JMPovoa said:
That was related to having a redesign of the console and that was never what i meant in my original statement. Anyone who read it knows what i meant.
We know what you meant, but the result is the same whether it's a physical redesign or just a bundling issue. The sudden "free" inclusion of a $100 peripheral mere months after launch would certainly anger some portion of the launch buyers. It's a slap in the face to them, and a knee-jerk reaction ("ooh, Sony and Nintendo are doing this, we'd better do it do") to the rest of the world. This is why most systems (or at least the ones that have gone on to become hugely successful) don't toy around with their initial package in such a radical manner for at least a year.
JMPovoa said:
I wouldn't know about the 6 to 9 months comment though. That would seem more of a rush product than Microsoft's (and people still comment on Microsoft's product rush to market).
It doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch. We've heard for months now that Sony is targeting spring 2006 for the PS3 launch--that's only about half a year after Microsoft.
JMPovoa said:
It would also mean that unless the console is really expensive (we're talking $500 to $600 expensive) it can't just be that more powerful than Xbox360 (that or Sony really is taking a huge hit per unit), except for the Blu-Ray Drive (the HD movie playback can be a huge plus here).
We really don't know all the details. But, it's odd that some people don't think that there's any possible way the PS3 could be competitive with the X-Box 360 on either a price or feature level, that something just has to give. Why wouldn't it be possible for Sony to release a console with similar or more features for a price that's comparable to Microsoft's?
JMPovoa said:
By not having Wifi from the get go has nothing to do with support for it being there or not. Why else would they sell it?
It's being relegated to a mere "it's there" status. It's like they're offering it just so they can rattle it off as a "potential feature" on bullet-point lists. Think of something like the GameCube modem/ethernet adapters and you'll get the idea. It's a stark contrast from their May 2005 song and dance, where they were extremely gung-ho about how "everything is wireless."
JMPovoa said:
And playing music wirelessly is something that is already supported if you get one of those adapters. That's what's been shown, seen and stated before.
Yes, I'm aware the X-Box 360 is capable of playing music wirelessly from a PC on your network. That's certainly a good thing, and I wouldn't knock that.
But, what about using Wi-Fi to effectively "broadcast" a playlist of music
from the console
to another Wi-Fi enabled device? Doesn't that sound very appealing to you? I think it does!
X-Box 360 enthusiasts keep raising the example of plugging a PSP into the X-Box 360's USB port to play music. This seems more like an example of something that can be done "just because it can," than a feature that you would really make use of. Right now, many people could connect their PSPs to their PCs to listen to music, but how many people do it that often? Chances are good that people already have their music stored on their PC's hard drive anyway. Since the PSP is a Wi-Fi enabled device, and it's mobile, I'd think it's much more useful (and impressive) to stream from the console to the PSP. The music doesn't even have to be on the console itself--it could be on the network, and the console is just pulling it off the network and then wirelessly streaming it to the PSP. Do you think X-Box 360 will be able to do that? I have my doubts, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3 could do it.
JMPovoa said:
I know that what i mean is more on the price barrier, but it is the whole thing with the choice you have to make. Do you realize how many people actually care for that sort of thing? That is why the peripheral is sold separately, because Microsoft doesn't want to throw money and value away and neither does the consumer.
This goes against the whole "everything is wireless" message that Microsoft was formerly shouting with unbridled enthusiasm. I know that there are functions with limited appeal that are better served as optional peripherals rather than thrown into every box, and that's fine. But, when you're tossing around buzzwords like "wireless" at the drop of a hat, then you'd better be prepared to stand behind it. It doesn't look like wireless is a big part of the X-Box 360 strategy anymore, what with even the wireless controllers being sacked in the "core system" package. If Microsoft hadn't made such a big deal about this beforehand, then it would be much easier to look the other way now.
When a company introduces a new system to the market, they tend to define its future with the included feature set. You can view this as "throwing money and value away," but in the grand scheme of things companies sometimes have to take risks in order to drive the future of the industry and win customers over. They may include a function that is new and unproven because they believe that--by virtue of their console's success--it will eventually become a "must-have" feature. Perhaps that will be four months later, or perhaps four years later--but they believe it will happen.
Maybe you feel Microsoft is better served by "playing it safe," but if that's all it's going to amount to, then why are they even bothering to offer a new console to begin with? What substantial features do you think X-Box 360 will bring to the dance that PlayStation 3 and Revolution will not?
And I don't think the rest will be ignored by (wise) customers.
