New story about the 360 exposes MS

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]Sorry, allow me to fix those for you. :)

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6139482.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/playstation.html

Here's another for good measure.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=61630

Pariah_001

I don't understand your point. But I do sense a re-occurring pattern amongst the subject matter of your links. ****action lawsuit right?

What's the signifigance? Microsoft was facing an organization of ****action lawsuits before they put the billion dollar three year warranty in place.

Or are you trying to say that because Sony settled that-that's an admission of guilt. In which case, you're just being foolish. Settling is always the favorable route to get people out of the way. It doesn't actually prove that the lawsuits had merit.

You've missed the point.

cla-ss action lawsuits do not result because of standard 3 - 5% hardware failure rates. They result when there are a large number of people affected by a specific hardware problem. Microsoft had the same problem, yes. But that further proves my point. We all know how big of a problem the RROD was to spur such a lawsuit, so since the PS2 had similar legal troubles, how big must the DRE have been? Think about it.

And yeah, I would think the lawsuits had plenty of merit as evidenced by the fact that Sony fought the lawsuit, the settlement was not an immediate response. And hmm...people/companies who feel confident in their ability to fight a case don't go for a settlement do they? No, they fight the case and hope they defended themselves well enough, right? Again, think about it.

Yeah maybe if MS would of came out and said something right away, their customers would say "WOW, MS is the best, really taking care of us" like they did after the 1&3 year warantees.

As ridiculous as that sounds, id believe people would say that. Win Win for MS either way.

Gosh why is this story being repeated again and again

Please people, use your brain, you think MS was COMPLETELY oblivous of the flaws, that would mean they didnt test their machines:|

You've missed the point.

cla-ss action lawsuits do not result because of standard 3 - 5% hardware failure rates.The_Game21x

Yes. They do. That's why the term "frivolous" is used so commonly around courthouses.

"Cla ssaction" doesn't mean an exponentially large amount of people. It just means more than one.

They result when there are a large number of people affected by a specific hardware problem. Microsoft had the same problem, yes. But that further proves my point. We all know how big of a problem the RROD was to spur such a lawsuit, so since the PS2 had similar legal troubles, how big must the DRE have been? Think about it.The_Game21x

Cla assaction lawsuits vary in size. Some are bigger than others. This doesn't prove that the DRE problem was just as voluminous.

And yeah, I would think the lawsuits had plenty of merit as evidenced by the fact that Sony fought the lawsuit, the settlement was not an immediate response.The_Game21x

Or, perhaps, they initially felt that they could keep their money instead of seeing it lost on what they feel is a frivolous issue and so they fought it before it became too much of a burden.

And hmm...people/companies who feel confident in their ability to fight a case don't go for a settlement do they? The_Game21x

Yes. They do. Because lawyers on the side of the plaintiff can drag out these issues enormously whether there's warrant for them or not.

[QUOTE="Nedemis"]Post Office has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING regarding the RROD. :| I'm sure you meant somewhere else (maybe FedEX or UPS).Pariah_001

The post office is the place that ships back the 360s in the official MS return boxes. When you go there with a return box, you'll here them say, "Another one?"

And the laser wasn't faulty. It simply has trouble reading depending upon the disk format.

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]You've missed the point.

cla-ss action lawsuits do not result because of standard 3 - 5% hardware failure rates.Pariah_001

Yes. They do. That's why the term "frivolous" is used so commonly around courthouses.

"Cla ssaction" doesn't mean an exponentially large amount of people. It just means more than one.

Obviously, the lawsuit wasn't frivolous or it would've been thrown out.

No, it doesn't necesarily mean a large number. You're right. But hey, I could easily say the same thing about the lawsuits against the Xbox 360.

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]They result when there are a large number of people affected by a specific hardware problem. Microsoft had the same problem, yes. But that further proves my point. We all know how big of a problem the RROD was to spur such a lawsuit, so since the PS2 had similar legal troubles, how big must the DRE have been? Think about it.Pariah_001

Cla assaction lawsuits vary in size. Some are bigger than others. This doesn't prove that the DRE problem was just as voluminous.

You're repeating yourself.

And you've still failed to disprove my claim (well, implied claim) that the PS2's problems were fairly large if they've spawned a lawsuit.

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]And yeah, I would think the lawsuits had plenty of merit as evidenced by the fact that Sony fought the lawsuit, the settlement was not an immediate response.Pariah_001

Or, perhaps, they initially felt that they could keep their money instead of seeing it lost on what they feel is a frivolous issue and so they fought it before it became too much of a burden.

That doesn't make any sense. If they felt confident in their ability to defend themselves in this case, I can't see why they wouldn't. At the end of the day, when they won the case, they would've preserved their public image.

