almcchesney said:
or it might be about including 20$ technology and not charging an outragous 100$ for it |
Its better that 1/20 people pay $100 than 19/20 pay an extra $10 for a feature they don't need.
Tease.
hahah as usual ppl from the 360 fanboy squad list
| Squilliam said: So a wireless connection is at best worth 5% or 1/20 people connecting to the internet who may have otherwise not? I can see now why they didn't include it. |
Doesn't mean that maybe another 20-30% aren't pissed they had to relocate there console/furniture/buy a wireless card. It's a matter of consumer satisfaction.
Besides I would guess it has more to do with the fact that PSN is free, and XBL is not. Why bother connecting your 360 if you don't want to P2P. I guess that's more likely to be what accounts for the difference.
Xero said:
Doesn't mean that maybe another 20-30% aren't pissed they had to relocate there console/furniture/buy a wireless card. It's a matter of consumer satisfaction. Besides I would guess it has more to do with the fact that PSN is free, and XBL is not. Why bother connecting your 360 if you don't want to P2P. I guess that's more likely to be what accounts for the difference.
|
I can sum up your post with two words:
BIG ASSUMPTION
Tease.
It's hardly a 'big assumption'. Of course wireless is typically going to be more convenient for people, and wires are in turn an inconvenience. I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't see wireless, especially when the only alternative wired options were $100, as an asset.
If perhaps you're referring to the later section of my post (which you didn't make clear, nice one), it's no more of a 'big assumption' than your initial 'wireless connection is at best worth 5%'.
| Xero said: It's hardly a 'big assumption'. Of course wireless is typically going to be more convenient for people, and wires are in turn an inconvenience. I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't see wireless, especially when the only alternative wired options were $100, as an asset. If perhaps you're referring to the later section of my post (which you didn't make clear, nice one), it's no more of a 'big assumption' than your initial 'wireless connection is at best worth 5%'. |
The alternative wired options are $100? For what?
Either way... I wouldn't want to use Wireless. It's the main reason I got a 20 gig PS3 infact... that and the BC.
Wireless sucks for gaming, sure if you've got a labtop go nuts. Wired will usually give you a better connection and at worst case give as good as a connection as wireless does.
| Steve_Fox said: hahah as usual ppl from the 360 fanboy squad list |
I'm actually surprised Kowenicki isn't here, he must not of found the thread yet.
Kasz216 said:
The alternative wired options are $100? For what? Wireless sucks for gaming, sure if you've got a labtop go nuts. Wired will usually give you a better connection and at worst case give as good as a connection as wireless does. |
Wireless isn't so bad, at max you're going to add 10ms of latency which isn't likely to be noticable as on dedicated servers you're already going to be playing on ~50ms. I have 3 PS3s, one on a wired connection, two on wireless. The only area I notice the additional lag is with fighters, such as teeken. Most decent FPS make calculations client side so so long as the latency isn't too severe you won't notice a difference between wired/wireless.
It's of course worse than a wired connection, but most people wouldn't notice the difference.
Seece said:
I've not derailed anything, I've responded to the deceptive title ...... |
what title would you give it? Have you seen the article in the news that's even worse. The numbers do make it rather clear it's not the percentage each console has of all consoles that are online since the numbers add up to over 200%
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
