Poll: Is brand loyalty keeping the 360 alive?

[MK Tha Rebel]

Here's what really confuses me. I can see why the Wii is so popular. I can see why the PS3 is so popular. I cannot, for the life of my, figure out why the 360 is so popular

You understand why the PS3 is popular but you do not understand why the 360 is...that makes no sense.

I think I said it in the OP, I don't understand why something with the ever-present threat of faulty hardware could be so popular.

 

[cocoadog]

i usually stick with PC but i also have a 360 and i think its the best console.

 

[BolognaBaloney]

There's no real problems with the 360 I'm on my third and I haven't found any problem with them.

No problems eh?

 

[Del-Toro]

I sorta see what you mean, my first one did break down, but on that same coin it was horribly mistreated, bounced around, ported from place to place alot, so it's not hard to see why it would eventually break down, I've had no such problems with my current console, however. Yeah the launch model were shit but that's the risk of early adaptation and a few batches in they were a bit more fixed up. I agree that the repair is a little pricey but considering that it was all done in less than a week I guess I'm not going to ***** too much about that, considering that I apparently got some free XBL time for it.

 

[ratix2]

cleverlymadeup:

i realise that your example is just to demonstrate a point, however it doesent do it very well. for electronics a 5% failure rate IS considered within normal limits, few electronics manufactures can even claim to have a less than 2% failure rate, let alone under 1%.

actually most companies are like that. it does help having worked in a factory and also having friends who do qa testing. when we had anything more than 1% that were failing qa standards we stopped our machines

look at cell phones, such as the blackberry, since they've come out i can count on 1 hand how many i've run into that have broken cause of a manufacturing defect and i've worked in environments where every manager and above have a blackberry and there's several thousand employees in said organization

yet i've met several 360 owners who've had the RROD, in fact that majority of the owners i personally know have had the RROD and that's a much smaller sample of people than the blackberry or frankly any other cell phone

your logic is rather bad and frankly just plain wrong, mine comes from experience

unfortuanetly from what i gathered your experience comes from your tenure in qa testing only, which IS different from out in the real world.

quick question, did you guys pull ever product from the line to test it or just a few samples from each batch?

most compaines DONT pull ever product and instead just some samples from each batch. if the failure rates for those samples is above a certain percent then the line is stopped and the entire batch is tested. the problem here is that testing random samples is like polling a random sample of 1000 people from a population of a few million, you dont get the kind of results that youd get from the entire population or batch.

for example, with processors even microscopic dust particles can cause massive damage to the chip. lets say that 15% of the chips on a wafer of 300 have enough dust particles to cause major damage. now say that qa has a month to test a minimum of 30,000 chips before they ship out. from that batch of 300 chips 100 are taken out for qa testing. if the sample size were an accurate representation of the number of chips that would fail under qa testing then 15 of those chips would fail, however only 45 of those 300 chips would fail, yet there is less than a 10% chance that even one of those chips would even be pulled out for testing. if only 1 of the affected chips comes out bad then the sample size is inefficent to determine the final failure rate of the entire batch.

my point is this, qa testing in these cases cannot effectively determine the eventual failure rate of the entire batch.

second, different companies and different products have different failure rates as well as different acceptable failure rates. you mentioned the blackberry, but for another example lets talk about the iphone, itouch and different generations of the ipod. all of those were notorious for having high failure rates, yet all of those were also after some time in use (though usually less than one year) their failures ranged from overheating, exploding batteries, leaks of battery acid and many other things.

my point here is that qa testing does not have the time to effectively test these products over a long period of time. hence the old saying, its the consumers that actually test these devices for the companies.

now lets talk about graphics cards. diamond is one of the few companies that manufactures graphics cards that can claim they have lower than a 1% failure rate, for most other companies that failure rate is much higher, as high as 7-8% for some, but most within the 3-5% range. yet these companies claim that failure rates are within acceptable limits. reason being diamond hand testes EVERY card they make, but at the same time they produce much fewer cards than many of their competitors. these companies dont take the time to test every card and instead only test a few out of each batch. as i said earlier, while the sample size may fall within acceptable limits for failure during qa testing many times it wont predict the eventual failure rate for the entire batch.

