Xbox 360's Death Rate is 54.2%

[Uilleand]

Yeah...the number's low. My XBox has been bricked for 8 months, but I can't be bothered to send it in for fixin'. I'll just keep buying PC games, I guess...

 

[Rachmaninov]

It's only 5000 people out of, like, ~35 million?
The coincidence that they, by accident, just surveyed the ones that had RRoDs is a very, very high one. I had my Xbox 360 for ~1,5 years, and nothing happened.

Then I bought a PS3, and it broke, so I had to get a new one from guarantee. Does that mean that the Xbox 360 has a 0% fail rate, and a 100% (for me)? No.

No one, not even Micro$oft, could survey every console owner, and it is completely unreasonable to expect them to.

Surveys work by taking a cross-section of the community, that's how they have always, and will always, work.

Can you honestly say you think that everyone who reads this magazine is an RRoD sufferer? It sounds to me like they asked their readers and got ~5000 replies.

I assume you got taught in school that science experiments should be done three, five or seven (depending on how nitpicky your teacher is, and how unreliable the experiment) times, so you can take an average of the results? Surveys work like that. Five thousand people is more than enough for a fair cross-section.

Has it also occured to you that 1.5 years isn't that long? Some people have had their 360 since launch day, almost 4 years ago, and they still haven't broken. From my experience, they break between the 1 and 2 year marks, with some making it as far as 3. So good luck.

 

[Captain Pancake]

that doesn't surprise me really. everybody i know who has an xbox 360 has had it break on them at least once. I was the unfortunate guy with the stingy parents who wouldn't pay for a second repair... PC gaming does me fine, though. free online multiplayer, who can argue with that? and mods, patches, anything else you need.

 

[Trivun]

He-he. My 3 year old xbox is still running strong.

I'd watch out then. Mine was 2 and a half when it died, last Christmas. However, I have to say that the customer service I recieved from Microsoft was the best I've ever experienced and although they said it would be fixed within four weeks it in fact took only two weeks before it was shipped back to the UK, from Berlin, fully fixed with a complementary free month's subscription to Xbox Live Gold. I honestly can't understand why people keep bashing Microsoft, because I've only ever had good experiences with them and I've used their goods and services for years, plus I use Vista and it works perfectly fine for me (even when it comes to gaming, except for L4D and Fallout 3, and that's down to the hardware, not software, which is actually an Advent laptop).

/rant

 

[Caprice0083]

RROD doesn't bother me much, my 360 did it once and microsft fixed it and returned to me within a week and a half time. Maybe because I work in the tech industry and I'm not phased by this. I think everybody has their faults.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

Electronics have always been this way, regardless of their purpose. VCRs, DVD players, microwaves, televisions of various types, and what have you all suffer from one "defect" or another. It doesn't always mean poor design. People have a tendency to use their electronic devices in less than ideal circumstances, that often cause device failure.

That said, I rather doubt that the 54.2% claim is completely caused by faulty design. This is not to say that there aren't design-related failures, but rather that the design-related failures don't account for much of the total reported failures. It's the end-user that makes the margin of failure increase.

The problem with user error vs design fault is; quite often, the design faults cause the product to be broken by the user with far greater ease than they should.

I don't deny that it's the user who breaks the 360. But it's only because it is so easy to break, due to poor design. Xbox 360s won't be the only console which gets secreted into a tiny slot just big enough for the console and dust, but they're still the only console with anything approaching a 54.2% death rate.

If this poll is a fair cross-section, which I'm assuming it is, a roughly equal number of that 5000 will stick their Wii/PS3 in an equally tiny cubbyhole, and yet those don't even fail half as much.

Micro$oft should have some insight into how their product will be used, and design accordingly. I seriously doubt they assumed that every Xbox 360 user would live in a perfectly dust-free, temperature controlled lab, where the console could be suspended to allow all the vents maximum airflow, so why do I need to reproduce that environment in my house, to keep my 360 from breaking?

Does that mean Microsoft is excused from making a flimsy product? No. The point to be made is that the statistic only shows total failure, rather than failure by design flaw. Percentages of this type cannot be compared directly, due to the total sales of each design. How many more 360s are out there than PS3 and Wii? It could very well be that both PS3 and Wii suffer from these same design flaws, but are not reported simply because they are fewer in number.

