By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - 39% Of Gamers Who Plan To Buy GT5 Do Not Yet Own A PS3

scottie on 10 April 2010
ShadowSnake said:
scottie said:
Galaki said:
Yeah, a survey of 1000 is very... researchy.

 

Agreed - and I would like to see how they picked the 1000 people before paying any attention to the number

you know, everyone is questioning how it was done. i don't disagree, it could've been done poorly and the sample is not representative of the population. but it could just as likely have been.

take it for what it is, a statistic done by some company. why does it have to be anything more? you make it seem like they said, oh this is a definite number and therefore 40% of gt5 sales will lead to ps3 sales for sure.

if you're gonna just start questioning this, then why dyou eat everything else that's fed to you w/o questions? who ever said fish was good for you? why dyou see a dentist every year, do we need to? or even better, global warming, man, does everyone eat that up. and now i'm not saying its not true, but when you're sitting in on a debate, the two sides of the argument know a hell of a lot more than you do, therefore they can spew out to you half-truths all they want. one study that was heavily used to discuss the degrading arctic conditions was credited to 18 researchers. 13 of which we're well-renowned. 6 of which pulled out because they disagreed with the results that were being presented. al gore refused to remove their names because their names being there made the argument more credible, they sued him.

if you're gonna question the statistic, then you can't trust anything that's told you because everyone is out there for their own neck and they'll do what they need to, to make you believe them. If you wanna get a statistic you can trust, go do the study for yourself. you trust yourself i would suppose.

the thread was supposed to be about discussing the possibility (because after all, statistics is all about chance and randomness) of a large increase of ps3 sales due to what is referred to as a "system seller." not to question the study. if you wanna do that, contact the site and bash em all you like

and btw, this was not directed at you, scottie. if you half read my long post, i hope you notice this last line. i'm just talking in general

 

You do have a point in that even without being 100% rigorous it can still have some value.

 

Although to nitpick on some of your examples

I don't eat fish - I'm a vegetarian

I don't visit the dentist once a year, I take care of my own teeth and visit a dentist everyone now and again

I believe in global warming because I have read a lot of scientific studies that explained their methodology and result in sufficient detail to convince me.

 

And yes, I did read your whole post.

 

My main complain is that we all know GT5 will be a hardware seller, so if the only conclusion we can draw from the survey is that it will be a hardware seller, then it is useless. The only way it can have some use is if we can use it to make predictions about how many consoles it will sell, and I don't believe we can without more detail



Around the Network
Zlejedi on 10 April 2010
Galaki said:
Yeah, a survey of 1000 is very... researchy.

It's enough for presidential election but not enough for video game ?



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

jhuff394 on 10 April 2010

GT5 should be huge for Sony...

Only thing that concerns me is the graphics, I hope they have improved since prologue, and I hope they surpass Forza 3



“Absolutely, we can do much more with it. I don’t know if we are even close to 50 percent of PlayStation 3’s power at this point,” said Asmussen about God of War 3.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

theprof00 on 10 April 2010
kowenicki said:
Well its actually 33% in the survey but it sounds like a bit of a crappy survey to me

If people want to believe that 33% of DEFINITE gran turismo 5 buyers dont yet have a PS3 then fine.

I look forward to the most stupendous hardware bump of all time.

won't ever come, and assuming that it will based on the study, is just you misreading what this is.



Kasz216 on 10 April 2010
theprof00 said:
Galaki 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?

Oxymoron much?

People aren't allow to disagree with "research" anymore?

wow do you know what an oxymoron is?

maybe you're referring to hypocrisy, which is what I described.

anyway, the comparison to vgc was that vgc doesn't say how it tracks things either, but it is funny that you support this site, whereas you attack another for the same behavior.

 

Vgchartz does say how it tracks though.

Furthermore Vgchartz has objective proof towards it's methods based on the amount of times it's been right making it luck is very very statistically unlikely.

All Vgchartz doesn't do is give away it's sources.

This survey is fine... if people realize that even most people who say they are going to get it when surveyed probably won't... however Vgchartz is FAR more accurate and has proof at that.

Surveys like this are *practically* useless for prediction.  What it guages isn't actual sales but general interest in the product, which may or may not be capitlized on at the time but additional promotions.



Around the Network
r505Matt on 10 April 2010

@thismeintiel,
I understand the differences between the two, but if someone releases a study publicly, I would think they would want more people to trust it. Otherwise what's the point? You and theprof00 both are confusing some disclosure with 100% disclosure. These studies do not need to be accompanied with each and every little detail as to how the data was collected and compiled and analyzed. But it needs SOMETHING other than just the conclusion. The more the better, but with nothing, it really makes it hard for all but the most trusting sort of people to not question it.

Since it was released publicly, I would expect they would want the results of the study to be believable, but I could just be making an assumption there. Those of you who are defending this study, you are far too trusting. They could just throw any number at you and you trust them because they are reputable? Lack of information brings about more suspicion than misinformation and actually lack of information tends to lead to misinformation as well.

Just accepting it because this may be the way things work (in regards to consumer research) isn't necessarily the best idea. A firm could release parts of the data without really giving away any of their data gathering methods. I want to know about the sample size. As in males in female from the ages of 14-55 with any other set of similarities and differences. I want to know if this single "variable" was the only thing tested/studied, or was it a multi-faceted study, and if so, they tried to account for the problems that can occur in a multi-faceted study. Are there other variables or influences accounted for?