finally, lets talk about the wii and the ps3 for a second. both the wii and the ps3 have reported failure rates around 5%, yet both companies consider that within acceptable limits. so how is it then that they do not have class action lawsuits aganist them for what you describe as abnormally high failure rates? its because there is a difference between acceptable failure rates on the qa line and acceptable failure rates overall.

im not arguing with you on the fact that the 360 has/had an abnormally high failure rate, at 16-30% it is damn high. but you do need to understand something, the rrod IS caused by long term overheating, not something that can be found by a few hours with a few test consoles out of each batch in qa testing. as there is a difference between acceptable failure rates on the qa line and acceptable failure rates overall there is also a difference between these failures being caused by issues that will rear their ugly heads in a short time versus issues that will pop up after a more signifant amount of use than qa testing has to test these things.

but of course microsoft should have known that it would be an issue. there is only so much heat a heatsink can dissipate, and had ms done effective testing before release they would have found out that more heat was being generated than could be effectively dissapated and should have redesigned the heatsink/cooling solution of the system. make no mistake, im not defending microsoft here, what im doing is debunking why your assesment of failure rates is fallacious, your only taking into account your personal experience with qa testing and not the business side of things, nor are you taking into account the acceptable failure rates of the other console makers or what other companies consider acceptable failure rates, which for most companies is around 5% eventually. this is one of the main reasons why warranties exist.

 

[ratix2]

cleverlymadeup:

i realise that your example is just to demonstrate a point, however it doesent do it very well. for electronics a 5% failure rate IS considered within normal limits, few electronics manufactures can even claim to have a less than 2% failure rate, let alone under 1%.

actually most companies are like that. it does help having worked in a factory and also having friends who do qa testing. when we had anything more than 1% that were failing qa standards we stopped our machines

look at cell phones, such as the blackberry, since they've come out i can count on 1 hand how many i've run into that have broken cause of a manufacturing defect and i've worked in environments where every manager and above have a blackberry and there's several thousand employees in said organization

yet i've met several 360 owners who've had the RROD, in fact that majority of the owners i personally know have had the RROD and that's a much smaller sample of people than the blackberry or frankly any other cell phone

your logic is rather bad and frankly just plain wrong, mine comes from experience

unfortuanetly from what i gathered your experience comes from your tenure in qa testing only, which IS different from out in the real world.

quick question, did you guys pull ever product from the line to test it or just a few samples from each batch?

most compaines DONT pull ever product and instead just some samples from each batch. if the failure rates for those samples is above a certain percent then the line is stopped and the entire batch is tested. the problem here is that testing random samples is like polling a random sample of 1000 people from a population of a few million, you dont get the kind of results that youd get from the entire population or batch.

for example, with processors even microscopic dust particles can cause massive damage to the chip. lets say that 15% of the chips on a wafer of 300 have enough dust particles to cause major damage. now say that qa has a month to test a minimum of 30,000 chips before they ship out. from that batch of 300 chips 100 are taken out for qa testing. if the sample size were an accurate representation of the number of chips that would fail under qa testing then 15 of those chips would fail, however only 45 of those 300 chips would fail, yet there is less than a 10% chance that even one of those chips would even be pulled out for testing. if only 1 of the affected chips comes out bad then the sample size is inefficent to determine the final failure rate of the entire batch. this is the thing about the law of probability, and this does happen.

my point is this, qa testing in these cases cannot effectively determine the eventual failure rate of the entire batch.

second, different companies and different products have different failure rates as well as different acceptable failure rates. you mentioned the blackberry, but for another example lets talk about the iphone, itouch and different generations of the ipod. all of those were notorious for having high failure rates, yet all of those were also after some time in use (though usually less than one year) their failures ranged from overheating, exploding batteries, leaks of battery acid and many other things.

my point here is that qa testing does not have the time to effectively test these products over a long period of time. hence the old saying, its the consumers that actually test these devices for the companies.

now lets talk about graphics cards. diamond is one of the few companies that manufactures graphics cards that can claim they have lower than a 1% failure rate, for most other companies that failure rate is much higher, as high as 7-8% for some, but most within the 3-5% range. yet these companies claim that failure rates are within acceptable limits. reason being diamond hand testes EVERY card they make, but at the same time they produce much fewer cards than many of their competitors. these companies dont take the time to test every card and instead only test a few out of each batch. as i said earlier, while the sample size may fall within acceptable limits for failure during qa testing many times it wont predict the eventual failure rate for the entire batch.

