Activision easily, they are willing to go an extra mile just so we can have 1 additional Call of Duty every year, and countless guitar heros. :P
But seriously, it would be hard to compare the big 3 as all of them rip us off in different ways. Nintendo is the only of the 3 who sells a console for more than it costs to make, Sony removes features that will only end up punishing legal customers and Microsoft is Microsoft with its shady practices.
Edit: Still Nintendo has great customer support, and sony has been doing a great job supporting their system. But I Bungie has done a really good job supporting Halo 3 so they win.
whats the point of putting halo up there? it is not a company and and fanboys will just ruin the poll, unless of course you are one and that was your intention :P
I'm guessing by Halo, you mean Bungie (it's a little weird choosing from three console manufacturers, and two random devs :?). Anyway, I'll go with Bungie...out of all that's listed, they're the only ones who thank the fans after you beat their games :D.
I don't know about "caring" more but as a gaming company Sony seems to have a philosophy catering the most toward delivering high qulaity services, games and features as a benifit of just owning they system.
I'd put Nintendo second becaue even tho the features and services of the system aren't that great, they are now producing a decent amount of High qulaity thru out the year.
They all care about Money...BUT, if there was an answer to this, we won't ever hear it in SW, I'm guessing most people aren't going to try an answer this particular question.
Plus, it doesn't help that your poll is funky to say the least. :P
They all care the same. All are large, multinational corporation who care mostly about profit, releasing a good product, and maintaining shareholders. Keeping consumers happy is a requirement for making profit.
The big three care more about money than they do customer happiness. But once you get past that, I'd say Nintendo cares the most, considering they often give stuff away for free to people who beg enough, while charging others for service and whatnot. I'd say Microsoft cares the least.
[QUOTE="mutenpika"][QUOTE="hkymike"]Microsoft shouldn't even be on this list. All they acer about is moneykuraimen
Wasn't there a 3-year warranty for the RROD? They didn't have to do that, you know. If they didn't do that they would be to the neck on lawsuits. Why? A longer warranty doesn't make them any less legally responsible for a product they knew was pants (and withheld that fact), and if they didn't withhold failure rates, then they're not legally responsible. The warranty extension wasn't legally required at all.
Why? A longer warranty doesn't make them any less legally responsible for a product they knew was pants (and withheld that fact), and if they didn't withhold failure rates, then they're not legally responsible. The warranty extension wasn't legally required at all.mutenpika
He's just mad Sony got sued for putting out faulty hardware and Microsoft didn't :P
[QUOTE="mutenpika"][QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mutenpika"] Wasn't there a 3-year warranty for the RROD? They didn't have to do that, you know. If they didn't do that they would be to the neck on lawsuits. Why? A longer warranty doesn't make them any less legally responsible for a product they knew was pants (and withheld that fact), and if they didn't withhold failure rates, then they're not legally responsible. The warranty extension wasn't legally required at all. Oh please thinking that MS did this for the good of the consumer is as naive as it gets. It's like thinking Sony removed the OtherOS feature for the good of the consumer. They are companies and they are trying to save their asses. There's no way that any electronic product with the failure rates of the 360 would have made it with so little warranty, costumers are not so stupid afterall. Microsoft just happens to be worse than many companies in these kind of things and they have a long history to prove that so I agree they shouldn't even be considered in the poll.
[QUOTE="mutenpika"]Why? A longer warranty doesn't make them any less legally responsible for a product they knew was pants (and withheld that fact), and if they didn't withhold failure rates, then they're not legally responsible. The warranty extension wasn't legally required at all.waltefmoney
He's just mad Sony got sued for releasing faulty hardware and Microsoft didn't :P
Well, he can be incensed no more. They already have been sued. I assume that the lawsuit's still in progress, as no verdict has been announced.
[QUOTE="mutenpika"]Why? A longer warranty doesn't make them any less legally responsible for a product they knew was pants (and withheld that fact), and if they didn't withhold failure rates, then they're not legally responsible. The warranty extension wasn't legally required at all.mutenpika
He's just mad Sony got sued for releasing faulty hardware and Microsoft didn't :P
Well, he can be incensed no more. They already have been sued. I assume that the lawsuit's still in progress, as no verdict has been announced.
Awesome. So now they're equal in that too..getting sued over their own hardware.
Wasn't there a 3-year warranty for the RROD? They didn't have to do that, you know.mutenpika
They would have faced an absolutely massive cIass action lawsuit that would have crippled them financially. They created the extended warranty to cover ONLY the RROD, nothing else. If something else on your 360 fails, your just as much SOL as anyone who owns a PS3 or Wii is after a year.
