Some users claiming Kinect is causing red ring of death

According to the Guardian, listeners of BBC4 radio show; "You and Yours," said that shortly after getting the Kinect their Xbox died showing the dreaded red ring of death. Though Microsoft has fought hard to correct the issue that has caused nearly 30% of their consoles to fail, it's possible it might be back.

The radio show got calls and emails from listeners reporting that after hooking up the Kinect their console failed soon after. Adam Winnifrith, a ten year old listener called in and said,

We plugged [Kinect] in the day we got it but only played it a few times before we got the red lights. The next day when we tried it again we still had the red rings of death and haven't been able to use it since.

In response to the claims Microsoft issued a statement to the BBC saying,

There is no correlation between the three flashing red lights error and Kinect. Any new instances of the three flashing red lights error are merely coincidental.

It seems unlikely that connecting a USB device to the console is causing it to fail. What is more likely the cause of the problem is the consoles are probably the older models that had higher failure rates. The families that purchased the Kinect probably haven't used their console for a while and the Kinect has given them a reason to blow off the dust and enjoy some family fun. Shortly after the console fails; as it probably would have eventually anyway.

Coincedence seems likely, but if you've had the same issue, let us know in the comments.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Portal 2 to feature motion controls

Next Story

Hotmail outage explained and fixed

48 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

You mean the boxes die just from setting around collecting dust? I could better under stand that logic if they were used all the time and the fans were running all the time taking in dust.

Wouldn't most people who haven't used them in a while at least blow the dust off first? Don't know anything about Xbox stuff or Kinect as I've always owned Playstation systems, but, to me, this seems kind of lame.

cork1958 said,
You mean the boxes die just from setting around collecting dust? I could better under stand that logic if they were used all the time and the fans were running all the time taking in dust.

Wouldn't most people who haven't used them in a while at least blow the dust off first? Don't know anything about Xbox stuff or Kinect as I've always owned Playstation systems, but, to me, this seems kind of lame.

Do you think little Johnny who just got a new game is going to worry about dusting his console off? My son doesn't notice when HE puts stuff on top of it(how that works I don't know), and I have to remove stuff to ensure that I don't have this problem.

Well, that's specially for Falcon v1 and v2 users. They were the ********* xbox of all time. You didn't give them proper air, and boom, they're gone.

Jasper's xbox 360s are immune to RROD, that's the best Fat xbox out there.

I believe they were using either a Falcon V1 - V2 or a Zephyr System.... Being the latter older and better than the first one... Jeez

Jose_49 said,
Well, that's specially for Falcon v1 and v2 users. They were the ********* xbox of all time. You didn't give them proper air, and boom, they're gone.

Jasper's xbox 360s are immune to RROD, that's the best Fat xbox out there.

I believe they were using either a Falcon V1 - V2 or a Zephyr System.... Being the latter older and better than the first one... Jeez


The Jasper 360's are not immune to RROD, there's just less chance of getting it.

I think it is WHOLLY wrong of the author to quote nearly 30% of all consoles. Microsoft (or Sony) have NEVER released any console fail rates. This figure may as well be 99% or 1%.

This will be complete coincidence, another shockingly bad BBC article that doesn't have any hard facts or numbers. Only the other day they had a title saying "Windows bug caused Skype downtime". Of course the article then went on to say that a bug in the _Windows version of Skype_ caused the issue.

I also think its rather silly to think 5-10% of cycles used by Kinect would cause this. Can anyone honestly say that a Kinect device and Kinect Adventures taxes the CPU/GPU more than Gears of War/Halo or Forza running at 60FPS?

This has been said time and time again. Regardless of the figure, how does such a survey in any way validate this claim?

People are more likely to complain when something is wrong. Additionally, an engineer at a local store is hardly a good source. Why were people returning consoles to the store for repair when Microsoft had a 3 yr return to them policy?

If official figures are quoted for any of the consoles then fine. Otherwise lets not speculate, especially for the 400th time in front page news.

There's one thing you can be sure.

MS did not extend the warranty because they like the color of 360 owners eyes. MS extended it because it was afraid of a lawsuit.

And if MS was afraid of a lawsuit it means the failure rate was well over the 15-20%.

Edited by LaP, Jan 7 2011, 3:24pm :

LaP said,
There's one thing you can be sure.

