MS made the right decision with RROD

So let me get this straight... the TC is admitting that himself and other 360 owners are guinea pigs ?

This has to be one of the saddest threads I've seen in a while.

[QUOTE="Khaine775"]

[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.
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.

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.

No, it doesn't, neither the PS3 or 360 are "Future proof", thats a term SONY used to sucker you guys in, NOTHING is future proof.

[QUOTE="Khaine775"]

[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.
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.

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.

I agree with you, the CELL is an amazing piece of technology, but that doesn't help it from being seriously bottlenecked by practically every other component in the PS3.

I still don't see why they can't fix this problem for new 360s. What's the deal with still making faulty 360s? It's like they're just ignoring the problem. If it's impossible to fix them without re-designing the whole console, release a new one that doesn't brake. Make it cost a little more, I don't care, it would just be nice with a console that doesn't brake.

If I were to buy a 360, I'd gladly pay a little more for it if I knew it wouldn't get the RROD.

I still don't see why they can't fix this problem for new 360s. What's the deal with still making faulty 360s? It's like they're just ignoring the problem. If it's impossible to fix them without re-designing the whole console, release a new one that doesn't brake. Make it cost a little more, I don't care, it would just be nice with a console that doesn't brake.

If I were to buy a 360, I'd gladly pay a little more for it if I knew it wouldn't get the RROD.

Litchie

They are trying. But I doubt they will redesign the console. it would take to long, plus it would mean that all old 360 owners would feel they have the worse version or something.

Lol I can just imagine on a shelf though, one 360 saying "RROD PROOF, £500"

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"][QUOTE="Khaine775"]

[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.

I agree with you, the CELL is an amazing piece of technology, but that doesn't help it from being seriously bottlenecked by practically every other component in the PS3.

I can also agree with that, but as far as computing goes the SONY has a huge advantage over MS and Ninty. As far as memory, there will always be constraints put on developers even in the next-gen, which is something developers always take into consideration. The bottlenecking is a serious design flaw and i'm sure many developers are having problems with that aspect of the PS3's architecture.

From whats been said by many developers, and proven in THEORY; the playstation 3 has a lot of room to grow(although i'm not saying 120 fps and 4d graphics).

[QUOTE="Khaine775"][QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"][QUOTE="Khaine775"]

[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.
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.

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.

I agree with you, the CELL is an amazing piece of technology, but that doesn't help it from being seriously bottlenecked by practically every other component in the PS3.

I can also agree with that, but as far as computing goes the SONY has a huge advantage over MS and Ninty. As far as memory, there will always be constraints put on developers even in the next-gen, which is something developers always take into consideration. The bottlenecking is a serious design flaw and i'm sure many developers are having problems with that aspect of the PS3's architecture.

From whats been said by many developers, and proven in THEORY; the playstation 3 has a lot of room to grow(although i'm not saying 120 fps and 4d graphics).

You may be right, but I'd like to see the developers make these so-called "miracles" on the PS3 first. :)

[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.
-DrRobotnik-

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.

I was reffering to the future, which looks bleak. Kinda like the Too Human demo, which was bad and would never make me want to even rent the game. Which is the same thing that happened after sony generously added a copy of Motorstorm with my PS3. What a disaster:|

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.

Saints Row was not exclusive, the PS3 version was in the works but was canceled by the devs.

Nagidar

It's no companies plan to loose money, yet alone $4 billion dollars just to introduce a product. If someone were to tell them they would loose that large amount of money making the original Xbox I highly doubt they would have ventured into the console gaming industry.

Saints row is exclusive, you cant play it anywhere else except for the 360 even if it was planned for another system. The reason that the Devs cancelled the PS3 version is to use as much of there devs on saints row 2 to make sure they have a simultaneous launch for both systems link. Saints row being planned for the PS3 then cancelled only helps my point. They wanted the game on both systems but had an issue with time and man power, they were able to put it on the Xbox 360 because it came out first.

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

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

Agreed, the 360 would be dead by now.

"So if they pushed the date back they would miss a launch at christmas, which would have meant loads less sales."

You do know that since NES there have been many console launch delays right? I'm talking missing out on an X-mas launch window for a lot less than RROD. M$'s decision was to sell a console that they know is garbage, period. Now I'm not claiming that 360 doesn't have good games and can see why people like XBL, I'm a 360 owner myself but even the most rabbid fanboy has to realize that it is the crummiest piece of console hardware ever. If M$ had waited a year and got the hardware right who knows, had they waited it out & made their console support HD DVD & launch alongside the PS3 my media shelf might have a lot more red cases than blue.

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.

NinjaMunkey01

I have to admit it...youre one of the best comedians ive ever seen.

