backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 184 comment(s) - last by feraltoad.. on Jan 27 at 10:37 PM

Xbox 360 team skipped quality testing of console to beat Sony to market

Last summer, amidst a flurry of reports from Xbox 360 gamers, DailyTech exposed retailers’ estimates that up to one-third of Xbox 360 consoles experience hardware failures within the first year of ownership. Just days after the report, Microsoft extended its warranty to cover the specific hardware failure for three years from purchase.

Now, six months later, a supposed Microsoft insider confirms that around 30% of Xbox 360 consoles, most based on the original ‘Xenon’ design, fail. “It's around 30 percent, and all will probably fail early,” the source told 8Bit Joystick. “This quarter they are expecting 1M failures, most of those Xenons. Some of those are repeat failures.”

Although Microsoft now covers all Xbox 360 consoles for three years against the Red Ring of Death (RROD) – the sign of a hardware failure – there is no specific time frame for the defect to appear. “Life expectancy is all over the map because the design has very little margin for most of the important parameters,” continued the insider. “That means it's not a fault tolerant design. So a good unit may last a couple of years, while a bad unit can fail in hours.”

Prior to the warranty extensions enacted by Microsoft, the Xbox 360 shipped with only a 90-day warranty. Some of those with failed hardware outside of the warranty period took matters in their own hands and almost unanimously discovered that the failure was due to inadequate cooling of entire system (particularly the GPU), leading to overstressed components.

 “RROD is caused by anything that fails in the "digital backbone" on the mother board,” said the source, confirming user findings. “The main design flaw was the excessive heat on the GPU warping the mother board around it. This would stress the solder joints on the GPU and any bad joints would then fail in early life.”

Microsoft quickly attempted to rectify the hardware flaw by incorporating a redesigned heatsink to better cool the GPU. A die-shrink to 65nm would also help solve heat issues, though the much anticipated ‘Falcon’ design only featured a 65nm CPU, while the GPU remained at 90nm. The GPU shrink to 65nm is planned later this year in the ‘Jasper’ redesign.

While the above topic points are generally known by the Xbox 360 user community, what comes more alarmingly from the supposed member of the Xbox 360 project is that Microsoft allegedly launched its console fully aware of a potential issue in quality.

“First, MS has under resourced that product unit in all engineering areas since the very beginning. Especially in engineering support functions like test, quality, manufacturing, and supplier management,” the source wrote in an email. “There just weren't enough people to do the job that needed to be done. The leadership in many of those areas was also lopsided in essential skills and experience. But I hear they are really trying to staff up now based on what has happened, and how cheap staff is compared to a couple of billion in cost of quality.”

Microsoft had to take an over $1 billion USD charge to cover the Red Ring of Death defect warranty, which last year cost the company’s Entertainment and Devices Division a $1.89 billion USD loss. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer termed the warranty coverage charge as “painful” to announce.

During the previous generation, Microsoft attributed much of PlayStation 2’s lead over the Xbox to its earlier arrival on the market. Microsoft was determined to beat Sony to the punch for the next generation, as the source explained, “MS was so focused on beating Sony this cycle that the 360 was rushed to market when all indications were that it had serious flaws. The design [quality] testing was insufficient and incomplete when the product was released to production. The manufacturing test equipment had major gaps in test coverage and wasn't reliable or repeatable. Manufacturing processes at [all] levels of suppliers were immature and not in control. Initial end to end yields were in the mid 30%. Low yields always indicate serious design and manufacturing defects.

“Management chose to continue to ship anyways, and keep the lines running while trying to solve problems and bring the yields up. Whenever something failed and there was a question about whether the test result was false, they would remove that test, retest and ship, or see if the unit would boot a game and run briefly and then ship. [The] 360 is too complex of a machine to get away with that.”

In hindsight, the Xbox 360 project team likely wishes that it had paid closer attention to its processes – though the fierce competition of the industry fueled their desire to take shortcuts. “In the end I think it was fear of failure, ambition to beat Sony, and the arrogance that they could figure anything out, that led to the decision to keep shipping,” the insider revealed. “Plus, they tend to make big decisions like that in terms of dollars. They would rationalize that if the first few million boxes had a high failure rate, a few 10's of millions of dollars would cover it. And contrasting that cost with a big lead on Sony, would pay it in a heartbeat.”

According to the Microsoft insider, the new ‘Falcon’ Xbox 360 hardware is far more reliable than the original ‘Xenon.’ “I've heard that the failure rates for the current design is sub 10%. Much much better, but still too high ... And those designs haven't seen much life yet, so no one knows if that failure rate will hold,” explained the source, adding that future revisions are in the cards. “They will come out with new hardware at least once a year until they retire this design. That's the console financial model. Keep the features and functionality the same, reduce cost and price, and improve quality if needed.”

With the Xbox 360 being the leading console in North America and the choice for gamers looking for a complete online service, Microsoft’s next focus should clearly be on getting consumers to trust the hardware.

Bill Gates said recently that it is now Microsoft’s goal to make the Xbox 360 the “most reliable” console on the market. “We've got incredible reliability on the new work we've done,” said the Microsoft chairman. “Our commitment is that it will be the most reliable video game box out there. People really love the Xbox because of the content, but we've got to make sure that the hardware never stands in the way of that.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It's a gamble to companies that size
By Bioniccrackmonk on 1/24/2008 10:15:57 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
While the above topic points are generally known by the Xbox 360 user community, what comes more alarmingly from the supposed member of the Xbox 360 project is that Microsoft allegedly launched its console fully aware of a potential issue in quality.


I said it before and I will say it again.

Sony gambled by putting the BR player in the PS3, one that is paying off for them.

MS gambled by rushing their system to be first, and even though there were a lot of dead consoles in the beginning, it still paid off as they have a much more developed game library and their online community is still ahead of the PS3, but not as much as when the PS3 launched.

