Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

MMOGCHART.COM Updated

2»

Comments

  • ianubisiianubisi Member Posts: 4,201


    Originally posted by Vyava

    Oh, and your numbers don't mesh with public data, maybe you should research multiple sources?

    What data do you have that contradicts the information presented thus far?

  • SpathotanSpathotan Member Posts: 3,928


    Originally posted by SirBruce

    Originally posted by Vyava

    Originally posted by SirBruce
    I don't believe you answered my question.  You said "The income rates alone don't co-ordinate with the subscriber data you have listed", meaning you must know the income rates.  Could you provide those income rates for the various companies involved, to prove your point?
    I never claimed to know income breakdown beyond what's been given in public records.  The rest of your ranting is similarly off-base.
    Bruce


    If you don't know the break down then how can you breakdown the population base in games from the same company?

    Oh, and your numbers don't mesh with public data, maybe you should research multiple sources?

    MMOCHART is being presented as somethign it is not, accurate.  It isn't a bad attempt at a first analysis, but it is far from something that would be allowed in even a 300 level class. It is over simplified and suffers from repeated counting of the same population, while not counting other populations on technicalities.

    If you would like to add some accuracy to the chart their are many books available. How To Model It, Calculating the Human Factor, and Sociology for the Mathematical Mind are all good first model development books. They only require highschool level mathe and logic analysis experience.

    Off to BBQ for the holiday.


    Because "population base", as you call it, I *do* know pretty well.  A lot better than revenue numbers.  That's how.

    Again, you claim those numbers don't correlate with revenues.  Again, tell us the revenues, which would back up your point.  You can't, because you don't know them either.  In other words, you're an idiot.

    I do research multiple soruces, and they do mesh with public data.  I never said otherwise.  Again, you were the one claiming my numbers were wrong, even when they came from public sources.  You're arguing with yourself, here.

    MMOGCHART has never been presented as accurate.  It is, however, far more accurate than just about anything else you'll find, absent direct access to the customer records of all of these companies.

    Thanks for the book recommendations, but I really don't need them, since the primary goal is to simply collect better data over time.  Too bad you won't stay to actually back up your statements with evidence, and instead you're running off to a BBQ.

    Bruce



    I suppose thats better suited than arguing over the internet with a possible bullshit artist.

    "There's no star system Slave I can't reach, and there's no planet I can't find. There's nowhere in the Galaxy for you to run. Might as well give up now."
    — Boba Fett

  • VyavaVyava Member Posts: 893


    Originally posted by SirBruce

    Because "population base", as you call it, I *do* know pretty well.  A lot better than revenue numbers.  That's how.
    No you don't, you are applying static formulas to a non static population.
    Again, you claim those numbers don't correlate with revenues.  Again, tell us the revenues, which would back up your point.  You can't, because you don't know them either.  In other words, you're an idiot.
    The gross income for Vivendi based on monthly fees alone (which is actually an inflated population number since a box still has to be purchased) suggest a minimum of 17 to 19% inaccuracy in population.
    I do research multiple soruces, and they do mesh with public data.  I never said otherwise.  Again, you were the one claiming my numbers were wrong, even when they came from public sources.  You're arguing with yourself, here.
    No, you are arguing that source datat matched even though you are using different definitions for the data. That is a misrepresentation of the data.
    MMOGCHART has never been presented as accurate.  It is, however, far more accurate than just about anything else you'll find, absent direct access to the customer records of all of these companies.
    You seem to be representing it as accurate in every post you make. Either it is or it is not. It is not.
    Thanks for the book recommendations, but I really don't need them, since the primary goal is to simply collect better data over time.  Too bad you won't stay to actually back up your statements with evidence, and instead you're running off to a BBQ.
    So proper data collection and tracking isn't a goal? Then the data over time has no value.
    God forbid I BBQ on July 4th! OMFG!
    Bruce


    Post your data files and I will analyze them when bored. That is my career, specialty and education.

    What you don't understand is pure number collection means nothing. That is a system used in elementary schools because students don't have the mathe base and logic base to understand the formulations you have to apply to data once collected.

    Do you know that over 25,000 left handed people are injured a year using products designed for right handed people? Tis true, but the number means nothing. That number has no value until you know a few things:

    1. number of right handed people injured using right handed products

    2. number of right handed people injured using left handed products

    3. number of right handed people hurt by right handed products

    4. injury rates per capita of all above values

    5. how many of those products are functionally affected by the dominate hand of the user (aka like the direction paper is twisted in a pair of scissors vs a steering wheel)

    6. age and durability of products that caused injury and if the dominate hand of the user affected this

    7. number of injuries actually caused by a 3rd variable interaction

    Actually there are more, but my embers are ready and such I have meat to char.

    I know, who the hell BBQs on the 4th of July!


  • SirBruceSirBruce Member Posts: 95


    Originally posted by Vyava

    Originally posted by SirBruce

    Because "population base", as you call it, I *do* know pretty well.  A lot better than revenue numbers.  That's how.
    No you don't, you are applying static formulas to a non static population.
    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?  Is English your native languard?  I'm not applying any formula.

