Why is the X360 still without built-in wifi?

The amount of people saying "Because wi-fi sucks... ethernet cord is better!" Clearly don't understand that it looks UGLY have a giant cable across your floor or all the extra work just to wrap it though walls.Ringx55

[QUOTE="Ringx55"]The amount of people saying "Because wi-fi sucks... ethernet cord is better!" Clearly don't understand that it looks UGLY have a giant cable across your floor or all the extra work just to wrap it though walls.donalbane

[QUOTE="Ringx55"]The amount of people saying "Because wi-fi sucks... ethernet cord is better!" Clearly don't understand that it looks UGLY have a giant cable across your floor or all the extra work just to wrap it though walls.donalbane

... Depending how far away from the router you are and if its a good router, and you live in a average place where you some how have some ridiculous amount of interference then yes.. Wifi in my experience is just as reliable and just as fast.. The new wireless runs faster then the download and upload rates of the typical cable modem already.. So in this sense, the cable modem is the bottle neck.. Not the wireless..

PC gaming its even MORe the case because the components are high quality.. Either through ethernet cord on my desktop or wireless through my laptop, I notice 0 difference.

[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="Ringx55"]The amount of people saying "Because wi-fi sucks... ethernet cord is better!" Clearly don't understand that it looks UGLY have a giant cable across your floor or all the extra work just to wrap it though walls.sSubZerOo

... Depending how far away from the router you are and if its a good router, and you live in a average place where you some how have some ridiculous amount of interference then yes.. Wifi in my experience is just as reliable and just as fast.. The new wireless runs faster then the download and upload rates of the typical cable modem already.. So in this sense, the cable modem is the bottle neck.. Not the wireless..

PC gaming its even MORe the case because the components are high quality.. Either through ethernet cord on my desktop or wireless through my laptop, I notice 0 difference.

[QUOTE="Ringx55"]The amount of people saying "Because wi-fi sucks... ethernet cord is better!" Clearly don't understand that it looks UGLY have a giant cable across your floor or all the extra work just to wrap it though walls.donalbane

[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="Ringx55"]The amount of people saying "Because wi-fi sucks... ethernet cord is better!" Clearly don't understand that it looks UGLY have a giant cable across your floor or all the extra work just to wrap it though walls.Verge_6

[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="Ringx55"]The amount of people saying "Because wi-fi sucks... ethernet cord is better!" Clearly don't understand that it looks UGLY have a giant cable across your floor or all the extra work just to wrap it though walls.Ringx55

It took maybe 10 minutes to set up my wired connection and conceal it along the baseboard. It's invisible. You set up a hyperbolic situationof extremes in order to arguefor wifi... either someone has to destroy their walls or leave their cables on the floor sloppily. There is a middle road you are ignoring that requires little time and effort, and it looksand performs wonderfully.

[QUOTE="Ringx55"][QUOTE="donalbane"] Don't assume people aren't willing to trade a little (very, very little) time in order to get a more reliable, faster connection. If you have a wire on the floor, then you are just a lazy bastard. You don't have to get into the walls to have a nice looking wired setup, either.donalbane

It took maybe 10 minutes to set up my wired connection and conceal it along the baseboard. It's invisible. You set up a hyperbolic situationof extremes in order to arguefor wifi... either someone has to destroy their walls or leave their cables on the floor sloppily. There is a middle road you are ignoring that requires little time and effort, and it looksand performs wonderfully.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="donalbane"] Don't assume people aren't willing to trade a little (very, very little) time in order to get a more reliable, faster connection. If you have a wire on the floor, then you are just a lazy bastard. You don't have to get into the walls to have a nice looking wired setup, either.kuraimen

[QUOTE="Ringx55"][QUOTE="donalbane"] Don't assume people aren't willing to trade a little (very, very little) time in order to get a more reliable, faster connection. If you have a wire on the floor, then you are just a lazy bastard. You don't have to get into the walls to have a nice looking wired setup, either.donalbane

It took maybe 10 minutes to set up my wired connection and conceal it along the baseboard. It's invisible. You set up a hyperbolic situationof extremes in order to arguefor wifi... either someone has to destroy their walls or leave their cables on the floor sloppily. There is a middle road you are ignoring that requires little time and effort, and it looksand performs wonderfully.

