It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Lobotomist I see you guys dont understand much about statistics . Even if 1% of MMO players use Xfire. That data could be used to gauge game activity and popularity rise / drops. Same goes for digital vs retail sales. You know what is the ratio of digital vs retail buyers. Than you use this ratio on retail sales data. If the retail had disappointing sales - it points out poor interest in the game. BTW - As someone who bought D3. I can tell you that I went for retail. Because Blizzard charges same for both (?). But if you buy retail you get a very nice box.
No it couldn't. You would need to determine if that 1% is a true reflection of that particular MMO's playerbase and X-fire does not provide that explanation.
At best you could say that X-fire is a representative of people who know about games and play enough of them to have heard of X-fire. It is a whole different ballgame to say that that group is the same as a true reflection of the random person in the said game.
There's common sense and mathematics that plays a large part you can't ignore or dismiss the data. It may not be a completely accuarate meausre but we just don't have that. 1% is pretty massive source. Consider typical statisctic polling 1000 particiapants with correct population representation. Consider how these 1000 people represent the opinions of millions. Also consider how two people with the same background ethnicty etc can have very different views. It's inherently flawed but it's about as accurate as we can get considering time and money constraints. Now consider a source of ten's/hundreds thousand's in comparison to a few million. It may not have ideal representation but the volume itself in comparison to the source does make up a fair bit of that. If you add in the correct margin's of error, and trends it's still a viable polling source.
True random sampling can correct as much as possible for true representation by giving everyone an equal shot at being selected. It never completely eliminates the x-variable but it does reduce it by again increasing the odds of everyone/anyone being selected.
Those polls of 1000 people if done properly randomly select people in the population they are looking at. Again if it is random than anyone has a chance of being selected and so it can accurately reflect a representative cross-section of that population.
X-fire is not random in any shape or form. It is inheriently biased towards a specific target of people those being that are interested in many different games, discuss games, and research games on the net - this was necessary for them to even find X-fire. Now if you take WoW for example, another common perception is that many WoW gamers are just Wow gamers, with no interest or even real knowledge of other games.
This alone makes the data flawed, and thus invalid. You cannot make any reasonable conclusions about a population based on that data.
You don't disregard something like that there's something call past and trends margin's of error. Correlations etc. X fire maybe incorrect (most data achieved in science is) what's important is not simply whether it's incorrect or not it's how much and whether you know how much of a difference between the the accurate mean is and your results. If Xfire is wrong by roughly by most a specific each time. If you calculate that amount and use margins of error you can use that data. It's not worthless. It's only worthless when there is no trend with the accurate mean data.
So saying you should just disregard it, is displaying a narrow understanding of statistics. Statistics isn't a cut and dry game. It's all about complex mathematics and models. Models by definition through use are rarely accurate by themselves.
Yes you do and should disregard it until at the very least some information is given about the population of several games so a comparison can be made. You cannot use this as valid data in any sense until the data is validated as representative of the popuatlion. At best as I stated in the edit, all you would say it the numbers are interesting enough to warrant further study.
Anyone using this data without first concluding it's validty, reliability and accurace of the population would themselves be considered uncredible.
Yes there are margins of error - they are commonly given when the accuracy of hte data compared to the population is known. We do not even know if X-fire data is representative of populations in any game, therefore the margin of error is absolutely massive.
Yes there are correlations but correlation is not causation. Again there is a very wide margine of error and a very low correlation strength becuase we do not have any idea how representative the data is.
If you know that it is wrong by a specific percentage, that alone gives it validity and you can adjust your measures to reflect this but you still need to have the population data to compare it to. Most games do not give out population data so there is nothing to compare X-fire too. It is specuation about what X-fire means compared to speculation about the total number of players. We can't take that level of guessing seriously at all.
I love this you basically contradict what you said and agreed with me while stating you aren't. Warranting further study is not disregarding, finding more information is not disregard. I am right you shouldn't disregard this information, may not be useable right now but you shouldn't disregard it.