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

If you read the post that was already answered.... : /

what about when my 3 year warantee expires?

i'm going to be mad.

...So if they pushed the date back they would miss a launch at christmas, which would have meant loads less sales...

NinjaMunkey01

1 billion Less cash? Mums the word for MS. Its still not fixed. When the warrantys expire, then what?

OMG... Poor Microsoft... they rushed there console out the door and screwed gamers and you want use to feel bad for them??? Mabye Microsoft should have made a console that could stand Toe-to-Toe with the Wii or PS3 instead of depending on there year head start... All they were doing was trying to screw gamers over... Why would I feel sorry for them???R0gu3Do0d

:lol:

since when did I say we should feel sorry for them ? :lol:

Im in no way saying that we should all be sympathetic towards MS. They still deserve a kick up the backside for this mistake.

What I am trying to say is that there are many fanboys saying that MS is a bad company for what they did. But for them it really was the only option. And imo from their perspective they did the right thing. For us its annoying. But looking at the sales, its not really damaged their brand name much.

They did the right thing, release on time, get head start, fix problems over time, 3 year warranty.

[QUOTE="opex07"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[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.

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.

I would think Sony has more money then Microsoft.

Sony owns Record lables, Movies Studios, DVD/Blu-Ray sales from there movies, all Sony's products sell real well (T.V's, radio's, Camcorders, Cameras, computers), far as eletronics, Sony is the company to beat.

Micosoft has Software, which gets burn, copied and pass along to who ever needs it, in fact a lot of people are going to Apple because MAC's are more reliable then PC's. MAC's can run Windows and office with no problem because of the Intel chip. Microsoft is in trouble when you look at the whole picture.

They still have not permanently fixed it.

Electronics you spend so much on, and mass produce should not have such a high failure rate.

Its a joke, and there are no excuses, it just proves MS rushed it out the door to consumers, with only sales in mind.

Boy did it end up as a royal **** up to the gaming division, who has been in massive losses since the Xbox was conceived.

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

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

Exactly.

[QUOTE="R0gu3Do0d"]OMG... Poor Microsoft... they rushed there console out the door and screwed gamers and you want use to feel bad for them??? Mabye Microsoft should have made a console that could stand Toe-to-Toe with the Wii or PS3 instead of depending on there year head start... All they were doing was trying to screw gamers over... Why would I feel sorry for them???NinjaMunkey01

:lol:

since when did I say we should feel sorry for them ? :lol:

Im in no way saying that we should all be sympathetic towards MS. They still deserve a kick up the backside for this mistake.

What I am trying to say is that there are many fanboys saying that MS is a bad company for what they did. But for them it really was the only option. And imo from their perspective they did the right thing. For us its annoying. But looking at the sales, its not really damaged their brand name much.

They did the right thing, release on time, get head start, fix problems over time, 3 year warranty.

They made the right business decision, but the wrong ethical one.

And they could make up a bit for it by making the RRoD warranty last until the release of the next Xbox console.

I'm not sure if that 70% failure rate was caused by RRoD.

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-

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.

NinjaMunkey01

You're actually defending MS decision to put faulty hardware out on the market? System Wars has sunk to a new low.

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.

NinjaMunkey01

Well, personally I think you're wrong. It was a TERRIBLE decision on Microsoft's part to release the 360 with such glaring hardware problems. Basically it's just the latest poor decision from a company who continually releases broken products into the market (Windows 95, 98, ME, the list goes on)

[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.

They both cost the same on release date.

This RROD fiasco could be a blessing in disguise for not only us, but for Microsoft as well. Disturbed_One98

You're thinking along the lines of either a 360 redesign like the slim PS2, or a more reliable next gen offering? I'd like to think that were the case, but MS' offerings with their operating systems prove otherwise.

[QUOTE="Disturbed_One98"]This RROD fiasco could be a blessing in disguise for not only us, but for Microsoft as well. svetzenlether

You're thinking along the lines of either a 360 redesign like the slim PS2, or a more reliable next gen offering? I'd like to think that were the case, but MS' offerings with their operating systems prove otherwise.

Yeah, I meant for their next gen system.

[QUOTE="svetzenlether"]

[QUOTE="Disturbed_One98"]This RROD fiasco could be a blessing in disguise for not only us, but for Microsoft as well. Disturbed_One98

You're thinking along the lines of either a 360 redesign like the slim PS2, or a more reliable next gen offering? I'd like to think that were the case, but MS' offerings with their operating systems prove otherwise.

Yeah, I meant for their next gen system.

It'd be nice if MS learned form their mistakes for the next gen, but given their track record I wouldn't hold my breath.