Support NeoGAF

[HeisenbergFX4]

Thats what happens when you order something like 10 PS5 Pros lol

 

[Jakk]

Childish post that says nothing to refute common sense. Take your own advice and go back to school. You clearly need it.

The book I linked and any other basic statistics course refutes your "sense", which is anything but common.

 

[Sooner]

No, it would mean statistically out of those 1002 people, not the rest of the fucking world. 1001 people do not represent the rest of the billions(?) of gamers, ergo data is irrelevant. Its only relevant to those in the 1k group, not the rest of the world. Cant believe I have to explain this kindergarten logic.

Again. You have zero idea how surveys work.

ALL surveys consist of a very tiny percentage of the world's population. That does not make them statistically insignificant.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

I'm still not sure if you are trolling or not, given your previous posts I have seen about Panam from Cyberpunk and now this. It really is hard to believe someone could be this ignorant. Anyway, I suggest reading this.

He has proven time and time again he is just that ignorant on things and is likely making these posts just trying to irritate people

I decided long ago to mute him and should have never have looked at his post here to prove it once again that he isn't looking to read books and get smarter on anything

It is what it is

 

[The Cockatrice]

The book I linked and any other basic statistics course refutes your "sense", which is anything but common.

Again. You have zero idea how surveys work.

ALL surveys consist of a very tiny percentage of the world's population. That does not make them statistically insignificant.

He has proven time and time again he is just that ignorant on things and is likely making these posts just trying to irritate people

I decided long ago to mute him and should have never have looked at his post here to prove it once again that he isn't looking to read books and get smarter on anything

It is what it is

No it doesnt and since you cant refute what I said, except repeating the same garbage "read statistics" reply, then, statistically it means, you're an idiot. I'll detail it one more time so your brain can comprehend it. Focus groups are irrelevant. Due to focus groups, we have garbage features in games, and it's why companies like Sweet Baby Inc thrived/thrives. They rely on these focus groups to show that "gamers" do prefer whatever they shove down our throats. However, statistically, as you put it, is in fact opposite of these focus groups because the majority of gamers do no feel the same way. These focus groups are only "accurate" when it suits you, such as console warring. Again, for the last time, on that specific group made out of 1001 people, statistically this thread is accurate, however, it does not represent the rest of the billions of gamers on the planet, which means it is irrelevant in the long run. Common sense. Have fun at school.

 

[mayham2199]

I believe that's common. Many actors do a training session right before filming a scene, that way the muscles seem bigger/more developed.

Yea that's true after I get done lifting I look so damn jacked. I wish I could look like that 24/7.

Not really.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he doesn't look in shape but just not as impressive as that scene from Man of Steel when he has no shirt and is in the cold or something like that. This just looks like a normal guy who works out.

 

[Crayon]

On the flip side that's 3 times what I make but I always own current gen Playstation, Nintendo and a gaming PC (XBox is pointless these days).

Cost of living differences can be crazy. Also kids are expensive.

Yeah people think gpu's are expensive... try a family.

 

[RoadHazard]

No it doesnt and since you cant refute what I said, except repeating the same garbage "read statistics" reply, then, statistically it means, you're an idiot. I'll detail it one more time so your brain can comprehend it. Focus groups are irrelevant. Due to focus groups, we have garbage features in games, and it's why companies like Sweet Baby Inc thrived/thrives. They rely on these focus groups to show that "gamers" do prefer whatever they shove down our throats. However, statistically, as you put it, is in fact opposite of these focus groups because the majority of gamers do no feel the same way. These focus groups are only "accurate" when it suits you, such as console warring. Again, for the last time, on that specific group made out of 1001 people, statistically this thread is accurate, however, it does not represent the rest of the billions of gamers on the planet, which means it is irrelevant in the long run. Common sense. Have fun at school.

You're simply willfully ignorant.

 

[Felessan]

This measure by definition is not of average, but who had the most intelligent persons, even a very few, in.
And it should be close to truth - LoL, HS, WoW, FC, Nintendo stuff - attracts a very wide spectrum of people, even ones who normally has low interest in games (high intellectuals rarely have time/interest to actively engage in gaming). LoL and HS especially attractive as they have short session, low entry (f2p) and are thinking heavy - attractive choice for a person who want a short change of pace.

