Talk:M6C magnum

Untitled
"Magnums are best dual-wielded together or with another weapon." That's probably one of the most useless sentences I've ever read.

I just feel it should be noted that it is actualy more effective against grunts at close range than a BR with good aiming. its accuracy falls to shit if fired rapidly but if shots are picked well, you can tear through a whole squad faster than a BR55, allowing you to save your burst flavoured goodness for elites and such

Removing
I am removing the part where you say "the reticle is slightly more centered" -- The Halo 2 reticles were OFF-CENTER. The Halo 1 reticles are dead center. --User:MLG Cheehwawa

i don't know about you guys, but I like the look of the M6C. I'm not saying it should've replaced the M6D, but I say it's a whole lot better 'looking'...it's a sexy side arm to have. sometimes I equip it just for the hell of it and still beat out guys with the BR.

bias
It's blindingly obvious that this article was written or at least heavily edited by someone who does not like the M6C. I'd try to fix it, but I'd essentially be re-writing the article. I'm going to take some of the obviously biased stuff out. JesseZinVT 01:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh* And then someone who is biased towards the M6C came in and screwed it up again. I made some of the stuff more neutral (i.e. the Magnum will lose to the BR at midrange) --User:MLG Cheehwawa

stripped-down version of the M6D Pistol?
This makes it sound like the M6C came second, even though it is only in halo 2 i still think it came first, for 2 reasons. 1 Its name M6C and 2 it's less advanced why would people make a pistol less advanced, well it happens today, but still...Im not very good at explaining my self sorry, hopefully you people understand.--''' UHSO. LT. COL. "Running   Riot"   Ryan  File:Sm Sniper Rifle.gif]]  BAM' '' 16:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoever it was, they were probably reffering to the fact that it is aqquired chronologically later than the M6D. PWN3R uv N00Bz11 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And it uses diffrerent ammo. more like the M6D is a bulked up version.

I think that's how Bungie termed it. Don't quote me on it, I'm not sure. I would think that due to the lettering that the Charlie came before the Delta. Which brings me to this: If it went straight from the M6D to the M6G, and there is an M6J Carbine... what does the M6E, M6F, M6H, and M6I look like? Just throwing that out there. Smoke. 04:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Isint that supposed to be a similar version of the glock pistol???

Repeating information
why is it that this page constantly says that the pistol is SO effective at killing hunters and has a very high rate of fire? This article becomes very weird because of this.

WOW
I dont even wanna look at this anymore, its so messed up. Some one clean her up and fast!--''' UoH. COL. "Running   Riot"   Ryan  File:Sm Sniper Rifle.gif]]  BAM' '' 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm
wouldnt it's Counterpart be the plasma pistol? and not the battle rifle and carbine?-- UoH| UNSCOH ]] COL.   "Running   Riot"   Ryan  File:Sm Sniper Rifle.gif]]  BAM  22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 11:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So true, I changed that to the PP in both instances. --User:MLG Cheehwawa

The M6C's Accuracy
For the second time already, I've had to correct the article in regards to the Magnum's accuracy as compared to the M6D. Despite what some previous user stated in the article, the M6C is NOT more accurate that the M6D. IIRC, the Magnum's shot spread is something like 5 times greater than the M6D's. Don't believe me? Try testing the shot spreads for yourself. In Halo 1, the pistol will hit almost the exact same spot over and over again. However, in Halo 2, at anything past zero range, the Magnum's shots will be all over the place. So, saying that the Magnum is more accurate than the M6D is just plain false. The M6D is clearly the more accurate weapon by a longshot. Anybody who says otherwise is either misinformed, inattentive, or a liar.

Also, I gave the article a much-needed cleaning up. It was overall very sloppily written, with a lot of redundant or otherwise unnecessary commentary. I did what I could to make it better short of actually starting the whole thing over from scratch. Rtas Vadumee 11:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Recent edit conflicts.
This is directed mostly towards user 64.131.177.2, but everyone else should pay attention as well.

