By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony: PS5 not due out before April 2020

Pemalite said:
thismeintiel said:

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.

It is poorly designed when you have over a 33% failure and have to change multiple chipsets before the thing stops overheating and failing. Doesn't matter how pleasant it is to look at when it won't turn on anymore.

And no, the DVD drive was completely their fault if they didn't test it. That also doesn't hold water when every model had the same problem, instead of fixing it with the first revision. 

The fact is, MS didn't care. They wanted to be out first and they wanted to be cheaper. So, they either skipped a lot of testing that should have happened or ignored problems discovered by those tests, using cheaper parts. You can't give them a pass on the 360 when it's their 2nd console and their first was much more reliable.



Around the Network
twintail said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes let's ignore the plenty of reports showing it was about 50%, the plethora of people that had over 6 X360 purchased...

Then show us this plethora of reportz that exist

You alternatively could be here in VGC during the 7th gen to see the news and discussions about the fact.

You can go for even wikipedia with 83 sources for RROD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_problems because certainly this was an issue that almost no one talked about. Do you want me to post all sources that have very high failure rates...

https://www.kitguru.net/gaming/console-desktop-pc/matthew-wilson/the-xbox-360s-red-ring-of-death-issue-cost-microsoft-1-15-billion/ mind you that this is what they calculated before giving the warranty not after.

But if you think it's bad luck then MS would like you to be their PR, because at the start they denied a problem existed and then after fact they accepted that it was their own fault. You don't really get bad luck row up to different revisions. You don't do the design right nor the troubleshooting after you started getting problems.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
twintail said:

Then show us this plethora of reportz that exist

You alternatively could be here in VGC during the 7th gen to see the news and discussions about the fact.

You can go for even wikipedia with 83 sources for RROD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_problems because certainly this was an issue that almost no one talked about. Do you want me to post all sources that have very high failure rates...

https://www.kitguru.net/gaming/console-desktop-pc/matthew-wilson/the-xbox-360s-red-ring-of-death-issue-cost-microsoft-1-15-billion/ mind you that this is what they calculated before giving the warranty not after.

But if you think it's bad luck then MS would like you to be their PR, because at the start they denied a problem existed and then after fact they accepted that it was their own fault. You don't really get bad luck row up to different revisions. You don't do the design right nor the troubleshooting after you started getting problems.

Yes, let me get my time machine. what a practical solution you have offered.

You say there are plenty of reports showing a 50% failure rate but the 83 sources from that wiki don't prove your point at all. I never claimed that it wasn't a talked about problem. So please don't waste my time inventing arguments to things I never said.

You either have proof that more sources outside of a Game Informer survey show that failure rates passed 50%, or you don't. So far, it is clearly the latter.

And your kitguru link clearly states the failure rate to be 23.7 %. That is not even half of what you are claiming.

And don't continue with this petty 'be MS's PR' talk, thanks.  I  have never owned an MS console before, nor intend to for the foreseeable future.

Last edited by twintail - on 08 May 2019

DonFerrari said:
twintail said:

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...

Pemalite said:

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.

Well designed. But shit quality control.
It was very much rushed out the door, but the entire philosophy of the devices design was top notch. - It's where Microsoft showed it could actually be competent in hardware design... Where-as Sony had already been proving that for decades prior.

But issues will crop up in any device, the PS1 and PS2 had their share of hardware issues, mostly disk-drive related.
Sony also had exploding notebook batteries at one point... Samsung had the explosive Galaxy Note 7... These things can slip past quality control even with stringent testing regardless of manufacturer.

As consumers we are lucky that information regarding these facets can be readily accessed so we can make informed purchasing decisions when it comes to purchasing time.

thismeintiel said:

It is poorly designed when you have over a 33% failure and have to change multiple chipsets before the thing stops overheating and failing. Doesn't matter how pleasant it is to look at when it won't turn on anymore.

Well. The Playstation 3 wasn't immune to hardware failures either. The YLOD was a fairly common issue especially with the launch units where numbers like 20-50% were being thrown around at one point. (Although I am unable to find anything empirical, just that it was a common thing.)

