Talk:Xbox 360 technical problems/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misses out the most important thing

I find it very weird why the reason 99% (yes, i made that number up) of the 3RLOD pops up isn't mentioned in the article... Seriously, isn't there anyone with descent knowledge that can write this in? I'd do it myself if it weren't for my English skills.

Personal Experiance

"some users also reported that their disc got scratched without moving their consoles, until questioned about moving it with a disc inside the DVD ROM drive."

my Xbox 360 used to scratch discs just by playing them (and I never moved the damn thing at all), upon calling of tech support, microsoft said that ths thing NEVER happens. When I returned the 360, the Clerk at future shop told me that a number of Xbox 360s have either defective hard drives or disc drives (in my case, both).

Unsighted testimony isnt valid wikipedia reference.

Scratch Prevention

somebody add that there is a way to prevent the 360 from scratching, i don't know how to use wikipedia's editing.. http://www.llamma.com/xbox360/repair/Refurbishing-the-HL-Xbox-360-DVD-Drive.htm

The scratching problem realy doesn't even to be mentioned, nor do "fixes" for it. It's a user caused thing. Don't spin your console around and your discs won't go spinning in them. Problem solved74.33.0.16 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone should remove this comment as it is blatantly a vague statement that shows a specific bias against the manufacturer: "2. It was was advised by Microsoft not to power cycle the console with a disc in the tray as that can lead to the scratching of discs without moving the console.[6]

However after extensive research by an anonymous group of individuals, these statements have proven to be false. Xbox 360 consoles continue to scratch disks, even after following this advice. The research is going to be presented to the courts and a class action will be taken against Microsoft."

I disagree. The cite that accompanies the link is from the manufacturer's own support site. So, how is this a bias against the manufacturer? Surely the manufacturer isn't making biased statements against itself?

Fall Update

• Does the problem still exist? I heard that Microsoft solved the problem a few days after releasing the update, while others claim to still have problems. What is true? 4.167.226.68 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can read here, where Matt Casamassina from IGN is now on his fifth 360. I don't know if these problems are still as common as they once were, but they're still happening. Bladestorm 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's thought the new 65nm falcon CPU/boards will not break with the same frequency although not all NEW 360 Elites' are the 65nm ones. It's still heterogeneous as they are probably trying to clear stocks of the 90 nm chips and boards. So buying one is still a gamble if you don't know which SKU is in the box. 142.179.200.76 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I think someone should find a picture with better quality. 70.176.169.63 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Don.

Deleted the B.S. "rare" thing on the "This game can only be played on an Xbox 360" article.

71.117.224.10 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is a common issue. It happens every time I use my 360. It should be in the article. If this rare, then I won the lotto on my xbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.119.46 (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• removed "common", this issue doesn't happen frequently enough to be labeled as a common occurrence Sinsdepth 08:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• If you insert the xbox game disc in a regular DVD player or PS3, you will see the same message above. 75.178.189.237

Spontaniously scratching disks in some Xbox's with "TSST" drives

This section is WAY too long for a small section of this article. Much of the information is completely extraneous and goes into far too much detail. If people want exact procedural information they can look it up on the source link. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 12:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I further question the merit of a dutch website, which is more or less unverifiable to most of the readers and editors here. Really this is one cited incident of one problem, and deserves only a small mention in the article, not this disproportionate diatribe. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is too long, but why have you deleted the statement of the BOL representative? He said in the program that 1% of their sold Xbox'es have the scratch-problem. I think it is worth to notice that in the article.

And that some of the sources are Dutch doesn't mean that it is unworthy. Not only the English speaking world possess the truth. Information must not be limited to country barriers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokvok (talk • contribs)

I deleted the statement from BOL because what a reseller chooses to do regarding a product has no bearing on its qualities and defects. It would be like saying because Wal-Mart accepts product returns that they are inherently stating that the products are indeed defective, a claim that even if it were being made, as a reseller they would have no authority to make. I was perhaps a bit too curt in my previous statement. I do not mean to say the sources lack quality due to their origins, but there are a number of factors to consider when using an international foreign language source on a wikipedia of a given language.

• Any language instance of wikipedia is acessed mostly by those living in the countries that use said language primarily. As a result most of the articles here focus on the relevance of topics to the readers from these regions. A defect that may only be present in Dutch or Continental-European units would have very little bearing to the issue with regards to users in the US, Canada, Great Britain, and Oceana, among a few others.
• Secondly, it is difficult to very these sources. A user can easily use sources of a language foreign to that of the wiki that is being edited in order to avoid questioning of the legitimacy of the claim. As such in this case the legitimacy of the experimentation procedure, if it were suspect, would be unverifiable as a result of the highly limited number of English Wikipedia users who are fluent enough in Dutch to make sense of the source and scrutinize it.

Ultimately when all is said and done I'd like to see this section reduced a little more from its current state, which should be possible given some careful consideration to what information is most relevant. Too much of it reads like justification, which means there is a point being made, though likely by the source itself and not the writer, but in either case some of it needs to go. That can wait though as I'd like to slow it down a bit since large content removals, no matter their level of merit, tend to attract dissent from the populace at large. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First let me say that I am not principally opposed to "boil down" the content of the article to it's bare essence, as long as the message comes over correctly, still as the writer of most of the article (there was a request box which specifically asked a Dutch speaking wikipedian to add to the stub of the article, to which I reacted) I have some comments to make:

Let me first explain why there was information about a reseller (BOL) in the article. Kassa is a weekly TV program that addresses all kinds of consumer complaints, the Xbox scratching problem was a recurrent theme in the program for many weeks. In one of the earlier episodes about it they found one gamer who had complained about his Xbox and who had an insurance that would pay for the cost of a Lawyer when he would sue the company where he bought his Xbox 360, which happened to be BOL. So, a few weeks later, in the same episode of Kassa where they announced that Microsoft had finally admitted that some Xbox 360's could scratch DVD's spontaneously, there was also an scene where you could see the reaction of BOL, which was that they had settled out of court, and would replace this gamers Xbox. Granted, that in itself is not so interesting. What -was- interesting is that the representative admitted that BOM knew about the problem, but claimed it only affected about 1% of the Xboxes they sold. If this is true it is another indication that only a small portion of the Xboxes with TSST drives are affected.

Yes, this wikipedia is in English, but that does not mean that therefore it's contents are only accessed by US citizens, and therefore it's contents must be "US-centric". That is a very narrow minded point of view. I'm Dutch, but even though there is a (large) Dutch wikipedia, I still prefer to read (and contribute to) the English language version. And how about the British, they are not US citizens!, and this is their wikipedia too!. There are many dutch wikipedians here! So to say that the contents here cannot be verified is blatantly wrong! You might not be able to verify this article, but there are plenty here who can, and frankly I must say I am a bit peeved by your suggestion that perhaps I might not be entirely truthfull, or had an agenda when writing this. I have no agenda, I do not even own a Xbox 360 (although I do own an Xbox, and it's a fine machine), so let me state clearly that I am neutral about this subject and I only want the truth.

If you really doubt the literal truth of what I wrote, then a simple call for help addressed to Dutch speaking wikipedians would have sufficed.

Also, this case is also discussed in the Dutch wikipedia's Xbox 360 article, and that text can be read by you with the aid of a translation service such as Bablefish or worldlingo. The part about this problem starts with "Klachten over de Xbox 360", and let me tell you beforehand it is -more- harshly worded than my article, short as it is. More-so, a significant portion of the TV show was available with subtitles, and there are links to English language websites in the article.

That "my" article became a bit long has more to do with my zeal, to document this case clearly and concisely, and also to be fair and put in all nuances (that only Xboxes with a TSST, drive and then only a small portion of them seem to be affected for example) than any other reason. But I do confess that I myself also thought it had became a bit too long.

Furthermore it is clearly wrong to say that this problem is somehow a -Dutch incident-. In no way is this problem limited to the Netherlands, of to Europe for that matter. It affects Xbox 360's with TSST drives all over the world, a simple Google search quickly will confirm this. an example [1]. The only thing is that nowhere else there has been a comprehensive fact finding by a reliable instance to investigate the truth about these rumors, only Kassa has done so. If there is a mystery here it's why this has not been done in the US!

I understand that there are people who want to see this problem go away, but that does not mean that the truth about it must go. There are still US citizens too who are not believed when they tell others that suddenly their game was damaged without having moved their Xbox, and their game did not work anymore. They too deserve to know what -could- be the reason. Mahjongg 00:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you tried again to make this into nothing more than a Dutch TV program making some strange claim... I tired of this game, I trust the readers here will ultimately decide what to think of this, so Ill leave it at this.

I've taken a look at the article and the sources (I can read and speak dutch) and don't see a reason to not include the section. It is the only verifiable and documented test on this scale and they made a clear point that there's something funky going on with the drives and even got Microsoft's Netherlands division to admit it. That it's in the Netherlands shouldn't matter for it's inclusion but should be mentioned as the location. This is an article about Xbox360 technical problems in general (read: worldwide), not "Xbox360 works as it should everywhere but Holland". Downplaying a relevant piece of information because you can't understand the language or because it originates from a different country is very shortsighted. Anyway, Microsoft has launched a disc replacement program. Not quite the same as admitting they've delivered a faulty product, but a step in the right direction. L3TUC3 07:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I never straight up said I thought the source should be removed entirely (if I did I didn't mean it to come off that way and I'm sorry). My primary concern is I am wary of a couple things about the source. As I stated before its incredibly difficult for people to confirm the information sourced off that article since very few readers here understand Dutch fluently enough to make sense of the show and associated links. It does help that you explained the show does deal primarily in consumer investigation type material. Assuming all information here matches with the article, there is another concern though, one that has more to do with the wording of this article itself. As editors of an encyclopedia, we are bound to a rather strict neutral point of view and no original research that is not followed as often as it should be here. We have to be very careful in wording articles, avoiding weasel words like "many people" "all over the internet" etc. We also have to look out for not only the credibility of a source, but its substance. Regardless of what appear to be rather scientific laboratory methods used in these tests, they were done by a TV show, not by a recognized test lab, these findings were not published in any sort of peer-reviewed journal that lends to their repeatability and conclusiveness. As a result of that, as it makes sense to include the information that was gained in the study, to say that the study did, or aimed to, show anything "conclusively" or "prove" anything indicates a level of scientific recognition. The most credit we can really give is to talk about what the people at Kassa and its affiliates did, and what the outcome of their experiment was, not what it proved or disproved, as those would really just be claims by them. Another concern that came up before was a blog as a source. Blogs are one of the things on wikipedia that really have to be watched out for. Anyone can start one, and anyone can look quite reputable while doing so. Even if someone is the most renowned researcher in their field, what they say in a blog is not subject to the scrutiny that their actual work is, their claims are in no way checked, and there is really no way to credit it with the substance of a verifiable source. The only times blogs are really reliable to use is when the topic in question is about the author of the blog.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Oni, (hope this I used the correct part of your name, my apologies if I'm wrong), let me state that I _do_ understand your NPOV and NOR concerns, and I know this is somewhat of a combustible subject, but please believe me when I say that I tried to be as neutral as possible, and that I tried to give only the facts as they appeared in the TV show, and in other words no to do my own "original research". When I mentioned that "many people all over the world have experienced this problem", it's not that I came up with that idea myself, it has actually been discussed in the Kassa TV program, including the suggestion to do a google to get an idea of how many hits you get (not that such a thing is "proof" of anything in itself, but It was a sentiment expressed in the TV show) . Kassa is a weekly TV show that reacts to all kinds of consumer complaints, as a kind of Ombudsman, and is thought to be an authority. They do all kinds of tests to test consumer goods where consumers complain about, and they either test the articles themselves if they have the facilities and expertise, or they hire an recognized expert in the field. The Xbox 360 just happens to be one of the things that was tested. and here the help of an expert was also asked, in the form of the hardware experts of "hardware.info", a computer magazine specialized in testing and benchmarking hardware. Again, Kassa has authority here in the Netherlands, if they say they tested something, then their report is generally accepted as a definitive verdict. And yes, you are right blogs are normally not accepted as valid sources here. That I linked to one was perhaps a mistake, I used the link, because it was mentioned on the talk page of the Xbox 360 and was a good example of the things about this subject you can find with a search engine, and I used it just to give -one- example. It's early days yet, for this problem. Many more tests have to be done to confirm this problem is real, especially because people _are_ skeptical about claims that the Xbox 360 -can- scratch without the user doing anything (just read the reactions to the claims as published on some of the forums, people still do not understand what the nature of the Kassa tests were). That is understandable because the Xbox -also scratches disks if you move it- (which perhaps is also something it should not do IMHO, but that just me). Therefore it is very natural for many people to be very skeptical about this. Even Kassa had severe doubt's, that is why they went to such great lengths to try to eliminate outside factors. Still -their- conclusion was conclusive. Does this _prove_ anything yet? Perhaps not, perhaps there should be more tests done by others. But the article as is, is already pretty clear about the scope of what happened, and who claims what. Have I been too harsh? Actually I -left out- some claims, comments and conclusions Kassa made! Just because this subject is so inflammatory. But even a casual reader will notice that only one single Dutch institution has confirmed user complaints about this problem at the moment, so I don't think it was unjustified to put a more general header above the article. I am sure that as time passes more people will realize this problem is real, not just a fluke, and this article will be expanded to include more information from other sources. Time will tell what the reader thinks of this, and whether or not he is convinced that the scratching problem is real. Did I do a NPOV job? I think I did! Do I want to lose even more sleep about it? Definitely not. Mahjongg 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit solicitation

There appears to have been a few occasions where people have added links to or asked people to join a class action lawsuit regarding the scratching of disks. I considered this inappropriate for wikipedia and have deleted the most recent entry. I apologize for taking action without consulting the discussion board, but I felt it was a minor edit and did not require mass debate. I suggest maybe adding a separate page dedicated to the afore mentioned lawsuit. User:TheMP731 13:40, 3 August 2007 (EST)

We should add a section for the percentage of users that have problems

A section about the percentage of users that have problems with their console would be very useful. Currently, no percentages are given, which would cause someone to wonder if these technical problems are significant or insignificant.