In the end, consumers still take it in the rear with higher prices and faulty equipment. I guess that is what we pay to be the first on our block to have the next generation.




RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By kelmon on 1/24/2008 11:13:33 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Sony gambled by putting the BR player in the PS3, one that is paying off for them.


Debatable as to how important the Blu-ray player is to customers. Honestly, I'd be willing to wager that the PS3 would have arrived on the market sooner, have sold better and be in an overall better position now if it had been released without the Blu-ray player at a cheaper price. Blu-ray was only a good choice if customers are buying the system for that feature but at the moment the market is still pretty resistant to either Hi-Def format. Perhaps in future Blu-ray will see a high adoption and sales of the PS3 will accelerate due to it but at the end of the day I am sure the PS3 would have been much more established in the console market without it.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By ViperROhb34 on 1/24/2008 11:36:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah agree'd and although Bluray could help PS3 sales (possibly) as a gaming console they are DEAD last in games per console sold. MS has a SEVEN game attachment rate per console making it #1. Wii is #2 with around 5 games.. I'm not sure PS3 has broken the 3 game per console or still at 2'ish ..

Also.. other companies can add bluray players to their future consoles ( if needed ) .. Sony has stated PS3 is meant to last.. but they will change their minds when it Nintendo, MS release their NEW Next Gen consoles in 3 more yrs and make PS3 look outdated.. especially like I said when those companies can add Bluray inexpensively to their consoles ( more cheaply - providing bluray does win ) - In effect letting SOny do all the work before they come out with Cheaper more profitable Gaming/BLuray players.. LOL


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By joemoedee on 1/24/2008 12:44:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yeah agree'd and although Bluray could help PS3 sales (possibly) as a gaming console they are DEAD last in games per console sold. MS has a SEVEN game attachment rate per console making it #1. Wii is #2 with around 5 games.. I'm not sure PS3 has broken the 3 game per console or still at 2'ish


A lot of that is relative to the amount of time the system has been out on the market, and we have yet to really see a blockbuster title solely out on the PS3. (Although it's looking like 08 could produce that)

I would sincerely hope the 360 is in the lead, considering the amount of time it's been on the market.

The Wii? Well, it sells so well, thats a no-brainer.

quote:
Also.. other companies can add bluray players to their future consoles ( if needed ) .. Sony has stated PS3 is meant to last.. but they will change their minds when it Nintendo, MS release their NEW Next Gen consoles in 3 more yrs and make PS3 look outdated


Sony, historically, has supported their consoles for 11 years and now 8 years, respectively. They also sold quite well late in their life cycle. Will that change? Maybe. I doubt it though.

If MS runs that short of a life cycle on the 360, they'll never be able to profit on gaming. (Considering the bath they took on the first Xbox, and still being in the red on the 360)

Nintendo's in the best position of all, they can pretty much do whatever. They're profiting on the Wii, and will only make more on it as time goes on. I do not see them pushing for another console in the near future, due to the current level of success that does not look to be fading anytime soon.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By ViperROhb34 on 1/24/2008 1:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
You're Wrong.

If you look at the history of the Xbox 360 it's had a High attachment rate from the very beginning ! The PS3 also wa snoted as having a low attachgment rate since release of console. In Nov 2006 (when 360) was released it started out at 3 games per console ! The PS3 was avg 1 game per console on its release ! So your epinions which lacks facts or data don't hold alot of light.

Yes, Wii does sell alot, but its exclusively a gaming unit with a healthy price anyone can afford. So its attachment rate is high.

I know approximately 8 people ( relatives and friends ) who have 360's and all have tons of games.. NONE ave an hd-dvd player.

I have 3 relatives who have PS3's .. One of those also has the 360.. all of them say right now game choices aren't as good and all of them have some Bluray movies. This is coming from them cause I could care less.

To me is appears people are buying PS3 knowing even if games arent good yet they can play BLuray movies. Even though world wide scale PS3 is selling as many units as the 360.. its popularity is better in countries where High Def is more prevelant which again says highh def movies are helping sell this thing.
.
I've played Resistance .. I liked the graphics, but didnt like the lack for force feedback.. I played Rachet and Clank, not bad either.. but not enough to buy one yet.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By BansheeX on 1/25/08, Rating: 0
By joemoedee on 1/25/2008 3:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stop using attachment rates, they're totally inapplicable to the PS3 because of its integrated hi-def playback. If you have many PS3s being bought just to play movies, it's going to drive the games-per-unit average down. The game "attach-rates" on the PS3 are naturally going to be lower than the 360 and Wii, which don't have integrated hi-def playback affecting their "attach-rate."


I have no idea why you got voted down, as your post makes perfect sense.


By joemoedee on 1/25/2008 4:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you look at the history of the Xbox 360 it's had a High attachment rate from the very beginning ! The PS3 also wa snoted as having a low attachgment rate since release of console. In Nov 2006 (when 360) was released it started out at 3 games per console ! The PS3 was avg 1 game per console on its release ! So your epinions which lacks facts or data don't hold alot of light.


<sarcasm>

Wii is at 8, it must be so much better than a 360 now.

</sarcasm>

Attachment rate isn't always a great thing. It means the people that own a console, really love their console. It doesn't mean that the console is doing really well overall.

Xbox 360 gamers, its core audience, are a different breed.

Their attention span is pretty light. Before I get flamed to a crisp, let me explain as I speak in generalities...

They love the latest and greatest. A new FPS comes out, they all go out and buy it. Play the hell out of it for a month, and when the next new FPS comes out, jump on that. (Outside of the Halo series, obviously)

Wash, rinse, repeat.

The Xbox and Xbox 360 core gamers are hardcore. They are going to buy a ton of games. (The addition of achievements was brilliant by MS, btw. I know many people that would purchase a lousy game just to improve their gamer score.)