finally, lets talk about the wii and the ps3 for a second. both the wii and the ps3 have reported failure rates around 5%, yet both companies consider that within acceptable limits. so how is it then that they do not have class action lawsuits aganist them for what you describe as abnormally high failure rates? its because there is a difference between acceptable failure rates on the qa line and acceptable failure rates overall.

im not arguing with you on the fact that the 360 has/had an abnormally high failure rate, at 16-30% it is damn high. but you do need to understand something, the rrod IS caused by long term overheating, not something that can be found by a few hours with a few test consoles out of each batch in qa testing. as there is a difference between acceptable failure rates on the qa line and acceptable failure rates overall there is also a difference between these failures being caused by issues that will rear their ugly heads in a short time versus issues that will pop up after a more signifant amount of use than qa testing has to test these things.

but of course microsoft should have known that it would be an issue. there is only so much heat a heatsink can dissipate, and had ms done effective testing before release they would have found out that more heat was being generated than could be effectively dissapated and should have redesigned the heatsink/cooling solution of the system. make no mistake, im not defending microsoft here, what im doing is debunking why your assesment of failure rates is fallacious, your only taking into account your personal experience with qa testing and not the business side of things, nor are you taking into account the acceptable failure rates of the other console makers or what other companies consider acceptable failure rates, which for most companies is around 5% eventually. this is one of the main reasons why warranties exist.

 

[ffxfriek]

...we've become so caught up in the console war, everyone's taking part in it.

I'm not taking part, I'm a PC gamer.

Funny, cause you just did.

Zing!

And also, my 360 has never broken in the 2 (almost 3) years that I've had it.

my best friend had one since release and it broke after a 12hour marathon of the force unleashed

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

I think it is popular b/c of the amount of exclusive games it has that are awesome, like Halo, Gears of War, and Mass Effect. That's why I have mine anyway. Also, Xbox Live is just better then what the other two offer online.

 

[Whistler777]

we've become so caught up in the console war, everyone has become a participant.

I'm not taking part, I'm a PC gamer. PC gamers are officialy the console war version of Switzerland, sitting out all the big conflicts being smug.

Nailed it.

Once I get my XFX 4870, I can be more smug than Dane Cook winning the lottery.

 

[ShadowKatt]

I don't think this is the case. I think the 360 with its online play, vast library of games thanks to its backward compatability, and somewhat above average hardware it a perfectly viable competetor in the console wars. I'll never own one, as I'm pretty hardcore sony and the xbox just doesn't have enough exclusive titles to make it worth it, but I think the only company living off fan loyalty is nintendo.

 

[Lord Thodin]

Mines actually never broke. Granted that I was too poor to buy one when it first game out so i guess mine had more fans or some shit but still. I've put about 15-20 straight hours of gaming and never had it RROD on me. I had it freeze a couple times but fuckin eh my PS2 did it so much towards the end of its life that it no longer phases me.

More to the point, i love my 360. Ive invest about a grand worth of equipment into the bastard and its done right by me so far. Honestly I hate microsoft the corporation and will admit to being a sony fanboy but i love my 360 regardless. Its graphics arent the best but its a nice in-between for me. I own a Wii and im not fond of it, but I've also played a PS3 for extensive amounts of time. So i can happily say that I like my middle ground.

 

[PurpleRain]

Ah, your poll has barely any options that apply to any alternative point of view. Also, it's a game system used to play games. I like the games on it. They are fun. I have fun. I type like a first grader. Wee.

I don't think I could simplify it any more then that. I've never given a damn for the brand. The PS3 either. Each to their own, but I can't see why others cannot view products as they are. I don't need a Blu Ray player and care nothing for online capabilities. My Xbox didn't have this avatar crap tacked on but I played it to death because it had all the games I wanted on it. If the PS3 did, I'd buy that. If the Wii did then sign me up for it. But the 360 does. That is all. No brand loyalty. I don't see people as idiots or am impressed by them liking a brand.