Comosabi 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would wind up being very helpful. It would be nice but there is no solid measure of how many people have these problems. Microsoft for example claims a much lower number of cases than some vocal minorities on the web claim to see. The most we can do is cite the number of reported incidents to a given entity (Microsoft, Consumer Reports, Better Business Bureau, gaming magazines, etc.). The problem with that is if there are conflicting reports we would then have to list all those from reputable sources in order to be objective.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A place for people to blather? Terrible idea. Microsoft has said the failure rate is less-than 3%, accpetable in the industry standard range for a product of this type. comosabi, wikipedia isnt a forum for 'personal testimonials'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.2.1.153 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Your math and claim are significanly bad. The failure rate is industry standard, any claim otherwise is inaccurate. The Xbox 360 failure rate is not significant from any perspective whatsoever (except the biased-POV one). Wageslave 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If ten million X-Box 360s are sold, and the return rate is 3-5%, then chances are that more than 500,000+ units are bad. Pretty significant.

Except that that "failure rate" is relative. 3-5% is not significant, its industry standard.136.2.1.153 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, can you even prove that a 3-5% failure rate is "industry standard" for videogame consoles? I mean, I realize that all consoles will have some problems, but... 5%? Do you really think the SNES, GameCube, Dreamcast, original Xbox, and PS3 were defective on a rate of one in twenty? Bladestorm 16:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll invite you to find what industry standard is. Currently, the one of the world's largest software firms says 3-5% is normal. Do you have any other more reputable source that contradicts this? Remember, they said this in relation to their own product, so whatever you find, well, it would have to be a product of the same class - or an reputable opinion on That Exact Product. My opinion of previous machines is not relevant. But, my personal experience with the PS2 -- the two replaced drives and the one completely failed that I am looking at says "Yes". But that wouldnt exactly be the kind of subjective opinion we'd want to include here. I'd say much balance, clarity and caution is necessary to wash out the BS put on this article. Wageslave 21:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I know the PS2 wasn't terribly reliable (well, more specifically, certain models of the PS2-and also of the original playstation) were of questionable reliability. Not from spontaneous failure per se... but they seemed to wear out too quickly.

I suppose there are three things to addres:

1. What industry? They're never very clear on that, are they? If they mean the entire videogame industry, then their assertion of an industry standard needs to be verified. Remember? Verifiability? No?
2. I ask again, can you find a single verifiable source for an industry standard of failure outside microsoft, and not specifically in the context of 360's of 3-5%? An independent source that claims that one in twenty systems dying is normal? Bladestorm 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, wageslave, you might want to be a bit more polite to people. First off, 5% of 10.4 million is 520,000. That isn't bad math. That's fact. Of course, we all know that they haven't sold 10.4 million, only shipped them. But the math itself isn't bad. Also, no, the failure rate would be very much significant if it could be quantitatively pinned-down. It was certainly higher than microsoft admitted. Can it be added? No, because a specific percentage will probably never be known. But it's still worthwhile to discuss here. Accusations of biased POVs are uncalled for. Insulting people's math skills just because you don't own a calculator is uncalled for. Bladestorm 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, bladestorm, you might want to be a bit less condescending to people. As for the math, well, we know that MSFT has sold and delivered MORE than 10.4 by today -- 12 Million? 13?. The rate is *somewhere* between 3-5%, so, lets be sure that both of us know how to use a calculator. Where on earth would you get the idea that they are "lying" about units sold? Why do you say "it is certainly higher than MSFT admitted"? How could you *possibly* say this? Do you have access to data in the MSFT Warrenty Dept? Quality Dept? Lets stick to wikipedia-quality facts please. Wageslave 21:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

5% of ten million is 500,000. I stand by that. As for how many they've sold... uh... what was your point? (Incidentally, we actually don't know how many systems have been sold, since they seem to prefer saying how many they've shipped, including those sitting on shelves) As for your question in general... uh... it certainly seemed to be higher than that. I don't need to cite it because my point is that it really couldn't be added to the article. That said, have you ever read a single interview with people from microsoft? Ever notice how often they refuse to give exact numbers on how many are failing? And how they avoid every straight, direct question, and instead defer to how they handle the failures, rather than the rates? For that matter, the numbers of systems some people burn through is unheard of for any other console. The only way the 360 is within any "industry standard" is if they're specifically constraining their "industry" to mean "xbox 360s, and nothing else". But, uh, why in the world did you bring up a three-week old comment? Bladestorm 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

XBox Elite

With the new system coming out I think we should add a section discussing if these problems have been fixed for the Elite. 192.122.237.11 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A few concerns: The elite is not a new system by any means; in fact it is at most a new options package, the color, the HD and the cable being basically it. Any "fixes" to these problems will most likely not be in just the elite but any new 360s being made, as it makes little corporate sense to main two separate production standards for two mechanically identical products. Regardless, it will take a while for any connection between the release of the elite and the addressing of some of these problems to become apparent. Any section made now or in the near future would almost certainly be speculation and original research on the part of the editors involved. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The XBox 360 Elite features many substantial changes, motherboard, components and Drive[2][3]

wageslave 09:24 EST 25.04.2007

When the Xbox Elite becomes mainstream, it should perhaps get it's own page on wikipedia (or a subsection of the main Xbox 360 page), and when necessary it's own "technical problems" section, as any fixes done to the Elite do not fix problems for the original Xbox 360 owners. Anyway, at the moment the first indications are that many of the problems, including "ring of light", "overheating" and "scratching" problems are still present in the Elite to some degree, So only time will tell which problems are cured to which degree, or whether perhaps the Elte has unique problems of it's own. At the moment It's too early to tell, as there are still only very few Elite owners compared to the original Xbox 360. Mahjongg 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Would the Xbox 360 "Elite" fix all the problems?

Such as the most problematic, disc scraching and over heating.

The XBox 360 Elite features many substantial changes, motherboard, components and Drive[4][5]

wageslave 09:24 EST 25.04.2007

It may have had substantial upgrades & changes, but I purchased my 360 today with bioshock, and within a minute, it made a horrible noise & declared the disc unreadable. (I didn't even have time to start a game, never mind subject it to "substantial use"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.189.142 (talk) 23:22, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I think they should, more statified customers, more loyal customers, more profits, Simple.

Pece Kocovski 04:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but what does this have to do with the article? L3TUC3 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, any conclusions drawn regarding what they "should" do, or what would make fiscal sense would be purely argumentative. Not encyclopedia content, and of no need for discussion here, talk pages are to discuss past, present, and potential article content and the merits of it. Not what we think about this or that. There are internet forums for discussions like that. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The "overheating" problem could maybe be lessened marginally because the new chips will consume less power, the spontaneous disk scratching problem is just a fluke, not a fundamental problem. There is no reason at all to assume a next batch of DVD drives will have this exact same problem. Besides, the indications are that only a very marginal percentage of just one of the three or so DVD drives used in the Xbox 360 has a chance of spontaneously scratching disks. The chance that this embarrassing problem is fixed in the next batch of drives should be close to 100%. Microsoft just has to do some more end market testing for the next version, which they probably will because there is not so much pressure to rush to market now. Mahjongg 00:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. When I say that "this problem is just a fluke", I meant it is a one time occurrence, a combination of bad luck and bad calls coming together, with a highly probability of never occurring again. I do -not- mean that the fact that Kassa found xbox's that scratched disks was a "fluke", or that the problem is somehow "not real".Mahjongg 01:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say the elite edition. Pece Kocovski 08:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was under the impression the Elite would use the new 65 nanometer process CPU, so if that is not the case my first remark was invalid. The rest however stands, because the elite is still a new Stock Keeping Unit.Mahjongg 10:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that the elite has been out for a while it doesn't seem to be reported as experiencing any specific problems. However, that doesn't mean the elite "fixed" any of these problems. As with most products of this sort, problems are generally isolated to one or a small number batches created over a limited timespan of the products manufacturing. The elite itself is internally the same as any other xbox, the only differences being the color and what it comes packaged with. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, the Elite has a revised mainboard and components _and_ some additional packaged items. The "problems" are not systemic or isolated, as they are generally acceptable rates of failure for the entire industry. 136.2.1.153 15:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No

--Ciao 90 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have had 2 xbox 360's go wrong over a period of a year and a half. Both of them showed 3 red lights for no reason

I would like to add Fixya.com to the external links as a tech support site. I also suffered from the 3 red lights error but recently I found a very good solution in Fixya.com that helped me solve my problem. They have also information about Xbox 360, solutions for many problems and free live chat support. This is the page for Xbox 360 Support. I am sure that you will all agree that it will help the readers of this article find a solution for their problems.Garret193 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, on one hand we have

I've had 5 machines. 2 cores to nephews, one to a niece and 2 of my own (Premium & Elite). NOT A SINGLE PROBLEM ever. Ive "had" 3 for almost a year now. This article is wildly inaccurate and misleading. Wageslave 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is this, the urban myths that fill this article were able to flourish (IMHO) during a 7th-Generation News vaccuum. MS sold 10+ Million consoles before another 7th Gen. Console arrived, as a result, the 3-5% failures (that Nintendo & Sony would presumably experience as well) allowed 300,000-500,000 PEOPLE to recieve extra attention from the official press (craving some "real" 7th Gen news) and Nintendo & Sony 7th Gen would-be-owners.

These memes and urban myths bear little attachment to reality. 136.2.1.101 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not impartial

This article starts with "Since its release the Xbox 360 has gained a reputation for its poor reliability and technical problems". Personally, I have never heard someone saying "The XBox is not good because of all the failures". Normally, it is the other way around. I've been listening to people say very good things about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.110.207 (talk)

Did you actually read the article? I'm partial to the 360 myself too but there are plenty of documented complaints on high profile sources (hence notability of said complaints as a matter of reputation). The article is plenty impartial, take a look at all the talk that has been going on. Nowhere on this page is the console, "rated" in any way based on this information, nor are any conclusions about its quality in comparison to others on the market drawn, just facts of events with (most of the time) a reasonable documented source). Things that don't fall into this are removed promtply.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumour and opinion is not encyclopedic. This isnt an opinion forum. Even incorrect information can be repeated by otherwise reputable sources. This article is almost wholly without merit. 136.2.1.101 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I bet you work for Microsoft. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally Disputed

This article is riddled with inaccuracies, speculation, POV and baseless assertions. The whole of the article centers around two points A) Overall failure rates and B) causes.

Regarding A) The only reputable source of information, outside of anecdotal evidence comes from Microsoft itself. They have said that 3-5% is the rate, and it is in line with the industry for products of this type.

Regarding B) The causes of what failures exist. In this article, for instance, please look at the "overheating" section. Totally uninformed conjecture. What citation does indeed exist, only mentions a minor manufacturing change that MS may be making. What is the purpose of the change? The article does nt say, but, it is used as the sole citation for the entire section.

Nearly ever single section has baseless, uncited assertions.

The only reasonable section one on Disc Scratching issues. But, even it is written with a POV and makes baseless claims.

I believe the entire article is virtually without merit in its present form. Its should be deleted and re-wrote completely.