Very little amount of time? Are you kidding me, it's a pain the *** to wrap the cable though walls to walls to get it into another room where the router is.Ringx55

It took maybe 10 minutes to set up my wired connection and conceal it along the baseboard. It's invisible. You set up a hyperbolic situationof extremes in order to arguefor wifi... either someone has to destroy their walls or leave their cables on the floor sloppily. There is a middle road you are ignoring that requires little time and effort, and it looksand performs wonderfully.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Verge_6"] I'm always confused why most wi-fi proponents think that the only way to setup a wired connection is to have two hundred feet of ethernet cable snaking across the middle of the floor throughout the house. :?donalbane

i don't think they have any financially soundreason to include it.

[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] The only one saying it is the only way here is you. Different situations apply to different people. In my case I would have to get a pretty long cable and set it up uncomfortably around the house and it would take a long time. That everyone needs wifi is as ridiculous as saying that nobody needs it.kuraimen

BTW, is there anyone actually using wireless ?

That is only used in extreme situations where a cable cant be installed, since the wireless is slower, looses packets an can be broken easilly in some cases, i would never use wireless myself

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="donalbane"] Well if you need it for your 360, it's an option. But why charge everyone for something not everyone is going to use? And by the way, it's a myth that people have to use the Microsoft adapter... you can choose one of several options. AND while we're on the topic, I must say that as an owner of the PS3 and the Xbox 360 with the type G wifi adapter, the type G adapter you pay for works better than the one that comes with the PS3. But who knows... maybe PSN is just slower than LIVE. donalbane

Oh no, stop saying that, you have to buy an MS one for full price, otherwise how will fanboys bash 360 ?

When did the PS3 get wireless N built in?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="donalbane"] Well if you need it for your 360, it's an option. But why charge everyone for something not everyone is going to use? And by the way, it's a myth that people have to use the Microsoft adapter... you can choose one of several options. AND while we're on the topic, I must say that as an owner of the PS3 and the Xbox 360 with the type G wifi adapter, the type G adapter you pay for works better than the one that comes with the PS3. But who knows... maybe PSN is just slower than LIVE. donalbane

bigger question is why is he saying wireless G is the same as wireless N

hmmm. Maybe wired connections are more "reliable" but for me it was simply easier to go wireless. It was like this, get a router that I can connect to laptops, handhelds, PC's, TV's, and consoles, or buy a 30 ft. cord for one console. Even my Wii has an amazing connection that only lags when there is a TERRIBLE host.

BTW, is there anyone actually using wireless ?

That is only used in extreme situations where a cable cant be installed, since the wireless is slower, looses packets an can be broken easilly in some cases, i would never use wireless myself

theseekar

The whole discussion about whether wired is a feasible option or not is kind of pointless I would say. I mean, even the friggin' Wii gets free Wifi!

[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Charge everyone? Do you know how much costs the wifi on the PS3. It is like $4, hardly something to whine about. Microsoft is charging $100 for basically the same thing.gamer-adam1

bigger question is why is he saying wireless G is the same as wireless N

i laugh at people saying Wifi is pointless and is terrible for online gaming. it's 2010 already. wtf. i play Bad Company 2 while my family watches Video on Demand. Both on wifi. you people either have never played through wifi before, or do not know how to configure your routers right to send the highest maximum packets available through wifi. geez. bu-bu-but...wired is faster than wireless for online gaming! seriously, you dont need a fast connection to play online since you wont be downloading huge chunks of data. so please stop with this nonsense. if it were an MMORPG with huge maps that contain hundreds or thousands of people, then you need a very fast wifi. but with 360/ps3 games, you don't. i dont lag at all.

also, that wireless N adapter for youe 360 which is $99 is pointless. you dont spawn in the map faster, or start the match earlier. wtf. it's only good if your 360 is 300 feet away from your router, which is only possible if you have a house as big as a football stadium and your router and your 360 are on opposite ends, which is stupid.

