kowenicki said:
I have no idea. But I dont see why it matters? Unless someone is trying to make a lame point it just doesnt. Clearly the number will be near to 46m whatever way they chose. What do you want them to use? How many millions do you think will drop off if they reduced it to say 4 months? or 3 months? At least there is some qualification and it is a lot better than the numbers you usually get on this stuff, for example the number of facebook or PSN accounts, which just tend to be the number ever created, be they live or not - meaningless. |
Yeah sheer number of accounts is meaningless, I agree. That's what I told the OP.
But 8 months is weird. Why not 6 months? I mean if we're talking active here, why not something along the lines of once a month over the past 6 months/year?
What I take from this - 6 month was disproportionately smaller than 8 months, which is why they used such a weird number to inflate "active" users.