That's not to say the fail rate for 360 isn't still ridiculously high. I'm just offering the possibility that the 54.2% figure is bad statistics. The math is fine, but the statistical comparison is not significant or applicable. A more detailed comparison of the failure types may show that 54.2% fail rate being caused by a range of faulty components, whereas the fail rate for PS3 comes from one specific fail point. Which is the poorer design in that case? The design that fails predictably, due to one poorly implemented component, or the one that fails for one reason or another due to poor component sources?

After all, the rate of failure for humans is 100%, as studies have shown. People tend to die for a lot of different reasons, and the truth of the matter is that lifespan is directly related to how well you take care of yourself. This is of course, with certain special exceptions.

 

[Sebenko]

that doesn't surprise me really. everybody i know who has an xbox 360 has had it break on them at least once. I was the unfortunate guy with the stingy parents who wouldn't pay for a second repair... PC gaming does me fine, though. free online multiplayer, who can argue with that? and mods, patches, anything else you need.

Agreed. My PC is still going strong, despite treatment that would kill most consoles (Though I don't kick it as much as I used to)

 

[Rachmaninov]

... Mine was 2 and a half when it died ... took only two weeks before it was shipped back to the UK ... I honestly can't understand why people keep bashing Microsoft ...

I think the reason people keep bashing Micro$oft is because their consoles die, just like yours, they have to go weeks without their console after no fault of their own, and some even need to pay (when the warranty doesn't cover their issue) and all this just because the 360 should've remained in development for another year.

I think you're more understanding than most. But let's see how understanding you are when your current Xbox dies (which might cost money to repair), and maybe even the Xbox after that.

 

[Rachmaninov]

Does that mean Microsoft is excused from making a flimsy product? No. The point to be made is that the statistic only shows total failure, rather than failure by design flaw. Percentages of this type cannot be compared directly, due to the total sales of each design. How many more 360s are out there than PS3 and Wii? It could very well be that both PS3 and Wii suffer from these same design flaws, but are not reported simply because they are fewer in number.

That's not to say the fail rate for 360 isn't still ridiculously high. I'm just offering the possibility that the 54.2% figure is bad statistics. The math is fine, but the statistical comparison is not significant or applicable. A more detailed comparison of the failure types may show that 54.2% fail rate being caused by a range of faulty components, whereas the fail rate for PS3 comes from one specific fail point. Which is the poorer design in that case? The design that fails predictably, due to one poorly implemented component, or the one that fails for one reason or another due to poor component sources?

After all, the rate of failure for humans is 100%, as studies have shown. People tend to die for a lot of different reasons, and the truth of the matter is that lifespan is directly related to how well you take care of yourself. This is of course, with certain special exceptions.

Sales figures, as per Wikipedia are;

Wii ? 50.39 million, as of 31 March 2009
Xbox 360 ? 30.20 million, as of 1 January 2009
PlayStation 3 ? 23.8 million, as of 30 June 2009

That puts the 360 in the middle, and the closest we have to an "average" amount of sales. I don't think I can find any reason why the sales could have anything to do with it, in this case, as it is neither the most popular, nor the least.

And as far as the question (that I have emboldened in your quote) goes, I can't rightly answer it. Instead I'll word it slightly differently to give you something to think about;

Which is the poorer design? The one that is perfect, bar one fault, or the one that is generally faulty?

EDIT: Oops, double post. I meant to add this section onto the last post, rather than make a new one, appologies.

2nd EDIT: I just realised you may have been referring to the 360 as the one which fails reliably due to a single fault. I assumed you meant the PS3, as the 360 has alot more than one fault (RRoD and E74, just to name the two that Microsoft has been bullied into extending their warranty for, and others not covered in the extended warranty yet, which people also have). Also I recall some major issues with the Xbox 360's power pack over heating/being a fire hazard.

 

[silentsentinel]

Mine died after the NXE update. It was perfect until then.

Stupid Microsoft...

 

[cleverlymadeup]

That said, I rather doubt that the 54.2% claim is completely caused by faulty design. This is not to say that there aren't design-related failures, but rather that the design-related failures don't account for much of the total reported failures. It's the end-user that makes the margin of failure increase.

ok i've been in an admin/support role for well over 10 years now and i do know that people are stupid, especially with computer stuff. that being said i can't really see 54% of the populace being that stupid with electronics.

the stat of the PS3 and Wii failures are results of user failures. the 360 failures are so high because of poor design, this is why they've changed it and added more cooling AND actually said "yes we had a poor design"

i know that m$ liked to blame the consumer but when all these reports came in and they finally looked at things, they found out it was their own design that was causing such a high rate of failure

 

[Randomeaninglessword]

Yeah, my 360 was a few years old, and it only broke because some asshole, not me, left a damn garbage bag in front of two of the fans.

