http://news.spong.com/article/13491?cb=475

 0.2%,

Not bad, not bad at all.

You get what you pay for. Half the people complaing about the tripple's price probally have an I phone on layaway. I'd be uber mad if I had circle and it RROD, meh.

Nice 2 c build quality is good this gen with the boys at sony...

Yet it doesn't have to be that sturdy. It's nice, but Katuragi would not have done something as dumb as sticking a processor underneath a disc drive, and then cutting the heat sink to make them fit. Even if he had rushed the PS3, he would not have done such a blunder.

In other words, the PS3 would have been more reliable than the 360 even if Katuragi had to slap it together in a rush, simply because of his talent and experience. 

???

The PS3 costs 599$, and suffers a very low failure rate.

The 360, fully decked out, costs nearly the same as a PS3, and suffers from atrocious reliability issues.

The Wii costs half that of the other two consoles, but has a failure rate similar to the PS3 (well, certainly not nearly as high as the 360!).

So how does that equate with your affirmation? 

Clearly the low failure rate is due to being Sony's third console. Logically speaking even Microsoft is getting it right next gen. =P

@Parokki:
Well dont be surprised if MS rushes the next xbox aswell just to get a slight lead which didnt help that much this gen anyway.

@your mother:
PS3 vs. X360-PS3 is better value for money.
X360 vs. Wii-Doesnt take a genius to relise its the Wii.
PS3 vs. Wii-Depends on 2 things 1.The amount of cash you have and 2.What games you want to play.

No, you misunderstood.

PWNAGE1_FTW said:
"You get what you pay for."

This statement normally means "if you buy something cheap, it won't last long, but if you pay a bit more you get quality that lasts."

What I am saying is his statement does not correlate to consoles - well, for this generation at least.

A fully decked out 360 will most likely break down, which means you are paying more, but you aren't getting the quality.

A PS3 costs a lot, but won't likely break down ever, which matches the quality = price argument.

A Wii costs the least yet will suffer far fewer failuers compared to the 360, and will likely match the PS3 in reliability. Therefore, you don't pay much, but you still get the quality.

Therefore, you don't get the reliability you should get with a 360 but you get more than satisfactory reliability with a Wii yet you don't need to pay that much to obtain that reliability.

The PS3? Yeah, you get what you pay for! 

Hardware failure on the PS2 probably cost them a lot of money so they didn't want the same thing to happen again :)

Oh ok i agree with that your mother.