 

[jufonuk]

Switch owners make lower res money but it holds up longer.

Right ?

(Switch owner here)

 

[IntentionalPun]

Probably just down to the amount of casual players on any given platform, as they spend way less time gaming.

Honestly kind of obvious considering the breakdown by game.

 

[The Cockatrice]

You're simply willfully ignorant.

Well, my friend, I hope you pray that one day these focus groups similar to the one you so desperately try to defend don't decide that eating shit is good for the body because I'm afraid you'll find that accurate and follow, especially HeisenbergFX4 . Have a blessed day.

 

[Bernardougf]

Yeah they are right.. Im still not buying the Pro.


For now anyway.

 

[Alebrije]

 

[Bernardougf]

Ok. Time for you guys to start listing your professions.

I make money making big tits ... I love my life.

 

[laynelane]

Personally, I wouldn't post this where Totoki can see it. Don't say I didn't warn you.

As far as MS knows I live in a cardboard box.

Nothing wrong with living in a cardboard box. Makes it easier to get around.

 

[SHA]

I accept the spending part otherwise, rich people look for deals, value which is obviously on 3rd party games, I think that accuracy applies to most blue team sites, they're not held accountable for the mass gaming community.

You can't change rich people habits, I'm talking to Apple consumers, they're the same, they spend, doesn't mean they're rich.

 

[MarV0]

Yea that's true after I get done lifting I look so damn jacked. I wish I could look like that 24/7.



Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he doesn't look in shape but just not as impressive as that scene from Man of Steel when he has no shirt and is in the cold or something like that. This just looks like a normal guy who works out.

That's how muscly guys look when they're not working out.

Muscly actors do a quick pump workout before a topless scene.

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[RoadHazard]

Well, my friend, I hope you pray that one day these focus groups similar to the one you so desperately try to defend don't decide that eating shit is good for the body because I'm afraid you'll find that accurate and follow, especially HeisenbergFX4 . Have a blessed day.

A focus group and a survey sample group are not the same thing, which you also don't understand.

 

[Punished Miku]

Nothing wrong with living in a cardboard box. Makes it easier to get around.

My cats love it as well.

 

[The Cockatrice]

A focus group and a survey sample group are not the same thing, which you also don't understand.

You are "right". I should start eating shit if a focus group, survey group or echo chamber such as the one you're in decides it's good. My apologies sir.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

A focus group and a survey sample group are not the same thing, which you also don't understand.

So now he calls it a focus group?

You can't make this shit up

 

[Felessan]

No it doesnt and since you cant refute what I said, except repeating the same garbage "read statistics" reply, then, statistically it means, you're an idiot. I'll detail it one more time so your brain can comprehend it. Focus groups are irrelevant. Due to focus groups, we have garbage features in games, and it's why companies like Sweet Baby Inc thrived/thrives. They rely on these focus groups to show that "gamers" do prefer whatever they shove down our throats. However, statistically, as you put it, is in fact opposite of these focus groups because the majority of gamers do no feel the same way. These focus groups are only "accurate" when it suits you, such as console warring. Again, for the last time, on that specific group made out of 1001 people, statistically this thread is accurate, however, it does not represent the rest of the billions of gamers on the planet, which means it is irrelevant in the long run. Common sense. Have fun at school.

You are mixing things here
Focus groups is one things and statistical representation is another.
Focus group always had and always will have a problem of choosing a proper "focus". In statistics the first step is to make sure that no focus exists in you sample. Statistics works on the assumption that small represent big (have the same statistical distribution) and with larger sample validity of this claim become exponentially close to truth. And focus group is a shortcut of attempting to get a sample not from the whole but from some "target audience", and mistakes in identifying game target audience, how it relate to overall gamers population etc cause misalignment and choice of biased sample (focus group) that lead to disaster.
You can do general statistic testing without relying on focus group - it's just harder, longer and more expensive. Gives you better results - standard practice everywhere (in gaming it's close/open betas, outside it's a/b testing, trial runs etc).