MS did not extend the warranty because they like the color of 360 owners eyes. MS extended it because it was afraid of a lawsuit.

And if MS was afraid of a lawsuit it means the failure rate was well over the 15-20%.

REALLY, whats your source? Even if the lawsuit piece was true, where did you pluck 15-20% from? What is an acceptable failure rate? How long after manufacture is it acceptable?

AFAIK in the US 90 days warranty is the min required. Extending the warranty to 3 years for that issue - lawsuit threats or not, is also about doing the right thing and customer service. NOW can we please stop making up figures?

I call coincidence, we need to see RROD figures, if there is a spike around the kinect launch then I would start to believe there may be a link between Kinect and RROD, as it is I call coincidence.

Just a thought though, maybe the load kinect is adding to the system is pushing old xbox's that were due for a RROD to do so a bit quicker?

But I still call coincidence right now!

duddit2 said,
I call coincidence, we need to see RROD figures, if there is a spike around the kinect launch then I would start to believe there may be a link between Kinect and RROD, as it is I call coincidence.

Just a thought though, maybe the load kinect is adding to the system is pushing old xbox's that were due for a RROD to do so a bit quicker?

But I still call coincidence right now!


Even with the RRoD numbers, there would probably be a spike around Christmas time anyway.

Yea, I think this is basically due to people digging out their xboxes which have not been used in months to play with their new crimbo toy and then finding their dusty box now has ring of death because the fans are clogged causing the box to overheat...

TBH, MS need a new console. 360 is becoming an XP.

PC's can produce much better graphics than 360's now, we didn't need a shiny console that runs the same games with the same specs, we needed a new mind blowing experience.

I played Halo reach for the 1st time on an HDTV and the poor anti aliasing made me actually search to see if the 360 even supported anti aliasing technology.

Now, kinect in a NEW console would have been good, great even. support for the "2nd generation 360" (aka slim) perhaps but to try and carry on the old platform? How long do M$ plan to keep the 360 running for? I don't plan on buying a slim any time soon even if my current 360 dies, spec wise it's all ready getting out dated.

Auzeras said,
TBH, MS need a new console. 360 is becoming an XP.

PC's can produce much better graphics than 360's now, we didn't need a shiny console that runs the same games with the same specs, we needed a new mind blowing experience.

I played Halo reach for the 1st time on an HDTV and the poor anti aliasing made me actually search to see if the 360 even supported anti aliasing technology.

Now, kinect in a NEW console would have been good, great even. support for the "2nd generation 360" (aka slim) perhaps but to try and carry on the old platform? How long do M$ plan to keep the 360 running for? I don't plan on buying a slim any time soon even if my current 360 dies, spec wise it's all ready getting out dated.

The xbox360 and PS3 were aimed to be long life consoles, just like most consoles. The companies make their money from the sale of games and accessories, so having a shorter release cycle on consoles is bad business (Although with the news of the PS3 master codes being available, piracy might be a big problem for Sony now).

Kinect released for the 360 = huge profits from a huge user base from the sale of kinect units + kinect games, reviving peoples interest in their 360 as well. Kinect + a new console = low profits if any, not everyone who owns a 360 will want to spend the money on a whole new console while the 360 is perfectly fine.

Also PC's have always had better graphics than consoles, but they cost more to maintain at that level.

Auzeras said,
TBH, MS need a new console. 360 is becoming an XP.

PC's can produce much better graphics than 360's now, we didn't need a shiny console that runs the same games with the same specs, we needed a new mind blowing experience.

I played Halo reach for the 1st time on an HDTV and the poor anti aliasing made me actually search to see if the 360 even supported anti aliasing technology.

Now, kinect in a NEW console would have been good, great even. support for the "2nd generation 360" (aka slim) perhaps but to try and carry on the old platform? How long do M$ plan to keep the 360 running for? I don't plan on buying a slim any time soon even if my current 360 dies, spec wise it's all ready getting out dated.


It's fairly ridiculous to expect a machine that even when first released cost less than top-tier graphics cards to be graphically superior.

The console GPUs are made by the same vendors as discrete graphics cards, not wizards chanting in a circle atop Mount Doom.

Auzeras said,
TBH, MS need a new console. 360 is becoming an XP.