I understand that this is a site created and maintained by fans, but we should at least strive for some semblance of professionalism. Improper spelling, grammar, punctuation, and spacing should be avoided. Always check for these things before entering your edits. Furthermore, we should always maintain proper style for the articles. It should not look like a 13-year old fan wrote it. Stuff like "kills in a snap," writing words in all-caps, and other such nonsense is fine for casual conversation, but should be avoided in order to maintain that professional look I mentioned. It wouldn't fly at Wikipedia, much less a professional publication, so neither should it do so here.

Finally, factual accuracy is important. I'm not sure what your definition of "mid-range" or "semi-long" range is — I've always tended to define it as the region between 30 and 100 meters —, but the Magnum has pitiful range due to its relatively low accuracy/large shot spread for a weapon of its kind (it is only about one-third as accurate as the Carbine and one-fifth as accurate as the M6D). Even dual-wielded, the M6C isn't very effective past about 20 meters, which is about twice the range of the sword lunge as well as the approximate range auto-aim cuts off for the Magnum. At said range, even auto-aim isn't enough to compensate for the Magnum's poor accuracy, and even with the crosshair centered on an opponent head will take around 20 to 24 shots to kill someone rather than the 13 headshots that the Magnum can kill in. Obviously, this means that the shot spread is so great that even at relatively close range and with auto-aim compensating, shots will miss even a stationary target. So, claims that the Magnum, even when dual-wielded is capable of overpowering the Battle Rifle past close range (assuming players of roughly equal skill) are spurious.

Damage claims for the M6C (or any other weapon) should also reflect what we actually see in-game. Multiplayer figures are the easiest to determine, as they are constant under default rules. In the Magnum's case, it is 13 headshots and 21 body shots. In Campaign, damage is dependent on difficulty level. Certain figures (i.e. "12 shots to kill a Hunter") are incorrect. Even on Normal difficulty, it took me over a dozen well-placed shots to bring down a Hunter. It may or may not take a dozen shots to kill one on Easy (I haven't tested it on said difficulty), but given that Easy is (presumably) not the standard difficulty for most players, this must be reflected in the article. Likewise, it takes more than two shots to kill a Drone, even on Normal. Also, I clarified the condition in which a Flood Combat form can be killed in two shots.

Please, take this all into consideration before editing this or any other article.

End of line. Rtas Vadumee 18:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Shadowslayer117 (I see you're not posting anonymously anymore), this is getting rather tiresome. I understand that this is one of your "pet articles," so to speak, but let's get real. I've already explained that the Magnum is not very effective at all past about 20 meters, which barely qualifies as "mid-range." If you don't believe me, then I'd be glad to test this with you in a custom game on Xbox Live. My gamertag is listed in my talk page. In any case, the effective range of a weapon is (or at least should be) defined as the range in which it is capable of killing quickly and effectively — not simply as the distance the projectiles travel. For example, the shotgun's pellets travel a good distance before vanishing, but the shotgun is not very effective past close range. Whatever damage it does past close range, it isn't enough to justify the effort in using it. Similarly, the M6C, even when dual-wielded, isn't as effective at medium range as it is at close range, and it certainly isn't effective at "semi-long" range even though the bullets do travel that far. Against even a stationary target, dual Magnums cannot kill a person past around 20 to 25 meters without having to reload. That's hardly what I'd consider effective. In actual combat, the effective range of the Magnum is obviously even less that 20 meters, as you have to hit a moving target with a rather inaccurate gun. You might soften the enemy up a good bit past close range, but against a person wielding a BR, you're screwed, as the rifle simply outguns a pair of Magnums past close range. For all intents and purposes, the Magnum is a close-range weapon, regardless of how far the bullets actually travel.

Also, in regards to the use of Magnums against in Campaign, I want to point out a couple of things I didn't mention in my last posting. First off, you may or may not be right about how many shots it takes to knock a Brute's helmet off. I haven't tested this out yet, but I may start up a game on High Charity (either Easy or Normal difficulty) to do so. Second, dual Magnums simply aren't that useful against Elites, unless you're facing down a blue ("Minor") Elite on lower difficulty levels. Especially on Heroic and Legendary, you can just barely kill a blue Elite with dual Magnums and survive. However, you can forget using Magnums at all against an Elite of higher rank, unless you planning on using the plasma pistol/Magnum combo.