 

[fathungrychicken]

*made an account just to answer this =P*

I personally have an xbox 360 and in the ..3? (forgot when I got it) years I've had it it's broken down once, not only was it free to fix but I also got a free month of xbox live, which is a nice little bonus if you ask me ^_^ so personally all of the facts you stated don't bother me...plus I love the brand =P

edit: I also believe that the amount of hardware issues and the such has been blown out of the water, I have at least 5-10 friends who have xbox 360's and have never had a problem with them, could be console warrers (proper name?) using it as an example why their console is better, not a clue.

 

[Snotnarok]

I got the 360 for the games that were coming out for it at the time, it makes no difference to me for the most part.

 

[lizards]

im an owner and im not dedicated to it hell back in the days of xbox orginal i had a ps2 along with my xbox what makes me not have a ps3 but have a xbox 360 is the same reason i played my xbox more than the ps2 i liked the games better im more of the dead rising, halo, gears of war, call of duty, and i also frequent the fallout and elderscrolls series along with left for dead and battlefeild bad company

to the point: i play games that for the most part arent on the ps3 and the only games that ive ever considered giving a second glance was uncharted and resistance and from what i hear resistance isnt that great and uncharted doesnt have multiplayer and dispute it if you want but multiplayer can be the make or break part of a game that makes it played up intil the next one or put on the shelves and only brought out right before the next one is released

and also my best games ever list consists entirely of titles that to my knowledge arent on the ps3 are condemned brothers in arms hells highway gears of war

 

[notsosavagemessiah]

Again, the thing really keeping the 360 alive is the games. The wii and ps3 simply don't have the same high quality line up. There are good games for both systems sure, just not as many.

 

[hypothetical fact]

Better game lineup, better online, better controller, repairing the damn thing is free and comes with a free month of live (one of the weaknesses of the machine).

 

[Emilin_Rose]

Well, i think its because the FPS games that come out for it daily appeal both to hardcore gamers, and the lesser known side of casual gamers that only play video games at all to see heads erupt in blood through a sniper scope without going to prison.

 

[Hexenwolf]

You can get it fixed for free the first time it breaks if it breaks, and you get a free month of Xbox Live, which is nice. Mine has never broken, but I have a relatively recent version, only a year old. It's true the original 360s would break down with alarming regularity, but every iteration since the launch version has gotten much better about it. Also, the majority of the time, and I do mean majority, it's not an inherent problem with the system, but people not placing them in a position where it can receive adequate cooling. A lot of people place their 360s in cramped quarters, or cover the vents, and while I agree that it can be annoying to be on the lookout for overheating, it's not exactly hard to avoid, and is inherent to any piece of electronic equipment. Some more than others, but it's always there.

Really, it's exactly what you said, there are good games, and Xbox Live is effective. The games will always be the deciding factor in the success (or failure) of a console, in the eyes of most gamers. The game library decides whether or not it is worth buying. The casual games on the Wii are why there are a lot of casual gamers on the Wii. Technically, the PS3 is a superior piece of hardware, but that is far from the only thing people look for in a console, they look for specific games, and a lot of Xbox games are very popular.

No doubt brand loyalty plays a part, but it would be far from possible for it to entirely support a a console. If you take brand loyalty as capable of carrying a system entirely, then by all measures the PS3 should be far ahead of the 360, as the PS2 was far more popular than the original Xbox and as such had a bigger fanbase.

So the long and the short of it is no, it's not product loyalty keeping the Xbox afloat. You are overestimating the system failure problem, (it is definitely a problem, but not as huge as you think it is), and underestimating the power of a good game library.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Wikipedia on failure rates. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate#See_also] Check what is on the bottom of the 'See also' list. I think its hilarious.

also editing the article on Wikipedia, just before you make the post is stupid and you're an idiot

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Failure_rate&action=history


yeah there's a history function and you can see what was changed, until today and just before you made the post it said Xbox360

so you fail at trying to be smart, fail pretty badly

anyways it has always puzzled me why people think it's a great system when they've had to replace it several times, sure it gets replaced but that's not the point, they shouldn't hvae to replace it in the first place

You presume a lot when you have absolutely no proof I made those changes. Anybody can make changes to wikipedia and that includes you. See what I did there? Not nice, isn't it? Besides, why would I change Xbox 360 to PS3 when I myself own a PS3 since launch and like it because it doesn't break down on me, while I abandoned the other for that same reason?

Anyways, don't call people an idiot without having anything to back it up.