PC's can produce much better graphics than 360's now, we didn't need a shiny console that runs the same games with the same specs, we needed a new mind blowing experience.

I played Halo reach for the 1st time on an HDTV and the poor anti aliasing made me actually search to see if the 360 even supported anti aliasing technology.

Now, kinect in a NEW console would have been good, great even. support for the "2nd generation 360" (aka slim) perhaps but to try and carry on the old platform? How long do M$ plan to keep the 360 running for? I don't plan on buying a slim any time soon even if my current 360 dies, spec wise it's all ready getting out dated.

Thats why if you want cutting edge you go with PC and keep your wallet open, most users of consoles dont really care, its good enough, and they'd care a lot more (in the negative) if consoles were sent to the graveyard earlier than they are, it means more money, potentially having to start game library from scratch and generally a load of ass ache just for something they dont hold in high regard (shinier graphics).

This is how it works, when something enters the area of general consumption and mass consumer markets they move from the enthusiast area, its just the way of things.

Minimoose said,

Kinect released for the 360 = huge profits from a huge user base from the sale of kinect units + kinect games, reviving peoples interest in their 360 as well. Kinect + a new console = low profits if any, not everyone who owns a 360 will want to spend the money on a whole new console while the 360 is perfectly fine.
.

Exactly, build a userbase for kinect on current hardware, let the devs do their magic, get as many units out there as possible, then when the new hardware hits and you increase the horse power you have the product out there en mass, that's when kinect will really shine (I love it right now, but adding power will allow it to be used on top end games, possibly as a supplement to std controller on top end FPS etc - instead of right shoulder button for grenade, just throw one........my imagination is limited though, not the case for devs)

duddit2 said,

Thats why if you want cutting edge you go with PC and keep your wallet open, most users of consoles dont really care, its good enough, and they'd care a lot more (in the negative) if consoles were sent to the graveyard earlier than they are, it means more money, potentially having to start game library from scratch and generally a load of ass ache just for something they dont hold in high regard (shinier graphics).

This is how it works, when something enters the area of general consumption and mass consumer markets they move from the enthusiast area, its just the way of things.


Exactly, consoles are a economical and efficient way of entertainment.

Auzeras said,
TBH, MS need a new console. 360 is becoming an XP.

PC's can produce much better graphics than 360's now, we didn't need a shiny console that runs the same games with the same specs, we needed a new mind blowing experience.

I played Halo reach for the 1st time on an HDTV and the poor anti aliasing made me actually search to see if the 360 even supported anti aliasing technology.

Now, kinect in a NEW console would have been good, great even. support for the "2nd generation 360" (aka slim) perhaps but to try and carry on the old platform? How long do M$ plan to keep the 360 running for? I don't plan on buying a slim any time soon even if my current 360 dies, spec wise it's all ready getting out dated.

Ok, yes and no...

The graphics on the XBox 360 are not necessarily slower or behind most PCs.

It depends on the PC's GPU and the PC's OS. If the PC is not running Win7 and does not have a DX11 level GPU, the XBox 360 has more features and sometimes more base power than the PC.

The XBox 360 GPU was the first Unified Shader GPU and many of the technology in the XBox 360 were a part of the features designed for Vista/Win7.

For example the GPU scheduling and GPU RAM virtualization technologies from the WDM/WDDM in Vista and Win7 are also used in the XBox 360, which means it can use RAM for GPU and CPU operations elegantly. So in comparison to WinXP, OSX, or Linux, the XBox 360's OS has GPU far more features and performance that no matter what GPU you buy or what version of OpenGL you are using, the OS is limited in providing these features.

The XBox 360 DirectX subset is closer to DX11 than DX10. The XBox 360 can do tensellation like DX11 and DirectCompute featuers more like DX11 (even though DX10 had some form of GPU computing features.) So if your GPU is not DX11, it can't do the base features that the XBox 360 can which is not only important for performance, but also scene quality.

If you are using Vista, it lacks the fuller features WDM/WDDM feature set where the OS manages GPU scheduling and granularity that both Win7 and the XBox 360 has.

(Some of the features pulled back in Vista and DX10 were a result of arguments from NVidia, as their upcoming Geforce 8xxx series cards at the time of Vista's release would not have met the original full WDDM/WDM features and would not have been DX10 capable. Microsoft scaled back both the WDM and DX10 features to make it easier on NVidia with the plan of later releasing these features - and these ended up in Win7.)

