By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Azzanation on 14 March 2020
Edit Thread
Cerebralbore101 said:

MS Spent 1.15 billion on the RROD issue. That 1.15 billion was split between fixing broken units, and fixing machines already in stock. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2542455/xbox-360--red-ring-of-death--costs-microsoft-more-than--1b.html

"To pay for the anticipated warranty repairs, as well as evaluate and fix machines still in inventory, Microsoft said it would take a $1.05 billion to $1.15 billion charge against earnings for the quarter that ended June 30. Liddell said the charge would be equally split between repairs of already-sold systems and fixes to those still in stock."

The RROD was an issue until the launch of the S in June 2010. https://www.businessinsider.com/when-all-the-xbox-360s-broke-2015-8

"It wasn't until the release of the remodeled Xbox 360 "S" model in 2010 that the console was finally really fixed, despite years of attempts with behind-the-scenes chip changes."

By April 2010 MS had sold over 40 million 360's. 

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-360-sales-top-40-million/1100-6259832/

1.15 billion divided by two is 575 million. That's the cost MS spent to fix every 360 that was sent in. 

At a failure rate of 50% that means MS had to repair 20 million 360's at a cost of $45-$50 each. If all 20 million broken 360's had been sent in that would have amounted to 900 million dollars at $45 per repair. Far above the 575 million that was allocated to it. It gets even worse when you remember that after being repaired a 360 could still RROD. This means that a single 360 could have been sent in two or three times for a repair at $45 per repair cost to MS. From these numbers it's obvious that not everybody sent in their busted 360's. Otherwise the repair costs would have ballooned well past one billion. But as we've seen MS didn't allocate a billion to fixing the 360's sent in. 

Once the S model launched in June 2010 many people simply opted to buy a 2nd 360, rather than go through the hassle of sending in their bricked console. Lots of people like myself, sold their 360 to Gamestop before it could RROD on them, and bought an S model. 

Between the money gap, and many people opting to buy a 2nd 360 in order to avoid the RROD it's not hard to see 10-20 million extra sales appearing. 

Those PS2 owners went on to buy a Wii or 360 at launch, not all of them waited for PS3, another speculation of yours. 

I see you didn't follow my link. If you had, you would see that this claim of yours had already been refuted. 

Also dont act like the PS3 had a clean bill of health, they also had there fair share of issues like the Yellow Light problems and the firmware update that bricked systems.

Yeah it was something like a 10% failure rate, which is pretty good. The bulk of PS3 sales came after the slim model launched in 2009, which like the 360 S didn't have the failure rate of the launch model. PS3 was sitting somewhere around 25-35 million units sold before the slim launched.

Also you forgot to add that the 360 was also making billions off Live Subs which the PS3 didnt have including the fact it sold more software and accessories etc. 

I didn't forget, I just didn't feel like mentioning that. But thanks for helping my case that MS's profitability didn't come directly from software sales, but rather indirectly from console royalty fees, XBL subs, and sales of accessories. That refutes your claim that the bulk of a console manufacturer's money comes directly from software sales.

I am not denying the fact MS spent Billions on the repairs, I was the one who brought up the costs. If MS covered the costs of the RROD which cost themselves $1b in repairs etc than they don't count as sales. Also not all 360s RROD either. Sure people went to buy a 2nd console but so do others on other brands, that's not exclusive to the 360. There are many people who went on to buy a 2nd PS3 and a 2nd Wii. My mate has 4 PS3s in his house as he wanted a Blu-Ray player in each room and only 1 was for gaming. Total console sales are fluffed, because through out a console gen, many gamers double dip, many change to the newer slim models etc. Just because the 360 had the RROD doesn't mean they wouldn't have opted to upgrade to the newer slim anyway since the Slim was a much better designed console with new features so the point you are making isn't entirely accurate.

Even if you are right in the RROD double dip sales, that just goes to show the buying power of the 360 selling, those customers could have easily returned there 360 and opt for a PS3.. instead they still wanted the 360 and went out to buy another one. So the point of the 360 selling what it did still stands. 

Doesn't matter how you look at it either, the Software does the talking and the 360 still sold more Software than the PS3 and it did that with even less consoles sold on the market which is one of the gaming industry milestones as I mentioned before, the 360 is the only home console to sell over 1b software on a platform that didn't sell 90m consoles and in your view less than 70m. It was also generating a ton more money than the PS3 overall.

The 360 competed with the PS3 head on and this will affect total consoles sold as the sales divided which we saw when PS dropped from 150m to 80m the gen after. If the next Xbox is as good as the 360 interms of competing and the Switch or Nintendo's next device come out the gate swinging than expect tighter sales between the 3, that's just how business works. They fight for the audience and no one is also the top dog all the time. 

Last edited by Azzanation - on 14 March 2020