Wageslave 03:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Edit: Corrected spelling. 136.2.1.101 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the whole article has gotten a once-over. Any specific sections or statements you still feel have a problem? If so I'd like to hear about it so it can be looked into.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Added POV & Disputed to DRM restrictions.. and Other Patch/Update

These sections express personal opinion about what the section-authors believe should happen. For instance, the DRM section, is a riff on a perons' opinion of how the content managment should work. Simple NPOV conjecture. The other section is without citation totally.

People are welcomed to correct or cite these sections, else, I will remove the conjecture and opinion.

136.2.1.101 15:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Errors in Heat Dissipation section

The second paragraph contains conjecture about MS's motivation in considering 65nm chips. MS has said nothing about the purpose of such a move, what the move will bring, when or otherwise. There are no systemic heat dissipation issues with console -- at all -- but including this implies A) such a situation exists (it does not) and B) MS's intent with 65nm is to address it (there is no evidence of this).

This section is inaccurate.

136.2.1.153 16:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please prove your claims? You say there are no heat dissipation issues: I say that's silly and demand that you prove it. You need to back up your assertions. If there are problems with the article, we're more than happy to address them, but anything grounded in the assumption that microsoft's position is the only position will not be taken very seriously. Bladestorm 16:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Blade. Not only does the claim for errors have no grounding or sources, but the current version of that section is properly sourced to more or less reliable reference material.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes to introduction

I've had to make some changes to the first paragraph in this article - I hope it reads ok.

However if anyone has/knows of the following please can you supply links/references etc:

• Any official statement by microsoft on failure rates or causes of failure (excluding a refusal to comment)
• Any info on what might be considered a standard expected return rate (ie in the warranty period, or within 1 year / expected lifetime of product etc) - needs a 'proper' reference not just what a journalist thinks the return rate might be.
• Any solid non anecdotal info on the return rates etc..

I couldn't find any of the above - though there is a lot of information on the web on xbox 360 failure - unfortunately it mostly consists of people claiming they've had multiple units break - clearly these people are expected to be the most vocal - it's difficult to get a balanced view using a web search.83.100.255.93 13:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting introductiom

I've changed back the introduction - if there is evidence that 'microsoft claims failure rate to be in 3-5%' range could someone please supply a reference. It's an oft stated fact on the internet but is it just an example of shoddy reporting?83.100.253.102 13:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the sources. --Ciao 90 19:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have - couldn't find anything - if you have the link please add below.

Read the sources before revert. [6] [7] --Ciao 90 01:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

65nm

I've doubts as to the relevance of the 65nm chips to this article - specifically in Xbox_360_technical_problems#Overheating - given that they don't exist yet?

Specifically I've removed this "They will also be cheaper to manufacture than the current 90-nanometer chips" as it is not proved? (is it true???)83.100.253.102 13:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The smaller scale of the transistors of a chip do not in itself lower the energy consumption of a chip. However with a smaller scale comes a lower core voltage, and even a small core voltage drop has a big impact on power consumption. So yes, lowering the chip scale could have a -big- impact on any heat problems the Xbox 360 has. Therefore it -is- valid to mention it in this article as a solution to overheating problems. Mahjongg 13:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And that isn't original research? Or do you have reliable and verifiable sources that specifically deal with that issue? (don't forget: 'original research' doesn't imply that it's wrong. Only that it doesn't come from an independent source, and isn't plainly obvious to anyone reading the article, regardless of their knowledge of the subject) Bladestorm 14:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "And that isn't original research?"? Where in my comments is my "original research"? That jumping to a smaller production scale generally leads to a lower core voltage is governed by natural law, and is a well known principle. Anybody with a grain of knowledge about VLSI production technology knows this. Don't believe me, just Google for "lowering core voltage 65nm". Here is one article discussing this [8], but there are many more. That Microsoft does not want to switch to 65nm -partly- because of the energy dissipation benefits is simply not a believable standpoint. With a lower heat dissipation they also do not have to add a costly additional heatsink to the design, as they are currently doing, as reports from all over the place indicate. That alone will be a big cost saving. Mahjongg 14:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you just proved my point? "Anybody with a grain of knowledge about VLSI production..." That's the problem. If you're drawing a conclusion, however trivial, that requires very specific knowledge, then that tends to be considered original research.

Take a look at WP:OR, which includes, as a reason for exclusion, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"

That's a precisely what you're doing here. The components of your argument are easy to verify. However, you're drawing your own conclusion for this case. Smaller processes tend to lend to lower voltage. Lower voltages tend to lend to less heat. etc etc etc. Again, I'm not arguing that you're wrong. I'm arguing that it needs to be directly sourced. Bladestorm 17:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with bladestorm - the issue here is not whether it's right or wrong. (comment:No one doubts that 65nm will use less energy - but the thing is smaller - less heat but in a smaller area - so will it actually be cooler.. again we have no facts.. it will of course require less cooling but that isn't the same as saying '65nm chips will run cooler')

I'm going to remove it again. When a 65nm part is incorporated we will be in a position to mention any benefits no doubt.83.100.253.102 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also there is no or limited evidense (spelling) that the 90nm parts are responsible for, or are causing overheating, or that any of the anecdotal reports of massive failure rates are linked to these parts being too hot. It's a case of putting the coach before the horses - how do I know that failures are not due to user error eg putting duct tape over vents, sticking live mains cable into the usb port etc. The jury is still out the cause of/truth of the reports of massive failure rates.83.100.253.102 19:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

At the most the article could say "Microsoft has been working with a Singapore-based company, Chartered Semiconductor, to create new 65-nanometer chips, (The original chips are made with 90 nanometer technology).. some people believe that the jump to 65nm will solve or relieve any [comment:currently hypothetical as far as I can tell] overheating issues" - obviously I don't suggest that the above is copied word for word - perhaps something along those lines - though I'd have to say that it's still speculation/ original research.

Note that the main article Xbox 360 is not pussy footing around the issue, and simply says "Microsoft is moving to the 65 nm manufacturing process.....this would reduce the amount of heat the console produces, meaning it can run quieter and cooler than current models."

reverted to version by riksweeney

I've reverted the introduction again - my reason the 3-5% figure is currently anecdotal and uncited and not statistically verifyable - microsoft have not released figures - anecdotal reports of failure will always weigh heavily on those who have had problems - frankly it just doesn't add up - if one person is getting multiple problems the simplest explanation is that they are at fault.83.100.253.102 19:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily true, there are X-Box 360 owners that stated that it doesn't matter that even if you treat the console like it was your child, the system is going to break up on you regardless. Hell, 1-Up wrote an article about Justin Lowe, who happened to go through 11 360s. Link: [[9]]

Thanks for the link - I should respond out of manners - unlucky doesn't even begin to touch what this guy is experiencing. But if 11 360s was even close to the norm.. Does it say anywhere how many new 360s he's had - having refurb boxes break is understandable, but if his new replacements are breaking too.. I mean what does he do with them when he gets them home? I'd like to see a picture of his set up. There must be some obvious explanation going on - the microsoft reps. appear to have noticed that his situation is not normal. If there really is a systematic problem well just have to wait for a class action lawsuit...87.102.9.179 10:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Several points... This is one person's account and it is simply anecdotal information, not sourceable or reliable. News outlets cover human interest stories all the time; that doesn't mean they have any statistical relevance. Also, even if the failure rate were as high as 20-30% (highly unlikely as there is almost NO way that would avoid becoming a mainstream news bonanza) this guy's story leaves something to be heavily questioned. Any statistician would scream anomaly at this. Its almost garaunteed there is a mitigating factor causing these console failures. Something in his environment or his handling of the console probably caused it. It could be in unusually humid conditions, being shaken, played on an uneven surface, being caused to overheat, I could go on. Even if the first was a legitimate failure caused by product defect alone, the rest could easily be accounted for by careless shipping protocols by someone along the line of the carrier. In any case there is zero statistical evidence to authoritatively back up a number. The only number with any solid backing at all is the 3-5% estimate and that's on very shaky ground.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 12:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree - if the reports were true I'd be expecting a 'mainstream news bonanza' as the above person states - also please note that the 3-5% figure is often attributed to microsoft but beyond that I can't find any link where a microsoft figure gives that or any other number. As I asked before if anyone reading this can cite the 3-5% figure please do so as in that case it would have some relevance.87.102.79.11 14:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What I'm seeing so far is occasional claims of high failure rates - with the same info being linked rapidly through the usual videogame news sites (spong,1UP etc) and the the story peters out again.87.102.79.11 14:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why this didn't occur to me before, but also, we'd have to know how many of the "failures" are refurbs (be it the user's same console returned fixed or a refurbished one from another source). Unless it was a console that had not experienced a failure in the past it shouldn't be counted. This could also explain why one person might cite multiple failures because at core that one console had a major issue. For example, perhaps it was dropped by a carrier during shipping, or a clerk in the store. This could damage multiple components setting them up for long term damage. From experience, many component types that are present in the xbox can be set up for a long-term failure due to a micro-fracture caused by jarring that slowly grows as the boards heat and cool from startups, or a hard drive's head could be slightly misaligned causing it to rub against the disk once in a while. Unfortunately I don't forsee any legitimate source offering failure numbers on NEW consoles since microsoft can keep that information proprietary and especially since we have yet to see ANY reliable source on that at all. </rant> --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

external links

I'd like to question the suitability of two of the external links:

• Towel trick for temporary fix of 360 (may damage your system by over heating)
• RBJtech's XClamp replacement procedure, fixes 3ROL issues by tightening the pressure on the 360 CPU and GPU

I've no idea if either of these two procedures have any positive value?? or will they do more harm than good?87.102.79.11 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The links are both anecdotal speculation, and at least one of them appears to be more or less a fansite/blog. Hell, either of these will just lead to someone ruining their console completely and beyond repair. I'm removing both of them, if someone wants them back they can take their case here.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotal testimony (intro)

I don't see any reason at all for this information being included:

However, there has been speculation that there is a high failure rate , due to anecdotal testimony.

Anecdotal testimony by its very nature is not a reliable source and is not indicative of any statistics. As I have already said there is no basis to include this testimony in the article. News outlets do "look what kind of problem this consumer had" reports all the time, they are never really used to indicate any overriding trend. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Although in a way I understand that Wikipedia must be careful of using "unreliable sources" for "encyclopedic content", I have the strong feeling it is used here to remove content that is simply embarrassing to some people here.

the problem with acting this way is that, because Microsoft (wisely) won't comment on the status of the hardware problems they are experiencing with the Xbox 360, this means that -nobody- except Microsoft, and a few institutions that did independent tests ("Kassa" for example), can say anything conclusive about the true nature of the degree of problems the Xbox has in the field, and therefore we cannot say anything about it here, or so some people claim!

However, if we do take this point of view, it means that we, the consumers, are locked into a situation where simply because the only data we have about the nature of the problem is by nature "anecdotic", (or in rare cases comes from data that comes to us by chance from some other indicators, for example is the case with the independent UK repair shop Micromart that won't accept Xbox 360 "ring of death" repairs anymore due to what they claim is "the endemic nature of the problem" [10]) we are taken away the possibility to indicate here that something might be wrong with the reliability of the Xbox 360 hardware!

But when the possibility is taken away to directly talk about a problem this does -not- however mean that the problem does not exist, and must automatically be dismissed as nonsense!

Enough indicators are present to at least indicate to an impartial observer that "there might be fire where there is smoke".

Whatever mental constructions are used here to deny it, the fact is that other similar consoles (for example Older Xbox, Playstion 2 and 3, Wii) do/did not nearly generate the same amount of "buzz" about unreliability that is surrounding the Xbox 360!

Yes, the fact that users receive refurbished "repaired" units may to some degree explain why some costumers might have had "absurdly bad luck" with their repairs, even having to accept that 11 different "repaired" units were failing one after another. But the statistical improbability that all of these "anecdotal" stories, (especially seen against an absence from similar stories from Playstation 3 and Wii users) are just a "coincidence" at least suggests that there really is something going on.

But, yes, maybe we just have to wait till something really big happens, (like a class action suit, or maybe some consumer organization such as the European consumer protection commission will do a real investigation to get to the bottom of these rumors, as "Kassa" did with the scratching problems) before we can "admit" here that there perhaps might be something true about all the buzz about a greater than expected rate of defects and problems with Xbox 360's.

Time will tell us if some of us are just playing Ostrich or "fanboy" here, or that perhaps maybe a whole mass of consumers just imagined there was something wrong with the reliability of the Xbox 360 Mahjongg 02:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd include this:

However, there has been speculation that there is a high failure rate , due to anecdotal testimony.

At least then the issue is covered and we can be accused of sticking our heads in the sand. I remember similar negative stories about the PS2 - in that case the story was different - focussing about the DVD reliability - but the level of coverage was very similar, going much further back I can remember similar stories about other popular home computers/consoles.