Anything man-made is prone to fail, it's only a matter of time... But we need to give criticism and credit where it's due.

thismeintiel said:

And no, the DVD drive was completely their fault if they didn't test it. That also doesn't hold water when every model had the same problem, instead of fixing it with the first revision. 

The drive itself was an off-the-shelf OEM drive anyway. It slipped past quality control, I assume they thought it would be all A-OK considering the drive was already used in other markets in other devices.

Am I excusing Microsoft for their choice? No. They should have chosen better, they should have spent more time doing Quality-testing, the console is still well designed though with some pretty good decisions made on the components and aesthetics... The engineers just weren't given enough time.

thismeintiel said:

The fact is, MS didn't care. They wanted to be out first and they wanted to be cheaper. So, they either skipped a lot of testing that should have happened or ignored problems discovered by those tests, using cheaper parts. You can't give them a pass on the 360 when it's their 2nd console and their first was much more reliable.

You can bet Microsoft cared. Especially when the repair bill started to end up in the Billions.

Some of the issues like the solder was because of industry trends to be "greener" and less "toxic". - The PC had already been moving in that direction for a long time prior to the Xbox 360's launch, so assumptions were probably made on it's viability rather than spending the months of testing required.

In the end... The lessons learned with the Xbox 360's hardware translated over to the Xbox One, which from a hardware reliability standpoint is the ducks nuts, cooling, power delivery and so on is pretty much over-engineered and top notch... In many aspects superior to the base Playstation 4. - Despite the fact that the Playstation 4 was cheaper and a more powerful device and superior in every other area.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 07 May 2019

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Are people really going the history revisionist path with the infamous RROD blunder ?

The failure rate of the OG X-Box 360 is well documented.



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes let's ignore the plenty of reports showing it was about 50%, the plethora of people that had over 6 X360 purchased...

So well designed that half failed and took several revision to correct.

Well designed. But shit quality control.
It was very much rushed out the door, but the entire philosophy of the devices design was top notch. - It's where Microsoft showed it could actually be competent in hardware design... Where-as Sony had already been proving that for decades prior.

But issues will crop up in any device, the PS1 and PS2 had their share of hardware issues, mostly disk-drive related.
Sony also had exploding notebook batteries at one point... Samsung had the explosive Galaxy Note 7... These things can slip past quality control even with stringent testing regardless of manufacturer.

As consumers we are lucky that information regarding these facets can be readily accessed so we can make informed purchasing decisions when it comes to purchasing time.

thismeintiel said:

It is poorly designed when you have over a 33% failure and have to change multiple chipsets before the thing stops overheating and failing. Doesn't matter how pleasant it is to look at when it won't turn on anymore.

Well. The Playstation 3 wasn't immune to hardware failures either. The YLOD was a fairly common issue especially with the launch units where numbers like 20-50% were being thrown around at one point. (Although I am unable to find anything empirical, just that it was a common thing.)

Anything man-made is prone to fail, it's only a matter of time... But we need to give criticism and credit where it's due.

thismeintiel said:

And no, the DVD drive was completely their fault if they didn't test it. That also doesn't hold water when every model had the same problem, instead of fixing it with the first revision. 

The drive itself was an off-the-shelf OEM drive anyway. It slipped past quality control, I assume they thought it would be all A-OK considering the drive was already used in other markets in other devices.

Am I excusing Microsoft for their choice? No. They should have chosen better, they should have spent more time doing Quality-testing, the console is still well designed though with some pretty good decisions made on the components and aesthetics... The engineers just weren't given enough time.

thismeintiel said:

The fact is, MS didn't care. They wanted to be out first and they wanted to be cheaper. So, they either skipped a lot of testing that should have happened or ignored problems discovered by those tests, using cheaper parts. You can't give them a pass on the 360 when it's their 2nd console and their first was much more reliable.

You can bet Microsoft cared. Especially when the repair bill started to end up in the Billions.