    Again, you claim those numbers don't correlate with revenues.  Again, tell us the revenues, which would back up your point.  You can't, because you don't know them either.  In other words, you're an idiot.
    The gross income for Vivendi based on monthly fees alone (which is actually an inflated population number since a box still has to be purchased) suggest a minimum of 17 to 19% inaccuracy in population.
    Firstly, EVEN IF WE ASSUME YOU'RE CORRECT, that only tells you about a possible discrepancy in one series of data points.  Your claim was much broader, about all the data in general, and that's not supported by any one company's revenue numbers.
    Secondly, THE POPULATION NUMBERS FOR WOW ARE REPORTED BY VIVENDI IN THE SAME DOCUMENTS THAT REPORT GROSS INCOME.  In other words, if you're saying the numbers don't correlate, that's a problem with Vivendi, not with me.  The WoW numbers are coming from them.
    Thirdly, YOU'RE AN IDIOT AND YOU'RE WRONG.  Vivendi doesn't provide a gross income number that represents only WoW subscription revenue.  The number they provide is for the entire games division, and includes revenues from multiple additional sources, including box sales.  This may be why you think you see a discrepancy.

    I do research multiple soruces, and they do mesh with public data.  I never said otherwise.  Again, you were the one claiming my numbers were wrong, even when they came from public sources.  You're arguing with yourself, here.
    No, you are arguing that source datat matched even though you are using different definitions for the data. That is a misrepresentation of the data.
    No, I'm not arguing that at all, nor have I ever argued that.  Again, you are the one claiming numbers from public sources are wrong.


    MMOGCHART has never been presented as accurate.  It is, however, far more accurate than just about anything else you'll find, absent direct access to the customer records of all of these companies.
    You seem to be representing it as accurate in every post you make. Either it is or it is not. It is not.
    If it seems that way to you, it's probably because you're blinded by your own biases.  Again, never claimed it was 100% accurate, just that it was more accurate than, well, just about anything else.

    Thanks for the book recommendations, but I really don't need them, since the primary goal is to simply collect better data over time.  Too bad you won't stay to actually back up your statements with evidence, and instead you're running off to a BBQ.
    So proper data collection and tracking isn't a goal? Then the data over time has no value.
    Again, is English not your primary language?  Since I just said the primary goal was to collect better data over time, it seems that proper data collection and tracking IS a goal.

    Post your data files and I will analyze them when bored. That is my career, specialty and education.

    The data files have always been available for people to download and use for their own analysis.  That's largely part of the point.

    What you don't understand is pure number collection means nothing. That is a system used in elementary schools because students don't have the mathe base and logic base to understand the formulations you have to apply to data once collected.

    You're getting philosophical here.  Analysis may derive more "meaning" than pure number colleciton, but pure number colleciton is still necessary for the analysis.  Pure number collection has "value" so you can then analyze it to extract "meaning".  All of this is well understood.

    Do you know that over 25,000 left handed people are injured a year using products designed for right handed people? Tis true, but the number means nothing. That number has no value until you know a few things:

    Wrong.  It depends on what you want to DO with that number, or in other words, what sort of meaning you want to derive from it.  If you just want to know the number, then it means everything.  If you want to evaluate that number within context, the obviously other numbers matter.  This is simple STAT 101 stuff.

    I know, who the hell BBQs on the 4th of July!

    Who the hell cares about your BBQ?  Either defend your arguments or shut up.  So far you're just making a fool of yourself.

    Analyst, Consultant, Writer
    http://www.mmogchart.com

  • VyavaVyava Member Posts: 893


    Originally posted by SirBruce

    Originally posted by Vyava

    Originally posted by SirBruce

    Because "population base", as you call it, I *do* know pretty well.  A lot better than revenue numbers.  That's how.
    No you don't, you are applying static formulas to a non static population.
    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?  Is English your native languard?  I'm not applying any formula.
    No it is not, but if you understood statistical analysis you would understand the statement. You are applying a formula through assumption, you just don't understand stats or mathe deep enough to realize it. You are counting all the game data as if they all started and stopped on the same time frame which they do not. You are also treating all games as if you can return to an account left dormant, which is also inaccurate (FFXI for example). So you are applying a static formula to non static data.

    Again, you claim those numbers don't correlate with revenues.  Again, tell us the revenues, which would back up your point.  You can't, because you don't know them either.  In other words, you're an idiot.
    The gross income for Vivendi based on monthly fees alone (which is actually an inflated population number since a box still has to be purchased) suggest a minimum of 17 to 19% inaccuracy in population.
    Firstly, EVEN IF WE ASSUME YOU'RE CORRECT, that only tells you about a possible discrepancy in one series of data points.  Your claim was much broader, about all the data in general, and that's not supported by any one company's revenue numbers.
    Secondly, THE POPULATION NUMBERS FOR WOW ARE REPORTED BY VIVENDI IN THE SAME DOCUMENTS THAT REPORT GROSS INCOME.  In other words, if you're saying the numbers don't correlate, that's a problem with Vivendi, not with me.  The WoW numbers are coming from them.
    Incorrect, because you do not modify the numbers for the amount of trial accounts.
    Thirdly, YOU'RE AN IDIOT AND YOU'RE WRONG.  Vivendi doesn't provide a gross income number that represents only WoW subscription revenue.  The number they provide is for the entire games division, and includes revenues from multiple additional sources, including box sales.  This may be why you think you see a discrepancy.
    So we are back to my statement that you are assuming the income split, which you do not know. You are adding an additional variable without compensating. The discrepency in your mathe is most likely trial account data, but you choose to ignore that.

    I do research multiple soruces, and they do mesh with public data.  I never said otherwise.  Again, you were the one claiming my numbers were wrong, even when they came from public sources.  You're arguing with yourself, here.
    No, you are arguing that source datat matched even though you are using different definitions for the data. That is a misrepresentation of the data.
    No, I'm not arguing that at all, nor have I ever argued that.  Again, you are the one claiming numbers from public sources are wrong.
    They are in correlation to your chart. The reason is because you have not adjusted them to the same definitions.  To use a cliche apples and oranges.