They honestly don't need it.mrmusicman247

because wifi is pointless for anything that stays in one place. laptop and pdas are the only things that wifi is useful on. Wired connections are simpler and work better so why go wireless? imprezawrx500

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="donalbane"] Don't assume people aren't willing to trade a little (very, very little) time in order to get a more reliable, faster connection. If you have a wire on the floor, then you are just a lazy bastard. You don't have to get into the walls to have a nice looking wired setup, either.donalbane

... Depending how far away from the router you are and if its a good router, and you live in a average place where you some how have some ridiculous amount of interference then yes.. Wifi in my experience is just as reliable and just as fast.. The new wireless runs faster then the download and upload rates of the typical cable modem already.. So in this sense, the cable modem is the bottle neck.. Not the wireless..

PC gaming its even MORe the case because the components are high quality.. Either through ethernet cord on my desktop or wireless through my laptop, I notice 0 difference.

.. Probably fine? A G Router is more then adaquate.. With my old G router I got speeds of 1.5 megs a second or beyond with download rates.. This is a problem of the XBL service NOT the actual connection.. Serioulsy any one thinking that wireless is too slow for playing games is fooling them selves, with a good router and internaet connection, you will not notice a difference with ANY game..

i laugh at people saying Wifi is pointless and is terrible for online gaming. it's 2010 already. wtf. i play Bad Company 2 while my family watches Video on Demand. Both on wifi. you people either have never played through wifi before, or do not know how to configure your routers right to send the highest maximum packets available through wifi. geez. bu-bu-but...wired is faster than wireless for online gaming! seriously, you dont need a fast connection to play online since you wont be downloading huge chunks of data. so please stop with this nonsense. if it were an MMORPG with huge maps that contain hundreds or thousands of people, then you need a very fast wifi. but with 360/ps3 games, you don't. i dont lag at all.

also, that wireless N adapter for youe 360 which is $99 is pointless. you dont spawn in the map faster, or start the match earlier. wtf. it's only good if your 360 is 300 feet away from your router, which is only possible if you have a house as big as a football stadium and your router and your 360 are on opposite ends, which is stupid.

rawr89

No you don't MMORPG's do not require a very good connection.. WoW, Everquest 2, Warhammer Online, etc etc.. All can easily be played on wifi..

[QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

PS3 wifi sucks. Maybe that's why.

Get a cheap bridge and get PC grade wifi.

I'm running both PS3 and 360 on wireless N... With a Dlink DAP 1522. Feels like I'm wired... Unlike with the PS3's built in G, that has latency issues. I can tell when I use that.

Zero_epyon

Ihave no idea wth you are talking about. You obviously have no clue what your a rambling about.

But it still doesn't change the fact that wireless Nbridge > PS3 wifi.

because wifi is pointless for anything that stays in one place. laptop and pdas are the only things that wifi is useful on. Wired connections are simpler and work better so why go wireless? imprezawrx500

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]because wifi is pointless for anything that stays in one place. laptop and pdas are the only things that wifi is useful on. Wired connections are simpler and work better so why go wireless? CwlHeddwyn

I am still trying to figure out.. What performance :| is being sacrificed.. Games do not require much broadband, and a wireless connection right now far exceeds any game needs to work at its best.. The only thing that is being sacrificed is download speeds, and for something like Playstation 3, you will most likely never see the difference on that even when their download rates are low to begin with... 99% of all online downloads I do even pushing past 2mb/s I don't see a difference.. Its only when I am transfering large data over the network does that roof hit.

[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

... Depending how far away from the router you are and if its a good router, and you live in a average place where you some how have some ridiculous amount of interference then yes.. Wifi in my experience is just as reliable and just as fast.. The new wireless runs faster then the download and upload rates of the typical cable modem already.. So in this sense, the cable modem is the bottle neck.. Not the wireless..

PC gaming its even MORe the case because the components are high quality.. Either through ethernet cord on my desktop or wireless through my laptop, I notice 0 difference.

sSubZerOo

.. Probably fine? A G Router is more then adaquate.. With my old G router I got speeds of 1.5 megs a second or beyond with download rates.. This is a problem of the XBL service NOT the actual connection.. Serioulsy any one thinking that wireless is too slow for playing games is fooling them selves, with a good router and internaet connection, you will not notice a difference with ANY game..