There is another possibility which is that less than 10 people are simply spreading FUD Fear, uncertainty and doubt about the console on the intrawebs. Maybe this is not pleasent to accept such low behaviour, and maybe not true. At least consider this.87.102.75.27 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A "conspiracy" by "less than 10 people"? You must not have really investigated the "intrawebs" (whatever you mean by that) you are talking about. Or these "10 people" are running hundreds of established blogs, service centres, and other web presences. Just do a few Google searches, and you will soon find out that you are talking nonsense here. Also remember that Microsoft has a big stake in curbing any "bad press" the Xbox 360 gets. They have spent milions upon milions to turn their (almost) monoply of gaming on a personal computer into an attempt to use this leverage to also cut out a piece of the lucrative console market. I think it is infinitely more possible that they simply have cut too many corners too fast to ready their new console, so that they could try to fill the hole that Sony left open by being much too late with their Playstation 3, than that a few fanboys are trying to "blacken" the image of the Xbox 360. Also, no matter what we say here, it will have (almost) no impact on the market. People will still buy the Xbox 360. But they -do- have a right to find honest information here about technical problems that -might- plague the Xbox to a degree that is indicative of a systematic problem. In the end, if the problems are soo big that people are getting fed up, there might come a time when -real- action will be taken, and maybe Microsoft is forced to publish real statistics about the failure rate of the Xbox 360, but that is up to the market. Mahjongg 14:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All I could find was a lot of noise on forums (which I usually tend to ignore given the often fantastical nature of the stuff that turns up on them), and a few unamed sources eg someone from EA games claiming 30%+ failure - which I have doubts to believe. There is very little else. I think it's just a meme on forums. I personally have had 3 xbox 360's fail in the last three months... see it's that easy. But not true.87.102.75.27 15:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, anonymous source = we have an intern who's mother's cousin's brother's nephew's fiance works there answering phones. "anonymous" sources claimed in articles as the EA one are rarely established. As a rule of thumb in research, if a web news source does not have a print or televised companion (i.e. CNN.com, bloomberg.com, wired, etc.) they probably don't have enough of an established reputation for research discipline.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wired magazine you say.... funny they already did an article about the overheating problem! [11] Mahjongg 00:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction - please read

"Since the system's release, the Xbox 360 has gained a reputation for its poor reliability and technical problems [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] including occurrences of total failure, where the unit becomes completely unusable (also known as "bricking")."

Is this neutral - no it is not. Consider the difference between reality and a few wankers wasting their and other peoples time by posting FUD on any talk page they can find.

"Microsoft has stated that the overall return rate (i.e. the failure rate) of the Xbox 360 is far below the consumer electronics industry average of 3-5%"

Where are the references that confirm microsoft have given any failure rate. There are none.87.102.75.27 13:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel (as I do) that the introduction should included reference to the anecdotal evidense for a high failure rate then please state so here. Please do not misinterpret anectotal evidense as fact though.87.102.75.27 13:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it isn't quite neutral. Keep in mind that it is true. That's its reputation. (That is, even if the machine weren't unreliable, that'd still be its reputation, like it or not) However, it's somewhat inappropriate for a lead sentence. But, can we discuss alternatives in here before we make changes in the article? (just to prevent edit-warring)

Incidentally, 'FUD' does not apply here. This is not a forum.

As far as anecdotal evidence is concerned, I wouldn't include anything that hasn't received reasonable press or industry coverage. For example, cassamia's (spelling? the guy from ign) experience where he had to go through, what, 4 360's? And even the secondary console he was borrowing died, too? Well, ign's coverage does matter, so that can be included. But, anyone else's would have to have been reported on by someone in the press or industry. Basically, the same standards that we hold any other 'evidence' to. Bladestorm 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no such thing as an industry average for failure rates. See Failure rate for more details (it's clearly a complex subject). Specifically more qualifiers need to be included ie failure within warranty period, or failures experienced as a fraction of consumers who experience a failure (within a given time period).

I should also say that the only way I found the xbox had a reputation for failure was by searching for 'xbox 360 failure' on the internet - does the box really have a bad reputation amongst consumers? or is this just a self fulfilling prophesy.

The anecdotal nature of all this is why I suggest either accidentally or on purpose this is a case of FUD spreading. We do have an article on FUD - despite it's overuse in forums for those of us without correctly fitting tin foil hats this does seem a lot like it.

So as a final comment I would say that numerous tails of black muggers do not make all blacks likely to be criminals.. sorry for the obvious analogy but that is the nature of my current concern about the neutrality of the article's introduction.87.102.75.27 14:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It happens to be that I work for a company that produces electronic equipment, and I can guarantee you that such a thing as a "industry average for failure rates" -does- exist! But it is more a "rule of thumb" than a hard figure. What is acceptable depends on many things, not in the least what the manufacturor itself deems "acceptable". However, in -our- shop we are alarmed if the failure rate of the equipment we "end test" raises above 2%. In that case we try to find what causes it, so that the failure rate drops below the 2%. But thats -our- production test failure rate.The failure rate of equipment that is returned for repair is normally (much) lower that that, for us normally below 1%. But as I said, it depends on the market you are in what is "acceptable". Also what is "acceptable" to the producer might not be the same as what is "acceptable" to the consumer. Mahjongg 14:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying - but does your personal experience translate into being able to claim there is anything such as an industry standard. Your comment also shows we need to be able to distinguish between production reject rate (sometimes described as 'yield' when talking about chips) and consumer return rate. For the return rate you quoted less than 1% - so where does that leave the 3-5% figure often quoted. We simply don't (yet) have a figure.87.102.75.27 15:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You won't get any figure from Microsoft, you can forget about that, so the real figure is anybody's guess. Some claim the figure might be as high as 30%, but all that might just be conjecture. The only thing we know is that there is a lot of buzz. But if only a small part of the stories are true the statistical probability that the failure rate is "normal" (whatever "normal" might be) is quite small. And yes, i have heard of people who say that in the electronic industry there is a rule of thumb that a failure rate of 2-3% is "normal" (however, they are then talking about post production testing, where 2-3% of the produced products fail testing and are either repaired or scrapped). However, not knowing what the true failure rate of the Xbox 360 is makes it a moot point to speculate what the actual failure rate is. Also the failure rate at launch is often much higher than the one after a few weeks, as production problems are continually fixed. Unfortunately all we really can say at the moment is that the perceived failure rate in the market seems to indicate there is a problem. It will take a consumer protection agency to really get to the bottom of this. Mahjongg 16:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)(post added percentage comment)Mahjongg 10:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

failure rate - possible solution

How about leaving the intro alone, and introducing a failure rate section - at least then we could cover microsoft's position - 'no comment', and the anecdotal evidence - 'eventually all xbox 360's will break - and soon' along with noting that the true figure is currently unknown, and that the topic itself has become something of a internet phenomona in itself - at least on forums. That way readers won't be in the dark, even though they will be non the wiser.

Note if we are to include forum based evidense I think we should note all the viewpoints given there - an comment on the obvious statistical bias of relying on data collected on the basis of a 'xbox broken - press this button' survey - it's clear that this will not produce a balanced sample as anyone with a working machine will be less likely (ie playing games) to comment.

I'd call it "failure rate controversy" as that seems a good description. If it's a good idea - I'll try to add it.87.102.75.27 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

ONLY if reliable sources on the rate can be found. This is going to be very touchy as so far that has proven extremely difficult. I would recommend making a test copy of the section in a namespace (it would be good to create an account) and inviting people to work on it before coming here. I think the one thing just about everyone agrees on here is that almost everything regarding the statistics of these failures needs to be discussed before any major additions/changes are made.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My effort would look something like this:

Failure rate controversy (section title)

There has been much discussion on forums (refs here), game related web sites (IGN ref here, maybe others) concerning a possibly very high failure rate for the Xbox 360 console. This has been fueled by reports from various quarters (Australian/EA games refs), as well as coverage on various console related websites. Additionally some users are reporting having many xbox's break, with one user being on his eleventh xbox (ref here).

Whilst the problem is well documented, no unbiased surveys exist to confirm the true failure rate and Microsoft have not released any statistics themselves on the failure rate of the Xbox 360 console.

In an interview a microsoft spokesperson would not give figures stating that it is the company's policy is not to do so (interview ref here), stating that they were focusing on 'a prompt solution of any technical problems arising'.(same reference)

There has been much speculation on the nature of the problem - most sources attributing the effects of excess heat an unrecoverable hardware failure. Notable theories include :

• that excess heat causes the pcb to flex causing the ball pin grid array under the cpu to become unnatached(ref here).
• that the clamb holding the gpu in place is badly designed and contributes to warping of the cpu (see above) (ref)
• that the heat generated causes the solder to melt
• that the console's cooling system is simply not powerful enough to cope under non-optimum conditions. (think there is a ref for this)
• user error (not sure about good references for this - possibly impossible to get)

Increases in the time taken to perform repairs (IGN ref here - relating to relocation of repairs centre to Prague), and shortage of 'coffins', the boxes used to dispatch broken consoles (ref - again IGN I think) are contributary evidense to a possible real problem in reliability.

As of (end of June 2007) there have been no independant investigations into, or lawsuits or complaints relating to the supposed high failure rate, nevertheless the topic ocntinues to be a commonly recurring topic (see meme) on the internet.

END.

All the references can be found - except one for 'user error' - not sure if I can find one for this that would be useable.

However it does consist mostly of report of speculation of a problem, nowhere can I find solid evidense for a truly high failure rate or any solid useable figures. In its current form i'm unsure about it's suitability for inclusion. comments:87.102.75.27 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• The first major problem is the use of forums as a source. Even a hundred users on a forum still constitutes a vocal minority.
  Secondly is this:
  

  Increases in the time taken to perform repairs (IGN ref here - relating to relocation of repairs centre to Prague), and shortage of 'coffins', the boxes used to dispatch broken consoles (ref - again IGN I think) are contributary evidense to a possible real problem in reliability.

  
  That statement is heavy OR. You are citing a remotely associated occurence and stating "this might be why it happens". We aren't allowed to draw those kind of conclusions. The fact that these sections refer to it as evidence shows that you're trying to prove a conceived idea against WP:OR
  

  ::There has been much speculation on the nature of the problem - most sources attributing the effects of excess heat an unrecoverable hardware failure. Notable theories include:

  
  We would need to see the exact sources to ascertain the viability of the claims, but most likely this will be inflamatory and the references will be [conjecture|non scientific speculation]. Just because a press article says "it might be the heatsinks" doesn't make it a notable theory. A notable theory would be held by a widely recognized expert in the feild, and probably come from a peer reviewed source. The only other way a theory source would be viable is if it indicated a mass opinion (probably over a thousand unique claims)--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

yes. I should point out that the conclusions about shortages (the first problem) were drawn by IGN - and not simply infered by myself - It's someone elses (IGN) speculation not mine - not sure if that makes a difference. eg from joystiq (there is a similar story on ign somehwere) http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/06/anecdotal-microsoft-low-on-xbox-360-coffins/ "Is Microsoft getting back so many defective systems that they don't have a fresh supply of coffins anymore?" - their comment not mine.

the second point again - it's all speculation - I've seen nothing much to suggest otherwise.