    MMOGCHART has never been presented as accurate.  It is, however, far more accurate than just about anything else you'll find, absent direct access to the customer records of all of these companies.
    You seem to be representing it as accurate in every post you make. Either it is or it is not. It is not.
    If it seems that way to you, it's probably because you're blinded by your own biases.  Again, never claimed it was 100% accurate, just that it was more accurate than, well, just about anything else.
    No it isn't. Your ego is in the way of proper analysis. It seems that way to me because unlike you I understand data analysis.

    Thanks for the book recommendations, but I really don't need them, since the primary goal is to simply collect better data over time.  Too bad you won't stay to actually back up your statements with evidence, and instead you're running off to a BBQ.
    So proper data collection and tracking isn't a goal? Then the data over time has no value.
    Again, is English not your primary language?  Since I just said the primary goal was to collect better data over time, it seems that proper data collection and tracking IS a goal.
    No it isn't, not if you are standing by your statments on your site. You casually state that a variance of 10% (by your own account) is minor. You completely ignore alternate payment methods because you didn't know how to track them and you haven't modified any numbers for decay and retention. You took expansion p[acks into account, but not prime sale times and their correlation to average retention length. What that means is you have weighted any game with a short high sales period with a poor retention rate, but longer period of a lower population, greater than one with a consistent retention and sales rate.
    It is called skewing the stats by using a median average rather than the modal average. You also haven't weighted the length of included subscriptions and its effect on the average retention length.
    You are using using 2 different measuring units claiming they are the same.

    Post your data files and I will analyze them when bored. That is my career, specialty and education.

    The data files have always been available for people to download and use for their own analysis.  That's largely part of the point.

    What you don't understand is pure number collection means nothing. That is a system used in elementary schools because students don't have the mathe base and logic base to understand the formulations you have to apply to data once collected.

    You're getting philosophical here.  Analysis may derive more "meaning" than pure number colleciton, but pure number colleciton is still necessary for the analysis.  Pure number collection has "value" so you can then analyze it to extract "meaning".  All of this is well understood.

    Pure numbers mean nothing if you don't remove the inapproriate variables and modifiers. It isn't philosophy it is basic data collection.

    Do you know that over 25,000 left handed people are injured a year using products designed for right handed people? Tis true, but the number means nothing. That number has no value until you know a few things:

    Wrong.  It depends on what you want to DO with that number, or in other words, what sort of meaning you want to derive from it.  If you just want to know the number, then it means everything.  If you want to evaluate that number within context, the obviously other numbers matter.  This is simple STAT 101 stuff.

    Um, no. Unless you want to mislead and twist definitions of your data it is not wrong. What you are doing is intentionally leaving in variables and adding additional variables corrupting all of your data.

    Simple STAT 101 stuff is that your data methods are broken at best. There is not common definitoin given anywhere on your site, or even definitive statement. Just a misleading "generally counted as" without anything to back it up. Without a definition the numbers mean nothing, they are just PR. 

    I know, who the hell BBQs on the 4th of July!

    Who the hell cares about your BBQ?  Either defend your arguments or shut up.  So far you're just making a fool of yourself.

    Learn basic math and logic, seriously. Just because you don't understand why your data is misleading and where you made errors doesn't mean they don't exist.

    I will be on later, reread your posts and your site. I have to boot into windows to look over your excel file.



  • Rayth3onRayth3on Member UncommonPosts: 146

    Your chart is a bit wrong, and Auto Assault is not even top 15 in rank nor top 15 in rpg buy, the game is too new to even be on top 15.

    1:WOW (6million)

    2:GW<------- you forgot to this as #2 (2million)

    Here is the proof

    http://www.gameaxis.com/home/?blog=351

    image

  • MunkiMunki Member CommonPosts: 2,128


    Originally posted by Vyava

    Originally posted by SirBruce

    Originally posted by Vyava

    Originally posted by SirBruce

    Because "population base", as you call it, I *do* know pretty well.  A lot better than revenue numbers.  That's how.
    No you don't, you are applying static formulas to a non static population.
    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?  Is English your native languard?  I'm not applying any formula.
    No it is not, but if you understood statistical analysis you would understand the statement. You are applying a formula through assumption, you just don't understand stats or mathe deep enough to realize it. You are counting all the game data as if they all started and stopped on the same time frame which they do not. You are also treating all games as if you can return to an account left dormant, which is also inaccurate (FFXI for example). So you are applying a static formula to non static data.

    Again, you claim those numbers don't correlate with revenues.  Again, tell us the revenues, which would back up your point.  You can't, because you don't know them either.  In other words, you're an idiot.
    The gross income for Vivendi based on monthly fees alone (which is actually an inflated population number since a box still has to be purchased) suggest a minimum of 17 to 19% inaccuracy in population.
    Firstly, EVEN IF WE ASSUME YOU'RE CORRECT, that only tells you about a possible discrepancy in one series of data points.  Your claim was much broader, about all the data in general, and that's not supported by any one company's revenue numbers.
    Secondly, THE POPULATION NUMBERS FOR WOW ARE REPORTED BY VIVENDI IN THE SAME DOCUMENTS THAT REPORT GROSS INCOME.  In other words, if you're saying the numbers don't correlate, that's a problem with Vivendi, not with me.  The WoW numbers are coming from them.
    Incorrect, because you do not modify the numbers for the amount of trial accounts.
    Thirdly, YOU'RE AN IDIOT AND YOU'RE WRONG.  Vivendi doesn't provide a gross income number that represents only WoW subscription revenue.  The number they provide is for the entire games division, and includes revenues from multiple additional sources, including box sales.  This may be why you think you see a discrepancy.
    So we are back to my statement that you are assuming the income split, which you do not know. You are adding an additional variable without compensating. The discrepency in your mathe is most likely trial account data, but you choose to ignore that.