Finally, please work on your spelling. Bad spelling and grammar is a major peeve of mine. Run your stuff through a spell checker if need be. I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, but it does get old having to constantly go back after people and fix their typos. It's annoying enough when I make a typo and have to go in and fix it.

Thank you for listening and have a good day.

Rtas Vadumee 11:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK IM HERE GOOD MORNING. Sorry about the no logging in thing, sometimes im to lazy to log in. ANYWAYS, the M6C is close to medium, thats certain, however iv heard from many places including halowiki and some weapon guide sites that the magnum can be used as semi-long ranges, it seems that semi-long is not a real range (Relentless told me that just now) so i guess i misunderstood all that. I will stop using semi-long because it is not really a real range, but about the campaign thing, im sure im correct about the amount of headshots it takes to kill a brute, i tried it many times on high charity, and about killing elites, Dual Magnums CAN kill elites very fast, maybe your not using them right or something, but I have the update, and Dual Magnums kill elites in 2 seconds, I timed myself, also Dual Magnums kill an Elite major, and a Spec ops elite very fast also, not quite as fast as the minor, but it still requires only a clip and that takes around 2 seconds if you pump both triggers at the same time, try again, also where are you aiming for? the foot? One more thing, 20, to 25meters? how are you measuring this in a video game? magnums are effective at close to medium, that is certain (as i said before i may have gotten the semi-long thing wrong)

thanks. Shadowslayer117 14:49, 20 July 2007

Okay. I did some more testing, and I made a mistake in regards to Elites in Campaign. To be honest, I was going by memory, and I never tested Mags agaisnt Elites under controlled conditions (as controlled as Campaign can be, anyway). Dual Magnums can kill Minor and Major Elites fairly effectively up to Heroic difficulty. However, on Legendary, I only been able to tie with a blue Elite; I'll either barely win, or we'll kill each other. Against red Elites, it's always been a loss in a straight-up face-to-face encounter. They can simply kill you quicker even when only using a single plasma rifle. If you catch him off guard, then you might stand a chance. However, you're a bit off in regards to how long it takes to kill an Elite with dual Magnums. Even on Heroic, you can kill a blue Elite in 11 shots and a red Elite with 16 shots, which means it takes, respectively, one second and 1.33 seconds to kill them. However, on Legendary, they can of course take more damage, and red Elites can kill you faster than that.

As for weapon ranges, while Halo 2 lacks a distance indicator like those seen in Halo 1 and Halo 3, there are objects of known sizes that can be used as a basis of measurement. The Chief in particular is a good starting point, as he is 2 meters tall. For example, the sword lunge has a range of about 4 "Chief heights," or 8 meters. The Magnum's auto-aim cuts off at a bit over twice the sword's lunge range, which would be about 20 meters at most. This is, of course, only a rough estimate due to the relatively crude nature of this method of measurement. I'd estimate that the margin of error for these measurements is ±10%, so the longer the range, the less accurate the measurement will be.

Rtas Vadumee 23:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I went ahead and signed your last comment for you, that way this discussion will be easier for someone else to follow. Remember to always sign your comments by adding four tildes after your comments, like so: ~.

A Bit of Data Regarding the M6C vs. BR
Just for future reference, here are some stats regarding the firepower of the M6C and BR in multiplayer. All data assumes standard damage rules and players with normal, fully-charged shields.

M6C

Rate of Fire: 6 rounds/second

Shots required to kill: 13 headshots or 21 body shots

Minimum time to kill (single-wield): 2.167 seconds (not including reload time)

Minimum time to kill (dual-wield): 1.167 seconds

BR

Rate of Fire: 2.4 bursts/second

Shots required to kill: 4 headshots or 7 body shots (assuming entire burst hits every time)