I know I bought a bunch of games when I got my Xbox, still do buy a few at a time. I did the same when I owned a 360. (Same with Dreamcast, etc, etc.) I'm not the mainstream gamer, nor really is anyone on this thread.

What Sony was able to do with the PS1 and PS2 so well is appeal to the general gaming audience.

Much like Nintendo was able to do with the NES and SNES, and now are doing with the Wii.

The PS3 is a hardcore gaming machine at this time. The 360 is as well. Until they get into a mainstream price, it remains to be seen which will fully take off.

We're still a good bit away from this happening.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By ViperROhb34 on 1/24/2008 2:01:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sony, historically, has supported their consoles for 11 years and now 8 years, respectively. They also sold quite well late in their life cycle. Will that change? Maybe. I doubt it though.


As technology gets cheaper and progresses faster I think console lifespans will be shorter. People used to get new PC's every 5yrs maybe since 1995 when it took off.. Game developers are thge ones who push the hardware envelop to get better.. which is one reason why some of the best games are still on PC only.

The pendelum of this is also coming to gaming consoles. At the 80% mark of PS2's height of power .. Sony only had Nintendo to compete with. At the time Nintendo was barely doingh it. They never expected a 3rd player. Now Nintendo is back financially and with developer support. What fueled the whole anti Nintendo with developers back then was N64 used crtridges and this mad many devs hgo to PS2 where profit margins were MUCH higher - not because of superior hardware. But now Sony has two much healthier competitors .. both of which ( Nintendo and MS ) have sold much more then their previous generation has in the same as many yrs ..

This ups the stakes and competetion. The PS1 was great.. it came out at the righgt time with a DVD player which was already an established format.. it competed against inferior N64 which had cartridges and turned off developer support for Nintendo.. there was no one else Sony had to worry about. PS2 competed against game cube - which still lacked game support as well as a hgome DVD player. Xbox1 came too late.

Now MS AND Nintndo have much more developer support and ins ome cases more then Sony.. which affects game choices. Its pretty much a give in both MS and Nintendo will come out with a better console in 4 or 5 yrs .. So maybe yeah before they (Sony) could let it ride 10 yrs.. thgey had relatively mild competition during their glory yrs.. I dont thgink its the same now.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By Alexstarfire on 1/24/2008 4:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh, the PS1 didn't have DVD playback on it. It only had CDs. The first console with DVD support was the PS2.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By ViperROhb34 on 1/24/2008 5:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
oops yea i did say DVD.. but it was CD I meant - that increased developers cash flow and stole Nintendo developers who were used to losing 20 dollars off the top tat was lost to cartridge electronic components cost..


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By Alexstarfire on 1/24/2008 10:20:39 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure if that's true, but I felt that they stayed with cartridges more because of piracy concerns. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but it seems plausible to me. I mean, do you know anyone who didn't pirate some PS1 games? It certainly didn't take a lot of skill to do so. Cartridges are nearly impossible to pirate. It's not that you can't, but it'd be much more expensive. A home user wouldn't pirate them in other words.

CDs certainly had more space, but the N64 had some of the best games IMO. The PS1 had tons more games in general, but the N64 had Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Super Smash Brothers, and several others. They were both great consoles though, so don't get me wrong on that.


By HighWing on 1/25/2008 1:11:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but I felt that they stayed with cartridges more because of piracy concerns.


While I won't argue that might have been part of it, I'm willing to bet it was more of a legal issue. After all it is a well known fact that the PS1 was originally going to be the N64, but at the last min Nintendo backed out and Sony decided to go ahead and launch the system anyways. So my guess is that Nintendo was probably also worried that if they went ahead and launched a CD system now, they could possibly face legal issues from Sony and the deal they backed out of.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By ani4ani on 1/24/2008 5:08:49 PM , Rating: 1
If you take care to look at the sales numbers for the respective consoles you will see that within 2-3 weeks at current selling rates the PS3 will surpass 360 sales outside NA, i.e. take all sales areas outside NA and the PS3 will overtake the 360 despite being on the market for half the time.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By ViperROhb34 on 1/24/2008 5:17:16 PM , Rating: 1
Ok show me your math ? YOU're WRONG .. Read my whole post..

Right now about 18 to 19 million Xbox 360's out there worldwide.. 8-9 million PS3's worldwide out there..

Both consoles selling around 300,000 unit a month worldwide. PS3 the last few weeks has sold a few more thousand.. Being there are already 8 million more 360's out there worldwide then PS3s... If TODAY RIGHT now PS3 outsold 360 by 300,000 units.. meaning 360 did 300,000 a month and PS3 did 600,000 a month every single month.. it would take Sony almost 3 yrs to break even with 360's OVERALL sales of consoles out there in consumers hands..

Its more likely it'll take PS3 about 4 yrs to break even.. and MS will have a new better console out there again by thgen to whip Sony old PS3 ass


By winterspan on 1/25/2008 1:53:51 AM , Rating: 3
read the damn post!
He didn't say global sales , he said sales outside of North America. I thought he explained quite explicitly what he was referring to.


By joemoedee on 1/25/2008 4:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's clear you love the Xbox 360.

That's great. Congratulations. It's a fun console. (I own an Xbox. I've owned a 360)

However, you also have to consider the following...

The 8 year old PS2 is selling in a volume very close to what the 360 is doing. Still.

Sony's strategy during the PS1 > PS2 transition was to continue to support the PS1 until PS2 took hold. It worked.

It's history repeating itself. PS2 selling well, still getting new games. PS3 has had it's mis-steps, but seems to be heading in the right direction. (Some reports have the PS2 being supported for another 2 years. Which is, well, basically the same thing they did with the PS1)

For anyone to count Sony out at this point would be silly. They have a strong selling PS2 after 8 years on the market. PS3 is moving, albeit not as quickly as anticipated. PSP's doing well, too.

