I can't believe all the people in this thread defending Microsoft's failure to integrate such ubiquitous and inexpensive feature. Sure, the reason they don't is to save money and defend a revenue stream, but I don't see why anyone who is on the consumer side of the discussion would give a damn about their margin or expenses. The way they price gouge on their accessories is clear proof that they don't pass on their savings to the customer... So give us the freakin' wifi, MS! You've reengineered your mobos before to include features like HDMI which were similarly omitted and finally integrated due to consumer demand. Obviously there was no aftermarket method to add that functionality so the comparison isn't perfect. But this is exactly the kind of shit that turns me off the Xbox brand.
How much would it cost to add wireless to the Xbox 360?
- Thread starter Squilliam
- Start date
- Status
Is this true? In the UK the official PS3 HDMI cable RRP is £17.99 ($26.11), and tax is included in that. If it's $80 in the US then that is ridiculous
Well for starters, I think they included wireless because it's cheap, and a useful option for a lot of gamers, just like Nintendo did.
But anyway, Sony are quite happy for gamers to use any 2.5" SATA HDD, instead of creating PS3-specific HDD upgrades. Peripherals like steering wheels are completely open too (a big deal for me using my Momo Racing Force on Prologue, whereas being stuck with the official MS wheel or a pad for Forza 2 and, soon, Race Pro). I don't think it's valid to justify Microsoft's approach by saying Sony would do the same, when a) they haven't, and b) Sony's open policy with other PS3 peripherals suggests otherwise.
Since I mentioned HDMI in my previous point I'd also like to point out that Microsoft's failure to integrate wifi is just like Sony's failure to include HD cables in the box. oth are things that should just be included. Both, in their absence, are used to sell overpriced accessories. And you cannot decry one while defending the other without simply exposing yourself as a hypocrite.
I'm not defending $80 HDMI cables, like I said, that is ridiculous. I just wondered why there is a >3x price difference between the UK (with tax) and US (without tax). Besides, in my post I was discussing Sony's policy of being open with peripherals (there's no reason not to use any other HDMI cable). It's hard to be a hypocrite when the two points are not contradictory.
But yes I agree, a HDMI cable should be included in the PS3 box.
Last edited by a moderator:
But on the PS platform I have the possibility of buying cheaper alternatives. My PS3 is connected on the television with a HDMI cable that I bought for 5 euro on ebay and that works great. But how many alternatives does there exist for the wifi adapter or the HDD on the 360?
I don't have problems with things being optional or the fact that "official" periphicals tend to cost more (that is always the case regardless of product or company) but I'm not a big fan of the xbox 360 way where you can only buy "official" periphicals which are quite expensive here.
Why can't you buy wifi adapters or HDDs for cheap on ebay?
I've seen half the price of retail for the 120GB drive, with free shipping to boot too. If you're talking about the absolute price of wifi adapters, aren't you making an unfair comparison to cables? 
This debate is getting very circular! Yes, you can find cheap alternatives, but then the massse don't knw about that. Price comparions shoud always be according to the official listed prices. Workarounds and special offers and best case, potentially rare scenarios don't make for a fair comparison. After all, you can always buy a nicked XB360 for $50 off eBay and build your own wifi adaptor for $5...but it's not very likely.
A WiFi adapter for Xbox 360 is very different to a cable. Most times the HDMI is thrown in in bundles. Any cable works with the PS3, but not any wireless adapter works for 360. That's the difference in the company's POV (same with HDDs)
Really ? I looked for a 120Gb HDD on ebay a while ago and the cheapest was about +/- 100 euro's. Maybe I should take another lookWhy can't you buy wifi adapters or HDDs for cheap on ebay?
I don't know if "quite happy" is appropriate in this case. If Sony forced everyone to use proprietary hard disks that have a $50 premium, then they might have been able to reduce the cost of entry of the PS3 by $50. Don't you think that would have been beneficial to the platform as a whole?
