PS3 crap-out cost me £100.

[fix-the-spade]

£100 to fix it, since the warranty has literally JUST expired. Wait a minute, didn't the Xbox 360 increase its manufacturers warranty to 3 years after problems were found with their system?

The difference is very simple, you are in the minority with the PS3. Whilst buying a 360 leaves you with a more than 50% chance of suffering total failure.

It's unfortunate that you've had a breakdown out of warranty, but this doesn't happen enough for Sony to need to change it's warranty scheme.

 

[Mikela]

Speaking of hardware failure... my 360 has had the occasional start up lockup (freezes on the 360 logo screen) or won't read a disc at first, forcing me to eject then reinsert to get it to read...

it's about to crap out on me isn't it?

Before mine died it froze on the startup logo and it played Fallout 3 for a few minutes before jamming.

I had to restart before it jammed again.

I think...your console...is dying.

Quick question though: do you stand it vertical or horizontal?

 

[z121231211]

considering the new 360 has a lower power consuming Jasper chip-set and with declining RRoD issues been reported it is perfectly logical to compare both with no RRoD stats.

By what logic? A problem is a problem, just because it's declining doesn't mean you can just not count it as a problem.

 

[Redd]

considering the new 360 has a lower power consuming Jasper chip-set and with declining RRoD issues been reported it is perfectly logical to compare both with no RRoD stats.

By what logic? A problem is a problem, just because it's declining doesn't mean you can just not count it as a problem.

You blew my mind. I had no idea someone with good logic would come out of nowhere and speak up. My good Sir/Madame I applaud you.

No I'm not being sarcastic..

 

[Mcface]

Microsoft didn't just 'extend' their warranties 3 years OP. They were forced to in light of the fact that they released their hardware, with KNOWN manufacturing defects. The company knew about it, and they still released it. MS has admitted to as much themselves. They got caught fucking over the consumer, and rather than get bent over in court (which they most certainly would have, most courts these days, love sticking it to MS), they extended warranties.

As for the PS3, the problem could be wear, the problem could be several things, bottom line though, the chances of your PS3 failing are roughly 2-5x less than your 360. You're just unlucky

I had to replace my PS3, it yellow-lighted. Unfortunately, I wasn't home when the problem arose, so I really have no idea what happened to it, especially since the last person to touch it was someone who went through roughly 10 5ths of Vodka a week, barely remembered what he did from day to day, and was generally a disgusting blob of a human being.

EDIT: However, since it's a 60g with full BC, I most certainly paid for the repairs. Interestingly, the whole affair took 11 days from me sending it to Sony, and me getting it back. Even more interesting, it was Christmas and New Years week that it occurred. Some badass Customer Service right there.

I have been planning on buying a PS3 for quite some time and I did some looking around to check on reliability issues and stumbled on this site http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_Xbox360_PS3_Wii_Reliability_0809.pdf where the company had conducted a survey of Wii, Ps3 and 360 console failure rates. Unsurprisingly, the Wii was the best and unsurprisingly the 360 was the worst with the RRoD issue. BUT I was surprised to find that the PS3 has a startlingly close failure rates to the 360 when the RRoD was excluded.

The broken down graphs showed that the PS3 has a higher "Disk read" failure rate than the 360 when the latter's overheating issue was factored out and overall the 360 has a failure rate of about 13% (without the RRoD) and the PS3 on a similar setting had a 10% faliure rate. That's not a huge margin!. What's more alarming is that the 360 has a 0.59% faliure rate per 24hrs or usage while the PS3...has 0.57%.

Granted that when the RRoD is factored in, then the gaps increase between the two consoles but considering the new 360 has a lower power consuming Jasper chip-set and with declining RRoD issues been reported it is perfectly logical to compare both with no RRoD stats. In which case, the PS3 is disturbingly close to the 360 faliure rates.

All of these bastards should be thrown in Jail.

The failure rate should not even reach 5%, let alone 13.

Those are WAY too high to justify the price!
its a damn insult to the buyers, I cant believe people stand for this.. or that its even legal.

 

[Mikela]

considering the new 360 has a lower power consuming Jasper chip-set and with declining RRoD issues been reported it is perfectly logical to compare both with no RRoD stats.

By what logic? A problem is a problem, just because it's declining doesn't mean you can just not count it as a problem.

I never said it's not a problem. I was comparing both systems on a general faults level, because the RRoD is a problem that is widely addressed now and more importantly because the *survey* took the RRoD as a separate fault criteria. Also for the record, I did say that with the RRoD considered the 360 has greater flaws and that's the big picture.

