MS made the right decision with RROD

On SW loads of people have been talking about an MS employee being fired for breaching hos contract, for those of you who dont now he spoke about RROD and told everyone that before the 360 was released MS was already getting warnings that there were problems with the console. nearly 70% of them never made it to stores due to breaking down. So MS fully knew what could happen. Heres a link for more info:

www.gamersdailynews.com/story-4436-Microsoft-employee-fired-for-talking-about-the-Xbox-360.html

Now many fanboys have started claiming that MS is a really bad company for still releasing the console even though it had problems, saying that they are a bad company ect ect... Personally I think that this is wrong.

What you must realsie is that when MS was told this, they may have only had 5-6 months left before release, or even less time. There was no way they could redesign the console and still release it at the same time. So if they pushed the date back they would miss a launch at christmas, which would have meant loads less sales.

It also would have meant starting around the same time as the wii and ps3, which would have been disastorous. I firmly believe that if they pushed the console back they would be in a much worse financial postion than they are in now.

It would also be bad for us. MS would not have the moneyto make their exclusives better, which means less sales. They would not have gotten sony exclusives to go multiplat, and being a 360 gamer at this time would not be good.

So MS was faced with a desicion, start with a huge disadvantage, or take a risk. They knew that if RROD did become a problem it would be pretty bad, but chances are they hoped that they would be able to keep it under control for long enough to fix the problem.

And they are ding just that. We have a 3 year warranty, and new 360s are out which are not too bad.

imo MS made the righ decision, for them and us. Dont be put off getting a 360 over this its still a great console, and if you get RROD, its no big deal, you send it to MS, and you get it in a week or 2 with the new parts including a new case.

its sad but true.....

if MS waited a year to fix all hardware....PS3 would have crushed 360 if they launched tot-to-toe.

Still why relase a console when they know it got very serious technincal problems? Couldn't they have delayed it?SuperEmpera

From a consumer standpoint, delaying the console would have been the best thing to do.

From a business standpoint, delaying it would have been disasterous.

Still why relase a console when they know it got very serious technincal problems? Couldn't they have delayed it?SuperEmpera

they needed the advantage. PS3 would crush 360 if released at the same time.

It was okay for them to screw over millons of there consumers just so they wouldn't lose money? I mean, come on, really? How can you even defend that?0bscurity

It honestly can't be defended, but regardless, they had to release it and it apparently paid off, people bought the console, the only good thing that can be said is MS put the RROD warranty in place, so they're obviously trying to help the people they screwed.

if their next console is:

1. reliable

2. standard harddrvie

3. internal wifi

4. Something better then dvd....

Then I see little reason for anybody to not like the next console. LIVE is a factor, but MS might introduce more things that will soften the annual cost.

if their next console is:

1. reliable

2. standard harddrvie

3. internal wifi

4. Something better then dvd....

Then I see little reason for anybody to not like the next console. LIVE is a factor, but MS might introduce more things that will soften the annual cost.

-General_Ram-

Just like the PS3 then

[QUOTE="SuperEmpera"]Still why relase a console when they know it got very serious technincal problems? Couldn't they have delayed it?Nagidar

From a consumer standpoint, delaying the console would have been the best thing to do.

From a business standpoint, delaying it would have been disasterous.

delaying it would also hurt the consumer as well though, MS was able to secure titles like dead rising, ace combat, saints row, etc.. because development started first on the 360. It also brought more sales allowing MS to secure titles like DMC4, FF, GTA4, etc..which were exclusive/timed to the PS2.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="SuperEmpera"]Still why relase a console when they know it got very serious technincal problems? Couldn't they have delayed it?opex07

From a consumer standpoint, delaying the console would have been the best thing to do.

From a business standpoint, delaying it would have been disasterous.

delaying it would also hurt the consumer as well though, MS was able to secure titles like dead rising, ace combat, saints row, etc.. because development started first on the 360. It also brought more sales allowing MS to secure titles like DMC4, FF, GTA4, etc..which were exclusive/timed to the PS2.

MS still would have been able to secure titles regardless of when the 360 was released, they have the pockets the other 2 companies do not have, its all a matter of them getting the jump on SONY, which is probably why MS decided to release it instead of delaying it.

its sad but true.....

if MS waited a year to fix all hardware....PS3 would have crushed 360 if they launched tot-to-toe.

-General_Ram-

I dont know about that, the price difference between the two was huge. About a $200 dollar difference, I think the results would have been same.