This last info on Nvidia should explain to even non-technical users is that the XBox GPU is more advanced than the Geforce 8xxx and 9xxx series GPUs from NVidia. Nvidia compensates by throwing more speed in the later GPUs, but still lacks the base features. Nvidia didn't fully catch up until their DX11 compatible GPUs with full Win7 WDM/WDDM support.

On the PC argument side, you do have more CPU and raw GPU power that can often compensate for the lack of features. This also lets you shove resoluitons higher, and other developer based tricks to offset the differences. So some of the differences are based up on what the developer uses or doesn't use.

This means that some XBox 360 games have less visual quality than the XBox 360 is capable of, because the developer is targeting the equivalent of DX9 and the extra DX10 and DX11 features are utilized on the XBox 360 even though many are available.

As developers move to DX10 or DX11 as the 'baseline' requirements, this will also allow them to focus on GPU and OS features of the XBox 360 that they didn't in the past.

As for it being 'old technology' it really is a yes and no answer, as it wasn't until last year we got DX11 GPU features on the PC and got the full OS level video feature sets in Win7 - both of which the XBox has been doing many of them since 2005.


Additional Note:
If you think the XBox 360 is 'old technology', then what should happen to the PS3?

The PS3's PSX GPU is a modified NVidia Geforce 7900, that runs a bit slower than a standard 7900. Because the PS3 uses this GPU technology, it is an ENTIRE generation behind the GPU technology in the XBox 360.

The Geforce 7900 GPU is a dual shader technology that also loses some performance because of the late integration with the PS3's brilliant Cell processor. No matter what Sony adds to the PS3 software updates, it cannot compensate for the lack of features in the GPU.

The PS3's architecture and base OS model also lack all of the features of the XBox 360 that is also found in the WDDM of Vista/Win7. The XBox 360 OS is a NT fork that is part Windows Server 2003 and part pre-Vista with a sprinkle of technologies pulled from Vista that didn't arrive until Win7.

So the OS platform of the PS3 also can't natively offer GPU RAM sharing/virtualizaiton and offers no scheduling/threading of the GPU through the OS, leaving this to developer optimization.

Here is a sad note...
If the PS3 had the XBox 360 GPU or even the same generation GPU technology as the XBox 360 and a better Cell processor interface, it would blow the XBox 360 away in graphics in every game.

Instead the GPU limits the PS3, which usually allows games on the XBox 360 to provide better quality graphics, and in games that use extremely high quality textures, the PS3 GPU and RAM simply cannot process the same texture sizes.

The PS3's Gefroce 7900 also gets VS or PS starved, as the shader pipelines cannot be utilized as needed are are defined instead. This sometimes doesn't mean anything, but in some games where they are VS or PS heavy, it is a problem for PS3 game developers.

And this isn't even mentioning the off-chip HDR and AA features of the XBox 360 GPU that allows base HDR and AA at the same time, with the PS3 games having to pick between using HDR or AA. And if the pick HDR, the XBox 360 can use the same quality HDR as the PS3, instead of the off-chip HDR and also give up AA, so the PS3 has no HDR advantages.

In game development we have ways to compensate or we drop to the lowest common and don't even utilize XBox 360 graphical features - especially when doing a pre-DX11 PC title as well, as only the XBox 360 would be capable of displaying the scene, and is not worth the extra development to impment the visual features available on the XBox 360. So this is where you find PS3 games looking better than the XBox 360.

Another compensation is to use realtime rendering differences, so the PS3 version gets higher quality cut-scenes because of the storage size of BluRay. This leaves the game play below the XBox 360, but often gamers and even many reviewers don't realize they are being tricked a bit, and love the 'pretty' PS3 cutscenes, even though the gameplay is lower quality than the XBox 360. (I have seen many titles get better graphic scores of the PS3 just because of the cutscene trick, when the actual gameplay is using lower resolution textures, et.c)

Final Note:
An integrated console has some inherent features over a PC for peformance, and this applies to both the XBox 360 and the PS3.

Although Win7 and DX11 helps by tightening performance and getting the XBox 360 features to DirectX finally.