Minimum time to kill: 1.67 seconds

Rtas Vadumee 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A single Magnum does not stand a chance against a BR, as you can plainly see from the above stats. The M6C's low magazine capacity relative to its power — 13 headshots required to kill, vs. a 12-round magazine — means that the player will be forced to reload at least once before they can kill their opponent. The BR has no such disadvantage, as it can yield up to three kill in a single magazine. Even if it had a large enough magazine (15 rounds, for example), the Magnum would still be much weaker than the BR. So do not claim that a single Magnum outclasses the BR. It doesn't. Rtas Vadumee 04:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply put: the magnum is hopeless unless part of a noob-combo dual-wield with the PP.Maiar 01:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

BR > M6C
You guys really need to stop saying that the M6C Magnum is the equivalent of the BR. I even had to change it when someone said the Magnum can compete with the BR at middle range.... --User:MLG Cheehwawa

You silly kids...
Just kidding. But you guys really need to know how to stop being so biased on here. If you're calling the 14SK Assault Rifle "Low" damage, then why is the Magnum Medium and High? The Magnum is LOW on shields and health, and it is very high on headshots.

Errors regarding the Covenant.
Okay. Time to set the record straight regarding the usage of the M6C against the Covenant.

First off, Drones are NOT vulnerable to headshots. I have tested this over and over again, and it is completely and totally impossible to get a headshot against one. Period. You know that little red dot in the center of the crosshair of headshot capable weapons? The one that indicated that you have a lock on their head? Never shows up on Drones. You know how headshots kill with a single round from a headshot-capable weapon? Never happens when fighting Drones. For gameplay purposes, Drones don't have a head. Do not — I repeat do NOT — state that Drones are vulnerable to headshots. They're not.

Also, I had to remove bits regarding the usage of Magnums against certain Elite ranks. In Halo 2, Spec-ops Elites are only fought on the stage Gravemind. In that stage, you never have access to human weapons. Obviously that includes the Magnum. So therefore it's pointless to give an evaluation of a weapon's efficacy against an enemy when you never get to use said weapon against said enemy. The fact that we know the strength of a Spec-Ops shields relative to those of other Elite ranks is irrelevant. Also, Zealots are only fought on Legendary difficulty, so since the article deals only with damage dealt on Normal difficulty, the Zealot should not be included. Unless you want to clutter up the page with a chart showing how many shots it takes to kill an Elite of a given rank on a given difficulty, then don't mention the Zealot in the article (actually, I may create such a chart on my user page soon if I have the time). For reference purposes, though, a Zealot takes no less than 20 shots with the Magnum to kill, same as a Major Elite. That takes about 1.67 seconds.

That is all.

Rtas Vadumee 09:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicely put, Rtas --User:MLG Cheehwawa

I agree, well put. -- Lt. Commander File:‎CPT.png‎ |28px]]COMMWork 16:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Low + High = Medium
The Magnum does LOW damage against a shielded opponent (13 headshots to kill, over one full magazine) and HIGH against an unshielded foe, thus the average of this is MEDIUM. Stop changing the "Strength against shielded opponents" to MEDIUM -- It's LOW in that situation. --User:MLG Cheehwawa

This is getting tiresome.
Just to point out a couple of things from my last edit to user Shadowslayer 117:

