| ioi said: Evidently so, but when a writer from a major site approaches you then you tend to accept their word on things. On topic, some of you are saying that there are some reasonable criticisms in the article which we can use to improve vgchartz. Now that if a fair point if it is how some of you feel so give me a little more detail on what it is you think we should do differently and I can either explain why it is unrealistic or we can work on ways to improve what we are doing. ioi |
It's probably a good idea to be more clear if you are estimating heavily on a certain region. Other than that, I don't think you should do anything differently.
The hack who wrote the article said you needed to get more retail data....like you would actually turn down a company that was offering you data. There are a ton of things he was either not considering in his "article", or things he chose not to mention to further his "point". Things like: not all of your sample data arrives at the same time(which obviously leads to adjustments), often times the data evens out over time whether VGC started out high or low(even without public data to adjust to until after the fact), the often large disprepencies between longtime professional tracking firms Media Create and Famitsu on hardware and software, and the fact that in the past there has been publicly available NPD data that the NPD later adjusted.
I'd almost bet money that fella is a NeoGaf acolyte or is at least attempting to earn his stripes over there. Or maybe he's just a weasel. For the time being, we're going to have to accept that we don't have Gamasutra's blessings....we'll just have to settle for Forbes and the NY Times.
"I feel like I could take on the whole Empire myself."
