Not to say it's not, but if he (or anyone) was going to decide based on failure rate I think they should pick a PS3 just because taking everything into account -simply put- it's less likely to break.Lowbreed said:Sure, it might indeed not be representative of the entire world, but none of my friends' ps2s broke, that was mine. From 12 maybe more friends with ps3's 3 of them got theirs fixed, one guy had his fixed 3 times. Some others can't play for long periods of time or have to angle a fan at their PS3 because it overheats. From the 5 people with xboxes (I'm included) none of us ever had any problems (and I have 2 of em!), the most was one of them got the overheating sign, but turns out there was (A LOT of) dust blocking the fanIrishhoodlum said:Admittedly I can't disprove anything you've said, but I call shenanigans! I find it damned unlikely that of 3 PS3s, a PS2 and 2 360s that every single PS3 and PS2 broke (one of them 3 times, and another in 2 months?), but both the 360s remain unscathed. Even if it's true though, it's hardly a good representative of PS3s and 360s worldwide. If you're deciding between a PS3 and a 360 purely off their failure rate, reason and statisticts would suggest going with the PS3 since the 360 is looking at a supposed failure rate of 54% to the PS3's 10-20 (OK I don't remember exactly, but the numbers on the Escapist were around there-abouts).Lowbreed said:*snip.
I didn't decide on failure rate (I'm Swiss for Christ's sake we can fix things...) but I decided on the fact that: Xbox came out earlier, and didn't cost: 599 US dollars
Oh and believe me it's true...
Anyways the PS3 is only $300 now, so I'd say it's a decent time to buy one.