[QUOTE="-General_Ram-"]

if their next console is:

1. reliable

2. standard harddrvie

3. internal wifi

4. Something better then dvd....

Then I see little reason for anybody to not like the next console. LIVE is a factor, but MS might introduce more things that will soften the annual cost.

carlisledavid79

Just like the PS3 then

Yeah, but with a supeior online system and more impressive library:wink:

[QUOTE="-General_Ram-"]

if their next console is:

1. reliable

2. standard harddrvie

3. internal wifi

4. Something better then dvd....

Then I see little reason for anybody to not like the next console. LIVE is a factor, but MS might introduce more things that will soften the annual cost.

carlisledavid79

Just like the PS3 then

What would it matter if it was? The whole point is to get features that your competition has or more for a lesser price. I don't see what your point is.

the lems are trying to justify their unreliable console lmao :lol:SolidGame_basic

As long as I have had the 360 it has been very reliable and I have had no issues, so frankly I don't have to justify anything. Don't always assume everyone has the same issues. :roll:

The topic should simply be, "MS made the right decision in releasing the console early" because there was nothing "right" about having the RROD.

So really, launching early was smart, not preparing for it wasnt.

Truly pathetic. Lemmings are now begging us to buy a 360.

Still why relase a console when they know it got very serious technincal problems? Couldn't they have delayed it?SuperEmpera

Did you read the first post?

MS still would have been able to secure titles regardless of when the 360 was released, they have the pockets the other 2 companies do not have, its all a matter of them getting the jump on SONY, which is probably why MS decided to release it instead of delaying it.

Nagidar

Having big pockets doesn't mean a company would willingly throw money at a product, the company has to make the product worthwhile to its stock holders first. If they didn't release the 360 first it would probably have the smallest userbase out of the 3 next gen consoles, and would have been directly competing against the PS3 for dev support, which would have hurt the 360 since the PS3 had enormous hype and its past iterations were extremely successful.

It was okay for them to screw over millons of there consumers just so they wouldn't lose money? I mean, come on, really? How can you even defend that?0bscurity

Companies do it all the time its called business. They were willing to take hit a like they did to get the headstart. In everything that is manufactured there is always failure rates and of course the rate was high, they still took a chance and in the long run it hurt them, but I don't think it hurt them as much as it would have if they delayed the launch date.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

MS still would have been able to secure titles regardless of when the 360 was released, they have the pockets the other 2 companies do not have, its all a matter of them getting the jump on SONY, which is probably why MS decided to release it instead of delaying it.

opex07

Having big pockets doesn't mean a company would willingly throw money at a product, the company has to make the product worthwhile to its stock holders first. If they didn't release the 360 first it would probably have the smallest userbase out of the 3 next gen consoles, and would have been directly competing against the PS3 for dev support, which would have hurt the 360 since the PS3 had enormous hype and its past iterations were extremely successful.

Having deep pockets means they can get themselves games if they need to, but regardless, you just proved my point, they needed to get the jump on SONY, which is why they released it when they did.

The consumer would have been better of if it was delayed, they would have received a more reliable product, and if it was released around the time the PS3 was, they would still have been fine, the 360 would still be the easier of the 2 to dev for and it would still be cheaper, they would no longer have the headstart, but they would still have been fine. I would wager, more people would have bought the 360 if the RROD issue wasn't there.

From a business standpoint, it wouldn't have been a very good thing, MS' whole plan was to get the jump on the other 2 companies, while it was successful against SONY, we all know how it turned out against Nintendo.

[QUOTE="-General_Ram-"]

its sad but true.....

if MS waited a year to fix all hardware....PS3 would have crushed 360 if they launched tot-to-toe.

xscrapzx

I dont know about that, the price difference between the two was huge. About a $200 dollar difference, I think the results would have been same.

the lems are trying to justify their unreliable console lmao :lol:SolidGame_basic

I am a cow manticore

I have always been a cow manticore

For someone who has over 10,000 posts here you dont know much about anyone else who posts here do you?

From my posts in the past I think its pretty obvious I am biased to wards the ps3.

I hate fanboy posts like this. its partly the reason i created this thread. Fanboys have taken this news about RROD, and have posted about it without thinking at all. I was just trying to explain the why MS may have made the decision they did.

Like I said I am mostly cow, its just that I dont let fanboyism get in the way of logic.

The topic should simply be, "MS made the right decision in releasing the console early" because there was nothing "right" about having the RROD.

So really, launching early was smart, not preparing for it wasnt.

carljohnson3456

yeah but if I did not include the word RROD I doubt anyone would have posted here :P

Having deep pockets means they can get themselves games if they need to, but regardless, you just proved my point, they needed to get the jump on SONY, which is why they released it when they did.