    I do research multiple soruces, and they do mesh with public data.  I never said otherwise.  Again, you were the one claiming my numbers were wrong, even when they came from public sources.  You're arguing with yourself, here.
    No, you are arguing that source datat matched even though you are using different definitions for the data. That is a misrepresentation of the data.
    No, I'm not arguing that at all, nor have I ever argued that.  Again, you are the one claiming numbers from public sources are wrong.
    They are in correlation to your chart. The reason is because you have not adjusted them to the same definitions.  To use a cliche apples and oranges.


    MMOGCHART has never been presented as accurate.  It is, however, far more accurate than just about anything else you'll find, absent direct access to the customer records of all of these companies.
    You seem to be representing it as accurate in every post you make. Either it is or it is not. It is not.
    If it seems that way to you, it's probably because you're blinded by your own biases.  Again, never claimed it was 100% accurate, just that it was more accurate than, well, just about anything else.
    No it isn't. Your ego is in the way of proper analysis. It seems that way to me because unlike you I understand data analysis.

    Thanks for the book recommendations, but I really don't need them, since the primary goal is to simply collect better data over time.  Too bad you won't stay to actually back up your statements with evidence, and instead you're running off to a BBQ.
    So proper data collection and tracking isn't a goal? Then the data over time has no value.
    Again, is English not your primary language?  Since I just said the primary goal was to collect better data over time, it seems that proper data collection and tracking IS a goal.
    No it isn't, not if you are standing by your statments on your site. You casually state that a variance of 10% (by your own account) is minor. You completely ignore alternate payment methods because you didn't know how to track them and you haven't modified any numbers for decay and retention. You took expansion p[acks into account, but not prime sale times and their correlation to average retention length. What that means is you have weighted any game with a short high sales period with a poor retention rate, but longer period of a lower population, greater than one with a consistent retention and sales rate.
    It is called skewing the stats by using a median average rather than the modal average. You also haven't weighted the length of included subscriptions and its effect on the average retention length.
    You are using using 2 different measuring units claiming they are the same.

    Post your data files and I will analyze them when bored. That is my career, specialty and education.

    The data files have always been available for people to download and use for their own analysis.  That's largely part of the point.



    What you don't understand is pure number collection means nothing. That is a system used in elementary schools because students don't have the mathe base and logic base to understand the formulations you have to apply to data once collected.

    You're getting philosophical here.  Analysis may derive more "meaning" than pure number colleciton, but pure number colleciton is still necessary for the analysis.  Pure number collection has "value" so you can then analyze it to extract "meaning".  All of this is well understood.

    Pure numbers mean nothing if you don't remove the inapproriate variables and modifiers. It isn't philosophy it is basic data collection.

    Do you know that over 25,000 left handed people are injured a year using products designed for right handed people? Tis true, but the number means nothing. That number has no value until you know a few things:

    Wrong.  It depends on what you want to DO with that number, or in other words, what sort of meaning you want to derive from it.  If you just want to know the number, then it means everything.  If you want to evaluate that number within context, the obviously other numbers matter.  This is simple STAT 101 stuff.

    Um, no. Unless you want to mislead and twist definitions of your data it is not wrong. What you are doing is intentionally leaving in variables and adding additional variables corrupting all of your data.

    Simple STAT 101 stuff is that your data methods are broken at best. There is not common definitoin given anywhere on your site, or even definitive statement. Just a misleading "generally counted as" without anything to back it up. Without a definition the numbers mean nothing, they are just PR. 

    I know, who the hell BBQs on the 4th of July!

    Who the hell cares about your BBQ?  Either defend your arguments or shut up.  So far you're just making a fool of yourself.

    Learn basic math and logic, seriously. Just because you don't understand why your data is misleading and where you made errors doesn't mean they don't exist.

    I will be on later, reread your posts and your site. I have to boot into windows to look over your excel file.





    I pitty your students.
    You need to learn how to argue.
    First off, you are not adressing any of his points, nor are you providing proof, or a reccomendation of a way to fix it. For all we know your just throwing in a bunch of words and you could be some 14 year old kid in his mother's basement.
    You're rude. Its a simple sentence but it gets the job done. Your showing no respect to his work and what he has accomplished. This is silly, if your trying to argue a point, you show respect for the person your arguing againsed. You should know that... you are a teacher... aren't you?

    "learn basic math and logic"
    Wow... theres a mature statement -just to name one- .  I am really surprised  somebody so educated, let alone in a teaching profession is just throwing insults rather than trying to solve or educate.

    You also seem to be ignoring the fact that he isn't applying formulas, he isn't a statistician. He is a person who takes data from companies, and graphs it. You're assuming so much its almost silly. It is silly really. "data as if it started and stopped at the same time"  Hes just taking numbers from the company, hes not taking samples, hes not doing anything aside from reporting numbers givin from companies. Its not his fault if you think they are wrong, if you have a problem, perhaps you should contact NC soft, or Vivindi and enlighten them to the error of their statistics. You obviously know what your talking about, so they would love to hear from you.

    And for the record, Im not trying to argue, and thus, I'm not trying to respect your ideas. I feel you are being horribly rude and disrespectful of his work. I'm not claiming he is right, or that his data is correct, as I don't know much past what I learnt in grade 12. But I am saying you're acting like a annoying child who insists he is right.

    image
    after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...

