PS3 1650 Times More Reliable Than 360

Thats nice to hear, and a good thing to keep in mind when playing the console. Wii is very reliable too, cool.StephenHu

Don't worry, it's 1,650 times less likely to break then your 360 ;)

1650x more realiable? Well X360 is 6,000,000 more consoles dense within the market than the PS3.

And we all know Larger numbers > Smaller numbers:P
Pro_wrestler

33% failure rate>>>> 0.02% failure rate?

Taken from the techspot home page:

"If claims from Sony's Chris Deering are accurate, PlayStation 3 failure rates are around .02 percent (1 in 5000), well below the industry average of three to five percent. By comparison, Microsoft's Xbox 360 has suffered various reliability problems including overheating and disc scratching, some reports suggest failure rates as high as one third (1 out of 3) of all consoles in existence.

Microsoft has typically remained tight-lipped on what they're doing on the hardware front to address Xbox 360 failure rate issues. The company did announce plans to spend $1 billion extending the warranty of every Xbox 360 to 3 years, though. However, even if Microsoft manages to equip its console with cooler-running hardware, the Xbox 360 still faces an uphill battle to change the ongoing perception of being less reliable than Sony's PlayStation 3.

Nintendo, on the other hand, has yet to reveal any failure rates for the Wii."

1 in 5000 compared to 1 in 3 (1 in 3?!!) is more than 1650 times better.

AlienOverlord

The reason I went with Sony is because in the past I have never had a real problem with there products. Some of the reason Sony took so long releasing the PS3 is because there were some issues that they wanted to get worked out before it was released.

On the other hand M$ took bids on who could build a console at the lowest price without doing any real testing before it was released. The main reason that the 360 has no real BC unlike the PS3 that has a very very high BC support of games.

If we really put things in perspective the PS3 actually has a game library that is several times larger than a 360. The PS1 library has several hundred titles. The PS2 has about 1200 titles. And most of the PS1 games will play on remote play from any wifi hotspot in the world via the the PSP. So when we consider all this not only is the PS3 1650 times more reliable but it has several times more games on it as well.

Taken from the techspot home page:

"If claims from Sony's Chris Deering are accurate, PlayStation 3 failure rates are around .02 percent (1 in 5000), well below the industry average of three to five percent. By comparison, Microsoft's Xbox 360 has suffered various reliability problems including overheating and disc scratching, some reports suggest failure rates as high as one third (1 out of 3) of all consoles in existence.

Microsoft has typically remained tight-lipped on what they're doing on the hardware front to address Xbox 360 failure rate issues. The company did announce plans to spend $1 billion extending the warranty of every Xbox 360 to 3 years, though. However, even if Microsoft manages to equip its console with cooler-running hardware, the Xbox 360 still faces an uphill battle to change the ongoing perception of being less reliable than Sony's PlayStation 3.

Nintendo, on the other hand, has yet to reveal any failure rates for the Wii."

1 in 5000 compared to 1 in 3 (1 in 3?!!) is more than 1650 times better.

AlienOverlord

oksonofabear17

But it's taking them 2 yearsor moreto fix the design flaw, so yeah M$ rushed it.XenogearsMaster

Didnt the PS2 slim come out 3 years after it? They must have rushed out the PS2 then. DRE!

[QUOTE="organic_machine"][QUOTE="MickeyTheNinja"]Yeah MS screwed themself with the 1 year head start. They are idiots and should learn from this GEN and not try to be a show boat and be a hot shot and release a broken console a year early.nyoroism

Thats nice to hear, and a good thing to keep in mind when playing the console. Wii is very reliable too, cool.StephenHu

Nintendo's systems have been more realiable then all of the Playstation systems. My NES & SNES still work perfectly and I've dropped them several times over the years. Even my Gamecube still works like new. The thing is, Nintendo has been making game console hardware a lot longer then Sony, so they have it perfected. Microsoft has made how many systems now? 2? People are wondering why their hardware isn't perfect. :roll: They are not a hardware company. Sony is a hardware company and have been making electronic products much, much longer then Microsoft. Even so Sony's PS1 & PS2 had serious issues. Sony finally got it right with the PS3. It's too bad developers need 2 years or more just to make one game of it.

The reason I went with Sony is because in the past I have never had a real problem with there products. Some of the reason Sony took so long releasing the PS3 is because there were some issues that they wanted to get worked out before it was released.

On the other hand M$ took bids on who could build a console at the lowest price without doing any real testing before it was released. The main reason that the 360 has no real BC unlike the PS3 that has a very very high BC support of games.

If we really put things in perspective the PS3 actually has a game library that is several times larger than a 360. The PS1 library has several hundred titles. The PS2 has about 1200 titles. And most of the PS1 games will play on remote play from any wifi hotspot in the world via the the PSP. So when we consider all this not only is the PS3 1650 times more reliable but it has several times more games on it as well.

jimm895

No one is counting last generation games as games to be played on the PS3. Most people playing PS2 games are still playing them on their PS2 and not on the PS3. The reason I didn't get a PS3 is because I've paid $600 of a game console and never will. I didnt want to pay $200 more for a cheap Blu-Ray when I know I would never watch Blu-Ray movies on my game console. After reading that the PS3 would be just as hard to program for as the PS2, I knew we wouldn't be seeing any decent games on the PS3 at launch or even 6 months after launch. M$ made mistakes with their hardware, but they didn't make mistakes with the games. When you have over 15 titles that have sold over 1 million copies, Microsoft has done something right. For me it's all about the games at the right price. With a 3 year warranty in place, at least you know you're covered. You can't say the same thing for the PS3. Even with a low failure rate, if you dropped it, I'm sure it would shatter just like the PSP. All of Sony's consoles are very fragile. Nintendo makes the most realiable consoles anyways.

[QUOTE="jimm895"]

The reason I went with Sony is because in the past I have never had a real problem with there products. Some of the reason Sony took so long releasing the PS3 is because there were some issues that they wanted to get worked out before it was released.

On the other hand M$ took bids on who could build a console at the lowest price without doing any real testing before it was released. The main reason that the 360 has no real BC unlike the PS3 that has a very very high BC support of games.

If we really put things in perspective the PS3 actually has a game library that is several times larger than a 360. The PS1 library has several hundred titles. The PS2 has about 1200 titles. And most of the PS1 games will play on remote play from any wifi hotspot in the world via the the PSP. So when we consider all this not only is the PS3 1650 times more reliable but it has several times more games on it as well.

blackace

No one is counting last generation games as games to be played on the PS3. Most people playing PS2 games are still playing them on their PS2 and not on the PS3. The reason I didn't get a PS3 is because I've paid $600 of a game console and never will. I didnt want to pay $200 more for a cheap Blu-Ray when I know I would never watch Blu-Ray movies on my game console. After reading that the PS3 would be just as hard to program for as the PS2, I knew we wouldn't be seeing any decent games on the PS3 at launch or even 6 months after launch. M$ made mistakes with their hardware, but they didn't make mistakes with the games. When you have over 15 titles that have sold over 1 million copies, Microsoft has done something right. For me it's all about the games at the right price. With a 3 year warranty in place, at least you know you're covered. You can't say the same thing for the PS3. Even with a low failure rate, if you dropped it, I'm sure it would shatter just like the PSP. All of Sony's consoles are very fragile. Nintendo makes the most realiable consoles anyways.

That is the magic formula for long term success right there: software sales. Sony just needs to get its act together before the WII and 360 take front stage in both casual and HC markets by an uncatchable margin. Sony does perform but late it seems, and in this currentmarket, that strategy will probably fail.