Doesn't seem like a starter then, personally I'm usually against including this sort of thing (forums/speculation etc) - but if there is a way we can address the issue I think we should try it. Is there a version that would be of use to this article? I'm quite happy to wait for the problem ot explode/blow over - less typing for me.87.102.75.27 19:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Speculation should never be cited on wikipedia unless the speculation has been given considerable attention in mainstream media. Just because something was covered doesn't make it noteable. I don't think the Boston Globe's article on a woman who was ripping off customers in her pet store is notable enough news just because it was covered in one major news paper. The way to adress the issue is to leave the speculation out of the article. As for the IGN article, on what authority does IGN draw those conclusions? Their experience in customer support? The testimony of an expert they consulted? I strongly doubt it. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Slashdot just ran a story about the guy who had eleven bad Xbox'es in a row. On the internet, for "technews" (and gossip), it does not get more "mainstream" than that. [12]. 360-gamer.com has done a survey, which reveals that more than 60 percent of the respondants had a problem with their 360 once or more times [13]. Australian retailers claim that the first series of 360's had a failure rate of 30%, and newer ones are only marginally better. gizmodo.com (not a small blog either) [14] gwn.com [15] smarthouse.com.au [16], and many many more. Google gives over 900.000 hits for "failure rate xbox 360". Oh, and here is more background about the repair shop that stopped accepting 360 repairs. [17] Mahjongg 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Slashdot's editorial oversight is pretty good for a non-print source. The concern with that the Justin Lowe story is that slashdot or not, its still anecdotal testimony and doesn't really translate well to anything indicative of a trend of statistic. Fantastical stories of high-replacement counts get more attention than the millions of people's stories "I bought my xbox and it has yet to break!" Not very interesting news. Another issue that comes up with one person having multiple failures is the fact that with very few exceptions, people are not sent brand new consoles. They either receive refurbs or their own console is repaired and returned to them. As a result this should not be counted as more than one failure since the underlying problem could be that the console was dropped. Its also indicative that something outside of the factory/service center, be it the carrier, the way the person uses it, the condition they keep it in, probably has something to do with it. Even if the failure rate were 50% the chances of someone receiving a failure 11 times is otherworldly. I have more detailed arguments for both this and the repair shop story on the regular xbox 360 page.
Oh... another reason these claims have issue is the fact that most of these claims, if examined closely, would likely pertain to one particular band of time, lot number, or production run. Often times in a manufacturing industry the issue could be with one iteration of the process (for example say 1 soldering machine goes bad and they don't catch it for a month because it takes that long for the weakened solder to fail). That could be perceived in the short term as a very high failure rate, when in truth it would contribute less than 1% overall it might be 20% or more in the short term scope. As such if any citations of these do wind up being made (although in my opinion they shouldn't) they need to be clearly and definitively stated that the failure rate is short term. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Justin Lowe story is just an extreme example, the internet is awash with people who claim they had their 360 go bad on them 3, 4, 5 even 8 times. This is also evident in the 360-gamer.com article. Adding all this available information up, it is clearly becoming statistically significant. For any amount of people complaining they had 4 bad 360s in a row, it would mean that the failure rate of each of the "repaired" units must have been somewhere in the 15-30% region, otherwise its just statistically impossible. Yes, the "refurbished" 360's they get in return will have an enhanced failure rate compared to new ones, but still, they should have been -repaired- shouldn't they? The problem with your "maybe one solder machine theory went bad" is that the problem is -not- contained to one time period, or one place in the world, production run etc. It's happening all over the world, has been happening since the beginning, and is still happening. My best guess to what happens is that the motherboard, when it heats up, internally builds up mechanical tension because the different layers of the board do not expand equally, then when a threshold is exceeded the board suddenly deforms from a ) shape into a ( shape, and this breaks some of the ballgrid connections of the CPU or GPU to the motherboard. There is a YouTube video that demonstrates this [18]. This also explains why refurbished units have such high failure rates, because a broken ball grid array is very hard, or even impossible to fix reliably, especially because of the "lead free solder" they are now compelled to use. Also, please also do read the other links I provided, not just the Slashdot one. I just provided the slashdot one because of the mainstream nature of this particular site, Wired also wrote about the problem by the way. Mahjongg 02:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (post added link to YouTube video) Mahjongg 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's only a matter of time before some consumer watchdog (eg like the kassa thing) takes a serious look into this, and should be able to get a view of the actual extent of the problem, I personally have wondered about a 'bad batch' of xbox 360's possibly with substandard solder (or even the wrong sort) slipping through the factory tests only to fail rapidly down the line? But that's just speculation. There's no shortage of people (plenty of them are reliable sites/types) writing about this - it's just that as far as hard facts go they are as much in the dark as we are as to the true nature (figures) of the the problem. I personally feel there has been sufficient reporting of this for it to be worth mentioning.87.102.4.153 10:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Stories about someone who have had 11 consoles fail on them are useless for wikipedia sourcing IMHO. They say absolutely nothing of interest. For all anyone knows, the reason the guy has had 11 failures might be becoz he maltreats the console. Stories about xbox failures as a phenomenom which quote multiple people with multiple failures might be acceptable as a source altho it would have to be an extremely reliable source to be considered. Quality sources which have stories about failure rates as reported by retailers are probably acceptable as sources but you need to take great care with the wording. If there is only one report from a store, you can't say multiple stores. If the rates come from ex-employees, this needs to be mentioned, it should not be presented as a failure rate reported by the store Nil Einne 11:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

3-5%

• [19]

has been much higher than Microsoft has stated failure rates to be (around 3-5%).

• [20]

This goes against Microsoft's assertion that Xbox 360 is well within standard industry failure rates of 3 - 5 percent.

• [21]

As for Microsoft, in the early days after the console's 2005 launch it claimed that failure rates were no higher than an industry average of between 3% and 5%.

Ciao 90 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is Screaming Biased!!!

Common, this article is way too biased and misleading. The source for the 30% failure rate was an ex employee. How do we know this rate is true? Can we really trust an ex employee? In the article it says, "some retailers have reported failure rates as high as one-in-three (33.33%).", but in the source for the article it was the ex employee that said that, not a retailer. So shouldn't that be corrected? Also, in the picture of the 3 red lights, under it says, "An Xbox 360 showing 3 red lights, a general hardware failure.", but it is not a general hardware failure, it's a well know hardware failure that actual reports from Microsoft suggest is about 3% - 5%, so its not general. That line may be leading people on to think that most Xbox 360's have that problem. And also, the scratching disk problem, is this really a defectiveness if the console comes with a sticker warning telling people not to move it around? This article should be revised so it is not misleading, and has reliable sources. PS:This is my first post on Wikipedia, maybe I should create an account... PPS: Sorry if somebody already posted this.

What are you talking about? Go to Google, type in "Xbox 360 failure" (without the quotes) and click "I'm feeling lucky". You'll go to Microsoft support page for the general hardware failure. The failure rate might not be as high as 1 in 3, but Microsoft have admitted that is higher than they are comfortable with (see Peter Moore's open letter in the article). Read the section about disk scratching again, the original Xbox also suffered from this problem. And why can't I move my console around without it scratching the disk? I can move my DVD player around.

Just so you know, anything that is biased on Wikipedia is removed, you'll see that all the points made have reliable sources.

Biased points are only removed when someone takes the time to remove them (perhaps acting on the talk page comments from other users). Also, having a source is useless if what's being said is not supported by the source. (And even accurately reporting sourced information can sometimes have POV issues). I've made some improvement to the article. I removed the claim that the xbox failure rate is believed to be 34%. This is not supported by any source. Also, the article claimed that several retailers reported a failure rate of 33.3% which was also not supported by the sourced used. Instead, what is supported is that retailers have reported a high failure rate with one ex-employee of a retailer estimating the rate to be between 30-33% which I've changed the article to say. I only read the comment above after doing the edits, so clearly the article was problematic. The article could definitely still do with some work but it's better then it was Nil Einne 10:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

NO! Multiple sources mention a failure rate between one in three and one in four [22]. I applaud Microsoft for doing the right thing, by admitting there is a problem with the reliability of the Xbox 360, and extending the warranty. Still nobody wants all the hassle that comes with returning a broken console, including losing your game and Xbox live data (normally you do not get your own console back, but a refurbished other one), so I hope that they will also -fix- the design error(s)! Mahjongg 18:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you actual read the source? It only quotes two sources which provided figures (apologies, I missed one at first). An ex-employee of EB who said between 30-33%. And a BestBuy customer service department manager who said 25%-33% (1/4-1/3). Other retailers said the Xbox 360 was the least reliable in gaming history but didn't provide rates. If normal failure rates are 3-5%, then even a failure rate of 15% would obviously be enough for it to be the least reliable in history. Therefore, the claim that there are multiple sources is incorrect from the current info. Two sources is not multiple. I see on this talk page people mentioning reports from other retailers especially outside the US. If reliable sources are found for these, they could be added, and the sentence rephrased as appropriate. But until these sources are provided, we only have two retailers Nil Einne 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I did read the sources, and much more than that. You, by your own account didn't. Two is not "Multiple"? Are you kidding? One = single, two or more is multiple! You do not take into account that disclosing this kind of information is normally a reason for dismissal for the employee who is such a blabbermouth, because Microsoft could hit the firm with a lawsuit. because firms that do contract work for Microsoft (or any other firm like Microsoft) are often under contractual obligation not to disclose this kind of information. Also FOX's figure of 2.5 Million broken consoles also boils down to a similar percentage. There are about 11.6 Million units that Microsoft has "shipped"(Xbox_360#Sales), how much of them are actually in the hands of customers, and how many are still in the pipeline I don't know, but for the sake of arguments lets say that all of them are, then simple math says that more than 21% of -all- the 11.6 Million shipped consoles have been broken so far! More realistically is that the figure is indeed one in four (25%). In any case Microsoft's worst figure of 5% is simply not true! Mahjongg 11:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to Mahjongg: you are correct that in a 3 red lights repair, you some times don't get your own console back, it is a general hardware failure, and can be irreperable, but you keep your HDD when doing a repair, thus you don't lose any data.Koruzarius 14:19, 14 July 2007 (EST) (EDIT: forgot to sign, was in a rush to get to work, dealing with this issue all day long)

Ah, okay then at least that aspect has been taken care of. I assumed the data would be lost because I thought I read someone complaining about it, and also that he lost his Xbox live gold subscription, and had to pay again for it, after he sent in his system for repair. Can that be true? Is that information not also stored onto the hard disk, or is it linked to some other aspect of the system, The bios chip of the system, or coupled to the ethernet chips unique MAC address for example (Every system with ethernet has a different one, so it can be used to identify the system)? Or was this just a fluke of some kind? Do you keep your subscription data when you get a different (refurbished) Xbox 360 back?

Mac address could be the issue, but a 360 has a built in section to spoof MAC address's, so all they would have to do is contact the ISP and get the MAC address they need, or reset it, it wouldn't be blocked via XBL (in fact, power cycling the modem might do just as well). The XBL data is stored on the HDD, however the Premium content (stuff they paid for) is somehow linked to the motherboard, it is STORED on the HDD, but you can't access it unless you're on the same console that it was downloaded on, or unless you are at that exact moment, connected to XBL on the account used to DL it. That's a safety precaution, to keep people from illegally copying protected data to another console. So for instance, I had a call today, where a guy thought it would be faster to move his HDD over to his brother's place to DL some themes, but when he hooked it back up at his own place (sans XBL) he couldn't access them, and that was a rough situation to be in, 'cause there was really nothing I could do to help him. Also on another note, all repairs come with 1 month of XBL Gold, on a subscription card, so they can add them on later. What it also COULD have been, possibly, is that it was actually 1 red light, which is an HDD failure, and then he would have to get his HDD replaced, not the console, even then, if you know your info, you can recover your account from XBL, so that shouldn't be an issue.Koruzarius 23:53, 14 July 2007 (EST)

You sure know a lot about this subject. You say " the Premium content (stuff they paid for) is somehow linked to the motherboard,", I thought this would be the case, exactly because of the fact that otherwise it would be possible to "clone" VBL gold data, just like you say. But if the XBL gold data is linked to the motherboard doesn't than mean that you lose it when you get another system from repair? Okay, you get 1 month for free, but what if you have just paid for three months (don't even know is that is possible, but just for the sake of the argument), do you then loose two months of XBL gold? And what about other "stuff you have paid for..."? Mahjongg 04:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article shows much bias. The "33%" number is patently ridiculous and is dismissable prima facie as ridiculous. The "source", a random anonymous (mike b is not a proper citation).

Recently, MS has refuted the numbers published by a firm called Square Trade. Square trade claimed that "only" 16.4% of consoles had "claims". Those claims include total heat failure and every "claim". Square Trade claimed that "over half" of that 16% were total heat failure. Lets say that Square Trade would claim that it is 10%.

Microsoft took the time to say that **10%** was too high. They said they doubt that this is the actual number.

For MS to say "No, 10% is too high" would be likely be actionable on the part of the shareholders (non-disclosed liability) if it turned out that Square Trade was accurate... let alone this "33%" bullshit.

http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/852/852669p1.html

The child-like brand-wars have creeped into this (and the xbox 360 page) and have used Wikipedia to spread what is clearly false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.83 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry no copyvios, per policy

I removed this:

And the part of the Kassa program about the Xbox problem, with English subtitles can be found here (part 1)

and here (part 2)

Also, A shorter fragment of the Kassa program with English subtitles can be found here:

As it links to a bunch of youtube links which appear to be copyvios. The video appears to be copyrighted by Kassa and there is no evidence I can see the people who uploaded it to youtube received permission to redistribute it. I don't speak Dutch of course, so if I'm wrong, feel free to re-add it. Please mention here where it says that the video content may be redistributed on the site so others can check it. Wikipedia policy is quite clear. No linking to external copyvios Nil Einne 10:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A question:

1) Why do you remove it? It aren't your videos and it isn't your material. Until now, Kassa has never complained about these videos. The Youtube videos are now a couple months online and it isn't removed (YouTube is always very aware of copyright voilence). It apparently looks like you seek something to protect Microsoft.

