Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS On 360 Wireless Issues

Posted by Zonk on from the warning-warning dept.

Gamasutra reports on an official release regarding the problems at Wal-Mart stores with the 360 console. From the article: "Wal-Mart's 'network-based inventory management systems can be impacted by products using modern wireless signals,' a claim borne out by some of the Wal-Mart employees noting that other wireless devices, such as wireless phones, would accomplish the same thing. Microsoft has already addressed the problem, and 'a solution to this issue was developed within 24 hours of identifying the issue and we are currently deploying the fix to the affected locations.'" We've reported on this issue previously. A quick call to my local store confirmed that they do have a kiosk installed, but it's still down because of the issue.

40 comments

  1. Cetification? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

    FTA: "The problem is unlikely to affect any home technology in the way that it caused problems at Wal-Mart, since the Xbox 360 has been certified by the FCC/ETSI for operation in the 2.4GHz band. No other devices with the certification will react negatively to the system's wireless output, though non-certified devices could be at risk."

    So, Walmart is using wireless inventory systems in the 2.4GHz band that are not certified by the FCC/ETSI? Any implications of this?

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:Cetification? by cpu_fusion · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are different requirements for business devices as compared to consumer devices.

      For example, at one time I had difficulty purchasing a workstation from Dell because they intended it for the office and hadn't bothered to get it FCC certified for home use.

    2. Re:Cetification? by Seumas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No other devices with the certification will react negatively to the system's wireless output

      That's strange, because I've never had a 2.4ghz phone that didn't interfere with my 2.4ghz wireless network (as in, killing the network connections entirely). The only solution was to move up to a 5.8ghz phone. So let me guess - Uniden, Panasonic and all the other phone manufacturers are manufacturing products completely out of spec and authorization of the FCC?

    3. Re:Cetification? by jimi+the+hippie · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The only solution was to move up to a 5.8ghz phone"

      What's wrong with 900MHz phones? Seems like a solution to me.

    4. Re:Cetification? by adler187 · · Score: 1

      Actually the systems we use at Walmart are in the 900MHz range. At least that is what the antenaes say on our handheld terminals. However if that was the case I don't know why it was disrupting our sytems in the first place. All I know is that I had a bitch of a time yesterday when we got our system in and they hooked it up. It really sucks when you spend all day trying to figure out why you the printer doesn't want to make a label for the 1hour photos you are trying to get to the customer impatiently standing at the counter. Then I come home and look at slashdot and find the culprit behind my woes is none other than Microsoft.

      (Actually I'm not all too suprised that our systems were shutdown like that. They take themselves out of commission all the time. They really are ancient relics that need replacing but I think the cost of rewriting/porting the software to a different platform is the reason Walmart tortures us with these pieces of crap.)

    5. Re:Cetification? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Well, TFA implied that if a device is certified, it won't be interfered with. It's more likely that your wireless setup is is noncompliant than the phones...

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:Cetification? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Would you mind checking tomorrow to see what the 360 controllers are labeled as? I'm really curious now, and I dunno if TFA is totally incorrect, or if there is some other reason for the interference that I'm not aware of that would explain 2.4GHz interfering with 900MHz... when TFA implies Walmart uses non-compliant 2.4GHz.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Cetification? by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

      (Actually I'm not all too suprised that our systems were shutdown like that. They take themselves out of commission all the time. They really are ancient relics that need replacing but I think the cost of rewriting/porting the software to a different platform is the reason Walmart tortures us with these pieces of crap.)
       
      They could also be secretly hating all their employers, and thus not bother to rewrite them at all. :D

    8. Re:Cetification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main band for handheld-to-system is indeed 900MHz; it's the wireless serial link between the printer & scanner that's a sensitive, static upper 2.4GHz band transmission.

  2. $399 Xbox with Halo?? by Wyrmw00d · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After spending an hour on a 360 at Wal-Mart, I was really unimpressed with the graphics. Only notable changes were how much action happening on the screen at once while still holding a good framerate. Other than that, I've seen some pretty tight games on Xbox that looked pretty much the same as the 360. So now Bungie throws a couple ports of Halo on it and you just bought yourself a $400 Xbox with Halo. Deja Vu? I'll wait to see what Sony and Nintendo dishes out. My Xbox will hold out for a good while longer with a huge game library already and a host of accessories. I got plenty of time.

