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

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

steverhcp02 on 09 April 2010
Galaki said:
steverhcp02 said:
Galaki said:
theprof00 said:
Galaki said:
Yeah, a survey of 1000 is very... researchy.

have you taken college-level stats?

I don't think you even need schooling here. GT5, a single game, is going to sell 6 millions PS3. Don't tell me you are going to believe that.

The survey sound fishy to me.

Well i dont think you need schooling to figure out that between now and the release and even in the year after, that 39% can buy a PS3. Its not a survey saying 6 million people plan on buying a PS3 on GT5 launch.

Its saying as of now, 39% of people wanting to buy GT5 dont yet have a PS3. 20% may buy on between now and release, and 10% may buy one 6 months after its release and maybe 5 % wait until next christmas and 4% buy one on launch day. See how that works?

You lost me at hello.

I guess that explains why you dont understand the survey or how it is "researchy"




Get Your Portable ID!

Around the Network
r505Matt on 09 April 2010
De85 said:
Galaki said:
Yeah, a survey of 1000 is very... researchy.

Um, yes actually, it can be.  During elections most polls are taken with similar sample sizes.  What matters is getting a sample that is statistically representative of the population.

@topic: That's more than I would have guessed, so I'd like to see more about the survey methodology.  If true though the PS3 could be shaping up to have a monster fall.

Exactly, they didn't really describe their sample, and I have a feeling that it may not be a good representation. I really wish they explained the research better, as it stands, it just looks like they could have pulled the number out of a hat.

I would expect a more scientific approach just like on Sciencedaily.com where they pretty much show a lot more information for studies. Here's a decent example of how to report findings of a study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100405174942.htm

They don't explain every detail in the study, but thoroughly explain the study's set-up and conclusions/trends. The "39%" study just shows conclusions, not very professional at all. 



theprof00 on 09 April 2010
r505Matt said:
De85 said:
Galaki said:
Yeah, a survey of 1000 is very... researchy.

Um, yes actually, it can be.  During elections most polls are taken with similar sample sizes.  What matters is getting a sample that is statistically representative of the population.

@topic: That's more than I would have guessed, so I'd like to see more about the survey methodology.  If true though the PS3 could be shaping up to have a monster fall.

Exactly, they didn't really describe their sample, and I have a feeling that it may not be a good representation. I really wish they explained the research better, as it stands, it just looks like they could have pulled the number out of a hat.

I would expect a more scientific approach just like on Sciencedaily.com where they pretty much show a lot more information for studies. Here's a decent example of how to report findings of a study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100405174942.htm

They don't explain every detail in the study, but thoroughly explain the study's set-up and conclusions/trends. The "39%" study just shows conclusions, not very professional at all. 

We don't publish how we gather data either. I guess you should stop coming to this site for numbers then. FYI it's called protecting the business property.



kitler53 on 09 April 2010
Maynard_Tool said:
So... survey of 1,000. 39% = 390. Damn, ps3 will be on fire that week

dude really?  you're 22 so don't tell me you are clueless to what statistics is.  here's a hint, it is the same mathmatical consepts ioi, npd, media crate use to estimate the sales numbers we all come to this site to see.



theprof00 on 09 April 2010
kitler53 said:
Maynard_Tool said:
So... survey of 1,000. 39% = 390. Damn, ps3 will be on fire that week

dude really?  you're 22 so don't tell me you are clueless to what statistics is.  here's a hint, it is the same mathmatical consepts ioi, npd, media crate use to estimate the sales numbers we all come to this site to see.

don't even respond, he's been trolling a couple days now.

Just yesterday CGI, in the others up thread, said, 'God look at the legs on heavy rain, those are long and sexy'.

To which, tool replied, "if you wanna cry about legs, look at super mario kart' or whatever, and then put a smiley.

I really can't tell if he's just being...... or if he's joking, but considering that he then raised an argument in the same thread about the same thing, he was just talking shit and putting a smiley face at the end.... sorta like how people say things like "X is a piece of shit, IMO"



Around the Network
heedstone on 09 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.

0%

everyone who likes Halo, has already bought a 360



The dude abides   

ethomaz on 09 April 2010
Carl2291 said:
Awesome, 5 Million PS3's sold on GT5 week!

Nooooooooooooooooooooo...

Only 1 Million because the shortages.



r505Matt on 09 April 2010
theprof00 said:
r505Matt said:
De85 said:
Galaki said:
Yeah, a survey of 1000 is very... researchy.

Um, yes actually, it can be.  During elections most polls are taken with similar sample sizes.  What matters is getting a sample that is statistically representative of the population.

@topic: That's more than I would have guessed, so I'd like to see more about the survey methodology.  If true though the PS3 could be shaping up to have a monster fall.

Exactly, they didn't really describe their sample, and I have a feeling that it may not be a good representation. I really wish they explained the research better, as it stands, it just looks like they could have pulled the number out of a hat.

I would expect a more scientific approach just like on Sciencedaily.com where they pretty much show a lot more information for studies. Here's a decent example of how to report findings of a study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100405174942.htm

They don't explain every detail in the study, but thoroughly explain the study's set-up and conclusions/trends. The "39%" study just shows conclusions, not very professional at all. 

We don't publish how we gather data either. I guess you should stop coming to this site for numbers then. FYI it's called protecting the business property.

What does sales tracking have to do with publishing a study? The difference is for sales tracking, it's the norm for data gathering methods to be withheld. For studies though, it's the norm to explain/show your work so to speak. You don't need to reveal everything (though the actual published piece will usually detail everything) but the less you show upfront, the less professional it seems.



r505Matt on 09 April 2010

Actually, anyone know anything about GamePlan? I never heard of it before this, and I can't find anything on Google.

Edit: Nevermind, found it.

Edit 2: Wow, actually it's kind of interesting, but they seem to withhold a lot of key details. Without proof of otherwise, I have a feeling they may have made connections from raw data that aren't really there. I do believe the study could be accurate, but I wouldn't believe a study like this with more data. It's one thing to lie with data/conclusions, it's another to keep information back. The former can be hard to detect, the latter just makes me suspicious. 



nightsurge on 09 April 2010
theprof00 said:
r505Matt said:
De85 said:
Galaki said:
Yeah, a survey of 1000 is very... researchy.

Um, yes actually, it can be.  During elections most polls are taken with similar sample sizes.  What matters is getting a sample that is statistically representative of the population.

@topic: That's more than I would have guessed, so I'd like to see more about the survey methodology.  If true though the PS3 could be shaping up to have a monster fall.

Exactly, they didn't really describe their sample, and I have a feeling that it may not be a good representation. I really wish they explained the research better, as it stands, it just looks like they could have pulled the number out of a hat.

I would expect a more scientific approach just like on Sciencedaily.com where they pretty much show a lot more information for studies. Here's a decent example of how to report findings of a study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100405174942.htm

They don't explain every detail in the study, but thoroughly explain the study's set-up and conclusions/trends. The "39%" study just shows conclusions, not very professional at all. 

We don't publish how we gather data either. I guess you should stop coming to this site for numbers then. FYI it's called protecting the business property.

That's different though.  VGC's business is in gathering and revealing the numbers.  If they revealed their sources and methods, they would lose business to other copycats.  Research firms, however, are in the business of giving detailed data regarding a topic.  Their purpose is to reveal all their charts, data, methodology to show why their conclusion is concrete.  Otherwise, no one would pay them to do research.