I would say that you should admit you were wrong but who cares, really.
Um no. You disregard the current data until it can be validated. But you don't ignore the idea. There is enough numbers and interest to warrant a closer look.
Thats the way research works. Out of millions of things to study, you choose one that 1. Seems to have some interest behind it, and 2. Has at least a rudimentary of numbers/logic/understanding.
You then do the work and get the real information.
Umm no you look into current data to see if it can be validated, or not. If you make a scientific discovery you don't ignore it and says it false until someone else proves it. You look into it yourself to see if the data is correct/useable. You don't disregard something unless that data is empirically anomalous and has been proven as such over several instances/experiments. You don't disregard it when you have nothing else to compare it to. At that point it's simply raw data waiting to be analysed.
Also facts and case studies my friend your talking like your an authority without substantiating yourself I hate when people do that, I'm a mathematician and engineer, if you want me to substiant myself ask me, but you should also do the same. Either do it or stop acting as if your an authority.
The sergeant-at-arms will be issuing a e-credentials check before this argument is allowed to proceed. So do be sure to make up an impressive curriculum vitae.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't poke fun. I'm just in awe (literally) of how readily x-fire arguments just keep Energizer Bunnying along.
Will stop now, promise.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband
Also facts and case studies my friend your talking like your an authority without substanticanting yourself I hate when people do that, I'm a mathematician and engineer, if you want me to substiant myself ask me, but you should also do the same. Either do it or stop acting as if your an authority.
Looking into the data until it can be validated is exactly what I said. The data should be ignored, as in not used in any research whatsoever until it can be validated.
If you make a scientific discovery one of the first things you do is try and replicate it over and over and over and over and over again. That is how you obtain reliability. Many discoveries have bene discredited because others were unable to replicate the phenomenon.
If there is nothing else to compare it to, there is no way to verify the data. So once again you don't use it until there is something to compare it with.
Great, your a mathematician and an engineer. I'm a physiotherapist, currently working on a PhD/MD in Rehabilitative science at UBC. Does that make us feel better. Of course everyone here will think both of us are taking out our asses.
We've both taken stats classes and research classes. You should know that until data is verified and replicated you don't dare use it in research.
1. Collect the data being as methodical as possible in Qualititave research and as random as possible in descriptive research.
2. Verify the data through comparison and replication.
X-fire has done part of #1 but there are real questions on it's validity as it pertains to a games population. The data cannot be compared to the games population to get that margin of error and trends because the games don't release the stats. Therefore there is nothing to compare it to, so we cant' get trends or margins of error, and we cannot verify it's representation. Therefore making any conclusion on it's validy is false at worse, and premature at best.
This leaves us at a dead end.
edit - actually X-fire could be the most wondeful, accurate peice of game statistical information out there but until we have those 2 questions answered the data is useless. 1. Is it representative of the population in game. 2. What is the actual game population to compare it with.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband
Lol I see u didn't read what i said, I don't care what your title or degree is that shit can be lied or made up, the only way for to substantiate whether you actually have any background knowledge on this subject is through facts and case studies relevant to this discussion. Which should be fairly easy considering your education. It's fairly easy to determine if someone actually has revelant command over a subject through that.
I'm still waiting. You don't have to provide these things you may have them and just be lazy, but if that's the case don't expect people to assume you actually know what your talking about through appeal to authority.
And seriously i lol at your mental circles your going in. You don't disregard the data, fact of the matter is you may talk about a load of pointless stuff in regards to this arguement but you don't disregard it. You should not use it s it's foolish until properly verified but you don't disregard. it's a basic core principle of science as humans venture into things they don't quite understand.
Come on guys don't jump the gun.
Just wait for next week Blizzard sales announcement.
I predict they beat GW2 but they will sell less than Cata.
Pardon my English as it is not my 1st language
Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband
I'm still waiting.
