Shinobi-san said:
Nsanity said:
Albert Penello:
I was quickly corrected (both on the forum and from people at the office) for writing the wrong number.
The challenge with the NeoGAF format is that, because threads move so fast, posts disappear or get buried so people aren't reading everything. Maybe this part got lost:
I've stated - there is no possible way for one single person to know every detail about our platform. That means I need to go get the answers to the questions you guys ask sometimes. There's a lot I know first hand, and a lot I need to get updated on.
So people understand - I'm not dodging any of the follow-up. I actually stated the other night - there are a handful of people who asked some really legitimate follow-ups to understand what I posted. And I honestly said - I'm not the guy to answer at that level of detail. Out of respect for the people who are genuinely curious to learn how we derived those numbers, and to get the most technically accurate answers - the best course is to have the answers come from those engineers directly.
So we're working now on the best format to do that.
I still stand by what I stated (except for the aforementioned 204/218). In fact, some really interesting threads were going back and forth giving me even more excruciating detail behind those numbers based on the questions people asked.
I doubt it will take the format of an AMA, but I've collected a bunch of the follow-up questions. It may take a few weeks, but we'll be following-up on this for sure.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=81372357&postcount=632
|
Cant believe guys in this thread was backing up some of Penello's false statements. Even after neutral guys on our site and GAF have said that some of the stuff hes saying is just wrong. Lost respect for a lot of posters here in the chartz in this thread...atleast on a technical level.
Im glad the guy admitted he was wrong...seems like he legit cares about engaging with the GAF community. Looking forward to getting more details from the engineers!
|
Err, what was he wrong about?
The 218 vs 204 thing? I actually think 204 is correct. Andf if it was wrong, it was wrong to the negative of Xbox, which is the opposite of the hundreds of people saying he's lying to make Xbox look better.
The funny thing is the guys attacking him are usually horrendously wrong and have zero tech knowledge!
