Poll: Is brand loyalty keeping the 360 alive?

[Epitome]

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.

Whilst being trodden over by every other major player and posing no threat of any way shape or form

 

[Crowser]

I see where your coming from, I was PISSED when i got RROD and was tempted to get a PS3 but all my friends have Xbox so I ended up buying another one. But I swear to god if the fucking LIMITED EDITION RED ELITE breaks I'm going to buy several PS3's just to attempt to kill Microsoft.

 

[Ashbax]

I seriously hate the bad rap the 360 gets about 'dying alot' ive had mine since 2005, and it only RROD'd once, and I didnt have to send it off, only had to unplug it, plug it back in and then turn it on using the disc drive and it was fine.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Whilst being trodden over by every other major player and posing no threat of any way shape or form

No, that's Belgium.
No-one dares tread on Switzlerand, being able to call up 700'000 soldiers in 24hours might have something to do with it, even the Nazis didn't dare go through Switzerland.

 

[Epitome]

Whilst being trodden over by every other major player and posing no threat of any way shape or form

No, that's Belgium.
No-one dares tread on Switzlerand, being able to call up 700'000 soldiers in 24hours might have something to do with it, even the Nazis didn't dare go through Switzerland.

*hands up* yeah your right, sorry mixed up my neutrals there for a minute, still my pc gamers are lowest in the chain statement stands

 

[Eagle Est1986]

I've had 3. None have ever done a damn thing wrong.
And neither have any of my friend's.

Honestly, As a whole I think the whole Xbox-Malfunction Thing is overblown.

May I ask why you've had three if none of them have broken?

I think everyone I know (IRL) that owns a 360 has had it break at least once on them.

 

[Semitendon]

I might as well throw my two cents in. I 've had my 360 break down 3 times, each time it was replaced for free. Counting the break downs, I personally, am sticking with the 360.

1. The 360.

The 360's major benefit's are infinitely better games, ( which is why anyone buys a console for in the first place) relatively affordable, Next Gen visuals, a more comfortable controller, and an excellent online system.

Downside: High potential to break down( particularly in earlier models), you have to pay for online gaming

2.The PS3.

The PS3's major benefit's are it's relative reliability, Next Gen visuals,Blue Ray player and inexpensive online.

Downside: It's expensive, it has a low selection of games and the ones it does have all to itself are nothing to write home about, it has an arthritis inspiring controller, online quality is lacking.

3. The Wii.

The Wii's major benefit's are it's selection of classic game characters and classic games, The appeal of its games to new or inexperienced (children and elderly) gamers, it's unique comtroller method, free online, and it's extremely inexpensive.

Downside: It's unique controller method is difficult to use for "serious" games, the graphics are relatively poor, it has virtually no modern games, and very few games that could be considered "serious" games by most people, online play is lacking.

In the end, if you can get past the issues with the RRoD, there is no reason to buy any other game console than the 360. Unless the Blue Ray player makes that much of a difference to you ( personally I agree with Zero Punct. on the subject of Blue Ray) or if you are buying a console for a child, or to entertain a retiree in which case you may want the Wii.

This is all just my opinion of course, but in terms of brand loyalty, the 360 and the PS3 are neck in neck with only a mild amount of crazed fans. Those console's come down to their benefit's and weakness's for most people. I have friends that have gotten fed up with the 360 breaking down, friends who just wanted the tech that the PS3 offered, and others who just wanted to play fun games, so they bought a 360. Like I said, it's all about personal preference to the benefit's/weakness's of the two systems.

If you want to talk about crazy brand loyality you HAVE to go to the Wii first. It's a forgone conclusion that a company that's been making games longer than any other is the company with the most loyal fans, and that's is where you should be asking about brand loyality.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

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.

ok let me do it this way, it was changed at 19:52 GMT, you posted at 19:57 GMT, considering it would have taken you several minutes to type out your post, the fact that the ip used to change it belongs to a european group, it's very easy to point the finger directly at you who did it

also you were the one who pointed out that there was something. so by using some very good deductive reasoning, you were the one who did it.

once again you fail at this game

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

wrong it's where you can actually get experience to COMMENT on stuff like failure rates

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

yes several times, we've had to pull 100% several times for having a bad product and those were for well over 1000 parts

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.

yes they do, there's TONS of recalls

this is where your logic is very bad, the way testing works is every X amount of parts you test one. this is a proven manufacturing standard and part of the ISO9001 standard and several others.

it is nothing like randomly picking one person out of 1000. you do get very good results on the batch and how well things are going

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.

actually it DOES prove how well it works, that's the whole point of qa testing. qa testing is one of the main reasons that the Japanese became such a great manufacturing entity. they blew the American car industry out of the water with their cars simply because they qa'd and didn't Statistical Process Control

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.

actually you once again don't understand how product testing works. when they make a new product, they don't just assemble it and then send it out into the market.

when a company first makes a product they make prototypes and use them for several months before releasing the product or even sending to the manufacturing

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.

as for video cards, i'm going to blame the users rather than the cards themselves. there are too many people who have a video card and bad cooling in the case, so it's not that far of a stretch to figure out the card is failing cause of user error, not mechanical failure

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.

and how many of those are actually user based errors? i'm willing to bet most of them were caused by bad things the person did rather than the actual system failure itself.

