In article <3247023.mJMFQ9PJUf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> If the failure rate were 30%, there would be a lot more complaints than
>> there are. There would be stories about it, with multiple independent
>> sources, in dozens of different gaming publications. Yet all we have is
>> one anonymous source.
>
> And a four-liner from Tim Smith which offers no backing.
>
> Mainstream 'media' is controlled by people whose wage is financed by
> sponsors. A paper that does not praise Microsoft will have a giant
> retaliate and intimidate. And don't forget that author are people with
> interests and various friends in industry. What intersts would EA have?
> None.
What about the hundreds of gaming forums? A lot of gamers, who are quite
active on forums (magazine forums, game company forums, guild or clan
forums, etc), bought XBox 360s, and have remained active on the forums. If
30% of them were having their XBox 360s fail, these forums would be full of
posts about it. They aren't.
If you think about the claim (30-50%) for a moment, it is obvious what
really happened. Microsoft claims a 1-2% failure rate. Someone at EA
noticed EA was having a 3-5% rate, and leaked that. It got misread or
transcribed wrong, and came out 30-50%.
This fits much better with the forum data. 3-5% is consistent with the
number of complaints in forums, unlike 30-50%. Also, the spread on 3-5% is
much more believable. That's the kind of error range you'd get looking at
the failures of machines at one company. 30-50% is way to big a spread.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