I am still trying to figure out.. What performance :| is being sacrificed.. Games do not require much broadband, and a wireless connection right now far exceeds any game needs to work at its best.. The only thing that is being sacrificed is download speeds, and for something like Playstation 3, you will most likely never see the difference on that even when their download rates are low to begin with... 99% of all online downloads I do even pushing past 2mb/s I don't see a difference.. Its only when I am transfering large data over the network does that roof hit.

sSubZerOo

Anyone that uses wired connections alot can tell you there is a small latency gap when you use wireless. I see it when I play wireless. That's why alot of hard core gamers get expensive NIC cards, routersand high quality network cable to get the most out of their connections. You can't control wireless as much.

If you don't play one another much... Your not going to notice.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

I am still trying to figure out.. What performance :| is being sacrificed.. Games do not require much broadband, and a wireless connection right now far exceeds any game needs to work at its best.. The only thing that is being sacrificed is download speeds, and for something like Playstation 3, you will most likely never see the difference on that even when their download rates are low to begin with... 99% of all online downloads I do even pushing past 2mb/s I don't see a difference.. Its only when I am transfering large data over the network does that roof hit.

Truth_Hurts_U

Anyone that uses wired connections alot can tell you there is a small latency gap when you use wireless. I see it when I play wireless. That's why alot of hard core gamers get expensive NIC cards, routersand high quality network cable to get the most out of their connections. You can't control wireless as much.

If you don't play one another much... Your not going to notice.

ROFL the results of an online match does not depend on the latency of yourconnection. i paly on wireless on my ps3 and im always the best player on Bad Company 2. 360 games only require a G-connection, which is the standard of wireless. that small latency gap does nothing on 360 games online. seriously. there's no difference playing Gears 2 online with a wired or wireless. by 'hardcore gamers' you mean online PC games, then yes. but 360 games having better online when they're wired rather than wireless? nonsense.

to the people who say that g does nothing to n on a router need to get their facts straight. I have an N router and if anything g hooks up to it automatically slows the connection down to G no matter how many N devices you have but to each their own i am not getting involved with this pointless debate about why xbox doesnt have wifi built in. I am happy microsoft did it that way cause i dont use wireless for my system and if i did there wireless bridges and other ways to get wireless on the system by the way there is a N adapter for the PS3 but look and see how much it costs then come back and let me know what you think of that price.

[QUOTE="silversix_"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Many 360 users disagree with you. In a place like amazon the 360 wireless adapter has 170 days on the top 100 bestselling list in videogames. That means there are quite a lot of people buying it.Heirren

Well, if you live in a city, with a wireless connection you can often times just pick up your signal for free. I had xbox live for two years at one point without even having a service provider.

ROFL the results of an online match does not depend on the latency of yourconnection. i paly on wireless on my ps3 and im always the best player on Bad Company 2. 360 games only require a G-connection, which is the standard of wireless. that small latency gap does nothing on 360 games online. seriously. there's no difference playing Gears 2 online with a wired or wireless. by 'hardcore gamers' you mean online PC games, then yes. but 360 games having better online when they're wired rather than wireless? nonsense.

rawr89

Laugh all you want... But facts are facts. Not my fault you don't know how these things work.

Just google "wired vs wireless latency". Read the facts.

Wired > Wireless

to the people who say that g does nothing to n on a router need to get their facts straight. I have an N router and if anything g hooks up to it automatically slows the connection down to G no matter how many N devices you have but to each their own i am not getting involved with this pointless debate about why xbox doesnt have wifi built in. I am happy microsoft did it that way cause i dont use wireless for my system and if i did there wireless bridges and other ways to get wireless on the system by the way there is a N adapter for the PS3 but look and see how much it costs then come back and let me know what you think of that price.

Vipa37

If you have a simultaneous dual band router this does not happen.

[QUOTE="rawr89"]

ROFL the results of an online match does not depend on the latency of yourconnection. i paly on wireless on my ps3 and im always the best player on Bad Company 2. 360 games only require a G-connection, which is the standard of wireless. that small latency gap does nothing on 360 games online. seriously. there's no difference playing Gears 2 online with a wired or wireless. by 'hardcore gamers' you mean online PC games, then yes. but 360 games having better online when they're wired rather than wireless? nonsense.

Truth_Hurts_U

Laugh all you want... But facts are facts. Not my fault you don't know how these things work.

Just google "wired vs wireless latency". Read the facts.