Also, MS does not have the Asian market support, which means a lot.

It's definitely a long "race" still yet to be determined.


By BAFrayd on 1/24/2008 10:11:14 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, and then Sony will be laughing as they collect a licensing fee for each of those products that contain Blu-Ray technology...


By BansheeX on 1/25/2008 3:23:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah agree'd and although Bluray could help PS3 sales (possibly) as a gaming console they are DEAD last in games per console sold. MS has a SEVEN game attachment rate per console making it #1. Wii is #2 with around 5 games.. I'm not sure PS3 has broken the 3 game per console or still at 2'ish ..


Stop trolling the boards please with attach-rates. Integrated hi-def drives games-per-unit numbers down on the PS3. The 360 and Wii don't have people buying their systems as movie players because they lack the integrated feature, so nothing is driving down their "attach-rate."

quote:
MS release their NEW Next Gen consoles in 3 more yrs and make PS3 look outdated..


One of the great things about consoles and the Playstation model before MS came in was the long lifespan and not having to worry about upgrading every two years like the PC. A seven year spec is the most manageable and sensible situation for developers. That you would want MS to release a new console every five years just to maintain technical superiority shows me how little you actually care about so called gaming and affordability.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By Shlong on 1/24/2008 11:51:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well would Sony enjoy the current success Blu-Ray is having over HD-DVD if not for the inclusion on PS3? There console sales are low but that's the risk they took to try to win the format war. This year should be better for PS3 as some games I actually want to play are coming out for it.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By kelmon on 1/24/2008 12:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
Success is relative. Yes, Blu-ray is currently appearing to be more successful than HD-DVD, but what is that really worth since neither format has exactly fired the consumer market to adoption? Is it worth more than being #1 in the console market right now? I really think that the PS3 would be the best selling console right now had it not bothered with Blu-ray, had released sooner, and sold at a cheaper price. And let's not forget that this years great games you would have been playing last year.


By Shlong on 1/24/2008 1:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think Wii would still be king while PS3 would be slightly behind Xbox 360 if Sony had released it sooner. Currently what's holding PS3 back the most is the lack of quality games. While the Xbox 360 would've still had Gears of War, Halo 3 - the PS3 content library would probably be pretty much the same. I think winning the format war was their top priority so their console suffered. If Blu-ray ultimately becomes the winner, they will be rewarded with that sacrifice as the market grows. Like I said before though, PS3 will actually have some games worth playing (metal gear for one) this year.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By winterspan on 1/25/2008 2:00:40 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, success is relative. But you are missing some KEY points here.

1)To assume that since HD media hasn't taken off yet, it must have been a poor decision to include Blu-ray in the PS3 is totally asinine.

The quite OBVIOUS reason that HD media hasn't sold well is because of the format war. You really can't comprehend such an easy concept?

2) Sony winning the format war with Blu-ray is worth exponentially more revenue than beating the Xbox. Go take a look at how many DVDs were sold globally in 2007.


By zpdixon on 1/24/2008 1:04:50 PM , Rating: 5
quote:

Blu-ray was only a good choice if customers are buying the system for that feature but at the moment the market is still pretty resistant to either Hi-Def format.


What do you know ? Perhaps the millions of PS3 consoles flooding the market helped Blu-ray get a slight edge over HD-DVD, which then got bigger and bigger, which in turn made Warner Bros support Blu-ray, assuring its definitive success over HD-DVD.

Seen in this perspective, putting a Blu-ray player on the PS3 to create a HD market that will be worth $10+ billion in a couple years was arguably and strategically a very good move for Sony.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By Martimus on 1/24/2008 3:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
I would say that it was a good choice, but not to sell the PS3. It was good for Sony, because it pushed BluRay and was the main driving force behind it having such good numbers. If BluRay does win the "war", then that is a much bigger market to tap than the console market. The current HD media market is not very large, but with the heavy adoption of HDTV's over the last few years, HD media will probably be a big cash cow for Sony in a few years.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By Locutus465 on 1/24/2008 4:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but that is a market the PS3 it's self will (or at least should) eventually lose out on to SA's. In fact I think sony's CE partners will be quite upset if they keep losing to the PS3.


By winterspan on 1/25/2008 2:12:19 AM , Rating: 2
Is that supposed to be a counterpoint?
Of COURSE standalone players will eclipse the PS3 during the next few years... You are interpreting this wrong. Or at least your statement made it look as if you think Sony placed Blu-ray in the console to sell PS3s.
On the contrary, the PS3 was used to get Blu-ray into homes. Now that they are going to win the format war, they could care less about standalone players being bought to play movies instead of the PS3... Their money comes from the licensing royalties of every single Blu-ray disc and player.

Now of course they still want to sell PS3s to game players who will buy games (and thus give PS3 licensing royalties to Sony).


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By feraltoad on 1/24/2008 4:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
Also, since I might still buy a PS3 just for movies won't that actually hurt them? At the onset of the Format War the PS3 was good, but now I would only think it could hurt since they could sell a standalone BR player for much cheaper than a PS3, and not lose money on the things.

One gripe: no IR receiver on the PS3! Sure make BT an option for remotes; it would be great for the future. However right now there isn't a universal remote that does BT. How much does an IR receiver cost? Two bucks? Sorry that's off the topic, I've just been contemplating getting a PS3.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By BAFrayd on 1/24/2008 10:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well, since you might buy a PS3 "just for the movies", you should just buy a Blu-Ray Disc player instead. Since you will never play a PS3 game, you have no reason to buy a PS3. Or do you enjoy wasting money?