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]And hmm...people/companies who feel confident in their ability to fight a case don't go for a settlement do they? Pariah_001

Yes. They do. Because lawyers on the side of the plaintiff can drag out these issues enormously whether there's warrant for them or not.

Again, I refer you to my earlier point. Companies go through a lot of trouble to preserve their public image.

But this doesn't matter. If claims of cla ss action lawsuits can be used against the 360 to reinforce the point of its high failre rate, then they can't be shoved aside the instant they're brought against the PS2. The problem is, you've failed to show me a legitimate reason why the evidence I've brought before you is not applicable in this case, all you have done is shown me a bunch of your own personal assumptions in an attempt to dismiss them altogether. Sorry, that's not going to help you here.

So. I've shown the evidence in the form of the cla ss action lawsuit. Unless you can provide evidence (not your personal opinions this time :wink: ) that proves the PS2's failure rate wasn't as high as others have claimed, you don't have much of an argument.

[QUOTE="ukillwegrill"]

Oh no, MS cut corners ... careface?

Mine works, if it breaks they'll fix it ... good enough for me. My 5 PS2's had to be bought.

Pariah_001

Wow. Disengenuous FTW!!

Seriously. No one is naive enough to believe that.

What gets me most about this situation is how Microsoft consumers choose to rationalize their chosen master's bad business: "Yeah, okay, fine, Sony's PS3 is very reliable hardware, but Microsoft has a speedy refurbishing policy and that's a lot better!"

I went through 4 ps2's and 2 360's so far

[QUOTE="ukillwegrill"]

Oh no, MS cut corners ... careface?

Mine works, if it breaks they'll fix it ... good enough for me. My 5 PS2's had to be bought.

Pariah_001

Wow. Disengenuous FTW!!

Seriously. No one is naive enough to believe that.

What gets me most about this situation is how Microsoft consumers choose to rationalize their chosen master's bad business: "Yeah, okay, fine, Sony's PS3 is very reliable hardware, but Microsoft has a speedy refurbishing policy and that's a lot better!"

Why not believe? Because your almighty Sony can do no wrong?

I, personally, went through more than 5 PS2's. I also went through a number of the original PS. The number really doesn't matter, because anyone can come on here and throw numbers around. At least I didn't have to buy all of them. I was able to exchange most of them at Wal Mart, because the problems happened during the in-store warranty.

In reality, any cow that bashes the 360 for the RROD is a hypocrite. Sony had to get sued before they even admitted there were DRE problems with the PS2. At least MS was man enough to admit there's a problem.

But, good for Sony on making the PS3 a reiable console. It only took them 3 tries.

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"][QUOTE="ukillwegrill"]

Oh no, MS cut corners ... careface?

Mine works, if it breaks they'll fix it ... good enough for me. My 5 PS2's had to be bought.

MortalDecay

Wow. Disengenuous FTW!!

Seriously. No one is naive enough to believe that.

What gets me most about this situation is how Microsoft consumers choose to rationalize their chosen master's bad business: "Yeah, okay, fine, Sony's PS3 is very reliable hardware, but Microsoft has a speedy refurbishing policy and that's a lot better!"

Why not believe? Because your almighty Sony can do no wrong?

I, personally, went through more than 5 PS2's. I also went through a number of the original PS. The number really doesn't matter, because anyone can come on here and throw numbers around. At least I didn't have to buy all of them. I was able to exchange most of them at Wal Mart, because the problems happened during the in-store warranty.

In reality, any cow that bashes the 360 for the RROD is a hypocrite. Sony had to get sued before they even admitted there were DRE problems with the PS2. At least MS was man enough to admit there's a problem.

But, good for Sony on making the PS3 a reiable console. It only took them 3 tries.

And I went through 3 PS2s and my original 360 is still working. I guess thats his post out the window.Burnsmiesta

Same here 3 PS2's (on my 4th now) although i traded my day 1 launch Premium in against an Elite (was still in perfect working order though) :D

New story exposes that MS knew that they were releasing two-thirds of their 360s as faulty hardware before launch.

Why should people support a company that knowingly relaeses such a high amount of faulty hardware out onto the public?

Has your Xbox 360 ever failed unexpectedly? If it has, you're in good company -- in February, warranty company SquareTrade pegged the console's failure rate at a shocking 16%. But a stunning new expose claims that Microsoft knew over two-thirds of the consoles produced by its contracted factories in the run-up to the Xbox 360's November 2005 launch date were faulty....

http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/did-microsoft-know-about-xbox-failures-/1245120

patriots7672

XBOX LIVE IS The real money maker. So much revenue, so little actual server maintenance. The money fuels other Microsoft Endeavors though.

Hey, it's business guys, and M$ did better this gen than last, that's how it goes.

Me? I try to just play games on these things.

I did have RROD twice, but I like games on 360 so there isn't much I can do about it.