BC or ps2, what's the difference?

[theprof00]

Kasz216 said:

theprof00 said:

Kasz216 said:

theprof00 said:
Or you could have just bought another ps2, keeping the value of all the games you had, because you surely lost a lot of the value by selling them.

and then buy another one.... and another one.... then a bunch of second hand ones.....

 

 

The failure rate was not that bad. In fact, most of the problems ps2s ran into was lens motor, which occurred due to overuse of the system.

So, you can always just tighten the arm on the motor or you can buy another one.

This arm is the one thing that affected ps2s over anything else, which either gave a clicking noise, or made no noise whatsoever.

No... it was that bad. 

Sony lost MULTIPLE lawsuits because of it.

It was right up there with the 360.

Infact when polled the failure rate was well above 50% just like the 360.  Both likely overblown.  But they were the same level.

SO a guaranteed break within two years? That's a no.

failure rate does have something to do with time as well. 50% means one out of two break within a year. That's simply not true.

There were two or three shipments out of the 150M or so consoles that had problems. This is the reality:

Optical arm is wear and tear, not failure or defect. I'd like to see a graph from a well respected source showing how failure prone the ps2 was.

Me and my roommate had two ps2s, both died. Due to problems with the lens, either dust or the motor arm. Both were 6+ years old. Which would be a 15% failure rate, if those were failures. Which they are not, they are issues of wear and tear. The difference? One is based on how the console is made, and the other is based on how the console exists in my environment.

Those consoles from the shipments were defective and prone to failure. Sony was on top of it immediately. Slims were known to combust, and Sony fixed everything immediately.