"Misuse statistic"? I'm not even using statistics. There's no actual dollar amounts, the variables are just randomly thrown in there.

Again, it'll be pretty sad if you couldn't see that I'm just illustrating the concept that Microsoft is straddling two different consumers with the gaming and non-gaming features not really overlapping with those two segments.

You could disagree with that conceptual point, but again:

1) You and other people were easily able to tell that it's not a real research

2) I never claimed it was, and didn't emphasize the numbers to support my arguments

Again, you're just creating a false issue. Nobody in this thread has believed that I somehow managed to pull off research that would cost thousands of dollar in such a short amount of time. Rather than maybe address the main meat of my post.

and that's the problem.  I understood what your doing.  It's just that it's about the first thing most statistics and research proffesors will tell you NOT to do, and will immediatly smack you on the nose with a newspaper for doing.  It's inherently deceptive.  (And dangerous in a world where a lot of people search via images for graphs.  At the very least the image of the graph should have fake data listed somewhere.)

Also, you never claimed it wasn't real research.  Simply just assumed people knew it wasn't.  All in all, it's something you should never do.  

I'm sensitive about these things as i must of had nearly a dozen statistics classes and programs and have done actual real world consumer marketing research. 

(It can cost much less then you think.)

As for the meat of your post?   I don't actually disagree.  The only caveat I'd mention your made up numbers could be way off.  Espiecally if the Xbox One isn't seen primarily as a Games console.  Which, I wouldn't be shocked if Microsoft marketed it as something else completely.

The Xbox One could very well be seen the same way as a Smartphone.   Where games are the minority value to the average user.    Sure if you only want a smartphone for the games.  The smartphone is a shitty gaming device.  

As a device that plays games though?

Perception of what your product is GREATLY affects what you will pay for features.

It's not deceptive because it's obviously thrown together very quickly, obviously not real research, and I didn't base my arguments on the numbers being true.

The graph is simply a more simple way of letting people understand my point:

1) I think there are two major segments: gaming and non-gaming

2) I think that the gaming and non-gaming features appeal very differently with each segment, and the WTP it adds for each group is inversely related for the most part.

3) I think that overall, the non-gaming features aren't that valuable to non-gamers, making them have a much lower WTP than gamers.

Instead of just saying all that, I illustrated it by making a hypothetical graph. Again, I don't even have anything on the Y-axis. I just have fucking numbers there for Christ sake, and only because I was too lazy to get rid of the axis labels. It's not even dollars. That's why I'm saying that I'm not even basing the arguments on numbers, as there aren't even any. What does "60" mean on my graph? $60???

If I got rid of the y-axis labels, would you have been happy? I'm just illustrating what I believe is the current relationship between the gaming and non-gaming features with WTP, for each group?

Or are you saying that you can't even use graphs to illustrate concepts?

Which brings me to another point.

GRAPHS =/= STATISTICS

End of fucking discussion.

4

Yes.  That is exactly what I am saying. (not fake ones anyway)

I thought that was pretty clear.

If you'll note.  Nobody does this.  Specifically because people who might use graphs (Statisticians, journalists, consumer researchers) are taught to NOT do this.

Because graphs not based on real data are inerently deceptive.  Even when randomly thrown together just to show a concept.

Hell, generally a statistics class will spend a whole day on why trunicated graphs are the devil.  Let alone fully made up graphs.

It's why whenever you see example graphs, even in textbooks they always seem to use something like population demographics from the census in 1946 to make there points.  Or in very rare cases.  Just label nothing.

Example

http://www.stata.com/capabilities/publication-quality-graphics/

This is just a statistical program trying to sell it's programs... it's not even trying to illustrate a point through a hypothetical example.  Just show "hey look pretty graphs" but rather then just having someone spend 5 minutes typing gibberish and making things up they went out of their way to track down specific (mostly old) statistics that work for each kind of graph.