Then again the wording in the study could have been misleading. They could have asked "Would you like to buy GT5 yes/no?" and call that "planning to buy". It's all difference in wording, and spinning things into your favor. Maybe that's a stronger part of the game than any of us know, and the only way for companies to be "reputable" is to essentially produce this type of data from misleading questions on surveys.

Someone else said they couldn't trust the data unless they at least knew where it was from. I think that's a good point, and might be one of the stronger points against this 33% study. I just want data on the sample, which is essentially the most important part.

You know this could just be a good example of the game telephone. It seems like the information passed from OXT GamePlan to PS: The Official Magazine to Games Thirst. Who knows how things got befuddled along the way in that process. So the 39% was a mistake, and is actually 33%, but so is the 600 SKUs thing. GamePlan's own site says 400. Little mistakes yes, but those kinds of things can make people wary, and throw the validity of the data into even more suspicion.

I'm really just throwing a lot of ideas out there. I don't find the result of 33% that far-fetched, I could see it being possible, but without any more information on the study, I just can't bring myself to believe the study.



Shorty11857 on 10 April 2010
kowenicki said:
Well its actually 33% in the survey but it sounds like a bit of a crappy survey to me

If people want to believe that 33% of DEFINITE gran turismo 5 buyers dont yet have a PS3 then fine.

I look forward to the most stupendous hardware bump of all time.

GT5 is probably going to sell 10 million

So let's go with about 3.5 million for this figure

3.5 million of future PS3 buyers have an interest in purchasing GT5, that doesn't sound that crazy. It wouldn't suprise me much if 3.5 million people who bought a PS3 this and next year also buy GT5.

Spinning it to say 3.5 million people will buy a PS3 for Gt5 is crazy but 3.5 million people who buy a PS3 also have an interest in GT5, isn't really crazy or surprising at all



toastboy44562 on 10 April 2010
Angelv577 said:
I am wondering how much gamers(in percent) who are planning to buy halo reach don't own a 360 yet.


didnt you hear? it was 45%



saicho on 11 April 2010
theprof00 said:
saicho said:
thismeintiel said:

After looking at their site, I have no reason to not believe this survey they have conducted.  In 8 years they have become one of the top 25 trackers in the world (#24 to be exact). In fact, their weekly surveys remind me of the weekly political polls conducted here in the US. Everyone seems to qoute them all the time without questioning their exact methods. In fact, I know of no tracking site/service that releases their exact sources and methods. What would be the point? Then anyone could do it themselves. They always just release a general, one sentence explanation about their survey. Oh, something like "OXT’s GamePlan weekly tracking study surveys 1,000 U.S. gamers and buyers including hardcore gamers, casual gamers and everyone in between."

I find it ridiculous that people on a tracking site that does the exact same thing wish to criticize another tracking site. Maybe the survey is saying something people don't like. Something makes me believe that if PS3 was switched with 360 or Wii, and the game was Halo Reach or SMG2, there would be a different response. More in the line of "Awesome, that game is going to sell tons of 360's/Wii's!"

I think you might have missed the point. We are not doubting the "39%" of gamers who plan to buy GT5 do not yet own a PS3. What we have question about is how many gamers out of the 1000 sruveyed plan to buy GT5.

NiKKoM put it nicely in perpective in his post

It looks a lot different if he just post "22 gamers were surveyed and 50% of the gamers who plan to buy Halo Reach do not yet own a XBox360" than "22 gamers were surveyed and 2 plan to buy Halo Reach. 50% of the gamers who plan to buy Halo Reach do not yet own a XBox360."

it doesn't make one lick of difference how many out of the 1000 plan to buy gt5 and a ps3. It's called extrapolation, and through it, you can tell the buying potential of millions upon millions of people. It's not the most accurate thing in the world. Surveying every single person would be the most exact, and even then, not guaranteed. However, there is no survey based firm that does such a thing because it is very very costly and takes a long time. Just look at the US Census to get a good idea of how difficult such a thing is.

I'm sorry that the three of you don't understand statistics. But point after point you have no reason to doubt this. Statistics is very methodical and intricate, and there are many levels of analysis that it goes through.

What I'd like you all to think about, as another set of infered evidence, is that for a company that is 24th in the US in stat tracking, do you really think they would say something if it could be easily proved wrong by any number of 15 year olds on a forum.

Wake up guys.

let me use one extreme example. 1000 gamers surveyed. 3 gamers plan to buy GT5. 1 out of those 3 does not have a PS3 yet.

so I can say "1000 gamers surveyed. 33% of gamers who plan to buy GT5 do not have a PS3 yet." You are telling me you can extrapolate meaningful data from that and tell the buying potential of millions upon millions of people?

I already stated that we are not doubting the number "39%" (or 33% or whatever % it is). We just don't know how meaningful it is based on how it is presented now.



MikeB predicts that the PS3 will sell about 140 million units by the end of 2016 and triple the amount of 360s in the long run.

thismeintiel on 11 April 2010

@r505Matt

The thing is, they didn't publish this publicly. PTOM just published the results. GamePlan themselves published nothing, except for what their clients get to see for paying for their services. And as you can see from their website, they have very specific tools for clients to check data. So, I'm sure clients get a majority of the info regarding their surveys.

You speak of faulty reporting of numbers as a reason for being doubtful of the survey, but why is that? GamePlan and PTOM didn't report anything wrong. Game Thirst did. If anything, it should make you wary of Game Thirst's abilities as a site, not wary of this survey or of GamePlan.