on 07 May 2019
Sorry, bad luck doesn't explain 50% fail rate.
You are citing a game informer survey of 5000 of it's own readers who may not even have provided accurate responses due to zero accountability?
That is far from an accurate measure on anything, but i guess when you believe in baseless conspiracy theories, anything constitutes fact.
Yes let's ignore the plenty of reports showing it was about 50%, the plethora of people that had over 6 X360 purchased...
Yea, the 360 was definitely a poorly designed system. I think rushing it out to launch to be ahead of the PS3 had something to do with it. It took them several chipsets to finally solve RROD completely. It probably wasn't the smartest idea to make the console concave, causing heat to stay right next to the chip. And then you had the lack of any DVD drive stabilization, which resulted in scratched discs, even if the system wasn't touched. If you did touch it, it would destroy the discs. Power-wise it was good, but when it came to reliability in the first couple of models, and disc drives for all models, it sucked.
It wasn't poorly designed per-say.
It was actually extremely well designed... They had the right combination of CPU and GPU to provide the best bang-for-buck performance they could for the price, whilst being easy to develop for... Which paid off all generation long.
Visually the console wasn't bad to look at either with it's concave design with removable faceplates and swap-able HDD.
They just didn't do appropriate testing to iron out the bugs. - The DVD drive issues is largely the OEM at fault, Microsoft should have chosen a different model or manufacturer... Again, lack of deep thorough testing rather than poor design.
Sony's console was a step up though in almost every aspect, one could argue it was over-designed which brought in a ton of feature creep.
So well designed that half failed and took several revision to correct.