The consumer would have been better of if it was delayed, they would have received a more reliable product, and if it was released around the time the PS3 was, they would still have been fine, the 360 would still be the easier of the 2 to dev for and it would still be cheaper, they would no longer have the headstart, but they would still have been fine. I would wager, more people would have bought the 360 if the RROD issue wasn't there.

From a business standpoint, it wouldn't have been a very good thing, MS' whole plan was to get the jump on the other 2 companies, while it was successful against SONY, we all know how it turned out against Nintendo.

Nagidar

As shown by the original xbox MS isn't able to throw around money for a product that isn't exactly worthwile.

It wouldn't be the same if they released at the same time the 360 would not have titles like GRAW, Ace combat, Eternal sonata, Dead rising, Saints row, Moto GP06, etc..as exclusive titles since all of these devs said numerous times that the only reason they developed these titles exclusively for the 360 was because it came out first along with timed exclusive titles like rainbow six, oblivion, splinter cell, lost planet, etc.., with a large portion of its game library gone there would be little incentive for people to chose the 360 over the PS3 especially since the price of the PS3 dropped so quickly.

[QUOTE="carlisledavid79"][QUOTE="-General_Ram-"]

if their next console is:

1. reliable

2. standard harddrvie

3. internal wifi

4. Something better then dvd....

Then I see little reason for anybody to not like the next console. LIVE is a factor, but MS might introduce more things that will soften the annual cost.

-DrRobotnik-

Just like the PS3 then

Yeah, but with a supeior online system and more impressive library:wink:

You can see into the next gen's library?

I guess what you're saying is true. They rushed out the console with no consideration for the users, all they cared about was sales and money. They just wanted to rip off the customer by bringing out early for the sales, they didn't care if they'd be annoyed if the 360 broke.

It proves that M$ care more about money than they do the customers, they ripped you off and they laugh at you with all their money. EVIL!

its sad but true.....

if MS waited a year to fix all hardware....PS3 would have crushed 360 if they launched tot-to-toe.

-General_Ram-

I completely disagree. If they would have waited they would still have a HUGE software lineup, perfect hardware, and they could have included HD-DVD in the console.

IMO it was mistake to rush it. Sure you win the US fanboys but outside of the US, the RRoD has killed the 360. Even with all the great software it can't compete against a machine that is over twice as expensive?

It just goes to show you how brilliant MS PR department was when they convinced people "things break you know" as a vaild excuse for the X360 problems.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Having deep pockets means they can get themselves games if they need to, but regardless, you just proved my point, they needed to get the jump on SONY, which is why they released it when they did.

The consumer would have been better of if it was delayed, they would have received a more reliable product, and if it was released around the time the PS3 was, they would still have been fine, the 360 would still be the easier of the 2 to dev for and it would still be cheaper, they would no longer have the headstart, but they would still have been fine. I would wager, more people would have bought the 360 if the RROD issue wasn't there.

From a business standpoint, it wouldn't have been a very good thing, MS' whole plan was to get the jump on the other 2 companies, while it was successful against SONY, we all know how it turned out against Nintendo.

opex07

As shown by the original xbox MS isn't able to throw around money for a product that isn't exactly worthwile.

It wouldn't be the same if they released at the same time the 360 would not have titles like GRAW, Ace combat, Eternal sonata, Dead rising, Saints row, Moto GP06, etc..as exclusive titles since all of these devs said numerous times that the only reason they developed these titles exclusively for the 360 was because it came out first along with timed exclusive titles like rainbow six, oblivion, splinter cell, lost planet, etc.., with a large portion of its game library gone there would be little incentive for people to chose the 360 over the PS3 especially since the price of the PS3 dropped so quickly.

1. MS IS able to throw around money when they want, don't use the original Xbox as an example, the original Xbox was the first step in MS' 3 step plan.

2. We don't know what would have happened, but the fact is, MS has the money to get the exclusives they want, but because MS released earlier, the weren't put in a position where it mattered. MS has more money than BOTH Nintendo and SONY combined.

3. I have never seen anything about devs saying they wouldn't have kept games Exclusive if the 360 wasn't released first, probably because thats not true, devs recevived their kits for both the PS3 and 360 around the same time, which was before the 360 launched, devs had plenty of time to dev for both the PS3 and 360. In fact, SR was in the works for the PS3 and got canceled.

I guess what you're saying is true. They rushed out the console with no consideration for the users, all they cared about was sales and money. They just wanted to rip off the customer by bringing out early for the sales, they didn't care if they'd be annoyed if the 360 broke.

