| Vena said: Yes, my calculations make an assumption on volume but the fact that the majority, as has already been cordealy demonstrated in this very thread, owned the game on day one and, by approximation, within the first week, the statistics are more than valid in their use here. The bulk of the playerbase, over five million, are in the first day and the remaining can be largely set into the second week with minor trail-off in the following two weeks. So even if newer players log-in more frequently then older ones (arguable, actually...) they are such a statistical minority that they would hardly cause a budge when the data is so front loaded. The statistics being right or wrong is not the question, it is about their deceptive slant. They are presenting averages, these types of left-bloated statistics should never use averages without medians. In fact the median is the more appropriate number to use here but it would tell a far, far different story I suspect. Sales are front-loaded, the data is left-biased, and presenting averages is nothing short of bullshit of the highest statistical calibre. |
And calculating an average based on the assumption of all existing players owning the game the full month, when that is clearly wrong is any less bullshit?
Front loaded or not, 33%+ players did not own the game in it's first week, potentially higher depending on what the 4th week sales pan out to be.
Don't call bullshit on statistics by making up bullshit statistics of your own.