Some of the issues like the solder was because of industry trends to be "greener" and less "toxic". - The PC had already been moving in that direction for a long time prior to the Xbox 360's launch, so assumptions were probably made on it's viability rather than spending the months of testing required.

In the end... The lessons learned with the Xbox 360's hardware translated over to the Xbox One, which from a hardware reliability standpoint is the ducks nuts, cooling, power delivery and so on is pretty much over-engineered and top notch... In many aspects superior to the base Playstation 4. - Despite the fact that the Playstation 4 was cheaper and a more powerful device and superior in every other area.

Sorry Pema, I regards your PC knowledge very highly but QUALITY is part of design. So if something is of very bad reliability (one aspect of quality) it can't be said to be very well designed. You can say that it was a great concept or that the aesthetic was great, you can say it was very well balanced, etc. But when you talk about the whole product being well designed that would be wrong. Because as much as there are real data to compare performance between system that you use to prove when people are saying wrong stuff on comparison there are data to show the system are not well designed.

And yes PS3 also had a much higher than standard failure rate, but X360 overshadowed it by many miles.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:

Sorry Pema, I regards your PC knowledge very highly but QUALITY is part of design. So if something is of very bad reliability (one aspect of quality) it can't be said to be very well designed.

Sure. I will give you that quality is part of a design, but sometimes things slip past testing and doesn't become apparent until it's out in the real world. - And I am not aware of any manufacturer (Sony, Apple, Microsoft, Nintendo, Samsung, nVidia, AMD etc') having a perfect track record to that end.

The OG fat PS3's had a notorious issue with the Yellow Light of Death. - Yet I wouldn't outright state that the original fat Playstation 3's were badly designed... They were extremely well designed, often bordering on being over-engineered... But things slipped past quality control. - Same goes for the Xbox 360, the launch consoles were fantastically designed, even down to the choice of components.

But the issue with the solder wasn't a well documented design issue until the same issue started to appear in other pieces of hardware like nVidia GPU's... Granted, that mistake won't be taken by any company again soon and will be factored into future designs.

DonFerrari said:

You can say that it was a great concept or that the aesthetic was great, you can say it was very well balanced, etc. But when you talk about the whole product being well designed that would be wrong.

Oh, I recognize that the failure rates from Sony and Microsoft's launch consoles were far from ideal, but I am not going to bag an entire generation of hardware from either company for a little misshap. - Both companies took substantial measures to rectify the issues.

But the design concepts both companies entered the 7th gen in had allot of similarities, but also different philosophies.
The Xbox 360 could have spent another 6-12 months in the lab being tested, that's for sure.

DonFerrari said:

Because as much as there are real data to compare performance between system that you use to prove when people are saying wrong stuff on comparison there are data to show the system are not well designed.

And yes PS3 also had a much higher than standard failure rate, but X360 overshadowed it by many miles.

I don't actually disagree. I don't really favor any console, so I am trying to look at it from a perspective that others may not.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

Sorry Pema, I regards your PC knowledge very highly but QUALITY is part of design. So if something is of very bad reliability (one aspect of quality) it can't be said to be very well designed.

Sure. I will give you that quality is part of a design, but sometimes things slip past testing and doesn't become apparent until it's out in the real world. - And I am not aware of any manufacturer (Sony, Apple, Microsoft, Nintendo, Samsung, nVidia, AMD etc') having a perfect track record to that end.

The OG fat PS3's had a notorious issue with the Yellow Light of Death. - Yet I wouldn't outright state that the original fat Playstation 3's were badly designed... They were extremely well designed, often bordering on being over-engineered... But things slipped past quality control. - Same goes for the Xbox 360, the launch consoles were fantastically designed, even down to the choice of components.

But the issue with the solder wasn't a well documented design issue until the same issue started to appear in other pieces of hardware like nVidia GPU's... Granted, that mistake won't be taken by any company again soon and will be factored into future designs.

DonFerrari said:

You can say that it was a great concept or that the aesthetic was great, you can say it was very well balanced, etc. But when you talk about the whole product being well designed that would be wrong.

