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

Only Nintendo really "gets it".

[Samir Gupta]

Nintendo have always been sceptical of the "Everything and the kitchen sink" approach that Microsoft and Sony have taken with their consoles. They do but one thing -- gaming -- but do it well, unlike their other competitors who want to be a DVD player/CD player/PC/Internet terminal/TiVo. Their philosophy is to focus on one thing -- gaming, and make it our core competency, continuing to come out with seminal hits that people synonimize with the video game industry, Mario, Zelda, and so on.

They are continuing this trend with our future game consoles, and I do believe that because of Nintendo's laser-sharp and well-defined focus, that Sony and Microsoft's leads will be short lived in the next generation.

Re:Kinda obvious

[Total_Wimp]

People always say convergence doesn't matter, and it doesn't, but it really does.

Lemme explain.

I would have bought the PS/2 for the same price if it didn't have the DVD player built in. Most people would have. But when I was getting a console, the fact that it had a DVD player built in mattered to my view of the value I'd get from the purchase. It made me feel good about it.

Now that we've used the PS/2 for a while, we find that we use that DVD player all the time. It's not the best DVD player on the planet, but it sure beats the VHS sitting next to it that we ignore. Because of that use, once again I feel I got good value for my money on the purchase. I think it's much more 'worth it' than I would if it didn't have a DVD player built in. It makes me feel good about buying more stuff from Sony, because I know they try to give me more than just the basic function listed on the box.

Contrast this with the ill-fated DVR version of the PS/2. With the regular PS/2, the DVD was a 'gift'. It was added value that I did't feel I was paying anything extra for. The new super box, on the other hand, was a lot more expensive. I would be paying for everything. And, because I already have a PS/2, I'd end up with actually less value then what is listed on the box.

So, to summerize:

Convergence is great if you get more than you pay for and it doesn't cost the manufaturer much more to give it to you (sony was using DVD as the media anyway. The DVD movie player cost them almost nothing to bundle in). It's great because the consumer feels he's getting good value for the money.

Convergence is bad if the consumer feels he's paying extra for a bunch of redundant stuff he'll never use.

I sure hope manufaturers are paying attention to this post :-)

TW

Give them a reason to!

[gosand]

Uh, yeah they do. Been working great since 97.[snip] I have no clue when it became so fucking fashionable to complain about cell phones here. There are a lot of people these days that don't even have a landline because their cell phone handles the job just fine. So spare us al the "basic voice features" karma-whoring line. Every single story that mentions cell phones has one of these comments modded up, even though it's so obviously wrong.

Complain about something legitimate, and you are trying to be fashionable? Wow. I guess I have been fashionable since 2000. That is when I ditched my cellphone because it was a pointless cost. It is a sheer convenience that people have treated like a necessity. I had the first StarTac that Motorola produced, back in 96 I think. It was analog. Phones today give no better call quality than that phone did then. Once I realized that "digital" was no better than analog, I got rid of it. My wife and I have a pre-paid phone for emergency use only, and spend about $10 a month on it. We rarely use it, it simply isn't necessary. I don't know where you live, but I live near Chicago, and call quality sucks here. I get sick of hearing people yelling "Hello? Hello?" into their phones, or worse yet see people driving and trying to figure out if the call got dropped or not. And Nextel has their cool 2-way service, but I have never been able to understand what anyone is saying using that.

Don't believe the hype, you don't need a cellphone.

To answer the question of "Why do they keep making and selling crappy features instead of improving call quality", I have to ask: "Why do you have a cell phone? Have you given them a reason to improve call quality?" If you own a phone now, and keep signing contracts every year or two, then you are showing them that it doesn't MATTER if call quality sucks, people will still sign on the dotted line.