I read what you stated. And I have stated the questions that need to be answered.
Don't kid yourself, getting that information would not be easy unless the game developers released the information willingly - which so far they haven't.
All we need is those two questions answered, and all this x-fire crap and be put to rest.
and what case studies are you wanting to see anyway? Studies on statistical research methodologies? Something specific to gaming populations. Something specific to X-fire? I highly doubt whether there actually has been studies comparing those two.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband
Concession accepted you can't substiante shit (most probably). I was talking about a simple statistical case study on modelling a non ideal representation source in comparison to the accurate mean. Basically anything remotely similar to this situation.
This is not about Xfire being right or not it's a bullshit arguement that'll never really be resolved due to lack of information. What I care about is supposed armchair analysts that plague these threads pretending to be an authority (with degree's to boot) and not substiating crap. I'm trying to determine whether your talking out of your ass with basic high school knowledge or whether you actually know what your talking about.
Originally posted by GeezerGamer Originally posted by Zeppelin4 http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/27/world-of-warcraft-mists-of-pandaria-performance-disappointing/ Take it for what its worth.
That report is total sensationalism. It's counting retail sales since release. So it's not counting Digital sales or pre-purchases. Lets get all the numbers when we play with them huh?
No amount of "wishful" thinking willmake up the 60% loss. 20% maybe pushing it but still this and all other indicators point to pandaland being a dissapointment by Blizzard standards.
We also must not count out the lack of "official" blizzard media release that has came within days after every expansion and yet this one we havnt seen one.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2Waiting on: TESONext Flop: Planetside 2Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
As much as I hate this Xfire debate, I have a thought:
Xfire users are semihardcore to hardcore (have to be, to give a crap about Xfire enough to actually use it).
Following that, they're far more jaded than average casual gamres (the majority of WoW population) and therefore much more likely to NOT play WoW. So if anything, the actual numbers favour WoW even more than Xfire suggests.
Faults with my logic?
One question: how do these analysts know how many boxes were sold?
I know they said "estimate", bu that could mean anything. One thing it means FOR SURE, though, is that nobody counted the actual boxes sold.
Originally posted by Zylaxx Another indicator is the 2 gamestops in my area didnt have a midnight relese for MOP se party either. Just another sign at the dismal acceptance of the latest expansion.
There was a huge launch event streamed live, they linked to different cities to see what was going on, talking to devs and so on http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/events/mists-of-pandaria-launch.html#event:summary
Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Warband
Did you read what you just wrote?
You want me to find a study discussing the validty or reliablity of a non-ideal represnation of a population? You want me to find a study that shows why a non-ideal representation is an inaccurate marker of a population?
Come on guy. Use some logic. It's right there in the word. It's non-ideal.
Take a research class.
It's Textbook. Literally textbook. Year one stats and reseach design. Do a google search explaining why a non-ideal population is invalid to make inferences about a population.
I'll explain it slowly
A... non-ideal... representation... is... not... valid... because... it... is... not... a... good... representation... of... a... populaton.
Originally posted by superniceguy Originally posted by Deathenger Last I checked xfire, they still havent recovered from the loss of players when GW2 released even after MoP. I dont think that article can really accuratly represent digital sales from the WoW main site so I'm sure its much higher than that. On active subscribers alone, even if they only sold MoP to half their subscribers it should still outsell GW2
WOW is back up to the #2 spot on Xfire, and hours played is almost double of GW2
That's true. GW2 is steadily declining in the charts and MoP just jumped up with launch. It does seem they're significanly below what was normal activity before SWTOR, TSW and GW2 came out though. It's quite possible that a lot of players are passing up on the panda expansion. Still, let's give it some more time, it's too soon to tell, but long term they're probably going down in numbers as well, and this is the MoP release peak.
No skin of my back though, the players will decide how good or bad it is.
You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy? :P
This seems an ill contrast compared to the stories about the older expacs, people would line up at midnight for their copy, even for Cat, despite their not even needing to.