It doesn't look as copyright protected. You can see all videos for free on the Dutch public broadcasting website. The only thing that is added in the YouTube video were the subtitles, nothing less and nothing more than that. Rokvok

The fact they are free on the Kassa site is irrelevant. The fact that Kassa has not complained is also irrelevant. What is relevant is that so far, there is plenty of evidence they are copyrighted by Kassa and there is no evidence that I've seen that Kassa allows them to be redistributed in this way. I'm willing to look at any evidence that is provided but so far, none has been. BTW, the idea that youtube is 'always very aware of copyright voilence' is a joke. Also, please refrain from speculating on my motives. I always remove youtube links which violate copyright on sight, you're welcome to check my history. If contributors are so interested in this material, I suggest they be proactive and see if they can find a Dutch speaking user who is able to read the site and check if redistribution is allowed and if it's not, see if they can obtain special permission Nil Einne 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:COPY is one of the strongest policies on wikipedia. These links, viable reference material or not, are now confirmed as copyright violations. Unless Kassa, the station that runs kassa, or another entity with verifiable legal authority to do so uploads these videos, they are a copyright violation, regardless of Kassa or Youtube acting upon it. Wikipedia is not to violate copyright vio through inclusion, OR to do so by proxy (endorsing or linking to a source that does). As is stated in the copyright page above:

If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear. However, links to the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine), which is an officially recognised library, are acceptable external links on Wikipedia.

Feel free to link to a version of the program maintained by kassa however. Who knows, if contact Kassa they might provide a copy of the video for that purpose.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but Kassa DOES allow the redistribution of this program on YouTube! Even stronger, they link to the YouTube video's with English translations on their own website themselves! [23] . So -this time- it is perfectly legal to put a link on the technical problems article to these YouTube Videos. Vara/Kassa gives the right example, please follow their lead! Mahjongg 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if Kassa links to the youtube links from their site then that's sufficient, thanks for providing the information. As I said above, I was not specifically saying Kassa did not allow their content to be redistributed but simply that there was no evidence that Kassa allowed their content to be redistributed. Since Kassa/VARA own's the copyright to this material, in the absence of evidence that they allow redistribution it's proper to assume they do not. Now that evidence has been provided, then we can move on. This is the way wikipedia works... Nil Einne 22:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs better source

FOX News reported 2.5 million consoles broken in the world.

This is currently sourced to PlayStation Universe. This is hardly a reliable source. While it's true they're just reporting what was supposedly said on FoxNews, this sort of third party non-reliable source sourcing is not really a good idea. Nil Einne 10:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for once I tend to agree, FOX news can hardly be described as "a reliable news source", most of the world knows that. Mahjongg 00:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Second that, also the CRN AU's claim of "Microsoft has admitted that every one of the 11.6 million Xbox 360 consoles sold in the past 19 months suffers from a design flaw that could cause the device to fail" sounds just like bad journalism to me, not to mention the source, Microsoft, is never cited for such "admission". Kenimaru 08:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)X

Actually, I think I have found the source of the 2.5 Million Xboxes rumor. It seems that this is the number of XBoxes that can be repaired for the 1.15 Billion dollar that Microsoft has reserved for repairs. See this article from the financial news service Bloomberg L.P. where this is mentioned, "Microsoft Corp. will incur pretax costs of as much as $1.15 billion related to repairs of its Xbox 360 video-game consoles......The expense is enough money to fix 2.5 million consoles." [24]. Well, maybe I am missing something, but if this is true it means that "repairing" these Xboxes will costs Microsoft $460 a piece (1.15 billion divided by 2.5 million)! Even when accounting for handling costs etc, are included I think that means these Xboxes are scrapped, and completely replaced not "repaired". Which suggests these systems are "totaled", and beyond repair. Also, the article states "Flextronics International Ltd. manufactures the Xbox 360. Bach said Microsoft takes responsibility for the problems and won't be seeking to replace Flextronics.", this logically means that the fault lies with Microsoft, so a design error is the likely culprit Mahjongg 23:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Surge protectors

Microsoft is blaming surge protectors for 360 failures according to GamePolitics.com [25]. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems -one- MS rep claimed a bad surge protector as -one- cause, but the official MS support website does not even mention surge protectors [26]. Yes badly designed surge protectors sometimes -do- go bad, (normally after just the kind of power surge they protect against), and in that case such a surge protector no longer acts as a protection, and might even cause a lower than normal voltage to appear on the power supply. But a well designed switching power supply should be able to cope with that. Note that quite naturally periods of lower voltage on the electricity net can happen, (especially in areas where surge protectors are also used) they are called brownouts. Any well designed power supply should either accept the lower than normal input voltage, often at least as low as 10% below normal, or switch off when the input voltage drops to a really unacceptable level. In any case, the powered device should never be damaged by such an event, merely fail for as long as the brownout lasts. Certainly failing fans must fail for several minutes before any real damage may occur, in which time the Xbox power monitoring logic (called a "power watchdog circuit", or "reset chip") should detect such an occurrence, and the Xbox should reset itself, or turn itself off, as a precaution, but it should not have come so far either, because before that can even happen the power supply itself should have detected that one of it's output voltages (the one for the fans) failed, and should have turned itself off. Also, in most parts of the developed world surge protectors are never used, still the three red lights problems occur there too, as there are reports coming from all over the world! Even I have seen the problem, Just a few days ago I saw a 360 in a demo console in a toy shop displaying the "screen of death" error message, and (for what it is worth) in the Netherlands (where I live) brownouts and power surges are so exceedingly rare that -nobody- here uses surge protectors. Mahjongg 00:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In the US here, power is less stable, especially in the summer. I don't know of anyone who doesn't use a surge protector for their electronics, at home or at work. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, I was well aware of that, but the US is not the world. There does not seem to be a trend toward more "three lights problems" in the US then anywhere else. Mahjongg 10:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would actually say that a trend seems to show the opposite, that the US is showing a lower attested failure rate. The so-called 30% failure claims are mostly (excluding that one extremely sketchy EB employee claim, exclusively) coming from sources outside the United States, such as the UK and Australia/New Zealand.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 12:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

One factor which could be influencing the failure rate is the ambient temperature in the region, if its always hot then it is reasonable to assume that overheating problems may be worse than in cooler regions. Mahjongg 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, granted this is all speculation it does lead to a more accurate ability to scrutinize sources so I'll go on with it. Other mitigating environmental factors may play a role as well. Since some people have had multiple failures while others have had none, it could help to keep in mind that different regions use different formats and currents for electrical output from wall sockets. Who knows if that may have something to do with it. Also, I'm not an expert on the shipping industry but since cultural norms do penetrate even into globalized business doctrines, I would not be surprised to learn packages are handled differently in certain areas. Perhaps (and no one get mad this is just an example for the point of illustration) package handlers offloading deliveries in the UK are not as delicate with their products in the US, or the same could be true in reverse. Perhaps we should be paying closer attention to the localization of claims of the various percentages. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Blatant missinformation

"Microsoft offers a 3 year warranty and immediate replacement of inoperable consoles.[45] This support is offered for those who bought and live in countries which the Xbox 360 was officially released. This policy only applies to the original console purchase and is not extended for the replacement. Once past this date, the customer must pay around $140 (£80) to receive a replacement." I work at XBox 360 tech support, and I acn tell you that this paragraph is blatantly wrong. The recent 3 year warranty change, ONLY covers 3 RED LIGHTS, nothing else, any other issue still falls under the standard 1 year warranty, and also the repair cost has been dropped down to $99 US for any other repair (in the US, unsure of prices in other countries), and the 3 years covers any console ATM, since even the oldest consoles were purchased Nov, 2005, and thus everyone is convered for 3 Red Lights until Nov 2008. Koruzarius 11:55, 12 July 2007 (EST)

Well, if you think you have more current information, and you can provide a source (link to external source of this information), then why not correct the page? The article does mention the three year warranty only applies to the three red light problem. Mahjongg 10:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no external source as of yet, that's why we've been updated so thoroughly, because lots of external sources don't understand the conditions, and thus the people calling in don't understand what they're talking about.Koruzarius 10:55, 14 July 2007 (EST)

Wait, are you saying that Microsoft doesn't even publish the conditions? How do they expect anyone to know about the conditions if the only way they can find out is call up and ask? Nil Einne 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a farce, or the original poster has no idea what he/she is talking about. A warranty is a contract and it MUST be published in print or it is unenforceable. Almost every advanced industrial state has a statute of one sort or another that mandates this for a mass production unit such as the Xbox 360.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RoHS Directive (prehaps contributing to faliures)

Well at least contributing to the BGA connected components in the 360 seperating. As you may know the RoHS (2002/95/EC) directive in the EU, is there to reduce the amount of lead, mercury, cadmium, and other heavy metals that end up in electronic devices, now that isn't much of a problem for most things, but the removal of lead from the solder used in the xbox 360, and the large amounts of heat caused by the 360's processor/gpu can cause a non flexable substitute to lead (in most cases simply tin or a tin alloy) to simply break due to its inherant inflexibility (lead will generaly return to its previous shape after being expanded by heat, tin will pick up many small fractures due to the thermal expansion). Tin and many of its various alloys used in soldering , can after a time also form "whiskers" due to thermal stresses which due to the desity of the BGA under the chips could cause shorting to occur (in fact I belive the reason lead was even added to solder is to stop whiskers). If a suitable source can be found to verify these observations, then it would be a good idea to at least mention it in the article. Golden Dragoon 13:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Surprisingly Admits That ALL Xbox 360s Are Defective and can experience Red Ring of Death

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Microsoft_Surprisingly_Admits_That_ALL_Xbox_360s_Are_Defective_07002.html

This is second-hand agenda driven drivel. Little more than an opinionated blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.83 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Moore

Common, is "Two weeks later, Peter Moore left Microsoft" really needed in the top after the annoucment of 3 years warranty?? I mean really..... Common.

I took it out. It introduced bias, suggesting that's why he left MS. This probably wasn't the reason, it it wasn't officially. 171.71.37.103 18:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not bias, it just suggestive. --Ciao 90 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, currently the paragraph reads as such:

"On 5 July 2007, Peter Moore published an open letter recognizing the problem and announcing 3 years warranty expansion for every Xbox 360 console that experiences the general hardware failure indicated by the three flashing red lights on the console. Two weeks later, Peter Moore coincidentally left Microsoft, moving to EA Games in San Francisco under the statement of spending more time with his family."

My question, if it's a coincidence that he left Microsoft two weeks later, then why is it worth mentioning? Should every Wikipedia now include every mention of a coincidence in all of its articles? Perhaps the word "coincidentally" could be removed from the sentence. tildetildetildetilde

removed content

Three days later, German Xbox Product Manager Boris Schneider-Johne made a point in his private blog that this was a hoax. Boris Schneider-Johne, dreisechzig.net: Wo habt Ihr das Entenbild her?, 13.07.2007 . Schneider-Johne explicitly states on his website that his comments are neither official statements nor official denials but just his personal views. However, as a result of his blog article, some online media revised their article about the incident.

I wasn't sure what this was in reference to. 171.71.37.103 20:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The text was a quote with an internal reference, which does not show up here, I modified it to make it work. Mahjongg 10:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The CRN article, basically stating that each Xbox 360 has a defect, generated quite some online media feedback. Although Microsoft never officially responded to that article, people from within Microsoft like the german Xbox product manager did on their personal homepages. As a result, the CRN article and quite some online media that used that article as a source lost some credibility, removed the link to the CRN article, or wrote a statement that the CRN article was probably a hoax.

So was that statement by a Microsoft employee, but on a personal blog, a very clever PR move by Microsoft? Or a true and honest statement from inside Microsoft, in a Scobleizer way?

On the other hand: If the design of the Xbox 360 was not wrong in the first place, how could Microsoft fix it? If the design was wrong, how comes that only 1/3 of the devices should be affected, but not all? I do not think it is obvious in any way that the CRN article is a hoax. 62.178.12.228 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted this line about scratching discs. "However, of course, this can be avoided by removing the disc and turning off the console before moving it." I think the reason of deletion is self-explanatiory, because discs are scratched without the console being moved.

Anonimous editors {{unencyclopedic}} and {{off-topic}} tags

An anonimous editor has placed {{unencyclopedic}} and {{off-topic}} tags in the article that are clearly not warranted. An action he did not give sound reasons for, nor discuss. I propose to quickly remove them. Mahjongg 11:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have been bold, and removed these ridiculous tags placed by an unauthorised anonimous user. Mahjongg 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of any policy permitting only "authorized" or registered users to put templates suggesting cleanup. The section should be removed because wikipedia is not a how to. This page covers technical problems with the Xbox 360, so scratched disks and overheating are on-topic, troubleshooting is off-topic. Most of the information in the section is also uncited at best, original research at worst. Basically, the contents of this section are unencyclopedic. Also read WP:NOT#INFO

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.

