By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
r505Matt on 09 April 2010
Edit Thread
theprof00 said:
saicho said:
theprof00 said:
Galaki said:
So, you defend this "research" w/o knowing how it was done and then call us trolling even the percentage look way off?

Comparing that with vgc stats is totally off, too.
VGC equations are based on factual data and using that to make guesstimate.
And we all know people are totally honest when to do their multiple choice survey.

you have no basis to say that it's wrong.

@everyone else, how do people point and criticize things without even realize they are doing the very same thing they are criticizing?

nightsurge and r505 do have a good ground to doub the study though based on how it is presented. They didn't really crticize it but rather stated why they need more details on the study in order to take the result seriously.

A very simple question was brought up on how many gamers out of 1000 surveyed plan to buy GT5. Without that number, no one can really make sense of the 39%.

i don't care if they criticize it, and i'm not saying they are the culprits here, but there is some crazy aggression without any real reason. Sure there is no real proof, and that does warrant critique. Perhaps I've just been a complete failure in trying to contain the fire. I just want people to approach this kind of stuff a little more professionally, which i know both surge anf 505 demonstrate on a daily basis.

anyway, here is some cute hoppy kpop to soothe everyone's nerves.

Well, there is reason to attack it. I think the lack of relevant data makes it hard to believe this study is accurate. When a study seems inaccurate, there is far more reason to attack it than defend it. But, I'm not saying the study is definitely inaccurate, I'm saying it's weird that they wouldn't supply the data to make it seem accurate. That's why I find it very hard to believe. If it were an accurate study, wouldn't they want to prove it? What would they have to hide unless it was inaccurate?

I think I'm being quite objective here, I'm looking at this from the outside. If ANY study were to try and tell me some % of people do X and then it doesn't show how it came up with that number or that result, then the first thing I'll think is that there's something to hide, and that the study's results are deceptive. If anyone is attacking the study's results because they think it's ridiculous that 39% of gamers planning to buy GT5 don't have PS3s, that is subjective. But also, if anyone is defending this study because they think it's totally possible, it is also equally subjective.

I think GT5 could be a crazy system mover, moreso than anything else PS3 has seen before, so I don't doubt the possiblity of what this study is suggesting. But without more concrete information, this study should be doubted and questioned. Why are they not discussing the sample in detail? Or what was asked and how they came to their conclusions? You know, a group can lie about a study's results and get away with it easily, but when you don't show all your work (like math in high school) people question how you got there. The first thing that will pop into most people's minds is "where'd they get that number?" followed by "anyone can make up a statistic".

In short, if this study wanted to come across as accurate and believable, they should have included more data.

P.S. Totally off topic but MS just gave me 400 free points! Sweet!