This should also give the XBox game graphics a jump in the near future as developers can now baseline on DX11 and titles will look better on both the PC and the XBox as more of the XBox graphics will be used that were left alone because it was wasted development time on a cross platform title. This change alone makes the XBox 360 more 'modern' and relevant than most people realize.

thenetavenger said,

Ok, yes and no...

The graphics on the XBox 360 are not necessarily slower or behind most PCs.

It depends on the PC's GPU and the PC's OS. If the PC is not running Win7 and does not have a DX11 level GPU, the XBox 360 has more features and sometimes more base power than the PC.

The XBox 360 GPU was the first Unified Shader GPU and many of the technology in the XBox 360 were a part of the features designed for Vista/Win7.

For example the GPU scheduling and GPU RAM virtualization technologies from the WDM/WDDM in Vista and Win7 are also used in the XBox 360, which means it can use RAM for GPU and CPU operations elegantly. So in comparison to WinXP, OSX, or Linux, the XBox 360's OS has GPU far more features and performance that no matter what GPU you buy or what version of OpenGL you are using, the OS is limited in providing these features.

The XBox 360 DirectX subset is closer to DX11 than DX10. The XBox 360 can do tensellation like DX11 and DirectCompute featuers more like DX11 (even though DX10 had some form of GPU computing features.) So if your GPU is not DX11, it can't do the base features that the XBox 360 can which is not only important for performance, but also scene quality.

If you are using Vista, it lacks the fuller features WDM/WDDM feature set where the OS manages GPU scheduling and granularity that both Win7 and the XBox 360 has.

(Some of the features pulled back in Vista and DX10 were a result of arguments from NVidia, as their upcoming Geforce 8xxx series cards at the time of Vista's release would not have met the original full WDDM/WDM features and would not have been DX10 capable. Microsoft scaled back both the WDM and DX10 features to make it easier on NVidia with the plan of later releasing these features - and these ended up in Win7.)

This last info on Nvidia should explain to even non-technical users is that the XBox GPU is more advanced than the Geforce 8xxx and 9xxx series GPUs from NVidia. Nvidia compensates by throwing more speed in the later GPUs, but still lacks the base features. Nvidia didn't fully catch up until their DX11 compatible GPUs with full Win7 WDM/WDDM support.

On the PC argument side, you do have more CPU and raw GPU power that can often compensate for the lack of features. This also lets you shove resoluitons higher, and other developer based tricks to offset the differences. So some of the differences are based up on what the developer uses or doesn't use.

This means that some XBox 360 games have less visual quality than the XBox 360 is capable of, because the developer is targeting the equivalent of DX9 and the extra DX10 and DX11 features are utilized on the XBox 360 even though many are available.

As developers move to DX10 or DX11 as the 'baseline' requirements, this will also allow them to focus on GPU and OS features of the XBox 360 that they didn't in the past.

As for it being 'old technology' it really is a yes and no answer, as it wasn't until last year we got DX11 GPU features on the PC and got the full OS level video feature sets in Win7 - both of which the XBox has been doing many of them since 2005.


Additional Note:
If you think the XBox 360 is 'old technology', then what should happen to the PS3?

The PS3's PSX GPU is a modified NVidia Geforce 7900, that runs a bit slower than a standard 7900. Because the PS3 uses this GPU technology, it is an ENTIRE generation behind the GPU technology in the XBox 360.

The Geforce 7900 GPU is a dual shader technology that also loses some performance because of the late integration with the PS3's brilliant Cell processor. No matter what Sony adds to the PS3 software updates, it cannot compensate for the lack of features in the GPU.

The PS3's architecture and base OS model also lack all of the features of the XBox 360 that is also found in the WDDM of Vista/Win7. The XBox 360 OS is a NT fork that is part Windows Server 2003 and part pre-Vista with a sprinkle of technologies pulled from Vista that didn't arrive until Win7.

So the OS platform of the PS3 also can't natively offer GPU RAM sharing/virtualizaiton and offers no scheduling/threading of the GPU through the OS, leaving this to developer optimization.

Here is a sad note...
If the PS3 had the XBox 360 GPU or even the same generation GPU technology as the XBox 360 and a better Cell processor interface, it would blow the XBox 360 away in graphics in every game.