171.71.37.103 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested that these tags could only be placed by "authorised" editors, I only used the term "anonymous editor" because this was clearly not a serious attempt to improve the article, but for this unanimous user simply a way to vent his frustration over the whole issue. This article is often vandalised by anonymous editors who do not accept that "their" Xbox 360 may not be perfect, this seemed just a more subtle way to go about it. I don't think he did this because he wanted to express a well thought out criticism intended to improve the article at all, he did it out of frustration just as a way to "put a stick in the wheel", and to start a FUD attack about the article. Yes, I know about "expecting good faith", but I don't think I can this time! He used such a heavy method, edited anonymous, and he did it without first starting a discussion about it, or explaining in any way why he did it. So I don't buy it that it was much more than a clever way to vent his frustration, However, if it was a serious attempt to improve the article, then I obviously apologize for what I did to this anonymous editor. Perhaps I was a bit "aggressive" about it because I have grown a bit wary about the many vandalizing attempts here recently.

Still, I waited for half a day after I started this discussion before removing the tags, if there were grave reasons why the tags should not be removed I wanted to know about them, and I gave every chance to say so here, but in the end I could not wait for days for that to happen when it was just a "hoax" edit.

Anyway, even if it was a well thought out criticism intended to improve the article, the tags are -still- unwarranted, because the criticized section is not a "howto" in any real sense, but rather an overview of all the different errors that can occur and their causes. Which in the context of this article is valid information because it explains the difference between the systematic, (where the bulk of the article, {except for the "scratching section"}, is written about) and all other incidental errors that can occur. For an example, it explains for which kinds of errors the warranty is extended. It is in this sense that it is not meant as "a section about troubleshooting" at all! It -does- have on topic information leading up to the other parts of the article, so there is no reason at all to call it "unencyclopedic", or "off topic".

Still now at least we have a discussion about this subject, so if anyone still feels the tags -must- return, we can discuss about it here. But I still think it is just a red herring. Mahjongg 01:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Commenting...

hree red lights are flashing at the same time, a general hardware failure has occurred and the unit needs to be sent to the repair center.

The most common cause of this error is the separation of the GPU from the mainboard caused by the uneven heating and expansion of mainboard as the GPU temperature increases.

That's original research, probably unverifiable (only MS knows what the most common cause is, and they haven't said anything).

The GPU is attached using the BGA or Ball Grid Array‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  method which does not allow for expansion of components. When expansion occurs, the connections between the GPU and mainboard are broken and the general hardware failure signal occurs.

I don't doubt that it uses BGA, and that is a problem with BGAs, but again, there isn't a source claiming this is a problem. Additionally, this should be listed as a cause of the failure, not in the troubleshooting section.

A technically savvy owner may be able to fix the issue without sending the unit in for repairs. This is done by replacing the X clamps which hold the GPU heatsink in place with heavier clamps designed for use on Socket 775 CPU heatsinks, but this will void the warranty on the system. Further, many users, particularly modders who have already voided their warranty, choose to replace the X clamps as a preventative measure. It should also be noted that voiding the warranty by opening the system will prevent a user from ever being able to send in the console to an authorized service centre, as it will be returned unrepaired, with a notice that the warranty has been voided.

That's all either advice or how-to.

I added the tags (check the edit log). I don't have an Xbox 360, PS3, or Wii. I added the templates because I thought it should be discussed. Feel through to read over my diffs [27]; it was a decent amount of cleanup. 171.71.37.103 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The part about the X-clamps could be interpreted as a "how-to", yes I can see that. And the sentence explaining the overheating issue is a duplicate of the overheating section, (which -does- have verification references by the way) and so could be seen as superfluous. Still I do not think that this warranted the tags, especially not -without- an explanation that you placed them because of how to concerns. Next time at least add a summary to tell us why you feel the pressing need to place these kinds of tags. It would have been much more prudent if you had just removed the single sentence about the X-clamps (of course with comments you removed it in the edit summary that would have said something like, "because I interpreted this as a How-to, and removed it because of WP:NOT#HOWTO").

Also if you want to continue to do any serious editing you may want to consider getting an account, it helps to be taken more seriously. And yes I -did- have a look at your "my contributions" page , and I also looked at you other edits here, -before- I removed the tags, but frankly was not convinced. Still, I now do believe you tried to do "good faith edits", so as I said before I apologize for my "rash response". No hard feelings I hope... Mahjongg 16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert Discussion

There were l. A large amount of "Diagnosing errors and troubleshooting" was also found in "Overheating," so the duplication in the former was removed.

A reference from a blog is probably questionable, especially when it considers a single employee a reliable source.

A reference contained the quote "Microsoft has admitted that every one of the 11.6 million Xbox 360 consoles sold in the past 19 months suffers from a design flaw that could cause the device to fail." This later article states that Microsoft needs to admit that there was a design flaw. If Microsoft admitted it, cite a press release. The official statement did not match the removed reference.

Most of the other edits looked like cleanup. 171.71.37.207 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that anonymous users 70.178.56.254 and 171.71.37.207 are "conspiring" to whitewash this page from any reference to the one in three failing xbox 360 problem. Whitewashing by corporate stooges, (or just fanboys) is becoming a major problem in wikipedia, luckily people are becoming aware of this problem, and are devising means to combat it, as is shown in this article [28] about a "wiki tracker".

the deletion of my repairs were "justified" with the assertion, that "Large reverts need more discussion", that is really a strange argument considering that the person who said it, together with his co-conspirator, just did a massive removal of material, (and thus a revert) himself without any discussion.

What "legitimate changes made in the reverted edits" were there made in the reverted edits? There was only material -removed- by these edits! The reverts I did only brought back removed information, information the public has a right to know!

I did -not- bring back duplicated "Diagnosing errors and troubleshooting" sections! I left that section deleted! My revert was carefully done to only revert removal of those edits that were done with malicious purpose.

I put back the "red ring of death" info (many others needed to do that in the pas, as it is constantly removed by fanboys, but however some people dislike the term, it -is- in wide spread use, just like the term "blue screen of death" in the past)

I put back the paragraph about "some retailers have reported abnormally high failure rates", which is a documented -fact-!

I reverted the lie that there is a general "3 years warranty length covering all Xbox 360s sold.", which not even the reference given claims.

I reverted the removal of the paragraph which stated "CRN Australia (Haymarket Group) published an article claiming that Microsoft admitted a design flaw in Xbox 360 which could cause a failure of all Xbox 360 consoles produced so far", which is relevant information from a reliable source, a source that is also given. Note that CRN Australia did -not- publish a reversal of their claim, they stand by what they said. That Microsoft keeps silent is no suprise at all, they just hope that the bad publicity blows over without the general public becoming aware of these facts, which would triggere a demand for a general recall of -all- Xbox 360's, something that Microsoft tries to avoid at all price.

Lastly I reverted the removal of the sentence "Also, according to the same article, Microsoft has reserved enough money for this problem to spend $100,- on every existing xbox 360 to fix it, or enough to replace every third xbox 360 ever made". A sentence -I- wrote by the way, and which comes from a very reliable source, the most respected technical computer magazine in Germany c't.

It's not surprising that -all- the main removals are about the "one in three" problem, a fact which it seems -must- be hidden from public exposure, and I suppose this is the "cleanup" you are talking about! So, I WILL revert your cover ups and WILL restore the removed material! Mahjongg 11:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern over the page being whitewashed, but it's wikipedia policy to assume good faith. Some of the edits could have been due to questionable reliability of sources, (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources), or notability. Just because something is true doesn't warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia.

About the CRN Australia article, specifically, it's a secondary source. That's OK for wikipedia, but the way it was stated, there REALLY should be a primary source out there that we can use, instead.

It's not surprising that -all- the main removals are about the "one in three" problem, a fact which it seems -must- be hidden from public exposure, and I suppose this is the "cleanup" you are talking about! So, I WILL revert your cover ups and WILL restore the

Sometimes people just feel like cleaning up one section. About the "fact which it seems -must- be hidden from public exposure," wikipedia is an encyclopædia; it isn't the place for an exposé, but we can (and should) mention notable technical problems with the Xbox 360 reported by reputable sources.

Remember that wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. There isn't a process for authorizing edits, and anonymous editing is encouraged. Your efforts to protect wikipedia from vandalism, astroturfing, etc. are very appreciated, but at times, look like bad faith. Please read Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. Some of your reverts might make others think you don't value their input on and changes to the article. 171.71.37.207 20:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First, yes, even if something is true, if its irrelevant it does not need to be included, but this subject is -very- relevant, and I am not trying to do an "expose", whatever you mean by that, I did not write most of the stuff that was removed, I try to ensure that NPOV is strictly ensured by policing unwanted censorship here. You seem to think that because these facts cannot be "proven", its OK to remove them, but passages in articles do not have to be "proven to be true" to be relevant, there are all kinds of statements made in wikipedia of which the truth is debatable. All they have to be is to be relevant to the article, and have (reliable) source(s).

You don't believe me, then read WP:Verifiability !

Also, I never claimed that I know for a fact that the "one in three problem" is "proven to be true", (how could I, it is a well guarded trade secret) only that it is relevant, and that several sources mention it. It is -not- NPOV to pretend that these sources do not exist, and to sensor them.

They need to be mentioned, so the reader then can decide for himself which is more probable;

That Microsoft has reserved enough money to replace every third Xbox 360 they made, (a fact which Microsoft itself has admitted to it's shareholders, and which is an undeniable fact), but that there is nothing really wrong with these Xbox 360's.

OR

That maybe they really need that money to replace every third Xbox 360 they made thus-far.

You know, I always try really hard to assume good faith, but after several months of witnessing the systematical and repeated removal of -all- references to the "one of three are doomed" problem, here and even more so at the main article XBOX 360, I somewhat lost that faith.

You say that "CRN australia" is "only a second source", well maybe that is true, but the Haymarket group, to which CRN belongs is -the mayor- news source for IT news in the world! As a source you cannot get one more reliable than that! Yes, I rather had seen that Microsoft bluntly admitted the problem exist, that would be the "primary source" you seem to need. Sorry, but its a little bit naive to think that would happen, only the next best thing exists. Other reliable publications, like CRN, or C'T, or the biggest repair agency in Britain, the facts that this knowledge exist is -very- relevant to this article, and simply trying to remove it is -wrong- and not NPOV !

Your comment that "Some of your reverts might make others think you don't value their input on and changes to the article", is laugable! "Changes"? you make it sound as if -I- am the one that is removing/changing material that others have written. In fact I have removed/wrongfully-edited -nothing- that others have written, I only have reverted wrongful deletions, or wrote my own material.

Quite to the contrary to what -you- (and 70.178.56.254 even more so) did, is removing material that -I- (and others) have written! And without any discussion, it seems that -you- are the one that does not value -my- input, nor the input of the many others who have written the passages you have removed! You seem to call that "cleaning up"?! Respecting ownership of articles, indeed....

Yes, "we can (and should) mention notable technical problems with the Xbox 360 reported by reputable sources", I totally agree.

And exactly therefore we have the -duty- to mention the inescapable conclusion that that the technical problems are -so- severe that there is a very big (about one in three) statistical chance that an Xbox 360 from -any and all- users will break down in the next few years, and will have to be replaced.

It's not a welcome message, I know, but the fact remains that:

a) Several reliable sources have leaked this information to the public.

and

b) Simple logic, (and elementary calculus) tell us the same story.

because simple logic and elementary calculus combined with the information that Microsoft was forced to publish, (namely the amount of money they will need for replacements or repairs in the next few years, and the number of Xbox 360's they have made thus-far) -also- points to the same conclusion; namely that Microsoft expects to need to replace every third Xbox 360 they ever made!

Perhaps you say, well.. maybe they need the $100 for each Xbox 360 to repair it. however, that conclusion is even worse! That would implicate they expect -all- Xbox 360's to fail, and fail with a "general failure"! Remember, the extended warranty is only valid for Xbox 360's that fail with a "general failure error", for other problems there is no warranty beyond one year, so there is no need for them to spend money then.

By the way, there -is- a process for "authorizing edits", (try editing iPhone as an anonymous editor without credentials, for example, I almost whished we had that kind of protection here, and some attention from Virgil Griffith ) And yes, anonymous editing is encouraged yes, but not vandalizing these articles!Mahjongg 23:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Having taken a quick look at the dispute, I largely agree with Mahjongg's reversions except for the DailyTech thing. I still feel it's a bit iffy. Personally I think it should be totally removed. Are there really no better sources for this?