By feraltoad on 1/27/2008 10:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
I play most of my games on a computer, so yes I guess I do enjoy wasting money. I guess I should have said the media capabilities instead of, "just for the movies". But saying "for the media capabilities" would invite geek slaps from passerbys. I like the idea of a networked player, and I think it would be fun to play with. I get a free game rental each month from Blockbuster, so I could use that when friends came over so they wouldn't have to lug a system. Plus, I would probably buy a couple of used games like a racing game or maybe a something like Soul Caliber because I have to admit the soul still burns. Plus, like others have said the PS3 will keep getting firmware updates. So you've called me on it! I am tempted by the overall package, but foremost the movies.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By winterspan on 1/25/2008 2:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
I agree to a certain extent. But even those who buy a PS3 for the BD player may eventually want more value out of their purchase and start buying games in the future; especially since 2008 is looking to be a big year.
Not a gamer? I assume Sony will either have their own movie rental service or hook up with NetFlix.
That would be another potential source of non-game revenue.
Also, their costs have come way down to almost break even, so they should eventually even make a small profit off of just the hardware.

BTW, anyone know what Sony is making off of PS2 hardware? profit? break even? loss?


By feraltoad on 1/27/2008 10:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
Blockbuster's online service has both BluRay and HDDVD movies. I get HDDVD from them right now. None of my local stores carry either, though which sucks.

PS2 profit was said to be as much as $30 according to forum hearasy on http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/07/npd-big-franchis...

Pretty much everyone on gaming sites discussing Sony's profits was saying PS2 was helping to offset to the profit loss from the PS3 the years previous (didn't say if that was just h/w-probably lumped together as a divsion). Also, rumor is saying this year will have the PS2 drop to $99 and it should no longer require a power brick (which I didn't know it even had one). I'm sure they've been making profit off the PS2 hardware for quite a while since it has been out so long with so many revisions. Esp, considering the PS3 is now nearing cost.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By Belard on 1/24/2008 6:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
While the console market sells in the millions, the consumer player market and movies is where SONY will make the money. Including the BR drive in the PS3 was a factor to destory HD-DVD. Week 2 sales of players (not PS3) is 21K for BR and under 2K for HD-DVD.

The cost of BR included with PS3 is still about $150~300 cheaper than an upgraded-modular added Xbox360 (add wireless, HD-120(20gb totally suck), HD-DVD addon, etc)

Also, there are games for the PS3 that would require 2-3 discs for xbox360.

If MS fixed their problems with the 360 before rushing to market, they would have lost their christmas (MUST HAVE) shopping season. They wanted as MUCH of a head start on the PS3 as possible... PS3 was delayed by around 6-9 months, giving the 360 a year head-start. If they fixed the 360, it would have added at least 4-6 months of development time. By then, many people would have started "waiting to see what the PS3 offered" and not have bought the 360.

So while the 360 has lost billions of dollars, it would not have the market they have now. But I think M$ really screwed their xbox base by killing off the xbox1 so quickly. They killed all new software support, etc. While the PS2 still continues to get new titles and is sold for $100.

Both gambles have paid off in their own way. What would have severely helped SONY and BR group a lot better would have to include a FREE popular BR movie with every PS3 sold - IN THE BOX, since the beginning. Then the consumer would go "oh! I can play movies too!".


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By ElrondElvish on 1/25/2008 2:53:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What would have severely helped SONY and BR group a lot better would have to include a FREE popular BR movie with every PS3 sold - IN THE BOX, since the beginning. Then the consumer would go "oh! I can play movies too!".


Thats exactly what they did in the beginning. Talladega Nights was included, in box, upon release. While the movie sucked (and the quality of that particular BD as well), it definitely made an impression that the PS3 was much more than "just" a game machine. And, of course, thats exactly what they're doing now with the Spider Man discs.


By Belard on 1/25/2008 4:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
Hey! Talladega Nights is a good family fun movie!

Hey, I'm from Texas... you wouldn't understand ;)

Perhaps something else should have been included... but that movie was NEW when it came out.


By Alias1431 on 1/24/2008 11:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, it would have been cheaper and have benefited from more game titles, but Sony didn't make that decision to sell more PS3's. The decision to incorporate blu-ray was a strategy that helped them win the format war, which will be far more profitable in the long run than a console.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By AlphaVirus on 1/24/2008 11:28:51 AM , Rating: 1
If MS did not release the 360 earlier than the PS3, the whole gaming industry would be different. Imagine if they both came out within 3 months of each other, people would be so confused on which to get.
Pricewise - 360
Fuctionality - PS3 (since it included the BR player)
Online - PS3 (since it is all free compared to 360 silver/gold scheme)
Game library - 360, it costs less for devs I believe

I just hope both consoles do well in the long run, they both have good games, both are reliable (now that RROD has been addressed). I think PS3 has a 1% failure rating, mine has locked up 3 times
1. While browsing the net and the website had too much going on, then I tried to open a new window to search something else and it froze.
2. I was playing a game with 2 friends and on the loading screen it just froze. I think that was due to overheating, we were playing like 12 hours that day.
3. Cant quite remember.

GO SONY!!! GO MS!!!


By FITCamaro on 1/24/2008 12:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
PS3's online play may be free but Microsoft's is much more integrated. I'll gladly pay for Xbox Live provided the service stays the high quality its had so far. $45 a year is nothing.


By lukasbradley on 1/24/2008 12:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
While I would have said it a bit differently, this reflects my feelings as well.

I think both consoles will continue to succeed. The differing decisions by both companies have positive and negative effects. The concept some people miss is these two approaches aren't mutually exclusive for the market: both companies will still be "winners."


By jajig on 1/24/2008 12:40:31 PM , Rating: 1
I would choose a Wii instead!