Oh, I recognize that the failure rates from Sony and Microsoft's launch consoles were far from ideal, but I am not going to bag an entire generation of hardware from either company for a little misshap. - Both companies took substantial measures to rectify the issues.

But the design concepts both companies entered the 7th gen in had allot of similarities, but also different philosophies.
The Xbox 360 could have spent another 6-12 months in the lab being tested, that's for sure.

DonFerrari said:

Because as much as there are real data to compare performance between system that you use to prove when people are saying wrong stuff on comparison there are data to show the system are not well designed.

And yes PS3 also had a much higher than standard failure rate, but X360 overshadowed it by many miles.

I don't actually disagree. I don't really favor any console, so I am trying to look at it from a perspective that others may not.

I certainly can agree that sometimes your great design will be taken by surprise on reliability issues that couldn't be foreseen (that is what in aviation generally end up making Airworthiness Directives). Some times you'll discover something totally new and unexpected after the project was tested a lot.

Still in the case of X360 my understanding is that their rush to release led to the issues (and that was my initial pitch, that the design philosophy was good, but they rushed the system out and that led to high failure rates) which was then countered saying they launched when they were supposed to. Then my understanding is that if they didn't rush they were incompetent in the design, because again I totally understand you designing for 1-5% failure rate in 2 years but something you couldn't see made it increase to 10%, but the problem on X360 were much bigger that is the reason I put that for original X360 it was bad design even if a great system.

Anyway I do agree that we can't discount the whole gen, but I would say that the high failure rate of the og X360 made they exaggerate on the size of X1 and together with the issues of reveal and they not supporting the last 2 years of X360 as well as Sony made the sales slower (after the first 2 months) than they would. I expect that for the next machine they and Sony will be very competitive on price, spec and reliability.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:

I certainly can agree that sometimes your great design will be taken by surprise on reliability issues that couldn't be foreseen (that is what in aviation generally end up making Airworthiness Directives). Some times you'll discover something totally new and unexpected after the project was tested a lot.

Indeed!

DonFerrari said:

Still in the case of X360 my understanding is that their rush to release led to the issues (and that was my initial pitch, that the design philosophy was good, but they rushed the system out and that led to high failure rates) which was then countered saying they launched when they were supposed to. Then my understanding is that if they didn't rush they were incompetent in the design, because again I totally understand you designing for 1-5% failure rate in 2 years but something you couldn't see made it increase to 10%, but the problem on X360 were much bigger that is the reason I put that for original X360 it was bad design even if a great system.

In the Xbox 360's case it was a multitude of aspects that resulted in the RROD issue, why is why it wasn't a simple overnight fix.

The new solder was more brittle, would end up with hairline cracks... That was exacerbated by the heat-sink mounting system which applied significant pressure... And the sheer heat of the chips.
You solve one of those things... And failure rates would have dropped significantly, but not entirely.

nVidia also had it's fair share of solder issues with it's Geforce 8000/9000 chips which cost the company a big chunk of change... It just was not something that was ever tested for... So it was entirely new waters for the industry.
Obviously things have changed since then for the better and the lessons learned by Microsoft and nVidia isn't lost on the entire industry.

https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Nvidia-GPU-failure,news-29026.html

The RROD of the Xbox 360 was totally unacceptable, the console needed more development time, Microsoft does have some amazing engineers at it's disposal. - But these things do happen though, no company is immune... And Microsoft does deserve the criticism where it dropped the ball, no doubt about it.

DonFerrari said:

Anyway I do agree that we can't discount the whole gen, but I would say that the high failure rate of the og X360 made they exaggerate on the size of X1 and together with the issues of reveal and they not supporting the last 2 years of X360 as well as Sony made the sales slower (after the first 2 months) than they would. I expect that for the next machine they and Sony will be very competitive on price, spec and reliability.

Indeed. The Xbox One size is likely attributed to the Xbox 360's initial issues... Plus that Heatsink and Fan was extremely chunky, more so than it needed to be... It did mean that it was extremely quiet and cool running though.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Why do people talking about xbox ? lol



My prediction in 2021.

SW: 30m

PS5 16m

XBS: 7.5m