I see some pretty substantial "discussions" at the quarterly release ...
At one point NPD was said to be accurate enough to justify the adjustment of VG nuumbers. Now they are no longer perceived as being more accurate (even though the larger sample size still exists ..)
ioi - "I don't actually intend to make anymore adjustments to our data, it is as accurate as NPD over the last quarter - adjusting when NPD came out only meant I had to readjust back when the quarterly figures came out so I'm just going to go with what we have from now on..."
Not sure I agree with that given the trend of VG to consistently overestimate PS3 in July, August and September and underestimate 360 for the same timeframe ... while the differences may have been about 15% or so on avg. I would have liked to have seen VG land on both sides of NPD.
As it stands now it seems that VG's sample has a bias - which could be based on store type, demographics of store region or a variety of factors. Even the PAL numbers for 11/3 followed the same trend with PS3 being overestimate by 11% and 360 underestimated by 34% (using the holiday season predictions posted on the front page).
So ... given that there could be significant discrepancies in the Quarterly numbers between VG and NPD I think it is going to cause more dissension and argument about the veracity of VG than anything on the positive side.
Of course if VG #'s come in very close with little sign of bias then life is good ;)
ioi - "I have always endorsed NPD and have always conceded that their figures are obviously far more accurate than ours ..." - Posted on: 06/14/07, 22:22