As can be plainly seen, the Magnum is not particularly accurate, and thus does not qualify as having "high" accuracy
 * I have already explained in a post above that adding "SpecOps Elite" and "Zealot" to the "Against the Covenant" segment it totally unjustified. Unless you can offer a good reason to mention those two Elite units to the article, then DON'T.
 * The bit about the Magnum's accuracy being "High" is something I have NOT discussed. I merely pointed out that the Magnum is nowhere near as accurate as the M6D. Compared to the other weapons in Halo 2, the Magnum would be classified as "medium accuracy" at best, not "high." Here are some actual figures taken from the game data about the weapons' shot spreads, measured in degrees:
 * Magnum: 1.5°
 * SMG: 1-1.75°
 * Plasma Rifle: 0.5-1.5°
 * Carbine: 0.6°
 * Shotgun: 10°
 * M6D: 0.2°
 * Likewise, the damage for the Magnum is best described as "medium" for both shields and health (or "flesh damage" as you call it). The Magnum takes anywhere from 13 to 21 rounds to kill a fully-shielded opponent, 12 of which are required to disable shields. Against an unshielded opponent, it takes either one headshot or nine shots to the body. However, the SMG takes 24 rounds (30 when firing two simultaneously) to kill a fully-shielded opponent, while the Carbine takes 7 to 11 rounds and the BR 4 to 7 full bursts. If the former is "low" per-shot damage, and the latter two are high, then the Magnum's damage is best described as "medium" against shields and health, with the added caveat that it can kill unshielded foes in one headshot.
 * Also, when was the last time you got any good results out of the Magnum (even duals) at mid-range? Even at the furthermost part of the M6C's autoaim range, which barely qualifies as "mid-range" (it's about twice the range of the sword lunge), the Magnum cannot even kill a stationary opponent in the minimum 13 shots. Rather, as I've explained in the past, it invariably takes around 20 to 24 shots. Now, add in the complication of a moving target, and odd are that at the same range the average player would be hard pressed to kill an enemy with dual M6C's without having to reload.
 * Finally, please provide justification for the removal of the statement that the Magnum kills in 13 shots. If it is important enough to point out that the M6D can kill in three shots, then pointing out the Magnum's per-shot power should be regarded as equally important.

That's all I have to say for now. I'm going to go listen to the Bungie podcast.

End of line.

Rtas Vadumee 03:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Damage
I swear with all sincerity that i emptied a dual wield into my enemys head at point blank on multiplayer and they lived(i finished the with a BR). was this a glitch? a coincidence? a one-time anomaly?Maiar 10:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Full name
I was thinking about the name... why is it "Sidearm" rather than PDWS? I don't know about the weapon naming system but are civilian weapons "handguns", weapons issued as secondary weapons "siderarms" (is M6C really such weapon?) and "PDWS" a weapon that is issued to crew members, pilots, officers or any else as only weapon, for personal defense? 88.115.124.211 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap... words nearly fail me...
I didn't realize how much cripe Bungie was really slinging until I started comparing weapon sizes and noticed that the (comparatively) snubby M6C, which in Bungie's terms is a stripped-down M6D (besides that making NO sense whatsoever if one really thinks about it, and I can elaborate on a couple reasons why, one being using a seemingly entirely different action and frame design that the rest of the series of handguns), is canonically LARGER than the ginormahugantuous M6G. The weapons creative design lead guy really phoned it in on the weapon systems, considering that the UNSC would have been a whole lot better off using the SCAR-H, and old SPAS-15s, Javelins, and UMPs, and that they continuously make backward steps on weapons efficacy and design without the slightest hint of credibility or plausibility to back it up, or even a decent in-game reason why. Griever0311 19:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The shotguns in Halo generally fire 8 Gauge shells, the MA5B and MA5C fires 7.62mm FMJ. The SPNKR fires 105mm shaped charge. I would rather have an 8 gauge shell in close quarters than a 12. I prefer the heavier 7.62mm then the lightweight 5.56, although the Scar H can fire 7.62mm so..... I don't understand that particular argument. The UMP has a disgusting recoil so I wouldn't use it.T hat leaves the Javelin's 127mm shaped charge against the 105mm shaped charge of the SPNKR. It is possible that the SPNKR has higher penetration than the Javelin but I'm not sure. I don't really give a damn about the pistols.--Caboose&#39;s Brother 21:30, 16 February 2011 (EST)

12-gauge is more than effective enough for most targets, and without the hugely punishing recoil of an 8-gauge cartridge. The SCAR-H rifle is a 7.62 NATO-chambered weapon, not 5.56; the 5.56 variant is the SCAR-L. I'm willing to bet that the SCAR-H is a good deal lighter than the MA5 rifles, and when moving and fighting (or humping with it over long distances), the extra pounds can add up.  Smoke Sound off! 21:46, 16 February 2011 (EST)


 * Fair enough. But I would think that by 2552 we could make lightweight, yet effective firearms (kinda like the SCAR I guess). Just speculation but, also by 2552 I hope to god we would have effective recoil reduction systems. I agree that the M6C is ridiculously huge, though.--Caboose&#39;s Brother 21:41, 17 February 2011 (EST)