 

[Jacobistheshiz]

lol the RRoD is why I bought one, $40 and I was able to fix it pretty easy. I love the statistic that they are still above 50% failure rate. I think I will buy a PS3 on the heaped corpses of FAILBoxes. lol Don't worry kids, when you see the ring... I'll give you $40 for it. ROFL!!!!!

Spoiler

Your image broke I'll give you 40 cents for it.

 

[Daezd]

So it's like you get a free game with the console!


Red Ring Roulette!

 

[Go Fighting In The War Room]

Um... If I have it for 10 months and no red ring I'm safe right? Right?

 

[Boxmeister]

I can't say I expected the percentage to be that high, but doesn't it make you wonder what the difference would be if the 360 adopted the Wii's "Go outside once in awhile" attitude. That is... assuming people ever do actually listen to it. Also, if it actually cost anything (I'm about 95 per cent sure they don't...) to get it fixed, the returning rate of gamers probably would decline.

 

[Rachmaninov]

... if it actually cost anything (I'm about 95 per cent sure they don't...) to get it fixed, the returning rate of gamers probably would decline.

There is a standard warranty for one year that includes free repair if the hardware fails. After that, there is an extended warranty for an extra two years which covers just the Red Ring of Death and E74 issues. If your standard warranty has run out, and the issue is neither an RRoD or E74, it costs you £60-80.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

Sales figures, as per Wikipedia are;

Wii ? 50.39 million, as of 31 March 2009
Xbox 360 ? 30.20 million, as of 1 January 2009
PlayStation 3 ? 23.8 million, as of 30 June 2009

That puts the 360 in the middle, and the closest we have to an "average" amount of sales. I don't think I can find any reason why the sales could have anything to do with it, in this case, as it is neither the most popular, nor the least.

And as far as the question (that I have emboldened in your quote) goes, I can't rightly answer it. Instead I'll word it slightly differently to give you something to think about;

Which is the poorer design? The one that is perfect, bar one fault, or the one that is generally faulty?

EDIT: Oops, double post. I meant to add this section onto the last post, rather than make a new one, appologies.

2nd EDIT: I just realised you may have been referring to the 360 as the one which fails reliably due to a single fault. I assumed you meant the PS3, as the 360 has alot more than one fault (RRoD and E74, just to name the two that Microsoft has been bullied into extending their warranty for, and others not covered in the extended warranty yet, which people also have). Also I recall some major issues with the Xbox 360's power pack over heating/being a fire hazard.

I was generalizing with my "single predictable fault, vs multiple fault" assessment. I wasn't even speaking in terms of consoles, but of consumer electronics as a whole. Perhaps my wording indicated 360 vs PS3, but that was not my intention. Apologies.

So far as the statistical analysis is concerned, the stated statistic of 54% fail rate implies that a little over half of the given population (only XBox 360 consoles) will fail. Since the population does not include other consoles, or even other consumer electronics, it isn't proper statistics to make a comparison of distinct populations no matter the size. Especially when the sample size is small. 5,000 'randomly sampled' individuals out of roughly 100 million says absolutely nothing significant about the actual fail rate, or its correlation to the deficiencies of the 360 design.

Here's an example:
Of 5,000 randomly sampled families, 54% said McDonalds is bad for you. Does that mean that 46% said McDonalds was good for you? No. Does it say anything about the billions of people that are both a member of a family, and have eaten at McDonalds? Also no. Bad statistical analysis is just scare tactics with a smattering of math. (Note: I'm not speaking to the health aspects of McDonalds. It's just a relatable example to demonstrate the math.)

For reiteration purposes:
Microsoft's design is certainly not perfect, as they have admitted. However, it is absolutely unreasonable to take this study as definitive evidence for faulty product.

 

[Rachmaninov]

Microsoft's design is certainly not perfect, as they have admitted. However, it is absolutely unreasonable to take this study as definitive evidence for faulty product.

I agree, that this study alone is not definitive evidence, but even the lowest estimates put the failure rate of Xbox 360s way above industry standards, they've had a class action law suit filed against them, and have conceded a warranty extension twice(once for RRoD, and then later for E74). I think these are proof enough that the console was faulty, whether or not this particular survey was accurate.

 

[era81]

My friend just got his shiny new elite last week today it's heading home to Texas in a casket.This is after I was told by a lot of people this does happen anymore.I am happy about all the news Sony put out today.