Forums - General Discussion - NeoGAF in shambles (now back, no OT discussion, statement from Evilore)

In less than 2 days, ResetEra has about 2% of the posts VGC has, with 158k posts



Around the Network
RJ_Sizzle said:
Ka-pi96 said:

NPD numbers aren't true either though. NPD is merely a tracker as well.

Sure, they may have more coverage than VGC but they still don't have 100% coverage so they still aren't 100% accurate.

NPD are numbers from retailers and distributors with a margin of error.  VGChartz numbers are straight up guesses with less tangible data. There's a huge degree of difference.

NPD are estimates based on a certain coverage of actual data from retailers and distributors, VGC numbers are estimates based on a lower coverage of actual data from retailers and distributors. There's certainly a difference, but they aren't completely different methods like you are insinuating in the previous post. 



...

NPD = Mediacreatesales
VGC = COMG



Ka-pi96 said:
RJ_Sizzle said:

NPD are numbers from retailers and distributors with a margin of error.  VGChartz numbers are straight up guesses with less tangible data. There's a huge degree of difference.

VGC isn't straight up guesses. They get their data from somewhere and extrapolate from that. I don't know where they get that data from, but I also don't know who exactly NPD gets their data from, doesn't mean I'm going to accuse NPD of lying about having sources though...

NPD gets 95% of its data from retailers with the remaining 5% estimated with their proprietary algorithm. Just because both VGC and NPD extrapolate, the nature of the extrapolation is not identical nor is it even close to being identical. In addition, we have to take into account that VGC frequently makes adjustments to its numbers whereas NPD does not. This last point is what makes NPD and VGC extremely different from each other. The former's data are robust enough that the numbers do not have to be changed down the line. The latter's data are inaccurate that the site has to change its numbers often so that they are not horribly off from data from NPD, GFK, press release numbers, and Media Create.



Torillian said:
RJ_Sizzle said:

NPD are numbers from retailers and distributors with a margin of error.  VGChartz numbers are straight up guesses with less tangible data. There's a huge degree of difference.

NPD are estimates based on a certain coverage of actual data from retailers and distributors, VGC numbers are estimates based on a lower coverage of actual data from retailers and distributors. There's certainly a difference, but they aren't completely different methods like you are insinuating in the previous post. 

NPD is using more empirical data, which VGChartz just plain doesn't have access to. The difference is damn near science vs. magic. Did we ever get an official formula on how Chartz gets their numbers, or is it still pretty much an old woman using tea leaves? You don't ever see NPD having to go back and adjust figures based on VGChartz numbers, no? One of these sources is more reliable than the other.



Around the Network
RJ_Sizzle said:
Torillian said:

NPD are estimates based on a certain coverage of actual data from retailers and distributors, VGC numbers are estimates based on a lower coverage of actual data from retailers and distributors. There's certainly a difference, but they aren't completely different methods like you are insinuating in the previous post. 

NPD is using more empirical data, which VGChartz just plain doesn't have access to. The difference is damn near science vs. magic. Did we ever get an official formula on how Chartz gets their numbers, or is it still pretty much an old woman using tea leaves? You don't ever NPD having to go back and adjust figures based on VGChartz numbers, no? One of these sources is more reliable than the other.

Back when NPD used to release some of their numbers there were a few instances where they were proven to be way off from official numbers.  NPD numbers looked real bad as the adjustments for the following quarters tried to "correct" their problem instead of going back and fix the quaters that were way off...  So, yes, vgchartz is more reliable when looking at historical data as it has been corrected instead of adjusting data of the quaters after to cover up their mistakes of previously published data.



jlauro said:
RJ_Sizzle said:

NPD is using more empirical data, which VGChartz just plain doesn't have access to. The difference is damn near science vs. magic. Did we ever get an official formula on how Chartz gets their numbers, or is it still pretty much an old woman using tea leaves? You don't ever NPD having to go back and adjust figures based on VGChartz numbers, no? One of these sources is more reliable than the other.

Back when NPD used to release some of their numbers there were a few instances where they were proven to be way off from official numbers.  NPD numbers looked real bad as the adjustments for the following quarters tried to "correct" their problem instead of going back and fix the quaters that were way off...  So, yes, vgchartz is more reliable when looking at historical data as it has been corrected instead of adjusting data of the quaters after to cover up their mistakes of previously published data.

No way. This site isn't very transparent about how they get their numbers and barely update the current ones they have. You don't have such an issue with NPD which runs like clockwork, and now has access to digital revenue provided by publishers. I don't see anyone doing that for Chartz anytime soon... or ever. NPD is direct access mostly, while Chartz will always be the outside man. Literally no different from us. Are any of the software numbers ever close to right? If the site directive is to go back and change figures when they get hard data if NPD or publishers choose to share them, then maybe it's not wise to quote the site. I'm fine with Chartz acting as a tracker, but I'm not bringing up the numbers as gospel anywhere, ever.



Loving the fallout. Karma is a bitch.



RJ_Sizzle said:
Torillian said:

NPD are estimates based on a certain coverage of actual data from retailers and distributors, VGC numbers are estimates based on a lower coverage of actual data from retailers and distributors. There's certainly a difference, but they aren't completely different methods like you are insinuating in the previous post. 

NPD is using more empirical data, which VGChartz just plain doesn't have access to. The difference is damn near science vs. magic. Did we ever get an official formula on how Chartz gets their numbers, or is it still pretty much an old woman using tea leaves? You don't ever see NPD having to go back and adjust figures based on VGChartz numbers, no? One of these sources is more reliable than the other.

My description would indeed mean that one of those sources would be reliable than the other. That doesn't make the two processes different processes. They are the same process with different resources. Have you ever been told NPD's official formula?



...

Aura7541 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

VGC isn't straight up guesses. They get their data from somewhere and extrapolate from that. I don't know where they get that data from, but I also don't know who exactly NPD gets their data from, doesn't mean I'm going to accuse NPD of lying about having sources though...

NPD gets 95% of its data from retailers with the remaining 5% estimated with their proprietary algorithm. Just because both VGC and NPD extrapolate, the nature of the extrapolation is not identical nor is it even close to being identical. In addition, we have to take into account that VGC frequently makes adjustments to its numbers whereas NPD does not. This last point is what makes NPD and VGC extremely different from each other. The former's data are robust enough that the numbers do not have to be changed down the line. The latter's data are inaccurate that the site has to change its numbers often so that they are not horribly off from data from NPD, GFK, press release numbers, and Media Create.

I would be curious to see a source for this 95% claim.



...