Gamerscore has nothing to do with rankings or matchmaking. It is just a number that is intended to show how much you play. Basically the higher your gamerscore, the more 360 games you've played.
...but Gamerscore has been utterly retarded. I enjoy the xbox 360, most especially the arcade games, but that's due to my personallity and the types of games I prefer. As anyone with a 360 knows, the arcade games only offer 200 gamerscore apiece compared to the 1000 for retail. Thusly, my gamerscore isn't huge by any means (somewhere around 6300 I think). That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy getting achievements.
For me and others like me that populate the XBL Arcade arena frequently, obtaining the more difficult achievements (the most difficult 360 achievements are arguably in the arcade) is quite a bit more exciting than playing some mediocre, boring retail game (King Kong) and getting achievements for essentially nothing or for little challenge.
So, what I'm trying to say, is that achievements were a great idea and are an aspect of the system that I highly enjoy, but Gamerscore was a mistake from the beginning. Points usually aren't even allotted according to difficulty (Dead Rising or GRAW anyone?), and usually retail games, esp. EA/sports games, make the achievements rediculously easy and void out the entire points system anyway.
In any case, this is quite rediculous for 3000 points (not that I'm agreeing with the practice). Just rent a few EA games and play for 1 hour and you get the same effect. The whole thing is just stupid and the result of a poorly-thought-out point system.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the consumer sending light back during communication? They're really stretching for something to tax here.
Gamerscore has nothing to do with rankings or matchmaking. It is just a number that is intended to show how much you play. Basically the higher your gamerscore, the more 360 games you've played.
...but Gamerscore has been utterly retarded. I enjoy the xbox 360, most especially the arcade games, but that's due to my personallity and the types of games I prefer. As anyone with a 360 knows, the arcade games only offer 200 gamerscore apiece compared to the 1000 for retail. Thusly, my gamerscore isn't huge by any means (somewhere around 6300 I think). That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy getting achievements.
For me and others like me that populate the XBL Arcade arena frequently, obtaining the more difficult achievements (the most difficult 360 achievements are arguably in the arcade) is quite a bit more exciting than playing some mediocre, boring retail game (King Kong) and getting achievements for essentially nothing or for little challenge.
So, what I'm trying to say, is that achievements were a great idea and are an aspect of the system that I highly enjoy, but Gamerscore was a mistake from the beginning. Points usually aren't even allotted according to difficulty (Dead Rising or GRAW anyone?), and usually retail games, esp. EA/sports games, make the achievements rediculously easy and void out the entire points system anyway.
In any case, this is quite rediculous for 3000 points (not that I'm agreeing with the practice). Just rent a few EA games and play for 1 hour and you get the same effect. The whole thing is just stupid and the result of a poorly-thought-out point system.