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.

actually the DID know about the failure rates, there's been a few documents that have surfaced over the years stating they did know it was there. they just wanted to be the first out the door and get a lead on everyone, they didn't care they would have a high failure rate

sure they can claim what they want but frankly basic testing would have easily exposed the RROD issue. considering when they do certain testing it would be very evident something was wrong. they just figured that releasing it asap was the best possible solution for them to get an early lead and be damned with the customers' issues. i think they miscalculated how bad the issue is

 

[Apathetic Flamingo]

That's keeping the PS3 alive. Not 360.

Says the man with Master Chief as his avatar...

Brand loyalty isn't bad and it's what keeps all of the current systems going. Period.

Yes, I have Master Chief as my avatar, but I don't love Halo THAT much. That just more of an irony thing. Anyway, I loved the game Disgaea on the PS3, but that was on because I liked the other two. I loved the original Gears, because it was new and original.

 

[Booze Zombie]

It's a good console, it doesn't cost to much and, for me, the customer service was excellent.
Plus, it's god a damn good selection of games on offer.

But, I wouldn't say I was loyal to it.
I would however, argue against anyone trying to claim that I'm an idiot for using it.

 

[gigastrike]

Originally the 360 got out of the starting gate because of brand loyalty. Now it has some good games.

 

[ThaBenMan]

Well, I own a 360 myself. I like it for a few different reasons - it was less expensive than a PS3, and sure, it lacks extra bells and whistles like blu-ray, etc. but I kind of like that more simple, straight-forward nature in the Xbox. It has some good exclusives - Mass Effect, Bioshock (well, at one time), Castle Crashers. And mine has yet to break down.

But I'm not really a fanboy. The PS3 looks pretty friggin' awesome, and I'd definitely get one if I could afford it. And a Wii, too. But with my limited assets, the Xbox was just the right choice for me.

 

[Cherry Cola]

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.

And eating delicious chocolate

 

[coolhitmandude5000]

I don't think fanboy loyalty is the ONLY thing keeping it alive. It has good hardcore and casual games so it's great for everyone. I bought one just two months ago (literally June 12th marks the day I got my 360...it's also my birthday) and i'm loving it to hell. I have SC4, Halo 3, Gears 2, GTA 4, COD 4, BioShock, Mass Effect, Castle Crashers, Splosion Man AND Bomberman Live. And it's easily the best console i've ever owned.

 

[xxcloud417xx]

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.

hehe yeppers. I'll gladly sit by with you and have a beer while watching the Console fanboys kill themselves.

 

[jboking]

That's keeping the PS3 alive. Not 360.

Says the man with Master Chief as his avatar...

Brand loyalty isn't bad and it's what keeps all of the current systems going. Period.

Yes, I have Master Chief as my avatar, but I don't love Halo THAT much. That just more of an irony thing. Anyway, I loved the game Disgaea on the PS3, but that was on because I liked the other two. I loved the original Gears, because it was new and original.

Yes, and people loved Uncharted on the PS3. They also loved Resistance: FoM. They were both new. I liked Halo 3 multiplayer on the 360, but that was because I like Halo 2 multiplayer on the Xbox. See where I'm going with this? Every system has new IP and some of it's great. However, consumers don't know that beforehand. However, their loyalty to a sequel of a game they loved is what keeps a system alive.

and let me stress this next part...

[HEADING=1]THAT IS NOT A BAD THING[/HEADING]

Brand loyalty is just another one of those things that encourages competition and keeps us from the one console future. Everyone should be glad that all the systems have their exclusive titles that they will never let go.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

Because you have obviously decided to also not list any positive features from the Xbox, you have, nor have you pointed out any features from any seperate consoles (I'm sorry, saying you will isn't anything..), then you are simply flamebaiting at the very least. If you're going to attempt a thread on a single console and listing negativity about it then please expect MOD intervention.

As for something to your 'probe', please remember you play the game, not the console. People would not stick with any single console even if it boasted full reliability, they only stick with a single console for the games themselves. The online system itself is also a plus, would you prefer to furish your house with things you find in the street, or those bought from a shop? In this case, you get what you pay for, and for the features offered through LIVE and the promptness of Updates when necessary, sell me on choosing a prefered Online-based console.