IMO the standard HDD, standard Bluetooth, standard rechargable batteries, and free online gameplay are all just shortsighted design decisions that have reduced the sustainability of the PS3. Each one of these, if they had been made into secondary revenue streams, would have enabled Sony to reduce the cost of entry of the basic console itself, which would have been to every owner's benefit.
Imagine if the original 20GB PS3 hadn't been eliminated, but had continued as a stripped-down SKU with BC removed, and with proprietary accessories and PSN subscriptions to help offset costs. Such an SKU might have been priced at $100 less than the current 2008/09 price. Surely you can see that this would have increased sales, to the benefit of every owner of the platform.
Before you call that nonsense, remember that XBox Live alone has brought in $60 for every owner - Silver or Gold - and I would expect a for-pay PSN to bring in similar revenue. Proprietary accessories would be gravy on top of that.
How can you, as a consumer, be upset that we have so much freedom in a console for the first time?
This boggles the mind. Unbelievable.
options are good, true. but.... based on your feelings here, how can you not appreciate then that the 360 allows you to not have to pay for a HDD or wireless AT ALL unless you actually need it? :smile:
...a console that less than 20% of console buyers are choosing to buy. The overall health of the platform mandates a low cost of entry. That has been the business case for consoles from the start. You can't have PC-like freedom without PC-like prices. A low cost of entry requires secondary revenue streams.
Low cost does not require secondary revenue streams.
The Nintendo Wii does not have a secondary revenue stream. You don't pay for online, you don't pay for WiFi.
Like I said in another thread, Sony can release a "Wii-esque" PS4 in 5 years with slightly higher than PS3 specs in a smaller case, still keeping USB, 2.5" HDD, HDMI, WiFi, all those wonderful open standards, and offer it at a low price.
The reason PS3 is "expensive" isn't because of a lack of a secondary revenue stream, nor is it because of the open standards. It's because it's using expensive hardware like Blu-Ray, Cell BBE, etc. It's not because of the standard 2.5" HDD, HDMI, USB, WiFi, etc.
I think you've missed the mark greatly, and your support for the chosen path that MS has gone down isn't one I agree with (though it is your choice to make).
I just think that we should be offered up standards as consumers, and not be expected to pay a ridiculous premium just so the console manufacturer can make bank and "lower the cost of entry" on their console (even though that very much is not the case).
You keep thinking Wii Controllers are $70 a set just so Nintendo can lower the price on their console (even though it's already sold at a ridiculous profit).
If you hadn't noticed, their secondary revenue stream has been their ridiculously amazing sales on all their first party software, including their peripherals. Neither Sony nor MS can claim such first party success even by a stretch. And certainly the (wiimote + wiichuck) *3 is not cheap, and is not an unlikely expense considering the multiplayer aspect of the console. The peripherals don't end there, of course.
That said, the wii hardware itself is likely making profit on its own, so it's not quite in need of said secondary source of revenues as Zassk is inferring... His stipulation is based on expensive hardware.
As AlStrong said, it's not just MS that went this route, Nintendo has gone this route as well, with their system cleverly designed to encourage every player to buy 1-3 extra controllers + nunchuck + fit board + etc. And of course Virtual Console rakes in a handsome average amount per console. All of these things raise the effective pricetag of the console, while keeping a low cost of entry to keep sales brisk. I don't know why Sony went the route of standard/included features; I have to think that some MBA dropped the ball while everyone else was focussed on the HD war or something.
You missed my point.
You seemed to suggest that a secondary revenue stream would allow for a lower costing console, I used the Nintendo Wii to show that is not really the case.
The Nintendo Wii makes profit without any accessories or software sales. The console is still $250 going into it's third year.
The biggest point here is that using standards like HDMI, 2.5" HDD, WiFi, etc, do not mean end users pay the price. This is a GOOD thing.
Hell, Sony can still offer up their own products (like the BT Headset and HDMI cable) and people will still buy those because they are 1st party, etc.