Well customer care is done in the interest of higher profits. I'd say "Halo" would be the best choice. Bungie always satisfies the masses, but then again, it's very possible the masses satisfy themselves to what Bungie delivers with such rampant Halo fanboyism.
The big three care more about money than they do customer happiness. But once you get past that, I'd say Nintendo cares the most, considering they often give stuff away for free to people who beg enough, while charging others for service and whatnot. I'd say Microsoft cares the least.
All those companies first priorities are to be profitable. If they are not profitable they won't be here for long. Their 2nd priority is customer service. IMO, Sony gives its fans the best Fan service. MS cares less what its Fan base thinks as long as they are profitable.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mutenpika"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] If they didn't do that they would be to the neck on lawsuits. Why? A longer warranty doesn't make them any less legally responsible for a product they knew was pants (and withheld that fact), and if they didn't withhold failure rates, then they're not legally responsible. The warranty extension wasn't legally required at all. Oh please thinking that MS did this for the good of the consumer is as naive as it gets. It's like thinking Sony removed the OtherOS feature for the good of the consumer. They are companies and they are trying to save their asses. There's no way that any electronic product with the failure rates of the 360 would have made it with so little warranty, costumers are not so stupid afterall. Microsoft just happens to be worse than many companies in these kind of things and they have a long history to prove that so I agree they shouldn't even be considered in the poll. Well, if failure rates were really as high as they were rumored to be, Microsoft basically volunteered to eat the ~$290 (or thereabouts) that the 360 cost to manufacture at the time, plus shipping, for 33% of all consoles sold. At 10 million or so in the first year, that's $957,000,000. Almost a billion dollars in replacements, without adding shipping costs. Even at lower values, like 15% failure, it's a tremendous financial investment in PR and customer goodwill. And if the failure rate was low enough to make replacement costs less overwhelmingly high, then why would such a low failure rate necessitate an unprecedented 3-year replacement plan? In contrast, HP laptops have a confirmed 30% failure rate over 3 years, but they're still selling like hotcakes (and with 1-year warranties, too). Microsoft could have easily gone that route, and, if history is anything to judge by, it wouldn't have hurt them. Seriously, why all the irrational Microsoft hate? They have a low-cost SDK for hobbyists and publish independent games, for crying out loud. Did they kick this forum's collective dog or something?
I think it was the guy who made Joe Danger that said it is almost impossible for independent developers to make money on XBL because only a very few games get to taste the portherhouse while leaving mellow-less bones to the lesser of them (I am paraphrasing to say the least.)
[QUOTE="mutenpika"][QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mutenpika"] Why? A longer warranty doesn't make them any less legally responsible for a product they knew was pants (and withheld that fact), and if they didn't withhold failure rates, then they're not legally responsible. The warranty extension wasn't legally required at all. Oh please thinking that MS did this for the good of the consumer is as naive as it gets. It's like thinking Sony removed the OtherOS feature for the good of the consumer. They are companies and they are trying to save their asses. There's no way that any electronic product with the failure rates of the 360 would have made it with so little warranty, costumers are not so stupid afterall. Microsoft just happens to be worse than many companies in these kind of things and they have a long history to prove that so I agree they shouldn't even be considered in the poll. Well, if failure rates were really as high as they were rumored to be, Microsoft basically volunteered to eat the ~$290 (or thereabouts) that the 360 cost to manufacture at the time, plus shipping, for 33% of all consoles sold. At 10 million or so in the first year, that's $957,000,000. Almost a billion dollars in replacements, without adding shipping costs. Even at lower values, like 15% failure, it's a tremendous investment in PR and customer goodwill. And if the failure rate was low enough to make replacement costs less overwhelmingly high, then why would such a low failure rate necessitate an unprecedented 3-year replacement plan? In contrast, HP laptops have a confirmed 30% failure rate over 3 years, but they're still selling like hotcakes (and with 1-year warranties, too). Microsoft could have easily gone that route, and, if history is anything to judge by, it wouldn't have hurt them. Seriously, why all the irrational Microsoft hate? They have a low-cost SDK for hobbyists and publish independent games, for crying out loud. Did they kick this forum's collective dog or something? I'm pretty sure 360's failure rate was higher than 30%. But anyways regardless of what that is the replacement could have cost them money yes but Sony were probably losing even more money selling the PS3 at a lower cost than it was made. Did they decided to cut PS3's production? of course not since gaming companies main profit is games sold and not consoles sold. So for Microsoft it is ok to keep replacing consoles as long as they manage to sell enough games. It is not the first time Microsoft releases a badly-designed rushed product to make a quick buck and then deal with all the problems in an ad-hoc way. They have done it many times with Windows and they will keep doing it, it is just part of their strategy and it has worked on making them one of the most profitable companies in the world. Of course they release bad products at the expense of the costumer and that's why so many people hate them and it's justified IMO.