Maybe I'm getting old but I get no fun out of my 360. It's an original that still works like a charm to give you an idea of how little I play it.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By BansheeX on 1/24/2008 12:25:08 PM , Rating: 5
I think bringing Sony into this is a mistake. The article is a question of business ethics. It doesn't matter if MS ponied up for a three year warranty after the fact. The thing is that they intentionally brought and sold a faulty product to the market without telling the consumer that it was faulty. This is honesty scary territory when we have many people in this thread turning the story around on Sony and absolving MS of any wrongdoing based on the PS3's higher price, and then getting rated up for it. The PS3 had a higher price BECAUSE it didn't opt for cheap heatsinks or a last-gen disc drive. Blu-ray isn't just for movies. Anyone who has compared the noise levels of both consoles has noticed the remarkable noise and heat created by the fast-spinning DVD drive on the 360. Blu-ray with it's higher density doesn't have to spin anywhere near as fast, thus it is much quieter while gaming. You want to fault Sony for those decisions? I think it was a great one. I love the lower noise levels and reliability of the PS3. Am I a freaking lunatic or something? There's nothing ethically repulsive about higher prices for higher quality hardware. Just because you didn't know, couldn't wait, or couldn't afford it doesn't make Sony just as bad in this instance. But I tell you what, as soon as the consumer shows a willingness and forgiveness for this kind of activity, it only invites more of it in the future, and forces competition to do the same in order to compete. When Sony screwed up with the rootkit, people revolted against it, including me, and they stopped. When MS lies and sells faulty hardware, its fans play it down, equate it to high prices, and rationalize it as a necessary evil to get more sales and steal away developers? I don't get it.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By djcameron on 1/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By DJ Tama on 1/24/2008 1:35:00 PM , Rating: 4
Its not a far-fetched idea to believe that Microsoft would pull something like this. Thier whole business model has always been, "Make it first, or make it ours."

What should be scary is the millions that are willing to drop cash blindly at a company with a history of screwing with consumers and businesses alike to further distance themselves above everyone else.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By Locutus465 on 1/24/2008 1:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me? Microsoft has lost 1.8B making sure their customers don't get screwed with the 360... I think what this shows is Microsoft terribly misjudging the situation more than them openly trying to screw anyone. Thanks for the FUD though.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By DJ Tama on 1/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 2:05:06 PM , Rating: 3
> "And the $1.8B lost could have been much much less if they had spent the equivalent money to test it "

Which pretty much rules out it being an intentional act, eh? Not to mention all the indirect costs from lost sales, and loss of goodwill from the failures.

Every product ever launched has known flaws, problems, and weaknesses. It's impossible to make anything perfect. I'm sure Microsoft knew the cooling wasn't ideal, and might lead to problems. I'm equally sure they had no idea it would be anywhere near this bad.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By DJ Tama on 1/24/2008 2:16:05 PM , Rating: 1
Actually look at it this way:

Microsoft wants to push out their product quickly, so they cut costs in testing and QA to push the system out faster. Their gain could be a couple million less than it was origianlly stated (MS: "Yay! we saved money!"). Now comes a year later and they see that what they pushed out by cutting corners is costing them more (MS: "Boo! We are losing money!").

In essesnce, if they had spent the few extra million to test it, it wouldn't have come to the billions to go back and redo it.

Hence, its their own fault. They intentionally pushed it out, with or without flaws. And they thought maybe it wouldn't have a high failure rate. Thats a bad gamble.


By DJ Tama on 1/24/2008 2:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Their gain could be a couple million less than it was originally stated *(MS: "Yay! we saved money!").


*(edit)... to manufacture.

Thinking faster than I can write...


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 2:42:20 PM , Rating: 4
> "Hence, its their own fault"

No one is arguing that. But claiming that Microsoft had any foreknowledge of just how serious the problem would actually be-- or worse, implying there's criminal culpability involved-- is just plain silly.


By NullSubroutine on 1/27/2008 3:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
I would have to agree but add the decision was probably made by a couple of business executives (who were probably fired because of this) worried about cost cutting and making a bonus for getting the 360 out early.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard business people making 'business' decisions when the engineers or the hardware people are telling them their decision wrong or faulty.


By homeroids on 1/24/2008 5:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
This is my first post so please don't flame me down. I do not wish to come across as a fanboy of any persuasion.

There does seem to be more evidence of MS launching the 360 before it was ready; the fact that there was a major supply issue after Xmas 2005. Ok, some might say that's normal with a new console. Nintendo are still trying to keep up with supply and indeed after their release and even the PS3's release there were supply constraints. Fair enough. But, 3 months of it? And, after selling only 900k all up? That's exactly what happened with the 360. Having 900k for launch and then a desert on supply for at least 3 months doesn't sound right to me. That means a few possibilities:

1. MS knew they only had about a million to go. They chose a Japan and US launch. But why would you launch with such a small number knowing that the next batch would not be coming until March?
2. MS had more than 1 million but many did not pass QA testing.

Either way, a 3 month constraint on supply after launch and with limited launch numbers, speaks issues to me.

Ok, one comparison - Sony launched with only 400k sales in the US due to supply constraint. Yeah, but Sony didn't take 3 months to get the supply chain in order again.


By Locutus465 on 1/24/2008 2:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
People need to stop acting like they were trying to intentionally screw customers, Microsoft misjudged the situation... Probalby because they are now in completely un-familiar territory with the 360... A CE device being deisgned and supported in house, this is something they've never really done before and yes they screwed it up, lesson learned for next time.

The reason we didn't see these kinds of issues with the original x-box is only because it was a generic SFF PC, there wasn't a whole lot of anything speacial about it.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By ViperROhb34 on 1/24/2008 2:55:41 PM , Rating: 1
Buddy is you live in the usa you should be happy there are still a few American companies that can kick some world ass.

GMC couldn't pay their bills the last few yrs - they're billions in the red .. Ford doing better then GMC - profitable - but not by alot. Dodge/Chrysler somewhere in the middle of both, but probably worth less then either.

Most US airline companies arent very profitable.