If you're only complaint is that of console reliability, you are digging up a grave that has been exhumed so many times it has an autonomous rail track leading to the Internet. Yes, simply put Microsoft did fuck it up and I mean it, seriously leaving plastic in the console? Not exactly the first point in '101 Steps to a Next Gen Console' is it? The console has been out for just under 4 years, there are now improvements in consoles which drastically reduce the chance of RROD, and there is also the 3 year gap of buying the console and sending it off to get it fixed for free.

And simply put, if you can't wait the 2 weeks to get a console repaired, then you can take what little patience you possess and good luck elsewhere... Have they gone?.. Good, less jittery 12 year olds.

I would list positives about the system, if they were in any way relevant to the point I'm trying make, and that is clearly going over your head. This has nothing to do with games, online services or the Xbox franchise. It has to do with how loyal are you to your brand, and would you still be if they royally fucked up. NOT WHY YOU ARE LOYAL, but what do you think of the 360's cult-like following. NOT THE 360 ITSELF, ITS FOLLOWING.

What isn't surprising is that a not many people have answered the second question in the OP. Would you stay loyal to your brand of choice if they fucked up? What also isn't surprising is the massive amounts of posts calling this flamebait, instead of answering the questions I asked in the OP. What IS surprising is the even LARGER amount of intelligent posts addressing the questions I asked.

But to a point, I'm glad these posts show up, because they prove my point: The 360 has a devout, cult-like following, defending their brand any chance they get. I mean sure, I'm happier about the intelligent posts that actually answer my questions, but ones like yours are nice too.

Anyways, I'm just happy with all the interesting points that are being made. This is why I joined the Escapist.

1. You just proved you lied in the OP. You never were going to ask the same question about PS3 or Wii, you just wanted to flamebait 360 Fans by putting down the 360 and asking how in the heck they could like it.
2. To answer your second question. If the system became crap and unplayable with no free repair service, I doubt anyone but collectors and the most fannish of fanboys would still buy it, that goes for ANY system. I buy it to play games, not just to browse the purdy menus.
3. 360 has a Devout cult following? What about the Japanophiles and Final Fantasy nerds who buy PS3 simply because it has numerous JRPGs on it? PS3 I can SAFELY say has a far bigger fanboy base then most any system in HISTORY simply due to that overrated FF Franchise. And what about Nintendo Fanboys? there are TONS of fanboys who buy Wii just because it's nintendo brand. Every system has fanboys, but saying Xbox360 has the most is just silly XD
4. He was actually quite intelligent, he pointed out your truckload of BS that all the dumb posters you call intelligent feed into.
5. And as for fans... Fanboys in general deserve a punch in the face, wether they are for consoles, politics, or anything else. In the end though it's not brand loyalty. In the end what keeps it going are a number of things.

A) It's cheaper then PS3
B) It started up with a much better library then PS3 started with
C) People who bought Xbox will stick with what they know they enjoyed rather then chance wasting money
D) GIANT ENEMY CRAB! and RIIIIIIIDGE RACEEEEEER becoming viral videos helped dull down some of the enthusiasm from the PS crowd

I also might add... I went through 4 first model PS2s which disk read errored the first 2 hours of play before going Xbox. The 360 Red Lighted once, was fixed in less then a week for free and extended my warrenty. The PS2's on the other hand I was forced to pay a fee for replacement. It's not loyalty for me, it's my confidence as a customer of the company that if, or when my product breaks, I will treated well.

I own all three systems, I play my 360 10x as long as I play my PS3, and I only play my Wii with some friends and thats it. I pay for Xbox live, and enjoy it over my PS3's free online experience, and all in all enjoy it.

Remember, everything has it's flaws. But if you enjoy something despite it's flaws, it means your going to enjoy your life, onlike people like you who can only look at the negative factors and judge solely on that.

 

[Pillypill]

I Own both a 360 and a PS3 and despite the PS3 being slightly more powerful if i had to sell one (for some unknown arbitary reason) I'd sell the PS3, and i didn't even own the first xbox i had a game cube.(Loyalty certainly didn't stop me selling my wii now did it?). i'm not sure why i prefer my 360 ,it's not by a wide margin, though gun to my head i'd say it's because; more games (that i like anyway) a better controller (seriously my Ps3 controller gets on my nerves)and a slightly better online community. it's not loyalty that made me buy either of these consoles, i don't think loyalty is what made other people buy them either it's just what they want out of their console.

 

[Omikron009]

I own a 360 and it's never given me any trouble. Of course it'll probably break as soon as my warranty expires.