  • ElnatorElnator Member Posts: 6,077


    Originally posted by Rayth3on

    Your chart is a bit wrong, and Auto Assault is not even top 15 in rank nor top 15 in rpg buy, the game is too new to even be on top 15.
    1:WOW (6million)
    2:GW<------- you forgot to this as #2 (2million)
    Here is the proof

    http://www.gameaxis.com/home/?blog=351


    ERRR  Guild Wars doesn't have "Subscribers"

    Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
    Sig image Pending
    Still in: A couple Betas

  • ElnatorElnator Member Posts: 6,077


    Originally posted by Munki

    Originally posted by Vyava

    Originally posted by SirBruce

    Originally posted by Vyava

    Originally posted by SirBruce

    Because "population base", as you call it, I *do* know pretty well.  A lot better than revenue numbers.  That's how.
    No you don't, you are applying static formulas to a non static population.
    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?  Is English your native languard?  I'm not applying any formula.
    No it is not, but if you understood statistical analysis you would understand the statement. You are applying a formula through assumption, you just don't understand stats or mathe deep enough to realize it. You are counting all the game data as if they all started and stopped on the same time frame which they do not. You are also treating all games as if you can return to an account left dormant, which is also inaccurate (FFXI for example). So you are applying a static formula to non static data.

    Again, you claim those numbers don't correlate with revenues.  Again, tell us the revenues, which would back up your point.  You can't, because you don't know them either.  In other words, you're an idiot.
    The gross income for Vivendi based on monthly fees alone (which is actually an inflated population number since a box still has to be purchased) suggest a minimum of 17 to 19% inaccuracy in population.
    Firstly, EVEN IF WE ASSUME YOU'RE CORRECT, that only tells you about a possible discrepancy in one series of data points.  Your claim was much broader, about all the data in general, and that's not supported by any one company's revenue numbers.
    Secondly, THE POPULATION NUMBERS FOR WOW ARE REPORTED BY VIVENDI IN THE SAME DOCUMENTS THAT REPORT GROSS INCOME.  In other words, if you're saying the numbers don't correlate, that's a problem with Vivendi, not with me.  The WoW numbers are coming from them.
    Incorrect, because you do not modify the numbers for the amount of trial accounts.
    Thirdly, YOU'RE AN IDIOT AND YOU'RE WRONG.  Vivendi doesn't provide a gross income number that represents only WoW subscription revenue.  The number they provide is for the entire games division, and includes revenues from multiple additional sources, including box sales.  This may be why you think you see a discrepancy.
    So we are back to my statement that you are assuming the income split, which you do not know. You are adding an additional variable without compensating. The discrepency in your mathe is most likely trial account data, but you choose to ignore that.

    I do research multiple soruces, and they do mesh with public data.  I never said otherwise.  Again, you were the one claiming my numbers were wrong, even when they came from public sources.  You're arguing with yourself, here.
    No, you are arguing that source datat matched even though you are using different definitions for the data. That is a misrepresentation of the data.
    No, I'm not arguing that at all, nor have I ever argued that.  Again, you are the one claiming numbers from public sources are wrong.
    They are in correlation to your chart. The reason is because you have not adjusted them to the same definitions.  To use a cliche apples and oranges.


    MMOGCHART has never been presented as accurate.  It is, however, far more accurate than just about anything else you'll find, absent direct access to the customer records of all of these companies.
    You seem to be representing it as accurate in every post you make. Either it is or it is not. It is not.
    If it seems that way to you, it's probably because you're blinded by your own biases.  Again, never claimed it was 100% accurate, just that it was more accurate than, well, just about anything else.
    No it isn't. Your ego is in the way of proper analysis. It seems that way to me because unlike you I understand data analysis.

    Thanks for the book recommendations, but I really don't need them, since the primary goal is to simply collect better data over time.  Too bad you won't stay to actually back up your statements with evidence, and instead you're running off to a BBQ.
    So proper data collection and tracking isn't a goal? Then the data over time has no value.
    Again, is English not your primary language?  Since I just said the primary goal was to collect better data over time, it seems that proper data collection and tracking IS a goal.
    No it isn't, not if you are standing by your statments on your site. You casually state that a variance of 10% (by your own account) is minor. You completely ignore alternate payment methods because you didn't know how to track them and you haven't modified any numbers for decay and retention. You took expansion p[acks into account, but not prime sale times and their correlation to average retention length. What that means is you have weighted any game with a short high sales period with a poor retention rate, but longer period of a lower population, greater than one with a consistent retention and sales rate.
    It is called skewing the stats by using a median average rather than the modal average. You also haven't weighted the length of included subscriptions and its effect on the average retention length.
    You are using using 2 different measuring units claiming they are the same.

    Post your data files and I will analyze them when bored. That is my career, specialty and education.

    The data files have always been available for people to download and use for their own analysis.  That's largely part of the point.

    What you don't understand is pure number collection means nothing. That is a system used in elementary schools because students don't have the mathe base and logic base to understand the formulations you have to apply to data once collected.

    You're getting philosophical here.  Analysis may derive more "meaning" than pure number colleciton, but pure number colleciton is still necessary for the analysis.  Pure number collection has "value" so you can then analyze it to extract "meaning".  All of this is well understood.

    Pure numbers mean nothing if you don't remove the inapproriate variables and modifiers. It isn't philosophy it is basic data collection.

    Do you know that over 25,000 left handed people are injured a year using products designed for right handed people? Tis true, but the number means nothing. That number has no value until you know a few things:

    Wrong.  It depends on what you want to DO with that number, or in other words, what sort of meaning you want to derive from it.  If you just want to know the number, then it means everything.  If you want to evaluate that number within context, the obviously other numbers matter.  This is simple STAT 101 stuff.

