Console Wars V

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Meh, I wouldn't object to longer warranties. Encouraging manufacturers to make things that actually last isn't a bad thing... and it would benefit the environment (less crap in landfills).

It doesn't encourage them to make things last more than it does (failures within 3 years are bad for PR anyway). It just increases the cost of selling the units for everyone.

I'd prefer the extra cost stay in optional extended warranties.

[snoopy369]

You're missing a fundamental economic point here.

Increasing the cost of early failure = increased quality to avoid that cost.

Regardless of the bad press of an early failure, there is still more incentive to make longer lasting goods with a bigger warranty than not. (This is clear simply by the fact that you state above that a longer warranty would cost the user more.) Thus, a longer warranty would encourage a longer lasting product.

The real question is the externality cost - what is the cost (both monetary and in terms of environmental impact) to the thrown-away items, versus the actual increased cost to the consumer (and the producer, though it's usually passed on) of a longer warranty. If the average cost to society is $28 per console to dispose of consoles that don't last 3 years, and are replaced, and adding a 3 year warranty would increase the cost by $16, it's clearly in society's best interest to require that warranty.

I'm not sure how feasible it would be to figure out those numbers, however...

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
You're missing a fundamental economic point here.

Increasing the cost of early failure = increased quality to avoid that cost.

Not necessarily.

In real terms it just means the companies just need to budget more for expected warranty replacements. Unless you think the consoles in Norway are suddenly more reliable than elsewhere in the world.

[snoopy369]

Norway presumably isn't big enough to justify a change on MS's part (but perhaps they are made more reliably, who knows?). If the US required 3 year warranties, though, they'd certainly adjust (if it were economically feasible to make a longer-lasting console versus 'just budgeting more').

If they can spend $15 to make a console 80% less likely to fail within three years (cost to them: $215 or so), they probably would...

[Asher]

I don't buy it at all, I think if there's a cheap way to make them considerably more reliable they'd be on that. They typically lose money with each unit sold, so having people re-purchase consoles doesn't help them in the first place.

Having legislated warranties just means you're legislating purchasing extended warranties. I'd like the choice, thank you.

[Nikolai]

Things are more expensive here, not becuase of the warranties, but because we are a very small market and, most importantly, we have some very high wages compared to other countries.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't buy it at all, I think if there's a cheap way to make them considerably more reliable they'd be on that. They typically lose money with each unit sold, so having people re-purchase consoles doesn't help them in the first place.

Having legislated warranties just means you're legislating purchasing extended warranties. I'd like the choice, thank you.

Extended warranties are outrageously expensive, as you well know, and generally a profit center. I thought the X360 was now making a profit, anyway??

The point is not the profit, anyhow, it's the externalities related to disposing of the waste. If it would decrease the costs related to disposal of the unit by more than the cost of the warranty to the consumer, it would be beneficial for society.

Again, i'm not claiming this is actually the case - just that it could be. Neither of us has any usable data to that respect.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Extended warranties are outrageously expensive, as you well know, and generally a profit center. I thought the X360 was now making a profit, anyway??

It's not known if the HW unit itself is making a profit. It likely is breaking even or turning a small profit by now, which is why they're about to cut the price again...

The point is not the profit, anyhow

I'm not sure you understand capitalism.

[Verto]

Originally posted by DrSpike


A handy backup - how's the game going? Planning on playing it through myself over the next few weeks.

It's a decent FF-esque RPG. My biggest issue is probably with the number of loading screens, which is mildly annoying. Another complaint I have is not exclusive to Lost Odyssey. For every battle you enter, you have to sit through a 5-6 second cinematic. After 30 hours or so of gameplay, this gets extremely frustrating. Lastly, the voice acting is nothing to write home about, with the exception of 1 or 2 characters who stand out.

I'm on Disc 3, about 30 hours into the game, and so far I'd rate it somewhere between a 7 and 8 out of 10.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Asher

It doesn't encourage them to make things last more than it does (failures within 3 years are bad for PR anyway). It just increases the cost of selling the units for everyone.

I'd prefer the extra cost stay in optional extended warranties.

I think in the case of consoles, the warranty would probably raise the price, but not too much. Microsoft would most certainly have put more resources into QA before the 360 launch, rather than inflating the price of the 360 to include the expected costs from repairing tens of thousands of 360s. Console prices are already too high for a lot of consumers.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Verto
I think in the case of consoles, the warranty would probably raise the price, but not too much. Microsoft would most certainly have put more resources into QA before the 360 launch, rather than inflating the price of the 360 to include the expected costs from repairing tens of thousands of 360s. Console prices are already too high for a lot of consumers.

The 360's quality problem was after long-term use that would not have been evident in the rushed, short launch window they had regardless of budget.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Asher

The 360's quality problem was after long-term use that would not have been evident in the rushed, short launch window they had regardless of budget.

I was under the impression the RROD and other issues were caused by design flaws known to Microsoft at the time.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Verto


I was under the impression the RROD and other issues were caused by design flaws known to Microsoft at the time.

No, they came after months of heavy use which caused heat to warp components.

If they knew about it they'd have fixed it before it cost a billion dollars.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Asher


No, they came after months of heavy use which caused heat to warp components.

If they knew about it they'd have fixed it before it cost a billion dollars.

And if MS was legally obligated to provide 3 years warranty, they possibly would have caught the problem(s) and changed the design before launching a console with a failure rate far higher than the PS3/Wii or other devices.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Verto
And if MS was legally obligated to provide 3 years warranty, they possibly would have caught the problem(s) and changed the design before launching a console with a failure rate far higher than the PS3/Wii or other devices.

The 360 was rushed to market because it was a business imperative to launch well in advance of the competitors. If MS was legally obligated to provide 3 years warranty, they still wouldn't have caught the problem since the problem only arises after long-term use which means the product would need to be finished and in testing for many months before its launch -- this was not the case. Requiring the extra warranty means nothing anyway.

And ultimately, the Xbox 360 does have a 3 year warranty for the specific issue you reference anyway.