 * Well, according to McLees, all the weapons manufactured in 2552 are friggin' huge and quite overbuilt, and we've only advanced slightly in the last 500 years; we're still using the antiquated 7.62 NATO cartridge.  Smoke Sound off! 22:26, 17 February 2011 (EST)

Good argument. But while the 12 gauge shell may be good for human targets, we don't really know how it would effect aliens. I agree that the7.62 NATO is antiquated in 500 years, but maybe muzzle velocity makes up for that? It's difficult to argue about video game firearms.--Caboose&#39;s Brother 22:26, 18 February 2011 (EST)


 * Apparently they take 7.62 NATO FMJ like a human target would. Seeing as I've never shot an alien, I couldn't really tell you for sure.  Smoke Sound off! 21:35, 26 February 2011 (EST)

Use in Halo 3: ODST
http://www.bungie.net/projects/odst/asset_popup_viewer.aspx?at=53&cc=29&item=8

http://www.bungie.net/projects/odst/asset_popup_viewer.aspx?at=53&cc=29&item=9

Pretty damn sure that says 6C in the upper left, and the letter M is placed all around the body of it. Not to mention it's also Misriah Armory manufactured, it's the only pistol with the same black color scheme as the M6C, the game takes place partially during the events of Halo 2 in New Mombasa which fits the timeline and location, and it has 12 rounds like the M6C as shown in every screenshot/video with the pistol in use.

I would go ahead and edit the page myself, and put something under something along the lines of speculation or conjecture, but every time I edit something here, somebody gives me crap for it. So I thought I'd just throw it up here to it can get edited to what ever the mods think is right. My suggestion: a subsection called M6C Automag, since that's clearly what is says at the bottom of both renders.

You're welcome. Ctg867 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Article created-- 4 scen  21:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to see I could help. Ctg867 20:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was created earlier before you supplied the information. :P-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The page existed, but it wasn't on the general M6 directory page until the day after I had posted this.


 * http://halo.wikia.com/index.php?title=M6_Series&oldid=819815


 * Anyway, I don't want to get into a back and forth about it. Point is, I posted this because I saw the trailer, renders, and screenshots, and didn't find a page in the M6 directory, so I assumed it wasn't created yet. Rather then making it myself, I posted here. If I helped, that's great, if I didn't, oh well. Ctg867 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Automag
Well last time I looked at the Automag article it explained to me the difference between the Automag and the M6C pretty well.

ODSTUBCS 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Balanced
this pistol was the most balanced in halo 1 it was a pocket sniper in halo 3 its useless since as the slowest rate of fire and weakest for any ballistic weapon while this one is fast but not so strong--Sangheili wunna be 01:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The pistol in Halo: CE was the M6D while the pistol in Halo 3 was the M6G.This page is about the M6C which appers in Halo 2 and Halo Wars.A surrpressed verison of the M6C appers in Halo 3: ODST.SPARTAN-177 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

M6C Damage inconsistency
Hi, i'm noticing some problems with the information on this gun, in the section of changes says it needs 13 head shots to kill but in the gameplay sub page it says it needs 14 and 21 body shots and got to ask, can someone confirm those numbers? I can't because i don't have an xbox and can't run halo 2 vista in my laptop but i have an unblocked version of halo 2 editing kit and according to the magnum damage tags it makes 8 points of damage, i haven't been able to find yet where are the energy shield and health damage multipliers and also i can confirm that in multiplayer, players have 70 shield points and 45 health points. Update: --Zen-158 (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2016 (EST)

Something else that I can swear by - is that back on the original Xbox version of Halo 2 the Magnum's damage was affected by your screen settings. Playing on Widescreen would result in a 13-shot kill provided the last shot was a headshot. However, playing on the standard aspect ratio set the Magnum to kill in 7 shots provided the final one landed on the head. I believe I remember this being true also if playing Halo 2 using backwards compatibility on the 360. It was one of the reasons I always played on Standard despite my widescreen TV, as for some reason it would affect players on an individual basis if playing online. Could anyone who still has a 360 or an original Xbox go and test this?