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

A study made out of 0.00001% of the world seems accurate.

not

edit: read this before quoting me https://www.neogaf.com/threads/stud...ayers-as-adults.1676280/page-4#post-269696648

I read it but I'm still quoting you

Bitch

 

[The Cockatrice]

You are mixing things here
Focus groups is one things and statistical representation is another.
Focus group always had and always will have a problem of choosing a proper "focus". In statistics the first step is to make sure that no focus exists in you sample. Statistics works on the assumption that small represent big (have the same statistical distribution) and with larger sample validity of this claim become exponentially close to truth. And focus group is a shortcut of attempting to get a sample not from the whole but from some "target audience", and mistakes in identifying game target audience, how it relate to overall gamers population ets cause misalignment and choice of biased sample (focus group) that lead to disaster.
You can do general statistic testing without relying on focus group - it's just harder, longer and more expensive. Gives you better results - standard practice everywhere (in gaming it's close/open betas, outside it's a/b testing, trial runs etc).

The 1k people in this thread link are not a statistical representation. They are a small group. The point still stands. 1001 people, statistically do not represent me or the rest of the billions of people gamers. They only represent themselves in that group. Hence why its hardly accurate, and more of a focused group, for clickbait crap. I do however appreciate that at least one person here brought a fair counter argument to my point instead of the childish crap HeisenbergFX4 does.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Time to raise prices again Sony. Milk them fanboys!

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

How to choose a sample size (for the statistically challenged)​

One of the most common questions I get asked by people doing surveys in international development is “how big should my sample size be?”. While there are many sample size calculators and statistical guides available, those who never did statistics at university (or have forgotten it all) may find them intimidating or difficult to use.
If this sounds like you, then keep reading. This guide will explain how to choose a sample size for a basic survey without any of the complicated formulas. For more easy rules of thumb regarding sample sizes for other situations, I highly recommend Sample size: A rough guide by Ronán Conroy and The Survey Research Handbook by Pamela Alreck and Robert Settle.
This article is a short introduction to the topic for a more in-depth coverage of the topic consider enrolling in the free online course offered by University of Florida.
This advice is for:

• Basic surveys such as feedback forms, needs assessments, opinion surveys, etc. conducted as part of a program.
• Surveys that use random sampling.

This advice is NOT for:

• Research studies conducted by universities, research firms, etc.
• Complex or very large surveys, such as national household surveys.
• Surveys to compare between an intervention and control group or before and after a program (for this situation Sample size: A rough guide).
• Surveys that use non-random sampling, or a special type of sampling such as cluster or stratified sampling (for these situations see Sample size: A rough guide and the UN guidelines on household surveys).
• Surveys where you plan to use fancy statistics to analyse the results, such as multivariate analysis (if you know how to do such fancy statistics then you should already know how to choose a sample size).

The minimum sample size is 100​

Most statisticians agree that the minimum sample size to get any kind of meaningful result is 100. If your population is less than 100 then you really need to survey all of them.

A good maximum sample size is usually 10% as long as it does not exceed 1000​

A good maximum sample size is usually around 10% of the population, as long as this does not exceed 1000. For example, in a population of 5000, 10% would be 500. In a population of 200,000, 10% would be 20,000. This exceeds 1000, so in this case the maximum would be 1000.
Even in a population of 200,000, sampling 1000 people will normally give a fairly accurate result. Sampling more than 1000 people won’t add much to the accuracy given the extra time and money it would cost.

 

[laynelane]

How to choose a sample size (for the statistically challenged)​

One of the most common questions I get asked by people doing surveys in international development is “how big should my sample size be?”. While there are many sample size calculators and statistical guides available, those who never did statistics at university (or have forgotten it all) may find them intimidating or difficult to use.
If this sounds like you, then keep reading. This guide will explain how to choose a sample size for a basic survey without any of the complicated formulas. For more easy rules of thumb regarding sample sizes for other situations, I highly recommend Sample size: A rough guide by Ronán Conroy and The Survey Research Handbook by Pamela Alreck and Robert Settle.
This article is a short introduction to the topic for a more in-depth coverage of the topic consider enrolling in the free online course offered by University of Florida.
This advice is for:

• Basic surveys such as feedback forms, needs assessments, opinion surveys, etc. conducted as part of a program.
• Surveys that use random sampling.