    1. Re:$399 Xbox with Halo?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I mostly play pc games, but have following the 360 all year. I was pretty excited to hear about the 360 GPU and what it was supposed to be.

      So I stopped by a nearby Walmart to see in person after hearing so many conflicting stories about the 360 graphics.

      Oh My Fucking God Is It Bad.

      Microsoft has to be passing out insanely large amounts of payola to the gaming press to cover up this mess of console. It wasn't just one game, it was all of them. Jags all over the screen and tons of texture filtering problems.

      399 for that??? No thanks Microsoft. Go back to the fucking drawingboard and try again. I'll be picking up a decent video card and a game or two instead...

    2. Re:$399 Xbox with Halo?? by SteveX · · Score: 1

      The thing I'm looking forward to with the 360 is HDTV 1080i support in all games. 640x480 games look like crap on a 57" TV.

    3. Re:$399 Xbox with Halo?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In other news, an AC did not notice that a 480i signal looks like shit on a 720p tv ...

    4. Re:$399 Xbox with Halo?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no.

      Retard.

    5. Re:$399 Xbox with Halo?? by badfish99 · · Score: 1

      If it looks like crap then it's crap. Fscking around with numbers like 480i and 720p doesn't make it look any better.

  3. Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no way in hell I am going to spend 500+ dollars on a game system until I hear reports from real people with 360s in their homes and they are reporting no problems.

    After how bad the launch titles are looking and how many have been pushed back, getting a 360 at launch, or even this year, would be foolish. There are enough big games on other systems to keep me more than busy till March next year when we should finally be seeing decent 360 games.

  4. A Feeling... by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

    Somthing gives me a feeling that this 'fix' is for Wal-mart's inventory system and has nothing to with with the kiosk.

    --
    Wonder what the public key field is for?
  5. I saw what "the fix" was at my local wal-mart! by Turken · · Score: 5, Informative

    So my local wal-mart has a new 360 kiosk installed. From what I can tell, "the fix" is simply replacing the offending wireless controller with a wired one. No wireless controller = no interference problem.

    As for the system... I only had a few minutes to play. It looks nice, but I can't see a remarkable increase in quality over the current systems. Certainly not like there was from PS1 -> PS2.

    Given these things, I think I'm going to wait until after the launch to decide if I want to buy one.

    1. Re:I saw what "the fix" was at my local wal-mart! by Saige · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder if the kiosk you played on was set correctly or not. Apparently there's a significant problem with Wal-Mart know-it-all employees tampering with the 360 kiosks and screwing up the video modes. I guess there are a number of kiosks that have been played around with resulting in the 360 outputting a 480i signal to the 720p native displays - resulting in blocky and stretched video signals that look HORRIBLE.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    2. Re:I saw what "the fix" was at my local wal-mart! by Keeper · · Score: 3, Informative

      They never had wireless controllers installed in the kiosks. If you think about it for a few minutes you'd realize why doing so would be a monumentially dumb idea.

      http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000870065068/

    3. Re:I saw what "the fix" was at my local wal-mart! by Turken · · Score: 1

      from the article:

      "This was apparently due to problems arising from the Xbox 360's wireless controllers causing interference."

    4. Re:I saw what "the fix" was at my local wal-mart! by Keeper · · Score: 1

      The article is wrong. As should be clearly obvious given the link to excerts of the kiosk assembly manual.

      That being said, I'm not saying that Walmart is making crap up, rather that it wasn't "wireless controllers" causing the issue -- rather, it is probably the result of the bits in the 360 that would communicate with a wireless controller if one were present... (which would also be why only a software 'fix' was needed)

    5. Re:I saw what "the fix" was at my local wal-mart! by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

      Console setups in stores always secure the controllers in some way, with a harness or something. Likely these kiosks were using the wireless controllers, and they were just secured in a similar fasion.

