happydolphin said:
@underlined. I couldn't care less, and I don't see the reason for the etiquette, so again not my problem. I'm just continuing the argument he can't continue because I agree with him. He'll be proud of me on his return, since he and I usually disagree. @bold. Nobody said they didn't spend alot of money to hit that date. We understand that. It doesn't change the argument this far in the slightest. @italics. That's your justification?? That's exactly the issue. They didn't QA it adequately enough so this didn't have to happen. It's one thing for you to say they didn't expect the failure rate they had, it's another to haze it out with your usual minor failure rate that can be fixed post-launch. @underlined. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Your word against mine, I think it was a poor corporate decision, and we all here are pretty damn quite knowledgeable in video game business strategy. I suggested many altrenatives to Chris Hu already, take a look. |
I think you need to read my post with more of a open mind, I wasn't being argumentitive, I just answered the question for why they did what they did, it certainly wasn't a justification.
The point about the expenditure is because launching without more testing was a gamble and like any gmable it is about risk and reward. You can never have enough testing before releasing a product hence why so many cars have recalls for defects. Having spent so much money to launch for xmas 2005 they put a huge amount of investment on that date because for them it was critical to launch at the same time or earlier than the PS3. When Sony slipped on the release date it left Microsoft with the chance to go unopposed for at least one holiday period, I've no doubt all analysis pointed to the early launch being worth a gamble on the hardware being fine. I think most companies would have taken a similar choice given the potential reward of a massive headstart on their rivals. Sony were trying to take a similar gamble I'd add but couldn't get enough hardware volume to launch. This is why I said I thought it was the right corporate decision, it's only with hindsight and full understanding of the hardware issues now that we can really judge it as bad.
The only thing I would say is had they put it in for more testing they potentially would have found out the problem quicker but the resolution would still require a redesign of the hardware so would have taken at least 12-24 months. I don't actually think they could find out the problem as the inexperience of manufacturing with lead free solder was the main culprit and even now the issues have only been reduced by stopping as much heat building in the system which only came with the die shrinks on the CPU and GPU. I think launching early gave the 360 a important boost that allowed it to ride the hardware controversies and had they launched at the same time as the PS3 they would have actually been in a far worse position at this time.
I would finally highlight that the issue they had with the 360 primarily was due to new manufacturing techniques that nobody fully comprehended the impact it would have on the reliability of electronics devices. I actually think the thermal design and board mounting and thickness were all taken into account before people understood the differences the new lead free solder would make. This would not only affect manufacturing decisions but test decisions also, it just wasn't anticipated that board flex would break BGA joint like they did (hence why PC motherboard and GPU's also suffered with this too).
I don't disagree that either of you have a point (or tow), but you seemed to come across as only your viewpoint was a fact which is simply not the case in such debates as this. I cannot say you're wrong and vice versa as there is too much hypothesis on what could/would have happened if things went differently. It's always worth considering what would have happened had the 360 launched earlier and the hardware been fairly reliable (PS3 level), would they have dominated, would we be having these discussions. That was the best case scenario to their gamble, instead they got a worst case result near enough. As I said hindsight makes it look simple when it really isn't.
P.S. I'd be worried if S.T.A.G.E ever agreed with me....
