Those stats aren't for the map unlock, as the team actions far exceed the 69 million required (and only recently achieved on the PC). We don't have hours played in Vietnam, but we do know the team actions. Applying the same ratio would be inaccurate because the title likely has more staying power on the PC than on the consoles (where CoD likely has more loyalty).

They also have far more than 69 million team actions. If you'd both clicked the link and used an ounce of thought, you'd realize that the numbers in the link are since the release of Bad Company 2, not (what I figure is being counted for the map unlock) only what's been done in the Vietnam expansion.

No it isn't, because BC2 doesn't have the draw on the consoles that it does on the PC. Activision's the bad guy to PC gamers, and they look at DICE games fondly. Neither of those things work in the game's favor on the consoles, and I'd be very surprised to see if the hours played on the consoles is comparable.

That may be quite an assumption, since the hours played since team actions have counted towards unlocking the map isn't listed (at least it wasn't when I checked). Considering that BC2 is a bit of a darling on PC in light of Activision's actions of late, it likely has a much larger portion of the online population on the PC than the consoles (where most players are probably playing CoD, Halo, or Resistance/Killzone). That being said, PC gamers are still faring a higher actions per hour rate since launch, but with the possibility of a larger population on PC it's likely this was never going to be close.

And I am completely willing to believe that your experiences are overwhelmingly frequent. If I can see evidence to support it. Why is it so hard to believe that there are people who would enjoy playing these games if the hardware required didn't cost so much...?

And for a lot of people with a comparable setup (somehow the majority of people interested in playing Mass Effect 2, UT 3, Assassin's Creed 2, Dragon Age: Origins, Batman: Arkham Asylum, and F.E.A.R. 2., to you), upgrading that machine so that it remains capable may not be as appealing as using something like PlayOn.

So why can't the target audience be hardcore gamers who don't have the money to upgrade their computers? Gaming lounge patrons? Or hell, potential hardcore gamers that don't have the money, technical know-how, or desire to maintain a gaming-competent PC. You're right, there's no market for this. Everybody already has their dream gaming setup.

I knew Seropian formed Wideload games. Just didn't know how many left with him.

Haha, I was actually thinking of visiting Croatia, too. Might have to put it off if their board of tourism thinks spamming is a good way to get the word out.

The core of Bungie is working on the first title that will be published by Activision. I think the only one really missing is Alex Seropian.

It doesn't have the number one market share in units sold, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't number one in online gaming population.

In the Halo sense? Halo's aliens are bipeds with a social/religious system. I'm sure they're a lot different than the races in EVE Online, but Halo's hardly a good example to use as a comparison to Natural Selection.

Wouldn't... uhh, Aliens be a better fit?

Yeah, pretty sure it only works with Games for Windows Live (I think that's what it's called) games. Just saying that I find it odd that this closed system (Live, where MS mandates various aspects of online play for developers) supports cross-platform play when an open one doesn't. Interestingly enough, I was just talking about this to a friend regarding Dust 514. It's supposed to be a console game that interacts with the EVE Online universe. Well there's one universe so I'd imagine that the 360 and PS3 versions will technically be part of it at the same time. Of course, each platform could have its own planets where conflicts occur, it just might be a kinda crappy case of cross-platform... interaction in a game.

I agree with this, but didn't notice until now that cross-platform gameplay (PC-to-console) has been done on the 360 with Live (Shadowrun, FFXI) but not with the PS3/PSN. Even the Dreamcast let console players play in games with/against PC players. Just find it odd. As for the initial question, MS has a lot more to lose by letting PS3 players play online with players on the 360. It'd hugely tarnish the perceived value of Live if every game you joined was already full of people playing online for free.

Sony didn't make those games. They only came because of unwarranted hype and hardware that looks better on paper than anywhere else. This strategy is flawed and when it fails Sony, I can only help Nintendo will be there to pick up the pieces and lead console gaming where it should be going rather than fighting a losing battle against PC gaming.