However, if one was to break it down to the finer points, remove the singular major complaint and look at the general faults and then compare the 360's general faults with the PS3 (which has no recorded major faults), you will see that the latter has remarkably closer percentage failure rates to the 360.

and that's just what I was stating. Microsoft has taken steps to limit and rectify the RRoD issue but Sony has made no such changes to the system. Therefore I chose to look at the flaws that neither company had chosen to resolve, the general flaws, which is why I logically took out the RRoD factor.

 

[iggyus]

It is still wise to conclude that the PS3 has lesser failure rates than the 360. As for the thread, I smell flames in the air and a possible fanboy war

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

I can really empathize with you on this one. I've found myself in the same situation.

For all the bitching I hear about the Xbox 360, I've had a more reliable experience with it rather than the Playstation. I've had two different PS3s die on me within the same year (cheaper to trade in using my Best Buy warranty), yet my 'launch era' Xbox 360 has worked without an issue.

Although, after making this post, I can expect to have my Xbox burst into flames the next time I turn it on...

Don't be suprised when it starts oozing blue liquid, its just the antifreez attempting but failing to keep the thing cool. And don't be suprised when it starts sharpening and throwing disks back at you at 400 mpg, it happens.

O.T. I got a 360 Elite a year after the 360 came out and I only had a one year warrenty, and it broke one week after warrenty expireation.

 

[Nick Bounty]

So wait a sec....my having already dealt with my PS3 outside of warranty, through no fault of my own...is somehow....a biased stance...? Really. I think you may want to look up the definition of bias. Because that really isn't what this scenario breaks down to. Point is, you don't have to replace it. It's your choice. If you don't want to...then don't. That simple.

If you own a 360 that hasn't RRoD'd...congrats you're one of the few. It's thoroughly documented, very thoroughly, that the machine has many problems, not just RRoD. It's also thoroughly documented that the PS3 has less problems. This is proven by the fact that the mainstream media get's a hard-on for anything that they can do to hurt Sony. It's not exaggeration..it's truth. The Sony lynch mob does it's job, and does it well...however, they somehow miss this massive failure rate of the PS3? Yeah, I think not.

There's no proof some nobody on some forum on some internet based magazine site can provide me regarding PS3 vs 360 failure rates, that I can't look up myself. And guess, the 360 is found severely lacking. Which is why I have a gaming rig that costs more than all 3 next-gen consoles combined (x2). I chose the route that would make it easier not only on my wallet, but on seamless gameplay. IE, I don't want to have to routinely stop, lose, or otherwise be alleviated of my saved games, because Microsoft can't make a heat-sync to save their lives. Not my problem.

As for my PS3, as I stated before...really not biased. Mine had to be repaired...and I happily chose to do so. The sad part is, I wasn't home when it happened, and the person who was responsible was literally a raging alcoholic....fat chance finding out what really happened there. He 'could've' just put a disc in, or he 'could've' kicked it over in a drunken stupor. I don't really know. Nor did I really care at the time. It didn't get my PS3 fixed simply sitting around fuming about how unfair life is, and how God hates me, and my PS3.

Don't get a PS3, I really don't care. There are plenty of people who are, and that's all that really matters to me.

What are you on about?. I am sorry I couldn't follow that over how adamant you were over something Sony. Did you write all that just to say:

"The PS3 doesn't have an RRoD issue, my PS3 somehow broke and I will gladly pay for it"

well then:

a)Thank you Captain Bleeding Obvious. We all know that the PS3 doesn't have an RRoD issue.

b)Good for you. Getting your PS3 repaired will help tremendously in you enjoying your games. (No that is not sarcasm)

I am really not sure who or what you were addressing there, reading the above posts I failed to see anyone claiming that the general PS3 product has bigger problems than the 360 or that you should be unhappy about having to pay to repair your own console. I sure as hell didn't, so you pay for your broken product and I'll contemplate throwing mine away.

As far as I can see we disagree about the Sony/PS3 customer service who in my opinion are woefully inept at troubleshooting a console. They somehow seem adamant that the machine can do no wrong and seem to think it funny to charge me again to replace something that should have fixed when it broke less than two months ago.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It is still wise to conclude that the PS3 has lesser failure rates than the 360. As for the thread, I smell flames in the air and a possible fanboy war

This is a gaming site, buddy. There's always the looming threat of NUCLEAR FANBOY WAR.

 

[ZombieGenesis]

I may have found a silver lining. In the legal system!