    6. Re:I saw what "the fix" was at my local wal-mart! by Keeper · · Score: 1

      Are you daft? The kiosk setup instructions show how to route wires for a wired controller. Walmart employees indicate that the controllers are wired. Anonymous retail reps indicate that the controllers are wired. Wireless controllers use batteries. Wires still have to be run outside of the cabinet for the memory card download unit. The gap to run wires from outside to inside the cabinet is large enough for only 3 wires (count 'em, 2 controllers + download unit). Wireless controllers are more expensive. Wireless controllers require "linking" to the console. Wireless controllers are subject TO interferrence from other devices in a retail enviornment. Wireless controllers still have to be physically attached to the kiosk. The "X" button signal on wireless controllers can't be intercepted and disabled.

      They were not using wireless controllers in the kiosk.

    7. Re:I saw what "the fix" was at my local wal-mart! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wireless controller = no interference problem

      Unfortunately, that's where you're wrong. The controllers were wired to begin with; it's the integrated base wireless unit that was interfering with Wal-Mart's systems.
      The fix was software - Microsoft made a change to the demo disc that [temporarily] disables the base wireless unit in kiosks.

    8. Re:I saw what "the fix" was at my local wal-mart! by Turken · · Score: 1

      Okay. With the pictures from the Joystiq article you make a pretty good argument, and may be right. However, arguing for the sake of argument...

      The kiosk setup instructions show how to route wires for a wired controller. Walmart employees indicate that the controllers are wired. Anonymous retail reps indicate that the controllers are wired.

      The issues with wireless conflict (wherever they were arriving from) came up quickly, and were fixed quickly. However, there is no indication as to whether the instructions and anonymous walmart/retail reps quotes are pre- or post-fix. Can you get a date on the origin of these materials and accounts? All I see is that they are in response to the confusion of wired vs. wireless, and we can all agree that all kiosks are currently wired. As to whether there was wireless before microsoft fixed things is still unclear.

      Wireless controllers use batteries. Wires still have to be run outside of the cabinet for the memory card download unit. Wireless controllers still have to be physically attached to the kiosk.

      Portable gaming units use batteries. Wires are run to them to supply power. Portable game systems must still be uncomfortably attached to their kiosks. Why should wireless controllers be any different? Running a wireless/portable device on batteries when you already have to secure the unit to prevent theft is pretty pointless. That why they haven't done it in the past, and why they wouldn't plan on doing it this time. The only logical way to set up a kiosk with ANY kind of controller is the tried and true method already used. The only question is how many wires run between the exterior portion of the kiosk and the interior.

      The gap to run wires from outside to inside the cabinet is large enough for only 3 wires (count 'em, 2 controllers + download unit).

      The controller will require power either through a power wire or the controller wire. Either way you have the same number of wires. What I find more interesting is that from the joystiq pictures, there is a black wire, a dark colored wire, and one lighter colored one. On the console I was looking at, the device plugged into the USB port on the front of the console was lighter. What really has me scratching my head is that joystiq has a link to other info that their "insider" gave them, which indicates that the controller and other connections take place in the exterior portion of the kiosk. If this is the case, then why are there three cords at all? At any rate, it's pretty clear that there are not two wired controllers since the three wires are different colors.

      Wireless controllers are more expensive.

      Wireless is the intended standard for the system. To demonstrate something inferior than the standard for cost savings alone isn't very good marketing.

      Wireless controllers require "linking" to the console. Wireless controllers are subject TO interferrence from other devices in a retail enviornment.

      I assume Microsoft has figured out by now how to make controllers work with the console reliably. If not, then we're all in for a nasty surprise come release day.

      The "X" button signal on wireless controllers can't be intercepted and disabled.

      Okay, so maybe I'm not up to speed on how the kiosks are supposed to be configured, but on the one I played with, pushing the X button brought up the dashbord display (or whatever it's called). I thought this was the intended use of the button, so it doesn't appear to be disabled.

      At any rate, it all comes down to the fact that the kiosks may or may not have originally been intended to use wireless controllers. The posted evidence does not clearly prove or deny either position. My original post was based on fairly quick observations of the kiosk at my local wal-mart, the only 360 I've actually looked at. So am I right? Maybe not. Are you right? No more than I am. Am I daft for thinking that the solution to the wireless interference problems (after highly promoting the wireless controllers) is that they were replaced with wired ones? Absolutely not.

