Should Game Consoles Make Breakfast, Too?

Ryan writes "Is the idea of 'convergence' (the notion that a single digital appliance will handle multiple tasks) in gaming consoles even worth it? CNET News has an article discussing the issues of convergence related to gaming - it seems like a lot of consumers aren't worried about the bells and whistles, yet they keep throwing them at us." The article mentions the "underwhelming" response to Sony's PSX console/DVR combo, whose "arrival in North America--originally slated to happen in time for the 2004 holiday shopping season--is now set for an unspecified date in 2005."

Comments

Kinda obvious

[CarrionBird]

The only people craving convergence seem to be the gadget companies looking for another gimmick.

Re:Kinda obvious

[garcia]

I personally liked the convergence of the PS2 and a DVD player. For $15 extra I had a fully functioning DVD player with remote *and* a gaming console.

This was at a time when DVD players were well over $150/ea. Seemed like a great bargain to me.

Re:Kinda obvious

[Ubergrendle]

Why i hate convergence in my electronics:
1. All-in-one = single point of failure when something breaks, and needs to be replaced.
2. Generally speaking, all-in-one devices incorporate propietary technologies to promote lock-in and/or reduce 3rd party tech licensing costs for the company (SONY!!!!).
3. Quality of stand alone components is usually much higher. Think stereo equipment.
4. Modularity = more cost effective upgrade path.
5. All-in-one = usually more complex than individual devices. Stand alone means you can learn and understand the functions fully before moving onto the next component. Sometimes the 'role' of a device is confused when it is consolidated. e.g. Does 'play' mean play the .mp3, the CD, the DVD, or the video game???
6. All-in-one convergence not always a logical combination. Digital camera cell phones? mp3 player cell phones? Cell phones tend to be the worst examples of this phenomenon.

Convergence usually is successful if its the result of a natural evolution of a product. I don't think that marketers can force convergence on its audience...especially when its marked up substantially.

Re:Kinda obvious

[Chris Burke]

Right. The conclusion, then, would be that the only worthwhile "convergence" device is one which is completely general-purpose in design and upgradable/extensible in function. Not by successively hacking on one feature onto a previous design, releasing it, then repeating. Particularly not in the highly price/space/power conscious environments of cell phones and consoles.

The cell phone guys should take note of this.

[ron_ivi]

Please just give me a phone that lets me do stuff phone related. I want a phone that will:

• Make calls
• maintain a phone book
• let me upload my voicemails to my computer for archiving Even my oldest answering machine in the 80s let me change tapes to save messages.

Why do they keep adding crap like virus-ridden operating systems and video games, when they don't even have the basic voice features working yet.

Re:The cell phone guys should take note of this.

[angst7]

Agreed. I've never even used my Xbox to watch a DVD. I bought it to play games not track my stocks or turn on the lights when I come home from work.

I've got the same problem with my new wizbang Nextel/Motorola cell phone. It's smaller does a zillion neato things, but it gets consistantly worse reception than the one I had for the last three years that simply called people.

Separate But Equal

[grunt107]

Although these 'combos' are good for people that have none of the offered tech but want them all, I believe separates are the way to go. Then I do not end up with 3 DVD players (1 standalone, 1 w/PS2, 1 w/XBox).
A better idea is to have all these 'parts' interconnect in a more seamless way - have additional devices plug in to a master controller, which would allow infinite connections (instead of the current setups where the 3rd game system is connected on the 'tape' monitor.

Yes, convergence is good

[Nos.]

But don't try to do it all with hardware.

Imagine a device that I can plug into my TV. It will play DVDs, it will take my CD's, convert them to MP3s (autmatcially putting in track names and authors), it will allow internet surfing (yes, a TV isn't as good as a monitor), PVR, game playing, paying bills online, etc. it will handle VOIP (with built in message manage), IM, home automation, home security, water the lawn when it needs it, etc.

