| Cypher1980 said: That is the most retarded bit of research I've ever seen. No offence to the OP but you must see how many errors are introduced by the study method. Restricting any sample to a portion of total compromises any study. The study proved a few things but it DOESNT prove the startlingly bold final conclusion. |
Way too harsh.
Most studies are not exahustive, but work on a sample of the population, sometimes a tiny one. Medicinals are not tested on each and every person before they are deemed to be beneficial, and the numbers in their testing are not many orders of magnitude bigger than these ones. Particle events detected at LHC are a fraction of those that really happen. Popularity of governments and leaders is assessed weekly by interviewing a few thousand people out of hundred of millions.
In this case, take it for what it is. A sample of top 90 games is somewhat restricted, but they probably amount between them to a big slice of the overall software sales and as such they have a very different weight in mind share than the myriad of lesser titles.
PS: It seems that the criteria for the selection of the 30 titles were not objectively and rigidly followed, but the handful of "counter-examples" I saw won't budge the resulting numbers of any appreciable amount.