Then we have Microsoft who has given away BILLIONS because of gates.. Anyone know if Sony even gave away 500 million to thge needy ?? I think there are too many babies posting here who have too many personal problems to see one day in 10 yrs they are going to wake up in a country that is no longher theirs at all.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By DJ Tama on 1/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By ViperROhb34 on 1/24/2008 3:19:47 PM , Rating: 1
Hey Einstein

Do they MATH.. you save money giving away a few million..
YOU DONT SAVE MONE?Y GIVING AWAY BILLIONS.. YOU LOSE MONEY .. LOTS.. INTEREST ON BILLIONS IS MUCH MUCH MORE THEN a tax break.. FOOL !


By DJ Tama on 1/24/2008 3:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
Take some money, put it in a bank with good interest. Now create a charity or 503(c) NPO, and any interest gained give as a donation. Then take the donation, put it in the bank, and regain more interest, take a large % of it as a salary, and actually use the leftovers on something worthwhile.

In the end, the +90% of that initial interest comes back to you, and the other >10% goes off to do what you originally intended the money to be for. So who wins?


By darkblade33 on 1/24/2008 3:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
There's no Tax break benefit to giving away 20 billion.
Millions - yes, a tax break maybe, but not much.


By darkblade33 on 1/24/2008 3:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
And when you do your taxes please don't apply for any available tax breaks or releifs for which you qualify. Afterall, even thouhgh everyone else does it, including middle income families with children, wealthy actors/actresses/businessman/teachers/lawyers/churc hes we couldn't want any of the good people of the world to confuse you with one of the bad people who hide behind a desk by giving away money. No we surely wouldnt want that.
I wait, no one knows you exist, nevermind.


By winterspan on 1/25/2008 2:29:06 AM , Rating: 3
so now MS fanboys are resorting to whipping up nationalism to excuse MS's bad policies? my god...


By BansheeX on 1/25/2008 3:04:58 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Then we have Microsoft who has given away BILLIONS because of gates.. Anyone know if Sony even gave away 500 million to thge needy ?? I think there are too many babies posting here who have too many personal problems to see one day in 10 yrs they are going to wake up in a country that is no longher theirs at all.


Oh, for christ's sake. This entitlement mentality is WHY we are losing ground internationally. Most people don't buy something simply out of nationalism. If Japan makes a better car, I'm buying the better car. Then that creates an incentive for auto makers here to make better cars. I'm not going to support bad business practices simply because that business is located in America. And as for Gates' philanthropy, there are two important distinctions you fail to understand:

1. Gates is the founder of Microsoft and is himself a billionaire philanthropist. Sony's founder is long dead and they operate as a corporation, which is incapable of doing the same. Plus that, like any corporation, they benefit society by making life easier or more enjoyable. Something like folding@home on the PS3 also benefits science indirectly and they're not even involved in that field.

2. Someone giving away billions to fight AIDS in Africa doesn't legally absolve them of wrongdoing, and it certainly shouldn't make us accept unethical behavior with regards to concealing 360 defects from consumers in order to sell more units. I mean, that's insanity. That's the "end justifies the means" argument. Like, if I perform experimental testing which kills thousands of people and end up saving millions. It's ethically retarded to think that way.

In short, you are the biggest MS troll on these boards.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By Alexstarfire on 1/24/2008 1:35:48 PM , Rating: 1
That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Do you even know how much a heatsink costs? I'd be surprised if it was more than $2 even with a fan included. It's not like they are making Thermalright Ultra 120s over here, it's hardly more than a block of metal with some cuts in it.

I think that both MS and Sony were stupid as hell this time around. If MS intentionally pushed the 360 knowing that it had bad equipment and would lead to faulty consoles then they are just retarded in my book. It's actually the reason I won't even touch a 360 now, though I still hate the controllers a lot. They may have minimized the problem now, but I'm not gonna take any chances. I'd rather not have to go through all that sh!t just to get my console replaced, even if it is for free.

As for Sony and the Blu-Ray thing. Another stupid move in my book. I had DVD before the PS2 even came out so it wasn't anything extra. Don't forget that the Xbox had DVD playback as well, though it came out after the PS2. What can blu-ray offer than DVD can't, game wise? Not much really. It's got better graphics and more cut-scenes going for it, but that's all I see. Neither one of those is needed for a great game. In fact, I skip the cut-scenes in nearly every game, because most of the time they are just pointless.

I can say that's it's typical for Sony to push it's own format instead of adopting some one else's format. I'm glad they see the need to be the most selfish company. They probably just wake up and go, "Hey, how can we screw the customers today? I know, let's make yet another format to keeps prices high. That should work nicely." Other than Blu-Ray having more storage it's not better than HD-DVD, unless you like region coding and such. It certainly isn't cheaper, which is why HD-DVD should have just been allowed to win. Damn, why can't they just let us have the cheaper next-gen products?


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By DJ Tama on 1/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By Locutus465 on 1/24/2008 2:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
Gimping due to lack of resources? Let me guess, sony fanboy?


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By DJ Tama on 1/24/2008 2:39:15 PM , Rating: 1
Nope. I just like playing complete video games. Something about getting half the game I paid for doesn't sit well with me...

Maybe it does with others, but thats ok. Its your money.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By Locutus465 on 1/24/2008 3:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
Please, expand on this "half the game" theory, explain in full detail... Please avoid supporting arguments like "ZOMGCELLPROCESSORROXORSIMAKELOVETOMYSONY".


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By DJ Tama on 1/24/2008 4:01:57 PM , Rating: 1
Capcom has already announced that due to the limitations of the media, the 360 version will get the 1st half of the game. No Dante, no extra missions, nothing else.

The PS3's usage of the BD media allows them to place the full game onto the disc and have all the extras they could want.

50GB > 9GB.

This has nothing to do with hardware. Capcom was at first going to just release to the 360 because it was easier for them to program to it, but later announced that they wanted to do more than just a single side of the story. If you ever played any of the DMC series (except the first game), there is almost always more than one way to play the game. The 360 version will not have it. The PS3 version will.