After some research and advice from an uncle in the computer repair business I've stumbled across the "Inherant Law", which applies to the EU and the United Kingdom where I live. Apparently ANY computerised system actually has a six year warranty by law, but after the first six months it becomes the burden of the customer to prove it is manufacturing error or an inherant error that is recognised with the system.

If I can get a statement from GAME or a local retailer that this problem is not iscolated, as I'm sure many of us know it isn't, I can demand refund or replacement under this law.
At least, that's the theory. This is why I'm going to be a lawyer...or, an unsuccessful novelist.

 

[Jamash]

Instead of having to pay £100-150 every time your PS3 craps out, you could buy Sony's Continuous Play warranty for £4.99 a month.

If you're planning to keep your PS3 throughout it's supposed 10 year lifespan, then the extra £540 might work out cheaper then having to pay a separate repair cost ever time something goes wrong, it you think it will crap out more than once every 2 years.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Microsoft didn't just 'extend' their warranties 3 years OP. They were forced to in light of the fact that they released their hardware, with KNOWN manufacturing defects. The company knew about it, and they still released it. MS has admitted to as much themselves. They got caught fucking over the consumer, and rather than get bent over in court (which they most certainly would have, most courts these days, love sticking it to MS), they extended warranties.

Sorry Morne, but your opinion falls on deaf ears here.
Let me illustrate why by asking you a simple question.

What is better:
A company who shipped a product realizing there was a POTENTIAL for an issue (Microsoft knew there was a POTENTIAL, not an ACTUALITY of the RROD issue) and once the problem arises, they quickly address it, fix your system for FREE within 1 WEEK, including shipping YOU a box overnight express with all packing materials, then overnighting it back, AND tossing in a little something extra... ALL at their own EXPENSE..

or

A company that doesn't divulge ANY possible error on their part, even though one may exist, and then when their product that costs TWICE as much as the nearest competitor's product has a problem, they blame YOU, the SUN, the Mayan Civilization, Invasion by Dark Overlords from the Nexus of Sominus, and anything or anyone else OTHER than themselves as the source of the system's failure. Their usual response to these "issues" have widely been reported as being DECIDEDLY negative, which shouldn't come as a surprise considering the way Sony handles it's OTHER products. So even if the issue might have been reported a thousand times, YOU are told YOU have to pay HALF the cost of the next competitor's console sale price to have YOUR system repaired, wait 2 WEEKS or more to get it back, and STILL get left with the feeling that if anything goes wrong, SONY does not CARE about you.

Seriously, which one of those two sounds better? Who would you prefer to do business with in the long run, and assuming you are an Adult?

I like the PS3, and I've yet to have a problem with it's functionality, but I've dealt with Sony on a number of occasions over several different products and ultimately I am NOT nor have I ever been "Pleased" with their Customer service. In fact I'd rank their customer service as not just low, but PATHETIC by the standard provided by ANYONE other company in the industry (Consumer ELectronics, not just video games).
My opinion, mind you is more than supported... just check any source on the internet and you'll find far more disgruntled Sony customers on everything from their Laptops to the LCD Tv's to their Cameras than you will find "praise".

But this was all probably a waste of time. You're a die-hard Sony apologist for the most part, and thats your right. More power to you.
But don't tell ME that we're blowing things out of proportion or try to diminish Sony's shortcomings to me when it comes to customer service and cost for me the consumer. Because that sort of talk falls on deaf ears with me, just like anything that reflects negatively on Sony falls on deaf ears where you are concerned.

I've said it before and I stand by it... If my PS3 breaks due to some defect and Sony refuses to fix it, or tries to replace it with a NON-BC Ps3, they will lose me as a customer, permanently.

Instead of having to pay £100-150 every time your PS3 craps out, you could buy Sony's Continuous Play warranty for £4.99 a month.

If you're planning to keep your PS3 throughout it's supposed 10 year lifespan, then the extra £540 might work out cheaper then having to pay a separate repair cost ever time something goes wrong, it you think it will crap out more than once every 2 years.

So I'm supposed to pay them $5 a MONTH to warranty my system with a warranty that might not even be honored (you'll find that Sony is quite adept at proving you some how "violated" the terms of the warranty, or it involves a part not covered).
And yet people complain about paying a fee for Xbox Live.

 

[Pendragon9]

Dude, you're lucky. When I had to get my Laptop fixed because Windows was acting gay, it cost me 155 bucks!

I'm sorry your warranty ran out. Hope your Ps3 gets fixed soon.

{I'm still happy I'm not using Microsoft's garbage. This is exactly what they did to me and my friend. Good service my arse. I hope their products burn in a landfill. )