Even with electronic sales excluded, I think it's fair to say that WoW is now officially in decline.
Nothing to be ashamed of; it was inevitable, and it's been a good run. Fun was had, and no doubt money was made. But nothing lasts forever.
Far as the GW2 vs. WoW argument goes, that's a dumb argument, anyway. This isn't football; WoW doesn't have to lose for GW2 to win, or vice versa. Nor does one losing mean that the other is winning. They're both games. I bought GW2, and while I skipped out on MoP, Blizzard has gotten a share of my money in the past and it was well earned.
WoW fanboys will be screaming digital sales digital sales digital sales, but the truth is out there.
I bought TBC + WotLK at our local gameshop at midnight, there was no midnight release that alone should give us an indication of less and less pre-orders to warent a nighly sale.
offcourse in some major city with 10 million people living in it a store might open up for a midnight release.
Thing is within a year more and more people jump of the bandwagon and drop wow, people dont forget they had to wait 10 long months without any decent contend updates.They wont forget the promise Blizzard made about faster contend updates.They see the server lists getting more empty and emptyThey see less and less friends onlineThey see how blizzard is grabbing all the moneh they can get and milk out the cow before its dried up
4 hours queue at some servers and 80% of the others servers are I AM LEGEND.People flock to the most populated servers making a snowball effect.
MoP itself focusing on a young audiance instead of their players who supported wow since launch.Not to mention the old developers left WoW since WotLK for Project Titan and letting an ignorant idiot named Ghostcrawler in the lead.
So many bad turns lead to decline, i would have still played and payed if it wasnt for Cataclysm or cute Pandalands.GW2 has similar style of graphics, much better but still similar so it aint realy the age of WoW whats cuasing mass decline.
Around 3.5 / 4 million people lost interests in WoW since WotLK.
I doubt it is that bad. Most people probably just using digital download. Which isn't available in previous expansion.
The serious answer is there is alot of people still subscribed to wow. Why would they keep subscribing if they arn't buying expansion.
Wait for the real number of sale come out. Or wait for Blizzard's financial report, they have to release their subscriber number.
Its the information we are not getting that clearly shows sales are not meeting their expectations.If Blizzard broke a new record or would have sold slightly better then Cataclysm it would be all over the net by offical statements.
Its the information that shows us MoP is not doing realy well, we would have known if it would do awesome.
But to each his own belief offcourse
Originally posted by Mothanos Its the information we are not getting that clearly shows sales are not meeting their expectations. If Blizzard broke a new record or would have sold slightly better then Cataclysm it would be all over the net by offical statements. Its the information that shows us MoP is not doing realy well, we would have known if it would do awesome. But to each his own belief offcourse
For CATA Blizzard released official numbers after 6 days of release. You guys really need to relax.
First of all, 11 million subscribers doesn't mean 11 million people are playing MoP... it just means there are 11 million people playing some flavor of WoW.
As for MoPs success or lack thereof... a quicker litmus is to survey random guilds on random servers and check the levels of the players. I've found very few people leveling beyond 85 per guild... so unless everyone rerolled a level 1 toon for the expansion, most of the players aren't playing MoP.
Compared to Cataclysm, it is a stark drop off. The mere fact that players are willing to wait a few months to pick up MoP says volumes. All in all, it's a "meh" expansion to the masses... hence the heavy advertising by Blizzard... they know their sales are down from Cataclysm.
Originally posted by energized I never post on the forums this might be my 3rd post in 6 years. I had to say that your link was the most stupidest shit i have ever read. 600k-700k sales in 2 DAYS of MOP versus 3.3 million copies since Dec 2010 for Cataclysm = MOP not doing well? WTF hahaha stupid link. Not you I repeat I am not calling you stupid or cussing at you. Just had to clear that up.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Originally posted by Sephros [mod edit]
That's just not as fun I guess!
Thanks,MikeWorking on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com