date?

Well, I acknowledge this is my own personal preference, and I may well be the only person -- or part of a small minority, but I really do like the idea of "modular" design. If I need it, I'll add it. If not, it's useless to me and I'd rather not have it. What if I later decide in November 2009, to upgrade my kit to 802.11N (if it's finalized by then as scheduled) -- well, I would of course keep my old kit, but I would have to get an external WiFi adapter/bridge for my PS3 if I wanted to get rid of my old kit -- or plug it in via 100/1000-B-T.

My WiFi network is purely for low-throughput web browsing and SSH access to remote hosts... hence, I'm still using an 802.11b router from 1995 -- an old Lucent RG1000 -- it even has a MODEM built-in for connecting over analog voice lines. I would never use my wireless network for online gaming / streaming video. Again, this is my own unique situation.

 

[makattack]

Well, bluetooth is useless to me because it uses additional power (no matter how small) and radiates / transmits stuff that isn't received / acknowledged by any device I use in conjunction with my computer. Why leave it enabled? Before I wiped out the Windows Vista Home installation on it, replacing it with a linux distribution (gentoo), it even ran some windows vista bluetooth software -- taking up memory and cpu... I don't even have the bluetooth modules compiled in my custom kernel.

Why? Again, it's all very personal. I tend to only use what I need -- and if I need something, I'll add it... but I like that. That's why I build my own kernel to my exact requirements -- using a distro that is more fiddly than others.

I have a phone that has bluetooth capabilities, but only for headset use(TMobile G1/Android phone) . It doesn't provide network file services over bluetooth -- and I appreciate it for that since I don't particularly trust the security of bluetooth networks.

 

[Zassk]

There's nothing shortsighted about the lack of wireless. It was obviously a deliberate decision to make it a revenue stream as an (overpriced) accessory. I would love for it to be built in, but I am ok with it being an add-on. I just think it should be priced at $50 or less (and they can drop the 802.11a support which surely adds to the cost). If it were so easy to sell a 360 wireless adapter at a profit for $10, then Linksys or someone else would have surely done so by now.

 

[Acert93]

How about just buy a cheap wireless bridge? Avoid the wifi adapter extortion, get wireless, and MS doesn't need to pack in a feature that doesn't assist them in driving prices own. The balance is will WiFi generate more sales than it costs ... the answer is probably no. Offering a cheaper WiFi adapter or a cheap branded bridge would do nicely though.