Wired > Wireless

Maybe because it's selling fine without it? Why decrease your profit by adding in features that aren't inceaseing sales?

And if my computer is no where near my unit which does not have wifi? Wifi is win. Better to have the option doesnt it? But if 360 did have it and ps3 didnt, i bet 360 owners would jump all over the oputurnity...

Aboogie5

What I find funny is people saying you have to get a $100 add on to play wireless on 360. This is false. Any wireless bridge will pretty much work and have the ability to hook 3 other things to it... For less the the cost of 1 adaptor. MS is only getting people that have no idea about networks to buy their adaptor and it works.

[QUOTE="Aboogie5"]

And if my computer is no where near my unit which does not have wifi? Wifi is win. Better to have the option doesnt it? But if 360 did have it and ps3 didnt, i bet 360 owners would jump all over the oputurnity...

Truth_Hurts_U

What I find funny is people saying you have to get a $100 add on to play wireless on 360. This is false. Any wireless bridge will pretty much work and have the ability to hook 3 other things to it... For less the the cost of 1 adaptor. MS is only getting people that have no idea about networks to buy their adaptor and it works.

What I find funny is people saying you have to get a $100 add on to play wireless on 360. This is false. Any wireless bridge will pretty much work and have the ability to hook 3 other things to it... For less the the cost of 1 adaptor. MS is only getting people that have no idea about networks to buy their adaptor and it works.

Truth_Hurts_U

Or people who know some things about networking yet lack the space and/or power strip outlets needed for a wireless bridge. Lol, I had to take down may Terk antenna in order to make room for my new 360. Luckily i still have (very) basic cable which offers about the same few HD channels I received over the air.

because wifi is pointless for anything that stays in one place. laptop and pdas are the only things that wifi is useful on. Wired connections are simpler and work better so why go wireless? imprezawrx500

because wifi is pointless for anything that stays in one place. laptop and pdas are the only things that wifi is useful on. Wired connections are simpler and work better so why go wireless? imprezawrx500

I dont see a reason to use wifi. They make cables long enough to go anywhere in your house. More wireless users in a game the more laggy it will get. I cant imagine the lag wii has online. If the only reason to use wireless is its too far from your router then your going to have a laggy wifi connection. Wireless n works alot better than wireless g but you have to buy that on ps3.

[QUOTE="Aboogie5"]

And if my computer is no where near my unit which does not have wifi? Wifi is win. Better to have the option doesnt it? But if 360 did have it and ps3 didnt, i bet 360 owners would jump all over the oputurnity...

Truth_Hurts_U

What I find funny is people saying you have to get a $100 add on to play wireless on 360. This is false. Any wireless bridge will pretty much work and have the ability to hook 3 other things to it... For less the the cost of 1 adaptor. MS is only getting people that have no idea about networks to buy their adaptor and it works.

both of these.

there's no reason for MS to not to implement it, so if they don't include it with the slim. I'll be disappointed with their actions.

and there's is choice past the $100 adapter, look around, there's alternatives for all of MS's tricks. no sense in downplaying them.

still, wire>all.

that's my personal choice (the right one) and I made the wire myself. makes me feel extra special.

[QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

[QUOTE="Aboogie5"]

And if my computer is no where near my unit which does not have wifi? Wifi is win. Better to have the option doesnt it? But if 360 did have it and ps3 didnt, i bet 360 owners would jump all over the oputurnity...

HavocV3

What I find funny is people saying you have to get a $100 add on to play wireless on 360. This is false. Any wireless bridge will pretty much work and have the ability to hook 3 other things to it... For less the the cost of 1 adaptor. MS is only getting people that have no idea about networks to buy their adaptor and it works.

both of these.

there's no reason for MS to not to implement it, so if they don't include it with the slim. I'll be disappointed with their actions.

and there's is choice past the $100 adapter, look around, there's alternatives for all of MS's tricks. no sense in downplaying them.

still, wire>all.

that's my personal choice (the right one) and I made the wire myself. makes me feel extra special.

yeah, I think this cell-phone and 3g craze has people thinking wireless is the end-all be-all technology.

at some point, there's a wire involved, wireless just can't be better. like that big-ass cable under the ocean. I will not concede until that is disposed of.