Why only USB 2.0 ? USB 3 charges must faster and has higher data thruput !

Thndr Jun 6, 2015 @ 12:01pm

USB 2.0 is probably used for compatibility reasons. No sense in using USB 3.0 if you gotta be 2.0 compatible no matter what. Plus the steam controller doesn't use so much data it needs 3.0, as it can fit into the scope of what 2.0 can deliver.

Why spend more money on a port that is only going to reach a smaller fraction (3.0 is becoming standard, but isn't that maintstream), does not need the higher technical specs (data throughput), and would cost more?

I personally like usb 3.0 and the bonuses it gives, but 2.0 is a more apt technology to be used here, especially if it makes it more accessible and cheaper.

Last edited by Thndr; Jun 6, 2015 @ 12:05pm

#1

Tankman Jun 6, 2015 @ 12:02pm

It's using a Micro USB plug just like the new Shield controller and Dualshock 4. Also used on many smartphones. I believe that's limited to USB 2.0 as a new larger Micro USB connector was designed for USB 3.0. I'm guessing since none of the other controller manufacturers have adopted USB 3.0 yet, there may not be a need. Most peripherals other than external hard drives are still using USB 2.0 as I think the additional bandwidth is just not needed in a controller.

#2

ChaosAdvanced Jun 6, 2015 @ 12:14pm

I don't really see the benefit for a controller to use USB 3.0. It's an input device. It's not like it's transferring gigabytes of data... And what's the point about battery drainage and charging times? This controller uses AA Batteries and will (probably) use the USB connection for power when in wired mode, so you could run it even without batteries.

#3

Mountain Man Jun 6, 2015 @ 12:30pm

Originally posted by games:
USB 3 is a bit more expensive, but we are talking friggen pennies difference at the manufacturer side per.

It might cost pennies per item, but that can quickly add up to thousands of dollars in additional costs across the production line for zero gain. USB 2.0 is more than fast enough for a game controller. For that matter, USB 1.0 is plenty fast. Game controllers are inherently slow speed, low bandwidth devices simply because of the human factor. There is no reason for the Steam Controller to support 3.0

#4

games Jun 6, 2015 @ 12:40pm

Originally posted by Mountain Man:
Originally posted by games:
USB 3 is a bit more expensive, but we are talking friggen pennies difference at the manufacturer side per.
It might cost pennies per item, but that can quickly add up to thousands of dollars in additional costs across the production line for zero gain. USB 2.0 is more than fast enough for a game controller. For that matter, USB 1.0 is plenty fast. Game controllers are inherently slow speed, low bandwidth devices simply because of the human factor. There is no reason for the Steam Controller to support 3.0

Yes it can, but to me, this is akin to using PCI vs PCIExpress. This is why it's so difficult and why it takes so long before tech becomes mainstream is because manufacturers that penny pinch and overcharge. Today, for $60, a controller should be pretty good and full featured. And if they are concerned of a loss of 5 cents per controller, make a second one that is USB 3, and charge an extra $10 per, which should MORE than offset the costs.

Originally posted by ChaosAdvanced:
I don't really see the benefit for a controller to use USB 3.0. It's an input device. It's not like it's transferring gigabytes of data... And what's the point about battery drainage and charging times? This controller uses AA Batteries and will (probably) use the USB connection for power when in wired mode, so you could run it even without batteries.

It still uses the USB technology to translate over wireless, so it is a constant drain -- meaning shorter times between throwing out those batteries, or recharging. It also means longer re-charge times (if this is even capable).

I like the flat pad, will take some getting used to, but the USB 2.0, and questionable signal quality are killers for me. I already have tonnes of GOOD USB 2.0 controllers. If I buy a new one, I want extended battery life (USB 3.0), and better wireless signal quality -- yes, it is possible to have both of these :)

#5

Thndr Jun 6, 2015 @ 12:57pm

Perhaps the next model will have dual USB 2.0/3.0 support (maybe with a rechargeable battery), but for what their target is, 3.0 support wasn't needed.

For internal controller wireless, they probably have it engineered in a way to use the least amount of power VS the battery life as possible. Since it uses batteries the faster charging time of 3.0 is not needed.

