By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Epoch on 11 March 2009
Edit Thread
Gnizmo said:

Epoch said:

I would also be interested to see the raw data.  As it stands, from their numbers, there are too many gamers for their sample size.  Probably because of the source (online survey) of their data set.  They state this in their methodology section at the bottom of their official release, which you posted.

The problem arises when the data set becomes too skewed, and is no longer usable as a reference.  Scientific journals and Non-Fiction publishers have a statistical threshold.  If the data doesn't hold up to this standard, it is considered useless.  This data would fall into that category.  It is far too skewed.

I think thats why the report is so vague, because you can't really get alot out of the data they have.  They didn't even tell us what % of the 20,000 own each console.  It is suspect at best.

However, I do agree that it may be slightly representative of gamers in general.  Enough at least to say that there are quite a few Wii gamers going online.  And far more 360 players than seems possible.

 

 Oh I see what you are talking about. Calling it an "online survey" is a bit dishonest then. Seems more like they have a target number of people that they use to try and capture a representative sample of what they are looking for and just happen to use the internet as a means of communication.

 I agree that there are a lot of reasons to question this data. The problem is we don't actually have it to look at. We have press releases and some clarifications, but nothing on a lot of it. The Gamespot article clearly says it is targetted strictly at the gaming population of the US so this shouldn't have to try and generalize to the normal population. Without a look at the study proper (which I don;t think either of us will get) it is hard to completely defend or dis-credit this study sadly.

Haha, I agree that it is a poor choice of term for their method of data gathering, but it's a direct quote from them.

I also agree that it is hard/impossible to discredit anything without a look at the data.  Its just that at first glance some of the numbers didn't add up, and upon further investigation, more didn't add up, lol. 

I think people were trying to make more of this study than it actually says (which isn't alot), and it offended my sense of statistical reasoning.

Maybe they will release more info as they compile it.  Seems unlikely though.