Do NOT presume to state I don't understand that 343i had to do what Microsoft tells them to do. And I am entirely, 100% -Yoinking!- ENTITLED you little brat to say I FEEL like it's boaderline fraud! You don't have the moral high ground to dictate my FEELINGS about the product I spent MY 460.00 on! I am $459.98 entitled to be exact!
XD this is the most hilarious post I have ever read in my life xD. you call me a little man and little brat but look at your post, you sound like a baby who got his bottle taken from him, its embarassing. Youre trying to make yourself try to seem higher than me but youre making yourself look pathetic.
It's a "she" not a "he" . . . but that aside, the content of her post is accurate. You have no right to decide how we should feel about getting a product that was clearly not as advertised. There is no defense to that; the most important advertised features for MP play still do not exist for much of the player base almost 3.5 months later. She is 100% correct with her assertion that it is at least borderline fraud. Had you read the links I provided you, you would find that 343i / Microsoft's actions to this point meet 4 of the 5 conditions necessary for legally fraudulent action. Whether they meet the 5th or not is open to interpretation.
You are not the arbiter of what qualifies as fraud. You are not the arbiter of what qualifies as false advertising. You are not the arbiter of the feelings of those player for whom the MCC was an incredible disappointment.
If you feel the MCC release was justified based on how hard it is, fine. You are perfectly within your rights to feel that way. But you are not
within your rights to tell others that they way they feel is incorrect or unjustified. You will not convince her, nor will you convince me. The only thing your thread serves to do is to annoy and infuriate those of us who feel that a purchase is a legally-binding two-way
contract, in which the seller delivers the advertised functionality and the buyer delivers the agreed-upon price. To this point, the seller as admitted failing to deliver the promised functionality
. Your mental gymnastics to attempt to justify the state of the MCC need not apply. Both parties to the contract agree that the seller was deficient.
But by all means, continue if you wish. It's infuriating . . . but also somewhat entertaining.