This advice is NOT for:

• Research studies conducted by universities, research firms, etc.
• Complex or very large surveys, such as national household surveys.
• Surveys to compare between an intervention and control group or before and after a program (for this situation Sample size: A rough guide).
• Surveys that use non-random sampling, or a special type of sampling such as cluster or stratified sampling (for these situations see Sample size: A rough guide and the UN guidelines on household surveys).
• Surveys where you plan to use fancy statistics to analyse the results, such as multivariate analysis (if you know how to do such fancy statistics then you should already know how to choose a sample size).

The minimum sample size is 100​

Most statisticians agree that the minimum sample size to get any kind of meaningful result is 100. If your population is less than 100 then you really need to survey all of them.

A good maximum sample size is usually 10% as long as it does not exceed 1000​

A good maximum sample size is usually around 10% of the population, as long as this does not exceed 1000. For example, in a population of 5000, 10% would be 500. In a population of 200,000, 10% would be 20,000. This exceeds 1000, so in this case the maximum would be 1000.
Even in a population of 200,000, sampling 1000 people will normally give a fairly accurate result. Sampling more than 1000 people won’t add much to the accuracy given the extra time and money it would cost.

Damn you. I came here for the memes, not to learn.

 

[The Cockatrice]

This advice is NOT for:

• Research studies conducted by universities, research firms, etc.
• Complex or very large surveys, such as national household surveys.
• Surveys to compare between an intervention and control group or before and after a program (for this situation Sample size: A rough guide).
• Surveys that use non-random sampling, or a special type of sampling such as cluster or stratified sampling (for these situations see Sample size: A rough guide and the UN guidelines on household surveys).
• Surveys where you plan to use fancy statistics to analyse the results, such as multivariate analysis (if you know how to do such fancy statistics then you should already know how to choose a sample size).

You clearly skipped this part huh. Hey man, if 1k people decide your life, than I feel really sorry for you.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Damn you. I came here for the memes, not to learn.

The memes will keep coming even after that post, trust me

 

[OmegaSupreme]

I'm broke as fuck so that doesn't track.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

show me median baby, not avg

 

[laynelane]

The memes will keep coming even after that post, trust me

In truth, I read the whole thing. I don't know much about this topic so the information on a good maximum sample size is very interesting.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

Apologies for my billion dollar ass making the average PS gamer seem rich AF

My bad fellas

 

[Venom Snake]

I've done my best to ensure my platform is free from the disease known as being poor

I hope you've cut out the middlemen, fucking begging-hats.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Oh on the sample size convo.

The study has 1000 people but it’s not going to have 1000 people of each type of gamer.

The margin of error will be greater for some of the answers than others.

 

[AW_CL]

It’s not surprising that there isn’t a Pro console for Xbox fans, as they can’t afford it, unlike the higher-earning PlayStation fans.

 

[RoadHazard]

show me median baby, not avg

Now THAT is a good point. The median is a much more representative value.

 

[Topher]

I've always wanted to be statistically rich

 

[DeepEnigma]

Time to raise prices again Sony. Milk them fanboys!

 

[Bernardougf]

You clearly skipped this part huh. Hey man, if 1k people decide your life, than I feel really sorry for you.

 

[splattered]

Of course they do, how else are they going to afford all the remasters Sony keeps pumping out?

 

[Sid Of Bee]

The richest ones are people like me who have all of the consoles.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I've always wanted to be statistically rich

Right there next to being statistically young

 

[Topher]

Right there next to being statistically young

Statistically, there are people on this forum who don't know you.

I wish I was one of them

 

[Kamina]

How i feel when turning on my PS5

 

[Euler007]

Silence peasants. I also went full digital, allowing me to let go of one footman who was dedicated to switching discs for me.

 

[R6Rider]

Ok. Time for you guys to start listing your professions.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

No, it would mean statistically out of those 1002 people, not the rest of the fucking world. 1001 people do not represent the rest of the billions(?) of gamers, ergo data is irrelevant. Its only relevant to those in the 1k group, not the rest of the world. Cant believe I have to explain this kindergarten logic.

Who said its for the rest of the world? This study is for US gaming population only.