It proves that M$ care more about money than they do the customers, they ripped you off and they laugh at you with all their money. EVIL!

plod2

I think you may have mis interpreted what I said.

Its not to do with ripping off the consumer. MS decided to release the console on time as otherwise they could not compete, like I said this means less exclusives, less good games.

plus I dont feel ripped off. My 360 lasted until about 2 weeks ago, I got it replaced withing a couple weeks. It would obviously be worse if it broke when a good game came out but still its not too bad.

Its not about being evil, its about being buissiness wise. They decided they could ride this out. And they are. The newer models work better and the consumer so far has gotten good value for money.

Its not about right or wrong, none of the options for MS were good for them or us. MS just had to take the risk and it paid off.

[QUOTE="-DrRobotnik-"][QUOTE="carlisledavid79"][QUOTE="-General_Ram-"]

if their next console is:

1. reliable

2. standard harddrvie

3. internal wifi

4. Something better then dvd....

Then I see little reason for anybody to not like the next console. LIVE is a factor, but MS might introduce more things that will soften the annual cost.

hakanakumono

Just like the PS3 then

Yeah, but with a supeior online system and more impressive library:wink:

You can see into the next gen's library?

No, but thanks anyway.

the only good thing that can be said is MS put the RROD warranty in place, so they're obviously trying to help the people they screwed.Nagidar

It's not a "good" thing if it didn't have to be necessary in the first place.

The only reason they even bothered trying to "help" their consumer base is because their arms were being twisted.

It's really telling how Sony delayed the PS3 for a full year to get the bugs out of the system while Microsoft felt it best to leave early at the expense of the consumers. That's called very bad business.

Even if they had short term results, they're effected by this long term.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]the only good thing that can be said is MS put the RROD warranty in place, so they're obviously trying to help the people they screwed.Pariah_001

It's not a "good" thing if it didn't have to be necessary in the first place.

The only reason they even bothered trying to "help" their consumer base is because their arms were being twisted.

I think it was to do with marketing. MS let RROD become a big thing, and once it was big enough, they then did the 3 year warrany.

Its like when the wii came out with no internet play, everyone whines about it then suddenly Nintendo was like "we have online play!" and everyone made a big deal of it.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]the only good thing that can be said is MS put the RROD warranty in place, so they're obviously trying to help the people they screwed.Pariah_001

It's not a "good" thing if it didn't have to be necessary in the first place.

The only reason they even bothered trying to "help" their consumer base is because their arms were being twisted.

It's really telling how Sony delayed the PS3 for a full year to get the bugs out of the system while Microsoft felt it best to leave early at the expense of the consumers. That's called very bad business.

Even if they had short term results, they're effected by this long term.

It wasn't delayed because of bugs it was delayed because they couldn't manufacture enough cell chips and blu-ray diods. And considering the state of most games at launch they wouldn't have had anything even close to finished in 2005. Also MS slow response was because of the creeping nature of the problem, there wasnt a specific time when a 360 would fail they fail at random times for several different reasons. Because of this the failure kept growing so first they extended the warrenty to 1 year and then 3 years.

1. MS IS able to throw around money when they want, don't use the original Xbox as an example, the original Xbox was the first step in MS' 3 step plan.

2. We don't know what would have happened, but the fact is, MS has the money to get the exclusives they want, but because MS released earlier, the weren't put in a position where it mattered. MS has more money than BOTH Nintendo and SONY combined.

3. I have never seen anything about devs saying they wouldn't have kept games Exclusive if the 360 wasn't released first, probably because thats not true, devs recevived their kits for both the PS3 and 360 around the same time, which was before the 360 launched, devs had plenty of time to dev for both the PS3 and 360. In fact, SR was in the works for the PS3 and got canceled.

Nagidar

I will use the original Xbox because it is a fact and isn't someones beliefs even now the 360 currently has around the same number of exclusives as the PS3 even though MS has a "much larger wallet."Any bussiness that is made up of stockholders can not willingly throw money around, it has to be agreed apon.

Ill find you links about games being exclusive due to the 360's head start, but any reasonable person can see that it was this way because most of these titles next installments have been multiplat GRAW 360 exclusive, GRAW2 multiplat, MOTO GP06 exclusive, MOTO GP07/08 multiplat, saints row 360 exclusive, saints row 2 multiplat, etc..

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

1. MS IS able to throw around money when they want, don't use the original Xbox as an example, the original Xbox was the first step in MS' 3 step plan.