    9. Re:I saw what "the fix" was at my local wal-mart! by Keeper · · Score: 1

      The issues with wireless conflict (wherever they were arriving from) came up quickly, and were fixed quickly. However, there is no indication as to whether the instructions and anonymous walmart/retail reps quotes are pre- or post-fix. Can you get a date on the origin of these materials and accounts? All I see is that they are in response to the confusion of wired vs. wireless, and we can all agree that all kiosks are currently wired. As to whether there was wireless before microsoft fixed things is still unclear.

      The date of origin for the materials is on or before they were posted. The material was submitted in the claim that there never were wireless controllers in the kiosks. My personal opinion is that it would take longer to produce and distribute updated documentation than it took for this information to become available.

      Portable gaming units use batteries. Wires are run to them to supply power. Portable game systems must still be uncomfortably attached to their kiosks. Why should wireless controllers be any different? Running a wireless/portable device on batteries when you already have to secure the unit to prevent theft is pretty pointless.

      Running wireless AT ALL would be pointless when they ALREADY have to run a wire to the controller. Seriously, what is the benefit to using a wireless controller in the kiosk? Hell, they could claim the controller was wireless and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

      What I find more interesting is that from the joystiq pictures, there is a black wire, a dark colored wire, and one lighter colored one.

      I see two black wires (middle and right) and a lighter colored one (left). I don't know where you're seeing 3 colors.

      Wireless is the intended standard for the system. To demonstrate something inferior than the standard for cost savings alone isn't very good marketing.

      The benefit of wireless is that you're not tied to a cord. There is no other benefit to using a wireless controller. The controller in a kiosk is tied to a cord. Thus, no benefit is demonstrated.

      Which indicates that the controller and other connections take place in the exterior portion of the kiosk

      I didn't see that anywhere on the previous post either. He did mention that everything plugs into a usb-hub like master/control block thingy located on the interior of the unit.

      Supposedly this hub runs a single wire around to the back of the 360 and plugs into the single USB port present, yielding a "clean" look to the display unit.

      I assume Microsoft has figured out by now how to make controllers work with the console reliably. If not, then we're all in for a nasty surprise come release day.

      The controllers class B devices; ie: they're certified for use in a home environment. A retail environment is not a home environment, and the equipment used in that sort of environment is not subject to the same regulations that home equipment is. Not only that, but in a retail environment you're going to have much MORE unique equipment being demonstrated, further polluting the band that they're using for the wireless controller. And then there is whatever interferrance may be introduced by whatever class A equipement that the retailer employs. The last thing you would want in a retail demonstration is for the controller to go bezerk because some freak combination of equipment hogs all of the available spectrum, so why take the risk?

      Okay, so maybe I'm not up to speed on how the kiosks are supposed to be configured, but on the one I played with, pushing the X button brought up the dashbord display (or whatever it's called). I thought this was the intended use of the button, so it doesn't appear to be disabled.

      I believe you are correct here. I think I misinterpreted some information I read, which stated that some controller functions are disabled.

      You aren't gaining anything by using a wireless controller in a kiosk. You aren't eliminating a wire. You

  6. I wonder why they were wireless to begin with. by BruceTheBruce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why were wireless controllers used in the kiosks if they just had to be chained or otherwise physically attached to the kiosk anyway?

    1. Re:I wonder why they were wireless to begin with. by mconeone · · Score: 1

      Easy enough, they didn't think there would be a problem and they want to show off the tech. It's not like a wired controller had any less chance of being stolen.

    2. Re:I wonder why they were wireless to begin with. by Mostly+Monkey · · Score: 1

      It's hard to show off the wireless aspect of it while theres a huge metal security bracket holding the controller. Might this interference be caused by a wireless network adapter? I'm not sure if it was the real deal or a simulation, but the Walmart I checked had what appeared to be a gamertag that allowed me to log in.