Instead the GPU limits the PS3, which usually allows games on the XBox 360 to provide better quality graphics, and in games that use extremely high quality textures, the PS3 GPU and RAM simply cannot process the same texture sizes.

The PS3's Gefroce 7900 also gets VS or PS starved, as the shader pipelines cannot be utilized as needed are are defined instead. This sometimes doesn't mean anything, but in some games where they are VS or PS heavy, it is a problem for PS3 game developers.

And this isn't even mentioning the off-chip HDR and AA features of the XBox 360 GPU that allows base HDR and AA at the same time, with the PS3 games having to pick between using HDR or AA. And if the pick HDR, the XBox 360 can use the same quality HDR as the PS3, instead of the off-chip HDR and also give up AA, so the PS3 has no HDR advantages.

In game development we have ways to compensate or we drop to the lowest common and don't even utilize XBox 360 graphical features - especially when doing a pre-DX11 PC title as well, as only the XBox 360 would be capable of displaying the scene, and is not worth the extra development to impment the visual features available on the XBox 360. So this is where you find PS3 games looking better than the XBox 360.

Another compensation is to use realtime rendering differences, so the PS3 version gets higher quality cut-scenes because of the storage size of BluRay. This leaves the game play below the XBox 360, but often gamers and even many reviewers don't realize they are being tricked a bit, and love the 'pretty' PS3 cutscenes, even though the gameplay is lower quality than the XBox 360. (I have seen many titles get better graphic scores of the PS3 just because of the cutscene trick, when the actual gameplay is using lower resolution textures, et.c)

Final Note:
An integrated console has some inherent features over a PC for peformance, and this applies to both the XBox 360 and the PS3.

Although Win7 and DX11 helps by tightening performance and getting the XBox 360 features to DirectX finally.

This should also give the XBox game graphics a jump in the near future as developers can now baseline on DX11 and titles will look better on both the PC and the XBox as more of the XBox graphics will be used that were left alone because it was wasted development time on a cross platform title. This change alone makes the XBox 360 more 'modern' and relevant than most people realize.

The problems is that most games run at 960x540 now since MS removed the Min 720p requirement. So it's not even a HD console anyway (same with PS3 actually). Same game that run at 20-30fps at 960x540 run at 1920x1200 with 4xfSAA at 30-60fps with a 150$video card. I mean ok, my PC cost was 1200$, but at 70$ per game (pc game can easily be bought at much lower cost online and wayyyy faster except COD games.. ) on console it's coming $$, On pc i usually pay less than 24.99$ per game, even 1-1 and a half months old games.

Anyway it's only about graphics. Want good graphics, get a PC, want to get easy, plug and play, get a console..

I was under the impression Kinect didn't include a processor and thus relied on the 360. Maybe the extra cycles is causing some of the older systems to fail?

DPyro said,
I was under the impression Kinect didn't include a processor and thus relied on the 360. Maybe the extra cycles is causing some of the older systems to fail?

Was just about to say this, the kinect will put a lot of extra strain on the CPU, more than most games I assume. And maybe the older generations just aren't coping with the extra work + heat.

booboo said,

Was just about to say this, the kinect will put a lot of extra strain on the CPU, more than most games I assume. And maybe the older generations just aren't coping with the extra work + heat.

yeah, those 5-10% of one core is a real strain

HawkMan said,

yeah, those 5-10% of one core is a real strain


It's not a far stretch of the imagination when it seems to be running at breaking point already.

But then I don't think any kinect games are really pushing the GPU that hard anyway, so...

DPyro said,
I was under the impression Kinect didn't include a processor and thus relied on the 360. Maybe the extra cycles is causing some of the older systems to fail?

1) The Kinect is using 10% of one core, that is tiny in a tri-core system. (Especially when the XBox 360 also uses the GPU for computing beyond video rendering in many games. Go look up DirectCompute - it exists in an early form on the XBox 360)

2) Even the most demanding current generation of Kinect games are barely touching the computing/graphical capabilities of the XBox 360 due to the fast-tracked development cycle. So even if the 10% of one core was important to a demanding game, there are no demanding games that use Kinect yet.

Side Note: The decision to remove the processor from the Kinect had many reasons behind the change, and some of them are actually a good thing from the consumer standpoint.

