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

Awesome idea...

[grub]

"Should Game Consoles Make Breakfast, Too?"

Not a bad idea:

If you play console while it's making breakfast it won't scream "What are you doing?! Don't touch me!"

You can eat your breakfast without the console whining to you.

If breakfast is cold you can beat the console without feeling guilty.

You can demand beer for breakfast and the console won't complain.

If you throw out the console it won't hire a lawyer to take half your stuff.

Man, if RealDoll.com could "converge" this new console concept with their products they'd be trillionaires.

Re:Awesome idea...

[Dorsai65]

How the hell did you get my ex? Poor bastard...

Re:Awesome idea...

[LazyBoy]

Because he asked for the Ex-Box.

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.

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

[NanoGator]

"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."

Said the guy using a $3,000+ computer that does email, porn, games, video, Slashdot, and music.

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

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.

Re:Yes, convergence is good

[User 956]

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...

The sad thing is, you can already do all of those things with a modded xbox. And what's even sadder is, it'll cost you under 200 bucks.

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.

"underwhelming response"

[User 956]

maybe there was an "underwhelming response" because they were charging an arm and a leg for the fricking thing.

Tivo = $99.

PS2 = $150.

Tivo + PS2 = $900?

what kind of math is that?

Hell No!

[Tackhead]

> Should Game Consoles Make Breakfast, Too?

Hell, no! That's what cell phones are for!

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.

Re:All I have to say is

[0racle]

Well your gonna need a plummer after all those overweight kids start eating high fiber cereals.

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.

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).

Necessary equipment

[erice]

If your game console is going to make breakfast, it is going to have to have a cereal port.