Ah, I didn't realize that. What about DVD-ROMs? I had two Macs older than the PS2 that read DVDs, one of them with a DVD-RAM (ugh) drive.

Really?

Yeah, you're right. But as those features get removed, the price goes down. Whereas, yes, the 360 is getting more features, but the price has gone up ala the Elite. I would compare the 60GB to the Elite right now and the 40GB to the core. As you go up in price the features increase....it's just that Sony started with a shit ton of features, then dumbed them down to lower the cost, and M$ started with no features, then added them on, and upped the price

 Strongly  disagree Sont systems have been the most reliable system IMO all of them ps1 ps2 ps3 psp

I remember all kinds of people having issues with PS1 PS2 and PSP. The PS3 is the most solidly built Sony machine. Nintendo's machines have been crazy reliable since the NES. The DS had some slight problems but the DS light is fine. The 64 and Gamecube were bricks. Personally I don't think reliability has that much to do with success.

I agree with Adam540. I really don't think reliability is much of a factor. My first console was an Atari 2600, and I've had two consoles from every generation since. The first console I had to get replaced was my PS2. It had to be replaced three times. Yet it's the king of console sales to date.

I am back! This is the OP under a different name. It seems I have lost my password.

Anyway, to answer some of the questions....

The PS1 and PS2 were on par with all optical reading devices for their day. The failure rates seemed high for console, but that's because all previous consoles were solid state. If you looked at the average failure rates for a CD players during the PS1, and DVD players during the PS2, they would fail after around the same level of usage. Moving parts just fail.

As for the cost being a strong suit for Sony. I meant in terms of cost over the lifetime of the console. When they released it they had ridiculously high costs, but that's due to the technology being expensive. They understand when to make manufacturing runs and best the best times to inject new hardware into the system. If you do it too soon, you have spent too much. If you do it too late, you have not optimized the cost reduction. Sony does this well across all electronics divisions (all good consumer electronics companies do).

So for example., those PS3 has probably been revised 10 times from launch (a total guess). Those revisions could be as small as replacing the audio chip with cheaper one, or updating the capacitors with ones from a less expensive vendor. They could be as large as removing PS2 hardware as well. Whatever the reason, the revision reduced cost. MS, while having there fare share of cost cutting revisions, has also had to increase heat reduction, add HDMI ports, and replace DVD drives (some for cost, but mostly for reliability). A lot of their revisions increased the cost of the unit.

People are saying “games sell consoles”, and no one here agrees with that more than me. You can have the best gaming system in the world, but no software, means no games. That does not mean you can neglect the hardware. If MS has made a very quiet console, that had very good reliability, I think its chances of winning this round would have been a lot better.