SamuelRSmith said:
But if Microsoft were legally bound to a 5-year warranty, the 360 would have been of much higher quality to start with. |
I'll be perfectly honest: I hate the idea of legislating things like this (we have enough idiotic laws to begin with, at least in the USA) but I must admit to a moment of weakness here considering just how mind-shatteringly shoddy the 360 is as a piece of comsumer electronics.
I mean, it's truly epic and makes other large-scale product failures seem like quaint little anecdotes with which to amuse your friends even though they weren't terribly amusing at the time (see: PlayStation 2; the Edsel).
But, in the end, it's the consumer that keeps buying the junk and not punishing MS for their ham-fisted actions** and, as the Latins* say: caveat emptor (especially about that Xbox 360 they'll invent in a thousand years).
*It's a bad joke--don't go all Dan Quayle on me.
**It's a game console: nobody needs one and if enough people just said "NO MORE", and it killed the brand, those games you want would move over to the PS3 where, as near as anyone can tell, they wouldn't break the machine by playing them. (I also imagine a sizable percentage of MS shareholders over the last decade would cheer.) Sure, you'd have to pony up for a PS3 (and your 360 discs will be, of course, useless) but I figure that's money better spent on something that doesn't have 1:1 chance of ultimately breaking.
Edit: and, yes, I still own my launch day 360 (that I only buy exclusives on and never-ever games that are also going to be on PS3/PC since, now that it's out of warranty, I'll have to pay for it when it does go RROD).
