By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zkuq on 08 September 2016
Edit Thread
Bandorr said:
Zkuq said:

They've probably done a lot of things unrelated to this study during those two months. I skimmed through the actual study, and it didn't sound like they actually tested very rigorously. The only way they could have spent very much time on the study is by testing again and again until they got the results they wanted. I kind of doubt they did, but it's possible.

I am guessing my sarcasm didn't come across as obvious. Sorry for that. I dont think they actually spent months on it at all. Reading the study they say they did it in "May 2016" so I'm guessing this article game out in June/July 2016.

http://compass.xbox.com/assets/9d/cb/9dcb5ba2-b779-4969-b5cc-3772140825e0.pdf?n=WhitePaper_Xbox%20Live%20vs.%20PlayStation%20Network-DRAFT-V4-.pdf

For anyone wanting to read the study btw.

I'd be surprised if they spent even an hour on this "study". And I am quite curious why they conducted this study in the first place..

Oh, sorry. I thought you thought they spent two months on this study, which would indeed seem like a lot for this amount of games. :P

Ganoncrotch said:
JRPGfan said:

And who paid for this study? MS?
And its only between "Xbox Live and PlayStation Network" ?

Said independant so you can only take that at face value really, MS didn't pay for it but the indpendant group would still get a lot of interest and advertising based on a result which suggests that 44 million players are using an inferior service for online gaming.

 

And yeah it was based on 5 of the recent high profile 3rd party titles which rules out the Nintendo Network.

Independent probably means just that the study was done by a third party, i.e. not Microsoft. They could still have funded it. Also, the study itself states that only XBL and PSN were studied.