Sounds nice, I'd buy one. Oh wait I have one, its called a computer. None of the things I mentioned above are new. Rolling all of these features into one device is going to take forever. However, build a nice fanless computer. Make it a DVD player and have some basic MP3 functionality. Release. Do a software update to allow web surfing. Do a software update to do home automation (thermostat, time lights, etc). Do a software update to ... you get the picture. The thing is, this can all be done today, nothing is new. But trying to build it all at once is the wrong way to go at it. Start slow, release often. Sure most of us on slashdot aren't going to be the target market, but our families, friends, and other non-techno people are.

Nothing New

[Nexzus]

I remember the 3D0 and the CD-i being touted as all in one devices, and they failed miserably. Panasonic and Phillips seem to forgot that it is - and I hate to point out the obvious - all about the games. Being able to play movies, or record TV shows should just be a bonus, not the focus of a console.

Plus, I would rather have devices that performed one function, and did them well, than one device that could do several things rather poorly. The PS2 is a great game playing machine, but makes a lousy DVD player.

Sigh.. No, and this isn't news

[stratjakt]

The "set-top box" is a white elephant. Not just because of technical hurdles, but the very fact that people don't want it.

I have a seperate DVD player and XBox. The fact that the XBox can play DVDs didn't stop me from getting the DVD player. Why? Because I want to watch a movie upstairs while my kids play Soul Calibur II. Simple, huh? Why should I buy two $500 devices when a $40 DVD player and $120 Xbox do what I need?

And hey, when my XBox breaks, I can still watch DVDs, play CDs, pay my bills online, keep my milk cold and fresh, and make delicious toaster pastries.

All-in-one devices are single points of failure.

Not to mention the "jack of all trades, master of none" angle. Sure the XBox can play DVDs. But not in 640p (ok after modding and hacking it can). Even a $40 DVD player has progressive scan these days. It's a specific example, but of a general trend.

Just like instead of a reliable phone with good battery life, manufacturers think we "really want" is a shitty phone, grainy camera, buggy PDA, and laughingly unplayable games.

Hell, a clie is small enough that I can duct-tape it to the phone myself, if that's what I need.

I can see niche markets for some of this convergance stuff. The rich guy who did a 100,000 dollar remodel of his living room, and an a/v rack with room for a DVD player, TiVo and PS2 just aren't in the budget. Fine, he can pay the premium.

Question

[cubicledrone]

Must there be an "overwhelming" response to any product in order to consider it a success? Why does every movie have to be Spider-Man? Why does every game console have to be a PlayStation? Why does every book have to be Harry Potter?

Business would be a lot better if management would stop looking for the ultimate money grab and spend more time on the quality of their products and the non-monetary value of their business.

Re:Question

[cmburns69]

I suspect that by "underwhelming" they meant they couldn't sell enough to cover their costs.

Products and services can thrive without being the biggest or best. But that will always be the goal, because the returns are almost always greater.

Killing a project that costs more than it's worth is good business. For the most part, Sony devices perform their primary function very well. Their TV's are great for watching TV, their consoles are extremely fun, their cameras take good pictures.

A company as big as Sony doesn't get where it is without having business smarts.

Pffffft!!

[davmoo]

I'm sick of convergence. Any device that does several functions usually only does them "okay". It does not of them "excellent".

I'm tired of manufacturers shoving convergence down my throat. For example, I want a cellphone that does one thing...gives me excellent performance as a phone. I don't give a damn about it being a camera, I have cameras for that. I don't give a rat's ass if it can function as a PDA, I have a PDA for that. I just want it to be a phone, and be a damned good one. Not a piss-poor phone/PDA/camera/kitchen sink.

RCA HDTV Convergence Problems

[rlandrum]

I have a HDTV that I bought in 2002. It has a built in HD receiver, and I thought I would save $500 on a HD receiver by getting this TV. I hooked it up, and it's great.

Now I want to add a tivo. Hmm... No video out from the TV. There's nothing. No RCA, or even COAX outs from this HD receiver. It's all routed internally. Even pulling the back cover off revealed nothing useful to "hack" into.

And now I see HDTV external turners with built in Tivo. Those are really cool, and I'd love to get one, but there's no HDTV inputs on the back of my RCA. Guess the engineers didn't think people would ever be connecting such devices to their HDTVs. I mean WTF?!?

Convergence blows. It basically locks you into something that might be obsolete in a few months (or years, if you're lucky).