That's why I'm asking, would you be fine if i just had no labels on the y-axis? 

Again, I just find your objections poiness. Getting rid of the y axis labels wouldn't have done anything, and not having the various variables I had would have made my point unclear (different attributes contribute to WTP differently for customer).

If I had no y axis labels, and have multiple variables without labels and just said "for example, RAM might mean a lot to gamers, but almost nothing for non-gamers" it would be the same exact thing, with the same problems.

Do me a favor. Whip up a visual that conveys my point in a really simple and intuitive way, that is also not deceptive. Show me what you mean.

Here's the thing.  I wouldn't whip up a visual that conveys your point.

Not having defined a defined axis better, but still considered problematic, deceptivie and is something staticians wouldn't do.  I wouldn't do it because I specifically have been trained and retrained to never do that.   (Really, the best way to do it... which still wouldn't be excepted would be to use a completely fictional product with finctional indivudal parts.  Like widgets... or well not widgets since software designers have annoyingly coopted the term widget.  Maybe talking about Spacely Sprockets and Cogswell Cogs or something.)

What I WOULD do is look up research and find existing data, and make a graph based off that.  If they couldn't find any such data they would simply just stick with explaining their point via words... with nongraph pictures.

For example that premium icecream comes in rectangular boxes with smooth edged instead of round cylinders because people are willing to pay more for rectangualr boxes with smooth edged because it exudes a "high class" feel, and in focus testing actually makes the icecream taste better! (Or people thinks it tastes better.  Same difference really.)

Or point out in the past how often times a generation ago people would actually pay less for a device with more options.

Or just simply say "All this extra stuff costs extra money, and not everyone is going to care about every feature."

But again, visuals convey points quicker and more simply.

You're confounding two things in my opinions: Statistics and graphs.

Statistics is the study of data. Graphs are just visualizations, one of the things they can visualize being data.

Graphs can be manipulated to contextualize data. But the problem is that I'm not even presenting data, nor did I give the impression of it (again, non-sensical numbers, poor quality, my lack of pointing to any numbers or making any conclusions). All I ILLUSTRATED was that I think gamers have a higher WTP than non-gamers, and that the gaming and non-gaming functions appeal to the two audiences differently.

If I did present REAL DATA in a graph, and manipulated the graph to contextualize the data in a dishonest way, that would be abuse.

If I presented the graph, and claimed it was real data, that would be a lie.

If I presented the graph, and made an argument based on numbers, that would be non-sensical on my part.

Again, you knew from the start that I wasn't using real data, that I wasn't presented it like it was real data, and that I wasn't making an argument on the numbers (or really even an argument at all. I was just presenting a hypothetical example).

Just drop it.

And again... that is still incredibly wrong and something noone in statistics would ever do.  Espiecally online where graphs are often independently seperated from data.  

I'm not confounding anything.  

I'm just telling you very specifically  as a matter of fact what professionals are told to never do.

Your just wrong on a very base conceptual level.  Just go to your local college and ask a college profressor if you don't know anybody else who uses graphs in a professional sense.  Using somethinng like a trunicated graph is actually less of an issue.

If you just don't give a damn, you know... fine.   Just know you were unintentionaly ethically misusing graphs.  

Using a hypothetical doesn't matter.  Simply put... people don't use hypotheticals instead they use old data.

I only pointed it out because it's like being a dentist and seeing someone looking in someones mouth without gloves or a mask over their mouth.  Just something that makes you cringe because of the very base of your training.

And I feel like I went pretty far out of my way to mention the fact that I don't think you did it intentionally, and am simply pointing out this is something you should never want to do, simply from an educational point of view.

It's like being a dentist and noticing someone sticking their hands in somebodies motu

Kinda short, I know they weren't going to show that many games but I would have liked to have seen maybe a sneak peek at an early exclusive game. Forza 5 looks great but it's announcement was predictable and it's not the type of game to set gaming interwebs on fire.