BTW, although I agree with the reversions I think Mahjongg is perhaps reading too much into some areas. If Microsoft is reserving enough money to repair 1/3 of consoles thats is unlikely to be how many they expect to need. In reality, Microsoft has almost definitely came up with a worst case scenario and they have reserved enough money so for this worst case scenario. They likely expect to have to spend only a percentage of this for repairs but it's there if needed. I'm pretty sure all manufacturers reserve more then they expect to actually need for repairs. No manufacturer wants to find themselves in the position that they find they haven't reserved enough money for repairs since it'll be incredibly bad news for their share price and other such matters. In Microsoft's case in particular, I think it's fair to say they would have been extremely conservatives in their latest estimates. They've already had to tell the market once 'we have a problem, it's going to cost a lot of money to fix it'. It's far better for them to give a very high estimate and not end up actually needing that much then to give a low estimate & come back 6 months later and say well actually we need more... In reality, while the failure rate is clearly well above average, I find it hard to believe it's 1/3 and I also find it very hard to believe Microsoft expect's to need to repair 1/3 of consoles. Taking a random guess, I would expect the failure rate is probably something between 10-25%. However none of this belongs in the article or this talk page, so it doesn't really matter.

Also I don't think calling this vandalism is wise. It seems to be to be a legitimate content dispute. Nil Einne 13:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, in some part I agree with you Einne, perhaps the "DailyTech thing" is "a bit iffy". Yes, you could be right, and maybe it won't be one in three, and it is Microsoft's "worst case scenario", The amount of money is based on what Microsoft has told its shareholders it would need. But on the other hand, I don't think that this amount is just "reserved in case they need it", Microsoft essentially has bottomless pockets, they do not -need- to "put away some money" for anything. In fact this amount is what is their best estimate of what will be needed to fix the problem, and is what they had to tell to their shareholders as the money that would be "lost" because of this problem. You think that it hard to believe it's 1/3 and I also find it very hard to believe Microsoft expects to need to repair 1/3 of consoles, maybe you think that it's hard to believe, but there are experts out there, who have spoken out about this problem, that also mentioned the 30% defect rate, and did that -before- Microsoft more or less confirmed it by publishing this amount. Their info was based on information that "slipped under the radar", and on their own estimates of how bad the problems are.

Maybe you think that the removals are "coincidentally", and therefore I should not call it vandalism.... Well, I just had another conformation that there is nothing coincidental about these removals. An anonymous user removed some material, and also placed the text "xbox sucks microsoft too". Shortly after that "another" anonymous user removed the sneer, but left the removals untouched! The result was that that again texts were sneakily removed, you can guess -which- texts were these! Well, it just happened to be almost the exact paragraphs I restored earlier. Coincidence? I think not, its vandalism pure and simple. Maybe you are right, and the problem won't be one in three, but one in five, or something, (still important enough to mention here I think). But if that is the case why doesn't Microsoft tell us that instead of behaving like a clamshell. Mahjongg 15:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the last line of your statement, the second you start questioning motives like that, neutrality goes right out the window. It isn't our job here to be suspicous. If OJ was innocent, why did he spend so much on defense? Of course I don't think he is, but its not our place to operate under those assumptions here. If an authoritative source questioned it in such a way, it would be noteworthy to mention, but as a caution, right now all it does is stretch the boundaries of neutrality very tightly. As for what I assume you are referring to as this diff: [29], Perhaps you should be paying a little more attention to WP:AGF. What basis do you have for claiming that the second user is a conspirator in the vandalism, and not simply someone who saw vandalism and cleaned it up. Not everyone, especially users who don't edit regularly, understands the concept of edit histories and reversion.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 12:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to say, I agree with you in the general scope of your edits and in this discussion, but this is heading to a dark place that it really shouldn't.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 12:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Questioning motives? I made a simple observation. I simply stated that Microsoft could avoid speculation if they would have been a little more open. You seem to think that I am fiercely anti Microsoft, that is simply not the case, all I did was that i observed that people were trying to sensor parts of this article, after which I tried to find more information aboute the various claims etc, so that the truth could be told here as best as possible.

Regarding the claiming that the second user is a conspirator in the vandalism, where did I claim that? It could have been a simple oversight from him, it also could have been the -same- editor who went to a internet cafe to remove his own sneer, so that his edits were a little bit "hidden" (Yes, I think the "sneer" was a kind of decoy, to "mask" his other edits, what else should I conclude, he makes pro-microsoft edits, with an anti-Microsoft sneer on top. Call me paranoid, but I think thats fishy. But I also have seen this tactic before from vandals). Mahjongg 16:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just had another conformation that there is nothing coincidental about these removals. An anonymous user removed some material, and also placed the text "xbox sucks microsoft too". Shortly after that "another" anonymous user removed the sneer, but left the removals untouched! The result was that that again texts were sneakily removed... Your use of the quotes and you tone, both here and later in the statement seem to indicate that your intention would be to direct suspicion that the second anonymous user. Like I said I'm not saying that you are intending to send that message but it would be best to tread lightly upon the topic.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Oni Ookami Alfador. Someone could have seen the blatant vandalism and hit edit to remove it, not thinking to check the history. I've said it before, others, have said it, PLEASE, assume good faith. I checked the whois info on the IPs, and they're in England and the Netherlands (IIRC). If these were proxied IPs, there'd probably be more edits made by them, too. 171.71.37.207 17:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

<sigh>... Again, I -never- assumed bad faith, by the second editor, only that the first editor seemed to have planned it so that this probably would be the outcome. And it worked didn't it, the second editor did not use the "revert this edit" function, but only deleted the sneer, and Oni did not notice that a mass deletion had taken place, and only restored a portion of the deletion. the only relevant quotes I used were around the word "another" , hinting to that I did not rule out that the second editor was the same person as the first. But I never thought it that this was a very likely thing, only that I could not rue it out. As I said, I have seen this tactic used before, putting up a "smokescreen" in an edit to attract attention away from the really relevant changes of the edit. In the past I sometimes was in the habit of tracking the changes [30] made by the vandal bot user:MartinBot, and then looking if the vandal had made other edits. I learned a lot from that, among other things that most of them were made by bored school-kids, but some anonymous users clearly had an axe to grind and used "tricks" to make "covert" edits. This was one trick I observed. As I said, I -always- assume good faith, much must happen for me to assume otherwise! But I must say that deleting all segments of an article that are all related to the same (controversial) subject is a good hint that it's -not- a good faith edit.....

User 171.71.37.207 if you really did your edits in good faith, then please accept my apologies for calling your edits vandalism, but be assured that if anybody simply deletes the paragraphs about this problem, I still will revert these edits. If however, if someone can find information that sheds new light on the information about the real failure rate of the Xbox 360 then I would be thrilled and would always welcome the new information here, whatever it is "negative" of "positive" for Microsoft!

I am -not- simply a Microsoft basher, I -do- own an (original) Xbox, and am quite pleased with it. I also consider buying an Xbox 360 myself! Although I do think I will wait for the 65nm technology version.

Enough said about this... Mahjongg 20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Text moved from the article to the talk page

the text below from user:65.188.243.103 had no place to be in the article, so I moved it here: Mahjongg 10:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I myself am a victim and i have been doing plenty reasearch and have come up with a close solution a new game also linked here on wiki (Bioshock) is the only game i have been abale to play after useing the towel trick a method of DIY 360 repair it was when i played bioshock that this problem soon after occured and none of my game have been working other than(Bioshock) its almost as if my discs are corrupted also the trooble shoter makes no sense my reasearch also is starting to formulate that shocking the 360 to life works but doesent fix the problem microsoft can only fix it to a extent or just send us a new one to bust. it may be new games that is where my main theory is new games having such graphical and hardcore engiens may be completly ill compatablie to the point they change our 360s strain of thought thats al for now i have multiple websites and the main link that links to my other is in the external link page i will soon host a red ring of death site. [31]

Fair use rationale for Image:Xbox360 scratch.PNG

Image:Xbox360 scratch.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I placed a rationale why this picture should -not- be a candidate for speedy deletion on the talkpage of the picture. Mahjongg 00:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

30% failure rate

I've since removed all mention of the 30% failure. It appears that the main source that talks about the failure rate of the Xbox 360 being at 30% is smarthouse. URL: http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Home/D3Q7G8S2?page=1 . The part that mentions 30% is on the fourth page where they write:

A Sydney retailer said "Out the Nintendo Wii, the PS3 and the Xbox 360 the Microsoft product is the only one that we have had constant problems with. In fact when we sell the Xbox 360 we tell customers to contact Microsoft if they "Ever have a problem". "At one stage we were getting calls everyday however this has slowed down. The failure rate must be well over 30% which when you look at a PC or iPod the failure rate is less than 2%.

A single employee at a retailer can hardly be considered a particularly good source, nor could an anonymous manager at a single store location. I don't find either to be particularly legitimate sources and tantamount to blind speculation. Kakomu 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that your rationale to remove this material is -not- a valid reason, as per WP:V (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Which clearly states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

The text you removed is a direct citation of the sources given, and is also presented as such. It is therefore not (falsely) presented as an indisputable fact. That, and also because contrary to your claim there are multiple sources that claim the failure rate is between 20 and 33%, is why there is no NPOV reason to remove this material, and so I have taken the liberty to revert your edits. Mahjongg 00:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What one anonymous employee says is not a verifiable claim. Otherwise, Wikipedia will degenerate into using blogs to substantiate (oft times outrageous) claims. Near as I can tell, all news sources that make the 30% claim always source the smarthouse article that I've quoted above. You need to find a source that is legitimate and verifiable. If Gamestop, EB, whomever has gone on the record or released a press release identifying the hardware problem as, indeed, being 30% of their stock, I will rescind my statements. However, all sources that say 30% are anonymous, anecdotal and non-verifiable.

If you need more convincing, consider the link you posted:

As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

I'm scrutinizing the evidence. An anonymous employee is hardly good evidence and there is no reason to believe a source that so strongly relies on such unreliable evidence. I challenge you to provide verifiable evidence, such as a press release, actual statistical numbers or other reliable evidence. Kakomu 13:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it, (perhaps because you seem to be new to Wikipedia). When I talk about verifiability I am not talking about the verifiability that the claim being made is true or not, I am talking about the ability to simply verify that the claim is being made! See WP:V. You can verify that the claim is being made, so that fact alone warrants the inclusion in Wikipedia. Ignoring this important claims in the article is therefore an indication of a non NPOV stance.

A press release? You must be kidding, Microsoft would never confess this number is true, they try to do everything they can to keep this under the rug. It is not true that the only source for this number is just one anonymous person. If it were I would understand your action, but in fact the people directly involved in the industry have little doubt that the failure rate is indeed in the 20 to 33% range, and there are multiple sources that support the 20 to 33% failure claim. This discussion has been held many times before, as you can see in the history of this talk page, but in the last few months it has not been a point of discussion anymore. As you pointed out there is just one employee of the largest reseller in the world that dared to leak this number directly to the press, (there are others that talked confidentially to the magazine "C't", see below) and he is probably cited as anonymous because leaking a trade secret like this is reason for immediate discharge. He is however -not- the only source that indicates the failure rate is this high. There are the findings of the largest independent repair shop in Britain Micromart who used to repair all the defective Xbox 360's in the UK for Microsoft, until they became so flooded with unrepairable overheated Xbox 360's that they refused to accept them, and Microsoft had to look for another solution. They talked about their findings and reported the same 30% ballpark figure to the German IT magazine "C't" (perhaps the most respected German technological IT magazine). C't wrote an article about their investigation of this problem, citing Micromart, and at least three and other sources (other employees of large resellers). The article was aptly titled "Jede dritte stirbt den Hitzetod" (every third one dies of heat). Then there is Microsofts own inevitable indirect admission of the scale of the problem. They had to tell their shareholders the amount of money needed to replace or repair the defective units. The shareholder meeting is a public affair, so an audio recording of it can be found here [32]. This knowledge, a short calculation, and the knowledge (from Micromart) that the defective units are almost impossible to repair so at least the motherboards must be replaced, and you will realize that with the amount of money needed they can indeed replace one third of all sold Xbox 360's.

I won't go into a revert war with you about whether the 30% number should be mentioned in the introductory text, I simply don't care, but I think the facts speak for themselves. I will however restore the direct citation of the findings of "C't" magazine, as they are a very respected source, and the information in the article is clearly notable. Mahjongg 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I have restored the text from the C't article, but made more clear that the 30% number is just a -claim- made by employees of the three independent resellers.

Gamestop Warranty

I added the bit about Gamestop not selling their PRPs for 360s anymore. I believe it's notable because these are usually a store's most profitable items. Notthegoatseguy (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2