    Um, no. Unless you want to mislead and twist definitions of your data it is not wrong. What you are doing is intentionally leaving in variables and adding additional variables corrupting all of your data.

    Simple STAT 101 stuff is that your data methods are broken at best. There is not common definitoin given anywhere on your site, or even definitive statement. Just a misleading "generally counted as" without anything to back it up. Without a definition the numbers mean nothing, they are just PR. 

    I know, who the hell BBQs on the 4th of July!

    Who the hell cares about your BBQ?  Either defend your arguments or shut up.  So far you're just making a fool of yourself.

    Learn basic math and logic, seriously. Just because you don't understand why your data is misleading and where you made errors doesn't mean they don't exist.

    I will be on later, reread your posts and your site. I have to boot into windows to look over your excel file.





    I pitty your students.
    You need to learn how to argue.
    First off, you are not adressing any of his points, nor are you providing proof, or a reccomendation of a way to fix it. For all we know your just throwing in a bunch of words and you could be some 14 year old kid in his mother's basement.
    You're rude. Its a simple sentence but it gets the job done. Your showing no respect to his work and what he has accomplished. This is silly, if your trying to argue a point, you show respect for the person your arguing againsed. You should know that... you are a teacher... aren't you?

    "learn basic math and logic"
    Wow... theres a mature statement -just to name one- .  I am really surprised  somebody so educated, let alone in a teaching profession is just throwing insults rather than trying to solve or educate.

    You also seem to be ignoring the fact that he isn't applying formulas, he isn't a statistician. He is a person who takes data from companies, and graphs it. You're assuming so much its almost silly. It is silly really. "data as if it started and stopped at the same time"  Hes just taking numbers from the company, hes not taking samples, hes not doing anything aside from reporting numbers givin from companies. Its not his fault if you think they are wrong, if you have a problem, perhaps you should contact NC soft, or Vivindi and enlighten them to the error of their statistics. You obviously know what your talking about, so they would love to hear from you.

    And for the record, Im not trying to argue, and thus, I'm not trying to respect your ideas. I feel you are being horribly rude and disrespectful of his work. I'm not claiming he is right, or that his data is correct, as I don't know much past what I learnt in grade 12. But I am saying you're acting like a annoying child who insists he is right.



    Ahh Monk... just ignore Vyava... he/she/it is a troll... feeding trolls is bad.  What's worse is that he/she/it is arguing a point that makes no sense.  Bruce's numbers aren't a statistical analysis of costs vs. income or anything like that.  They're data points provided by publicaly and privately owned companies.  Which typically are fairly accurate.

    Vyava is just arguing for the sake of arguing.  He has interesting arguements but they rarely have anything to do with reality.... in my experience as a professional who does, rather than teaches, that is typical of the teaching profession.

    "Those who can't do"....... "Teach".

    Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
    Sig image Pending
    Still in: A couple Betas

  • lsutiglsutig Member UncommonPosts: 92

    just wanted to point out to Vyava that WoW doesnt include trial accounts in its subscriber numbers. one of the few actual reasons he gave for Bruce's numbers being wrong and its not correct.

    World of Warcraft's Customer Definition

    World of Warcraft customers include individuals who have paid a
    subscription fee or purchased a prepaid card to play World of Warcraft,
    as well as those who have purchased the installation box bundled with
    one free month access. Internet Game Room players that have accessed
    the game over the last seven days are also counted as customers. The
    above definition excludes all players under free promotional
    subscriptions, expired or cancelled subscriptions, and expired pre-paid
    cards. Customers in licensees' territories are defined along the same
    rules.



    sorry to interupt the usual "i hate every mmorpg", WoW is the anti-christ forum topics.






  • LasraikLasraik Member Posts: 170
    Don't feed the trolls.
  • SirBruceSirBruce Member Posts: 95

    Sorry for dragging this out so long, folks.  I didn't realize the guy was a troll, because it looked like he was actually trying to say something insightful or helpful, or at the very least, something well-considered that was simply the result of a misunderstanding.  But I give up; he refuses to even answer my questions and just keeps going round and round about stuff that doesn't even apply.

    Bruce

    Analyst, Consultant, Writer
    http://www.mmogchart.com

  • LathialLathial Member UncommonPosts: 166



    Ahh Monk... just ignore Vyava... he/she/it is a troll... feeding trolls is bad.  What's worse is that he/she/it is arguing a point that makes no sense.  Bruce's numbers aren't a statistical analysis of costs vs. income or anything like that.  They're data points provided by publicaly and privately owned companies.  Which typically are fairly accurate.

    Vyava is just arguing for the sake of arguing.  He has interesting arguements but they rarely have anything to do with reality.... in my experience as a professional who does, rather than teaches, that is typical of the teaching profession.

    "Those who can't do"....... "Teach".


    This is the most ignorant post I have seen.  Elnator, don’t spout nonsense when you have no clue what your talking about.  Any adult professional knows that teaching is not only Honorable but also the most Rewarding career anyone can have.  Period!  The future, literally, is in our hands...

    My wife and I both are educators; we chose to be teachers.  I didn’t go thru grad school to become rich-professional 'doer'.  I wanted to be an academic; I loved literature and became an English teacher- My wife- math.  Maybe one day I'll be a professor.

    Go hug a teacher- they deserve it.  After all, you can read this because of our dedication. 

    PS- summer vacations are great too =)

    Lath


  • TorakTorak Member Posts: 4,905


    Originally posted by Lathial



    Ahh Monk... just ignore Vyava... he/she/it is a troll... feeding trolls is bad.  What's worse is that he/she/it is arguing a point that makes no sense.  Bruce's numbers aren't a statistical analysis of costs vs. income or anything like that.  They're data points provided by publicaly and privately owned companies.  Which typically are fairly accurate.