So who's got egg on their face for not adopting a higher capacity format? Who lost out on a valuable exclusive market? (It was slated to be a 360 exclusive until this news hit.)


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By Locutus465 on 1/24/2008 4:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
Second game disc? Downloadable content?


By DJ Tama on 1/24/2008 4:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
A second game disc? in this day an age? Thats so old skool. And to match the content, you'd need 4-5 DVDs to match 1 BD.

As to downloadable content, its inevitable. More guns, more skins, more clothes, etc. etc... It greatly depends on any contract Capcom has with either Sony or MS to provide content online. And so far, I haven't really seen much in the way of content on either platform.


By ViperROhb34 on 1/24/2008 4:40:50 PM , Rating: 1
He's full of shit unlesss he can produce a Capcom link stating what he said.

Its nothing to do wish media limitations. Camcom said they wanted to give PS3 some extra content because the game was originally a PS3 exclusive.

Ive read in fact Capcom made thgat statement overseas to make those fans over there happy to buy the game as thgey've already spent millions on ghame development which would go to waste.

I expect Capcom will have downloadable content for 360 users.. Im almost betting since in the USA DMC4 will definately outsell PS3 version where here in the states PS3 numbers are about a 1/4 of 360's..

Since there are about 7-8 million more 360's out there worldwide.. you'd expect DMC4 to sell many more units for campcom on the 360 !


By ani4ani on 1/24/2008 5:16:32 PM , Rating: 3
on the 5 millions arcades and cores?


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By ViperROhb34 on 1/24/08, Rating: -1
By BansheeX on 1/24/2008 7:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If devs put a game on Bluray.. lets just say 50 Gigs for your sake.. those disc cost about 30 dollars a disc!


quote:
25 Gig Bluray disc whgich still run 18-20 dollars per disc..


Blu-ray discs do NOT cost anywhere NEAR that much to manufacture. Where in the bloody hell did you come up with that figure? Let me guess, you're citing the retail prices of recordables. lol.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By Alexstarfire on 1/24/2008 4:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with Locutus465, though not his tactics. What "half of a game" are you talking about? Downloadable games are surely the way things will move EVENTUALLY, but not anytime soon. Downloadable content on the other hand, like extra levels, maps, guns, etc. are certainly viable downloads now though. They aren't widely implemented though.

BTW, nice straw man argument. Almost looks like you're arguing against what I posted, but you aren't.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By DJ Tama on 1/24/2008 4:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
There are only two high capacity formats at the time, and they were not for the HD-DVD format, so what does that leave em with?

If you had a new idea that you'd like to show off, and have a platform to show it off from, would you turn around and say, "no, I'm not going to implement that"? The PS3 was designed to showcase high definition gaming, especially when the BD format was in its infancy. So here comes a place for Sony to go, "Hey, BDA! Look at this great I idea I just got. Would you back me up?"

If BD was such a bad idea, then why does it have so much support?


By ViperROhb34 on 1/24/2008 5:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
The game itself is only supposed to be around under 9 gigs..

The 360 version will not be missing much at all - as in game content. PS3 will have a few extra cut scenes ( movies ) which take up extra space.

Capcom says BOTH CONSOLES will have downloadable content..


By ViperROhb34 on 1/24/2008 5:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
Its already dead if in 3 yrs i can download movies to my hardrvive. I expect a new format or digital download to make disc media look outdated in thge near future

And DMC4 content will be downloadable to hardrives on both systems..


By Alexstarfire on 1/25/2008 12:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
The same reason Microsoft still has support these days, they basically force it down your throats. At the time the PS3 came out, and even now to be honest, HD was still in it's infancy. It doesn't sell millions of recorders a year to consumers. To think that the PS3 wasn't going to sell AT ALL would have just been a moronic statement. Sony fanboys were going to get the console for sure. Even if it only sold 2 million to date, which it's sold way more than that, that's still tons more Blu-Ray players than HD-DVD. Before the PS3 Blu-Ray had no chance of beating HD-DVD. Blu-Ray is more expensive to make, has more expensive players, and even had region coding that HD-DVD doesn't have. Blu-Ray may be slightly larger, but that alone isn't going to win th format war.


By Locutus465 on 1/25/2008 12:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I suppose I did come off a bit strong there... I also read HDD where I hear bluray supporters go on about how the PS3 is gods gift to CE devices... Ignoring the fact that the 360 does everything a PS3 does. Get's old after a while.

Anyway, I'll reply here to a point brought up later in this thread by DJ, why MS didn't include "high def" media storage in the 360. The answer is two fold, first while MS realized the market would be willing to pay a premium for a cool new game console, they were at least grounded enough to realize $400 was the most you could reasonbly ask for. Hence no blue lazers in the 360, just regular plain jane red ones.

Secondly centers around the whole point of this article. Microsoft understood very well that being first to market (espeacially by a year) would give them a very big advantage, potentially the kind of advantage sony had with the PS2. They knew that having the absolute highest tech of absolutly everything come standard with their game console would mean squat if they couldn't beat Sony to market by a decent margin. How did they know this? They tried playing the cool high tech uber-fast HW angle with the original x-box against the PS2, we all know how that one ended.

So they compromise in an area where certainly at launch date, and even now it wasn't quite as big a deal. Give the 360 a regular DVD drive, that's plenty of storage for most games out there, and if you need to you can go multi-disc or offer downloadable content.


RE: It's a gamble to companies that size
By ViperROhb34 on 1/24/2008 4:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that a game that was supposed to be a PS3 exclusive is even showing its face on thge 360 is not good news for PS3.

Also the game trailer comparison at http://www.gametrailers.com/player/29151.html Appears the 360 version to look visually superior to PS3..

Do you have a link supporting what you are saying ?? Because extra content can easily be on additional disc and/or downloaded to 360 HD..