Slashdot Mirror
Best Way To Manage Growing Console Clutter?
An anonymous reader writes "Being the owner of several actively-used consoles, I have found myself in a perpetual state of tangled cords and controller 'land mines' when it comes to my living room. With each console supporting four controllers, and a couple of games having their own unique peripherals, this is becoming more and more of a problem. It's not so much that there isn't a place for all of this. as it is that there isn't a place that's visually pleasing, big enough to survive the growing collection, easy to use, and most importantly, cheap. I find myself having to untangle cords or digging through a box/drawer. no matter what solution I try. What have Slashdot readers resorted to when it comes to keeping all of this in check?"
not exactly cheap, I guess, but the only way to get rid of the cord problem is to get rid of the cords
Or to have a standardized controller port (USB?) that you could plug in any controller of your choosing for any system? I would love to be able to use a PS2 controller for everything...
I can currently play Atari 2600, Atari 5200, NES, Commodore 64, Genesis, GameBoy/GameBoy Color/GameBoy Advance, DreamCast, PSX, PS2, and GameCube games all using just three consoles: my Dreamcast, PS2, and GameCube. I could include the Sega Master System and NeoGeo Pocket in there, if I had games for those systems. (I don't do the piracy thing.) If I were willing to live with some slowdown, I could add the SNES to that list. There are MAME packs too, but I've not tried them and can't speak to their quality.
That's a lot of gaming from just three consoles, so I'm fairly happy. It takes some effort, though. You can read about it in my last Slashdot post which has links to all the important stuff, like modding a PS2 and how each of the emulators works.
Of course, the real solution is apparently to use an Xbox. Unfortunately, I've got qualms about doing that (see discussion here, esp. the comments below the story). Others don't.
Then again, you can also go with a tiny PC next to the TV. I'm seriously considering that, although it wouldn't get rid of the DreamCast, PS2, and GC, since they're not emulated (sufficiently well) by any system yet.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
You'll need:
- A big TV cabinet with plenty of component shelves and a big drawer
- An A/V switchbox
- n number of power strips
- Coffee tables with drawers
The way I manage mine (7 consoles with multiple controllers each -- including keyboards, light guns, maracas, etc...) is to put one or two consoles (depending on size) on each components shelf with only one controller stored with it. Each has it's cables neat run through the back of the cabinet and to one of the power bars, and either the co-ax daisy chain or the AV switch. I keep a second controller in one of my coffee table drawers for when someone else wants to play. All other controllers are stored, neatly wrapped up, grouped by system, in the big drawer. Games are stored on DVD and CD racks, or on bookshelves -- however shape dictates.
When I'm playing a system, it might get a little messy, especially if 4 players are in, but it's easy to clean up afterwards so my wife doesn't complain much. My home theatre is not a fantastic one, but it supports my 7 game systems, plus a Sony receiver with 5 speakers, DVD changer, digital cable box, and a hook-up for my PowerBook so I can play iTunes through the stereo.
I have room to add at least 3 more consoles before things get really tight.
I wish I could mod you -1: Troll.
You obviously haven't played many xbox games. Either that or you're a big RPG fan. Personally, I hate RPGs, and I'm glad there aren't that many for the xbox. I love Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge, Project Gotham Racing, Jet Grind Radio 2, Project Gotham Racing 2, SSX Tricky(yes i know it's on ps2), and all my other games. The online play on the xbox is superior as there is a standard. All your friends are on your friends list no matter what game you play and you can send cross invites and just do voice chat without even having a game in at all! The graphics are visually superior in every way to the ps2, except for ssx tricky. I think they ported that directly from the ugly jaggy ps2 version. The best looking game out for the ps2 is Socom II, and it doesn't even compare to one of the first and flagship games for the xbox: Halo: Combat Evolved.
There are a lot of games out for the xbox now, even though it was a couple years behind the ps2 in its release. I know you think it makes you a "cool guy" to diss microsoft on slashdot, but their console really is great and so is Microsoft Game Studios. I think it used to be Bungie, but man, do they ever crank out some awesome games!
Just because a console has 2 cross-platform games doesn't make it useless. I love my xbox and I have stopped playing pc games altogether.
Chris
The fact that it uses 2.4ghz instead of 900 mhz makes a HELL of a difference in lag
... what? 2.4 ghz signals travel at the same speed as 900 mhz signals. And even if they didn't, you're talking about a distance so short that it wouldn't make a difference in overall performance. The 'lag' has everything to do with the quality of the transmitter/receiver, and nothing to do with the frequency.
... Judging from some of the games I went through on a single set of batteries, I'd guess I put at least 250 hours on my last set of AA's.
Ummm
There's a lot more interference experienced by 900mhz devices than 2.4. Or perhaps its a throughput issue? I don't how much information is exchanged for the ps2 controllers vs the gamecube's. But there is a difference between all the ps2's popular 900mhz controllers and the 2.4gigs. That's not to say that it isn't simply a better transceiver. I just associated the performance with less interference.
Wow. Using my Wavebird (which, admittedly, doesn't have rumble), I've changed batteries twice in the ~20 months I've owned it (and once was last week). And that's certainly not because I don't play it very often
Yeah, well obviously its an engineering difference. I mean, the wavebird requires 2 AA batteries where this logitech requires 4! 900mhz devices DO consume less power, as well. As you know, power consumption is more about how much work the controller is doing. Playing 250 hours of RPG's is not like playing 250 hours of a platformer, and certainly not a fighter or most racers. And besides, I never said "my wavebird eats 5 sets of batteries a year". Just that this particular Logitech controller eats them -- and realdpk said himself he's had to recharge at ~15 times in the last year and a half. Believe me, I wish it was as miserly. I'll be the first to get in line and claim that the wavebird is practically perfect in every way (Poppins!). But this thread was talking about controller's other than wavebirds, right?
I would prefer Sony to put out its own wireless controller, much like the wavebird. I would bet on it consuming less power, having a charger, and there being far less latency. I think Sony announced that the PS3's controllers *would* be wireless...
I have approximately 12 different working consoles that I'd like to have hooked up. Switching boxes and a couple of nice deep TV cabinets will mostly do it for you, but I had to settle on four hooked up to the TV plus the Dreamcast and PC hooked up to a VGA monitor after Matrix Reloaded looked awfully green and dull due to about 8m of cable and two swtiching boxes between my PS2 and my TV.
As for controllers, I have one for each console usually sitting on top of the console itself while not being used. I disagree with the "pack everything away" approach, as you spend more time going in an out of drawers. Also, if you don't play one particular console for a while, you lose the controllers.
Anyway, my current setup isn't ideal, but given my limited space I don't mind it so much.