For the PC side, the wireless dongle is 2.0, but that's the PC powering that.

For the cord, you're corded. Unless the controller requires batteries even when plugged in via USB cable drain is not an issue here.

---

PCI vs PCIe isn't a very good comparison unless you're talking about non-graphics cards, in which market shares of port compatibility plays just as much as a factor as cost. Graphics cards still made AGP cards going from AGP to PCIe but they still focused on improving to PCIe and abandoning the obsolete AGP.

Here, USB 2.0 vs 3.0, market share of 3.0 points is not as wide, and if they forces 3.0 compatibility (thus making it so 2.0 ports cannot use the controller), it'd lose a LOT of old computers that do not have 3.0 ports. Or their 3.0 ports are taken up by items that actually need it since this is just a controller.

#6

ChaosAdvanced Jun 6, 2015 @ 1:14pm

Originally posted by games:
It still uses the USB technology to translate over wireless

Please explain this to me. Are you referring to the USB dongle you plug into your PC?
I don't see any reason for the steam controller to keep its internal USB-controler powered while in wireless mode. Or do you think the controllers wireless module is connected internally via USB, like a lot of laptop webcams are? Or that the controller uses the USB protocol for the wireless connection and needs the USB-chip to generate packages? Both possible but unlikely...

#7

Boobina Jun 6, 2015 @ 1:24pm

cost and profit

#8

Thndr Jun 6, 2015 @ 1:32pm

Originally posted by Krelian:
cost and profit

And usefulness.

If it still had the visual touchscreen I could see 3.0 being needed.

#9

games Jun 6, 2015 @ 2:26pm

Originally posted by ChaosAdvanced:
Originally posted by games:
It still uses the USB technology to translate over wireless
Please explain this to me. Are you referring to the USB dongle you plug into your PC?
I don't see any reason for the steam controller to keep its internal USB-controler powered while in wireless mode. Or do you think the controllers wireless module is connected internally via USB, like a lot of laptop webcams are? Or that the controller uses the USB protocol for the wireless connection and needs the USB-chip to generate packages? Both possible but unlikely...

If you did any hardware engineering courses, you would know that the USB connector is the main communication bridge, meaning all data translates through it for the protocol being used -- even over. So yes, it is ALWAYS on, unless they went a VERY expensive route of writing completely separate bridging software to route around the chip, which is doubtful considering the likely reason for USB 2.0 in the first place, is to save a few pennies.

Originally posted by Shake&Bake CorpsThndr:
Originally posted by Krelian:
cost and profit
And usefulness.

If it still had the visual touchscreen I could see 3.0 being needed.

Not sure how using old technology is "useful". I suppose for that reason, perhaps you would prefer an ATA 133 hard drive, or Vesa video card --- since it's "useful" as well. Sorry, but tech from 2000 has been all but abandoned. You don't expect Microsoft to continue to support Windows Millenium do you ? -- same era.

15 year old models of hardware reskinned to look pretty, then locked down to only work with one brand... ya... totally see how that is "useful".

#10

ChaosAdvanced Jun 6, 2015 @ 2:46pm

Originally posted by games:
If you did any hardware engineering courses, you would know that the USB connector is the main communication bridge, meaning all data translates through it for the protocol being used -- even over. So yes, it is ALWAYS on, unless they went a VERY expensive route of writing completely separate bridging software to route around the chip, which is doubtful considering the likely reason for USB 2.0 in the first place, is to save a few pennies.

Ahh, I see. Well if that's the case I agree with you. Power consumption would be a nice benefit of using USB 3.0.
Still not a dealbreaker for me though...

#11

Thndr Jun 6, 2015 @ 2:53pm

Originally posted by Shake&Bake CorpsThndr:
And usefulness.

If it still had the visual touchscreen I could see 3.0 being needed.

Not sure how using old technology is "useful". I suppose for that reason, perhaps you would prefer an ATA 133 hard drive, or Vesa video card --- since it's "useful" as well. Sorry, but tech from 2000 has been all but abandoned. You don't expect Microsoft to continue to support Windows Millenium do you ? -- same era.