By not using the integrated processor in the Kinect:
1) The cost of Kinect is significantly less.
2) Less latency - which is what early reviews of the prototype models that did have a processor talked about.
3) More expandible - improvements in processing software are not limited to the features of an integrated processor.
4) More power for processing available if needed - if a developer decides to spend extra processing cycles or process more information in new ways, or process the kinect input using their own techniques, they can use the much stronger CPU and GPU (DirectCompute) and are not limited to the base features of the Kinect input processing Microsoft provides.

There are just a few summary items that were behind the decision, and Microsoft probably made the right choice, expecially with the expandibility and developer control, in addition to the cost and lower latency that the end users enjoy now.

I started using my Xbox 360 shortly before purchasing Kinect... I believe it was the days following the new dashboard update. Prior to that, I didn't use my Xbox for around 8 months. My Xbox failed with RROD shortly after, but this was before I had Kinect. Like the article says, it's probably due the console not being used for a long time.

mattnotley2004 said,
I started using my Xbox 360 shortly before purchasing Kinect... I believe it was the days following the new dashboard update. Prior to that, I didn't use my Xbox for around 8 months. My Xbox failed with RROD shortly after, but this was before I had Kinect. Like the article says, it's probably due the console not being used for a long time.

Where did you have it store? Because if it gets dusty it's an early goner.

OH please can't this just die! No problems on 1st generation or latest. I am not going to go stab my eyes out if I see another article like this on the front page! Hahahaha

sava700 said,
I sure hope MS replaces them no questions asked for this type of issue regardless of how long you've had it.

Why, it's a hardware failure, all hardware fails. Just because it's well known doesn't mean its any more deserving of a replacement, except for when they were covered under warranty (of course, I would agree if the majority of them failed close to when warranty ran out, but that just isn't true). Although it would be rather unlucky and annoying for your old xbox360 to survive this long and then RRoD out of warranty

Minimoose said,
Although it would be rather unlucky and annoying for your old xbox360 to survive this long and then RRoD out of warranty
Unfortunately, my roommate's older Xbox 360 red-ringed late last year, and it was past his warranty. The story does have a happy ending though: Microsoft was willing to still repair it for free, out of warranty. I believe they did ask him to pay shipping though.

Don't forget the 360 came out back in November, 2005. As long as you beg though, Microsoft is still willing to fix the broken console for free.

pickypg said,
Unfortunately, my roommate's older Xbox 360 red-ringed late last year, and it was past his warranty. The story does have a happy ending though: Microsoft was willing to still repair it for free, out of warranty. I believe they did ask him to pay shipping though.

Don't forget the 360 came out back in November, 2005. As long as you beg though, Microsoft is still willing to fix the broken console for free.

"free" fixing their crap hardware that shouldn't broke in first place, I still have my nintendo working but my 360 collapsed in the first year.
ROFL seriously how can people eat Microsoft **** and be thankful for their "warranty". Stockholm syndrome anyone?

I only know one person whose 360 hasn't red ringed at least once yet, and it's probably because it isn't used much. I hope MS does a better job on their successor.

still1 said,

still not better then :-)

How so? The article says "red ring", the slim doesn't get a red ring, it's a red dot so the article is about the older consoles.

Plus it's not really an issue, warranty for the RROD is 3 years which is much more than you get for the yellow light on the PS3

Trueblue711 said,
I only know one person whose 360 hasn't red ringed at least once yet, and it's probably because it isn't used much. I hope MS does a better job on their successor.

My 360 is used for hrs everyday and ive had my acrcade for 3 yrs and its not red ringed once at all

Trueblue711 said,
I only know one person whose 360 hasn't red ringed at least once yet, and it's probably because it isn't used much. I hope MS does a better job on their successor.

Never had the RRoD and I've had mine for a couple years (and now have two). Two of my co-workers confirm they've never had one either.

Yay for anecdotal evidence...

Trueblue711 said,
I only know one person whose 360 hasn't red ringed at least once yet, and it's probably because it isn't used much. I hope MS does a better job on their successor.

I still have a launch dat 360 and it still hasn't RROD'ed yet

Mine has never red ringed once and I've had it for 4 years. Then again, I haven't used it much in the last two years. Though, I know what you mean. I am the only person that I know personally that hasn't had the RROD. One of my friends had it happen to him 3 times.