2. We don't know what would have happened, but the fact is, MS has the money to get the exclusives they want, but because MS released earlier, the weren't put in a position where it mattered. MS has more money than BOTH Nintendo and SONY combined.

3. I have never seen anything about devs saying they wouldn't have kept games Exclusive if the 360 wasn't released first, probably because thats not true, devs recevived their kits for both the PS3 and 360 around the same time, which was before the 360 launched, devs had plenty of time to dev for both the PS3 and 360. In fact, SR was in the works for the PS3 and got canceled.

opex07

I will use the original Xbox because it is a fact and isn't someones beliefs even now the 360 currently has around the same number of exclusives as the PS3 even though MS has a "much larger wallet."Any bussiness that is made up of stockholders can not willingly throw money around, it has to be agreed apon. You don't understand, MS uses a 3 step plan for business, 1. Introduce brand, 2. Aquire an install base, 3. Dominate the market, the original Xbox wasn't meant to make MS money, it was meant to introduce the brand.

Ill find you links about games being exclusive due to the 360's head start, but any reasonable person can see that it was this way because most of these titles next installments have been multiplat GRAW 360 exclusive, GRAW2 multiplat, MOTO GP06 exclusive, MOTO GP07/08 multiplat, saints row 360 exclusive, saints row 2 multiplat, etc.. Saints Row was not exclusive, the PS3 version was in the works but was canceled by the devs.

In the end its backfired... now their console is cheaper than the Wii and can't compete with either the PS3 at a higher price, or the Wii at a lower price. It has the weakest line-up, and its technology isn't future proof like the PS3.

In the end they might have sold more consoles, but their market share by the end of this gen will be the same. The 360 is not the PS2 guys, just remember that.
Adrian_Cloud

The PS3 future proof? Sure, it might have the CELL (which is overhyped), but it has an incredible low amount of RAM and it's graphics capabilities aren't exactly going to support it in the future. The "power" of the PS3 is going to last just as long as the power of the 360. If you give a 360 a Blu-ray that is.

NinjaMunkey01,

It is clear what M$ DID was securing a piece of the console market at the expense of the consumers. 8)

This shows that M$ has NO SHAME. :shock:

And for some people the 3 year warranty is going to end soon, which means when the RRoD appears that will be the end for their X360. :?dr_jashugan

I understand what you are saying. And I agree. My warranty ends soon so if I have problems then I am screwed.

But to say MS has "no shame" is a bit ott.

I mean who knows when the warranty is out maybe MS will be pushed into giving us an extended warranty.

What you say is partly right. It was at the expense of us, But they did something about it. Plus I think many people have forgiven them because they have delivered a very good selection of games so far, which they may not have been able to if they entered this gen late.

I dont think you understand how difficult it would be for any buisiness to push back the release of something. They did not mean to create a faulty console, it just happened. They had 2 options and the one they chose paid off. They are doing very well, and so far we have gotten loads of great games.

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"]In the end its backfired... now their console is cheaper than the Wii and can't compete with either the PS3 at a higher price, or the Wii at a lower price. It has the weakest line-up, and its technology isn't future proof like the PS3.

In the end they might have sold more consoles, but their market share by the end of this gen will be the same. The 360 is not the PS2 guys, just remember that.
Khaine775

The PS3 future proof? Sure, it might have the CELL (which is overhyped), but it has an incredible low amount of RAM and it's graphics capabilities aren't exactly going to support it in the future. The "power" of the PS3 is going to last just as long as the power of the 360. If you give a 360 a Blu-ray that is.

Dude the Cell is the future of CPU design > See Larrabee or CUDA design for future consoles and PCs.
IBM's designs usually fortell the future, or are just copied by others. PS3 is as future proof as it gets pal.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gpu-sweeney-interview.ars/1--- See link and learn something.

Actually read its quite interesting, its a very broad overview of this future technology and applies to more than just games.

So in the end your wrong, the PS3 has for more to go than 360 in virtually every way possible.

In the end its backfired... now their console is cheaper than the Wii and can't compete with either the PS3 at a higher price, or the Wii at a lower price. It has the weakest line-up, and its technology isn't future proof like the PS3.

In the end they might have sold more consoles, but their market share by the end of this gen will be the same. The 360 is not the PS2 guys, just remember that.
Adrian_Cloud

Not really, it has the best current library of the 3 consoles so far, and has a line-up this year that could easily compete with Sony or Nintendo's offering. In terms of 2009, we dont know much about whats being released, so to judge a consoles line-up for that time period this early would be just plain foolish.