It depends on the type of game that's being made. Rage, for example, does a lot of stuff with megatexturing, which means that it'll be streaming textures in and out of RAM very, very quickly. Fast read speed on the disk will be very important for the game to look good, as will fast VRAM for good framerates. It's really not so simple as "X will look better than Y." 3D graphics is a very involved, very complicated area, and the tables can quickly turn depending on the type of 3D scene being drawn.
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.
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="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?
[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"][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.
I'd say the first Fallout. It's an odd, but pleasant feeling that I get when I select targeted shot, hit my opponent in the head, and watch their ribcage inexplicably explode.
Log in to comment