My problem with your post is you seem to think it's bad for us to have these easily accessible standard parts that we can buy anywhere. More console manufacturers should take note, IMO.
Maybe they went consumer friendly cause there aren't dicks? I can't believe you're complaining that Sony hasn't taken every opportunity to gouge us. And your 20 GB example is meaningless because there is a level at which smaller HDD aren't cheaper than bigger ones. Why continue to pay $30 or whatever on a 20GB drive for the cheapest sku when the 40GB drive is listed at the same price? And then later the 80GB drive hits that price. Obviously they eliminated the card reader and BC for all models to drive down the price. The only feature left in your example to use for price reduction is wifi, a feature that is effectively free at this point with bluetooth/wifi combo solutions (something MS could take advantage of had they not decided to use a propriety radio spec for controllers to protect the revenue streams you like so well).
I mean, seriously. Why should I care about your mythical market position argument? They've still managed to sell 20 million consoles, despite their price position. The games are there. People who complain about the library are simply ill-informed at this point. The multiplatform titles are there, the PSN games are very competitive and there have been awesome exclusives and first party games. What is the hypothetical owners complaint in this situation. Damn, can't believe I paid a modest premium up front for great games, premium media features, easy and inexpensive storage expansion, convenient connectivity, gratis online play, superior build quality and near silent operation. Why, Sony?!?! WHY!?!? Why couldn't you rape me like all the other console manufacturer with their hidden costs of ownership so that everyone knows yours is the biggest dick on the intarwebs!?!?
I mean, seriously. Why should I care about your mythical market position argument? They've still managed to sell 20 million consoles, despite their price position. The games are there. People who complain about the library are simply ill-informed at this point. The multiplatform titles are there, the PSN games are very competitive and there have been awesome exclusives and first party games. What is the hypothetical owners complaint in this situation. Damn, can't believe I paid a modest premium up front for great games, premium media features, easy and inexpensive storage expansion, convenient connectivity, gratis online play, superior build quality and near silent operation. Why, Sony?!?! WHY!?!? Why couldn't you rape me like all the other console manufacturer with their hidden costs of ownership so that everyone knows yours is the biggest dick on the intarwebs!?!?
I get it - you approve of the kitchen-sink approach, and the price of entry is immaterial to you. Therefore you think all consoles should be the same way. Personally, I am happy for the company to hide its profitability in its accessories. I can pick and choose the accessories; I can't pick and choose the base console.
That said, of course I think $100 wifi is ridiculous. That accessory should have had a price reduction of some kind by now. If there was a $49 G adapter and a $99 N adapter, I doubt we'd be having this conversation. But I have a hard time complaining about wifi's omission, given that a) I didn't need it and b) it was one of the reasons why I paid so little for the console.
That said, of course I think $100 wifi is ridiculous. That accessory should have had a price reduction of some kind by now. If there was a $49 G adapter and a $99 N adapter, I doubt we'd be having this conversation. But I have a hard time complaining about wifi's omission, given that a) I didn't need it and b) it was one of the reasons why I paid so little for the console.
You're still either not reading what I am writing, or completely missing the point.
The PS3 is not expensive because it uses standard accessories that people are free to buy as they please.
That is not why it is expensive.
That is not why it is expensive.
That is not why it is expensive.
Hopefully this has been conveyed by now.
The PS3 is expsensive because of Cell, RSX, and Blu-Ray. None of this has anything to do with WiFi, 2.5" HDD, HDMI, USB, or any other standard feature on the PS3.
It is very possible that MS could have used a standard HDD and still offered a 1st party HDD for their price, or 1st party HDMI Cables, WiFi adapters, etc. They didn't "hide" their profits, nor do the extravagant prices of these accessories "lower the cost of entry" on their console.
If you think for one second that if Sony would have left WiFi out of the PS3 and given us a $100 option to buy it, that the console would have somehow been cheaper, you're off your rocker.
I'm done with the discussion, it's going in circles, and you aren't grasping the facts here.
- Status
Similar threads