15 year old models of hardware reskinned to look pretty, then locked down to only work with one brand... ya... totally see how that is "useful". [/quote]Usefulness is a factor in deciding to use USB 3.0 over 2.0

USB 3.0:
Pros:
less power
more data
duplex

Cons:
Costs more
reduces market.

USB 2.0
Pros:
Costs less
Huge market

Cons:
More power
Less data
Single path

---

I striked out everything that doesn't matter for a non-rechargeable (uses AA batteries) videogame controller with basic input controls,

If two technologies are equally useful for the targeted scope of the product, then their technical aspects don't ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ matter other than the non-technical details like cost and market for sale.

#12

Thndr Jun 6, 2015 @ 3:07pm

Originally posted by ChaosAdvanced:
If you did any hardware engineering courses, you would know that the USB connector is the main communication bridge, meaning all data translates through it for the protocol being used -- even over. So yes, it is ALWAYS on, unless they went a VERY expensive route of writing completely separate bridging software to route around the chip, which is doubtful considering the likely reason for USB 2.0 in the first place, is to save a few pennies.

Except that the fact that the wireless transmitter itself will use the most power out of anything in the controller by a long shot.

Last edited by Thndr; Jun 6, 2015 @ 3:33pm

#13

games Jun 6, 2015 @ 4:08pm

USB 2.0 only has a strong foothold in the market because game-changer companies refuse to push the envelope with new tech, milking old tech for as much $$$ as they can. By the time companies like Steam adopt USB 3.0, that technology will be long since dead. Consider this, the "new" Steam controller, is just now adopting USB 2.0 .... something I had in my Pentium 2, 15 Years ago -.-

And the Alienware steambox. What video card does that have ? it just claims "GeForce GTX" ... uh huh... that could be literally anything --- GeForce 7800 GTX ??

#14

Thndr Jun 6, 2015 @ 4:27pm

Originally posted by games:
USB 2.0 only has a strong foothold in the market because game-changer companies refuse to push the envelope with new tech, milking old tech for as much $$$ as they can. By the time companies like Steam adopt USB 3.0, that technology will be long since dead. Consider this, the "new" Steam controller, is just now adopting USB 2.0 .... something I had in my Pentium 2, 15 Years ago -.-

And the Alienware steambox. What video card does that have ? it just claims "GeForce GTX" ... uh huh... that could be literally anything --- GeForce 7800 GTX ??

Companies go after marketshares and cost viability.
Many USB 3.0 devices have 2.0 throwback drivers and compatibility unless they have a product that must use 3.0 (high speed storage, other devices that are designed to do things 2.0 doesn't support)

If you're going to make a USB 3.0 product that is compatible with USB 2.0, you're better off aiming and optimizing for 2.0 if it's a device that needs to work flawlessly (like a high fidelity input device, such as a controller)

Because you're spending all this time targeting the lowest common denominator, at the end of the day you have a device that is perfectly compatible with it. To then consider making it take advantage of the bonuses 3.0 can give, where exactly would it?
How can you improve on something that is optimized to work as flawlessly as possible with:

1) less power
2) higher throughput
3) duplex

1) For all we know the internal wiring uses 3.0 standard and takes advantage of it for the inter-chip/board data since 3.0 is natively backwards compatible with 2.0 (I do not know the chip/board layout to know the paths that connect the controller board and the transmission board/chips. Such a thing isn't really worthy of even nitpicking)

2) If it works perfectly and sends all the data through 2.0, what more is there?
3) If it works perfectly with it non-duplex, what more is there?

There is nothing to take advantage at all. If they made it 3.0 only, they lose market-share as it wouldn't work with 2.0 ports. If they make it 3.0/2.0 then they waste money because there is literally no marketable benefit other than using the new standard's chips.

---

As a note, for the Steam Link I do wish they used USB 3.0 more as a future proofing things. The steam controller at this moment doesn't need 3.0, but what I wanted to use a USB 3.0 device on it? or charge my phone?

Last edited by Thndr; Jun 6, 2015 @ 4:36pm

#15

Steam Controller

Report this post