Quote Originally Posted by granz View Post
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was comparing failure rates. Whether or not 360 owners got screwed more than PS owners isn't the issue here. It's just the fact that launch models really aren't worth the investment due to hardware failures, whether those failures are 10% or 50%. 10% is a huge deal. That's hundreds of thousands of consoles that will simply break down in a few months to a year, without any warning. For something that costs $600, you would think Sony would try to ensure better quality assurance.

Now, this isn't accounting for other issues these consoles have, as well. Players had to file a class action lawsuit over a supposed bug in Final Fantasy XIII that damaged the PS3's internal software. After encountering a freeze in the game, the players reported that the PS3 wouldn't recognize any more game discs. Who knows how many consoles were damaged by this and other console-bricking game bugs. Sony keeps blaming Square for the problem, and Square blames Sony. I'm guessing the problem will never be fixed at this rate.

I always wait until slim or budget models are released. By then, surely they've addressed some of the hardware issues, and any games I want to play are likely to be available under the Greatest Hits label, which sometimes contains bugfixes and bonus content.
Even with a two-year failure rate of 10%, the PS3 is one of the most resilient pieces of console hardware from Sony.

Good luck finding any statistics beyond anecdotal evidence (and do share if you do), but I think that it would be consensus that PS1 and PS2 both suffered from higher failure rates (typically DREs) in earlier models than the PS3 did.

Thermal failure issues in launch PS3s are indeed inevitable long-term but in most cases doesn't present itself until a reasonable point in system ownership.