Microsoft should win for shooter fans. But Sony wins in overall. They have better care for their customers and better warranty (doesn't Sony also have insurance as one of their massive conglomerate?) and hardware quality (ignoring the PS2 which is worse than 360 in term of hardware failure) and widest range of games. Nintendo is conceited imo. They stick with their own policy and never change. They just said **** up online on their consoles. No patch, no free and paid updates etc. Their hardware is very cheap to make and they sell it for high price point. ANd they still sell it. I hope Move and Kinect will take over Wii somedays. But I don't want iPhone to take over DS and PSP though. Halo isn't a company. DO research before posting! :lol: Activision is the worst you'll turn to. It used to be a good company until Kotick became its CEO. :(
I'm pretty sure 360's failure rate was higher than 30%. But anyways regardless of what that is the replacement could have cost them money yes but Sony were probably losing even more money selling the PS3 at a lower cost than it was made. Did they decided to cut PS3's production? of course not since gaming companies main profit is games sold and not consoles sold. So for Microsoft it is ok to keep replacing consoles as long as they manage to sell enough games. It is not the first time Microsoft releases a badly-designed rushed product to make a quick buck and then deal with all the problems in an ad-hoc way. They have done it many times with Windows and they will keep doing it, it is just part of their strategy and it has worked on making them one of the most profitable companies in the world. Of course they release bad products at the expense of the costumer and that's why so many people hate them and it's justified IMO.kuraimen
You're still dancing around the major thing here: why did Microsoft set itself up for such a tremendously large financial hit? The 360, especially after packing, add-ins, and shipping, was also sold at a loss (my console-only estimate of $290 was the most conservative one I could possibly think of). Extending the warranty nearly doubled the price of the console, and, according to you, cost them almost a billion dollars in replacements alone. How could this possibly be motivated by spitefulness? To adhere to the scenario you described, it would have released a broken system (which it arguably did), then refused to extend the warranty, but fix the components as the life cycle continued. The customer would have been perfectly set up to take the fall, and, indeed, they were. Microsoft could've left it that way, but they didn't. Why not? Answer that: why did Microsoft assume responsibility for fixing their bungle, at such massive financial loss? ninjaedit: The Xbox 360 actually cost $470 to make, sans any sort of accessory. ninjaedit2: According to third-party console insurance redemptions, the 360's RROD rate was something like 8-9%. Still high, but not 30% high. I'll try to dig up a source.
[QUOTE="mutenpika"] You're still dancing around the major thing here: why did Microsoft set itself up for such a tremendously large financial hit? I already said it was because they wanted to avoid huge lawsuits and attract more costumers. They would have never been so popular if many 360s didn't last 3 years without breaking. [QUOTE="mutenpika"] ninjaedit: The Xbox 360 actually cost $470 to make, sans any sort of accessory. ninjaedit2: According to third-party console insurance redemptions, the 360's RROD rate was something like 8-9%. Still high, but not 30% high. I'll try to dig up a source. Third party console insurance? hardly an accurate measurement of failure since most people just avoided that unecessary step of using a third party company (for which they probably had to even pay more) and send it directly to MS which is the logical thing to do. Of course MS is never going to release the numbers of such high failure rates.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] After so many years of existence, not just this gen, and that some people still believe in a company like Microsoft, I think they are the lucky ones.kuraimen
Why do you continue acting like Microsoft and Sony are any different?
The only company that may truly care about you is the Company you keep. :P
SecretPolice
Hmm, so this poll only really applies to Satoru Iwata, Steve Ballmer, and Sir Howard Stringer? Maybe Master Chief and Bobby Kotick, too...
I already said it was because they wanted to avoid huge lawsuits and attract more costumers. They would have never been so popular if many 360s didn't last 3 years without breaking.kuraimen
...aaand we're back to where we started. My retort to the first part of this statement is in my second post in this topic, and my retort to the second part is in my fourth post of the topic. Neither has yet been debunked.
Log in to comment