    Vyava is just arguing for the sake of arguing.  He has interesting arguements but they rarely have anything to do with reality.... in my experience as a professional who does, rather than teaches, that is typical of the teaching profession.

    "Those who can't do"....... "Teach".


    This is the most ignorant post I have seen.  Elnator, don’t spout nonsense when you have no clue what your talking about.  Any adult professional knows that teaching is not only Honorable but also the most Rewarding career anyone can have.  Period!  The future, literally, is in our hands...

    My wife and I both are educators; we chose to be teachers.  I didn’t go thru grad school to become rich-professional 'doer'.  I wanted to be an academic; I loved literature and became an English teacher- My wife- math.  Maybe one day I'll be a professor.

    Go hug a teacher- they deserve it.  After all, you can read this because of our dedication. 

    PS- summer vacations are great too =)

    Lath



    Not to get down on Elnator to much, I think he was slamming the other knothead, but I think he could have said it differently also. I'm an Instructor for the U.S. Army as a civilian and I also put in my time in the field and combat as a young soldier. I like to think I know what I am talking about as I learned the hard way by "doing and sacrificing."

    I have a few Vet friends who also went into education. One works for the Chicago public school system, which is no easy task, and the other is a professor in SC. He also consults to the state government there. We have commited ourselves to service to our country in one form or another. I have spent most of my adult life in public service in some form or another minus about 6 years working for an Insurance company right out of college as a field underwriter.

    (side note on stats, you can make numbers say just about anything you want them to)

    What that statement implies is that teachers are somehow not able to perform in some meaninful way thus they become "teachers". That isn't the case and I sort of take offence at our service and sacrifice to our country being belittled.

    I'm pretty sure Elmator didn't mean it that way.

  • SirBruceSirBruce Member Posts: 95

    The old saying goes, "Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach." and was later extended to, "Those who can't teach, teach gym." and/or "Those who can't teach, administrate."  Like any joke, it's not meant to be totally serious, but contains a kernel of truth that hits uncomfortably close to home.

    The denigration is not directed at teaching, though, which is a noble profession.  It's actually a comment about the state of teachning in general, or the expertise of your average teacher.  Most teachers DON'T really know enough about whatever they are teaching to actually do it professionally, which calls into question just how well they can actually teach others to do it with requisite skill.

    Still, I have no idea of Vyava's credentials.  He might be a very good statistician, or even a very good math teacher.  But he doesn't seem to be very good at reading comprehension, journalism, or business analysis.  He reminds me of my old physics buddies who thought all social sciences were bunk since they had to rely on tools like surveys and observation to take measurements instead of a metallic probe and a DSP.

    Yes, these numbers are of varying, unquantifiable accuracy, with different degrees of precision, often not even measuring exactly the same thing.  Nevertheless, they comprise the best data available outside of the companies themselves, and BILLIONS of dollars are influenced EVER DAY by data FAR less reliable.  You may not like it, but that's the nature of human society.  I'm just doing my part to inject some facts into the discussion that are a litte bit closer to reality than "I don't know" and wild speculation.

    Bruce

    Analyst, Consultant, Writer
    http://www.mmogchart.com

  • LathialLathial Member UncommonPosts: 166


    Originally posted by Torak
    Not to get down on Elnator to much, I think he was slamming the other knothead, but I think he could have said it differently also. I'm an Instructor for the U.S. Army as a civilian and I also put in my time in the field and combat as a young soldier. I like to think I know what I am talking about as I learned the hard way by "doing and sacrificing."
    I have a few Vet friends who also went into education. One works for the Chicago public school system, which is no easy task, and the other is a professor in SC. He also consults to the state government there. We have commited ourselves to service to our country in one form or another. I have spent most of my adult life in public service in some form or another minus about 6 years working for an Insurance company right out of college as a field underwriter.
    (side note on stats, you can make numbers say just about anything you want them to)
    What that statement implies is that teachers are somehow not able to perform in some meaninful way thus they become "teachers". That isn't the case and I sort of take offence at our service and sacrifice to our country being belittled.
    I'm pretty sure Elmator didn't mean it that way.


    I agree with you; I don’t think Elnator meant to insult teachers on the whole.  But making generalizations about a group of people is akin to discrimination- or prejudice.  As you know, people who work in the armed forces, education, social services, fire fighters, policemen are the best of people.  I can honestly say- the people that come from a background in the armed forces are the most respectable, honorable, and hard working I have ever met. 

    I think one of the most important things that can be said about teachers, soldiers, and the like, is that we do for others instead of just doing things for ourselves.  It takes sacrifices to do things for others when we could be doing just for ourselves.

    Yea his post got me ruffled - But its summer- so lets play some games =)