      --
      Chika Chik-ah... do-e ow ow.
    3. Re:I wonder why they were wireless to begin with. by Turken · · Score: 1

      why? Because it would be rather impressive to have them there, even if the controllers weren't mobile. The console was designed to "look sexy" and part of that look is the wireless nature. The wired controller I saw at walmart was plugged into the USB port (I think), which was well off center in the front face. Because the console wasn't intended to be primarily used this way, it made the cord even more obvious, and severely detracted from the "coolness" of seeing the console there.

  7. Microsoft slips up again? by nobodyman · · Score: 1



    That's kindof a bummer. I hadn't heard much about the kiosks until I heard Major Nelson's podcast, and the first bad sign was that -- right out of the gate -- he starts trying to talk down the criticisms by claiming that the kiosks were "unoptimized". Unoptimized? Huh??

    This is the same line that some of the Microsoft reps are giving. They aren't saying whether it's the games or the hardware that is supposedly unoptimized, but I call BS on either excuse. It seems doubtful that Microsoft's marketing would be so sloppy with such a high-visibility rollout. My guess is that they didn't anticipate a poor reaction, and that the PR drones are going into damage-control mode.

    This wouldn't be the first high-visibility flub - there was the god-awful MTV unveiling episode, and the E3 "press" conference where microsoft filled the room with paid-for shills posing as journalists. On the other hand, a lot of the feedback from X05 was positive, so I was starting to get my hopes up again. Damn.

    1. Re:Microsoft slips up again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "On the other hand, a lot of the feedback from X05 was positive"

      With the massively negative firsthand impressions from real people seeing the 360 in person I suspect MS has been passing out money hats like mad...

      People aren't just saying the 360 games look not imoressive enough, they are saying they are bad and look worse than on their non-highend pcs at home.

  8. Nope, it's X05 builds... by Iscariot_ · · Score: 1

    I played the 360 at Wal-mart and posted a mini-review on the shack. The reason the X360 kiosks look like shit is mostly due to the fact that the "free" anti-aliasing was not enabled for the 3 demos. Microsoft got a little bit ahead of themselves and pushed their kiosks out the door with X05 builds which (most if not all?) were lacking the free anti-aliasing that we've all been hearing about. I can't really comment on what the final product will look like since I haven't seen it, but I can only assume that the final games will be smoother looking. The 360 offers 4X anti-aliasing for free I think.

    --

    Go here for teh [sic] funny.
    1. Re:Nope, it's X05 builds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      Microsoft has already admitted that no 360 games have anti-aliasing. Get use to the crappy 360 graphics.

      One of the reasons Microsoft is keeping a lid on reviews of 360 launch games...

    2. Re:Nope, it's X05 builds... by hollismb · · Score: 1

      Wow, what an ignorant statement. First of all, Microsoft didn't 'admit' to anything. The ATI chip has a built-in 10 MB buffer for anti-aliasing and HD resolutions without taxing the GPU. Secondly, the reason you haven't read any reviews yet is not because Microsoft is stopping people form writing them (sure, there's the occasional 'review' embargo), but because the games AREN'T FREAKING FINISHED yet. Don't tell me you're one of those people that picks up a Gamepro magazine and believes that any of the reviews in there are actually from the final build of the game?

    3. Re:Nope, it's X05 builds... by Saige · · Score: 1

      Well, at least one MS employee reports that they played on a 360 Kiosk that clearly was set up wrong, and as a result it was full of artifacts and pixelization.

      The Kameo demo I played at the company meeting sure didn't show any signs of looking bad in any way. So I'd be surprised if the kiosks weren't running the exact same thing I played on.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    4. Re:Nope, it's X05 builds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      No 360 game makers, including Microsoft themselves, are going through the hassle of writing their engines to support tile based rendering that is needed to fit rendering buffers inside the small 10MB GPU buffer.

      That is why 360 games all look so bad with jaggies everywhere, not because 'kiosks weren't optimized' or other bullshit.

  9. Why you are a moron: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As My HDTV has taught me those numbers are all the difference in the world. For instance watching HD news when they have a non-HD remote. Yikes. Or just flipping between a football game on an HD channel, and the same game on the channel for all the plebians.

    Newscasters are beyond creepy in HD.