    Lath


  • TorakTorak Member Posts: 4,905


    Originally posted by SirBruce

    The old saying goes, "Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach." and was later extended to, "Those who can't teach, teach gym." and/or "Those who can't teach, administrate."  Like any joke, it's not meant to be totally serious, but contains a kernel of truth that hits uncomfortably close to home.
    That holds true of any profession. It just rude and ignorant to broad base say everyone who____is an _____. Then you fall into stereotyping and all the ugly things that come with it.....
    I'm pretty sure if made a statement like "Bruce, anyone in your career field is there because they are not capible of doing anything useful" you would have issue with that. So lets not go there.
    The denigration is not directed at teaching, though, which is a noble profession.  It's actually a comment about the state of teachning in general, or the expertise of your average teacher.  Most teachers DON'T really know enough about whatever they are teaching to actually do it professionally, which calls into question just how well they can actually teach others to do it with requisite skill.
    Still, I have no idea of Vyava's credentials.  He might be a very good statistician, or even a very good math teacher.  But he doesn't seem to be very good at reading comprehension, journalism, or business analysis.  He reminds me of my old physics buddies who thought all social sciences were bunk since they had to rely on tools like surveys and observation to take measurements instead of a metallic probe and a DSP.
    Yes, these numbers are of varying, unquantifiable accuracy, with different degrees of precision, often not even measuring exactly the same thing.  Nevertheless, they comprise the best data available outside of the companies themselves, and BILLIONS of dollars are influenced EVER DAY by data FAR less reliable.  You may not like it, but that's the nature of human society.  I'm just doing my part to inject some facts into the discussion that are a litte bit closer to reality than "I don't know" and wild speculation.
    Bruce


    Well, until someone comes up with something better or more accurate, you da man

    If Vyava is so sure and seems to know differently, I say, put your money where you month is. Show us you are wrong not tell us. Anyone can say "you are wrong".

  • ElnatorElnator Member Posts: 6,077


    Originally posted by Torak

    Originally posted by Lathial



    Ahh Monk... just ignore Vyava... he/she/it is a troll... feeding trolls is bad.  What's worse is that he/she/it is arguing a point that makes no sense.  Bruce's numbers aren't a statistical analysis of costs vs. income or anything like that.  They're data points provided by publicaly and privately owned companies.  Which typically are fairly accurate.

    Vyava is just arguing for the sake of arguing.  He has interesting arguements but they rarely have anything to do with reality.... in my experience as a professional who does, rather than teaches, that is typical of the teaching profession.

    "Those who can't do"....... "Teach".




    This is the most ignorant post I have seen.  Elnator, don’t spout nonsense when you have no clue what your talking about.  Any adult professional knows that teaching is not only Honorable but also the most Rewarding career anyone can have.  Period!  The future, literally, is in our hands...










    My wife and I both are educators; we chose to be teachers.  I didn’t go thru grad school to become rich-professional 'doer'.  I wanted to be an academic; I loved literature and became an English teacher- My wife- math.  Maybe one day I'll be a professor.










    Go hug a teacher- they deserve it.  After all, you can read this because of our dedication. 










    PS- summer vacations are great too =)










    Lath















    Not to get down on Elnator to much, I think he was slamming the other knothead, but I think he could have said it differently also. I'm an Instructor for the U.S. Army as a civilian and I also put in my time in the field and combat as a young soldier. I like to think I know what I am talking about as I learned the hard way by "doing and sacrificing."

    I have a few Vet friends who also went into education. One works for the Chicago public school system, which is no easy task, and the other is a professor in SC. He also consults to the state government there. We have commited ourselves to service to our country in one form or another. I have spent most of my adult life in public service in some form or another minus about 6 years working for an Insurance company right out of college as a field underwriter.

    (side note on stats, you can make numbers say just about anything you want them to)

    What that statement implies is that teachers are somehow not able to perform in some meaninful way thus they become "teachers". That isn't the case and I sort of take offence at our service and sacrifice to our country being belittled.

    I'm pretty sure Elmator didn't mean it that way.




    No offense was meant to teachers 'in general'.  I'm sorry if I ruffled any feathers.  I worded the post badly.  As I'm sure anyone in the teaching industry is aware (And, I've done my time as an instructor for both CCIE and MCSE curricula at tech colleges myself) there ARE teachers out there who caused the saying to come into being.

    My quoting of the old adage wasn't meant as a slam to teachers in general but rather to indicate that I think Vyava is one of "those" teachers.  He's arguing prob and stats combined with financial analysis when SirBruce is pulling straight datapoints provided by his contacts in the industry and plotting them on a chart.  What Vyava refuses to understand is very basic:

    SirBruce gets Datapoint X from source A and Datapoint Y from source B... he determines which source he feels is most reliable and either goes with that one or goes with a modification fo the two sources based on one another, depending on how much he trusts them.  He's been doing this for a while now and, in most cases, from what I've seen, his numbers have been *fairly* accurate.
     
    Vyava is coming out saying SirBruce's numbers are wrong but providing no proof to back his claims up.  SirBruce has publicly (and privately) disclosed numbers given to him either directly or indirectly from the company or insiders inside the companies in question.  Vyava has nothing but hot air.

    Thus my quoting of the old adage (which is only true of some educators, granted, but the quote seemed appropriate as SirBruce is the one "Doing" and Vyava is the one "teaching".  Furthermore Vyava is 'teaching' on the wrong subject here since he's teaching financial analysis and SirBruce is "Doing" straight datapoing plotting.)


    Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
    Sig image Pending
    Still in: A couple Betas

  • TorakTorak Member Posts: 4,905

    Its cool Elnator,

    I figured it was just Vyava getting under your skin. I hope you understand 

    Thanks bro

  • ianubisiianubisi Member Posts: 4,201

    It's pretty clear that Vyava is little more than a pedant.

  • pyros98pyros98 Member Posts: 267
    Thanks for the update Bruce!
  • IcoGamesIcoGames Member Posts: 2,360

    Just wanted to say a quick 'thank you' to Sir Bruce for his work.

    Ico
    Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.

  • MunkiMunki Member CommonPosts: 2,128


    Originally posted by ianubisi

    It's pretty clear that Vyava is little more than a pedant.


    Thats the first time ive had to use dictionary.com in a long time, thank you for that new word Ianubisi, Im pretty sure im gona put some mileage on it.

    image
    after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...

Sign In or Register to comment.