304 réponses à ce sujet

[deuce985]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

Flawed statistics are flawed.

How do we know the number behind the percentage? 50% completion doesn't necessarily mean a higher number of players completed the game over 40%...

10% less players might be completing it because of mechanics like broader appeal to casual gamers. Just too many variables behind this to take it credible. It's one reason I ignore surveys because they never give you all the details on how the survey was performed.

Their data isn't from surveys. Bioware pulls data automatically from origin accounts with the "send data to bioware" checkmark in the options screen turned on (by default). Completion rate is number of accounts who have completed the game at least once divided by total number of accounts created to play the game. The result is typically several million data points, which is very precise when performing statistical analysis.

Yes but it's still flawed.

How do they know what type of gamers the people are who are quitting early? Or what reason? Is the game too long? Did it appeal to people who are more casual and don't often complete games? Too slow? Real life got in the way? Way too many variables.

It's only showing a %, which is still flawed because you don't know the number of players behind it. Bioware does, obviously. When Bioware uses this data, it makes me feel uneasy. Because they're technically not asking any of these players why they refused to complete the game. It's just pure speculation on their part. Does that make Bioware decide a game should be much shorter just because people aren't finishing it as much? Do they think people lose interest completely when they stop playing? Because even that's a flawed viewpoint on development.

I play Skyrim in spurts. The game is so massive, it can't hold my interest forever as the only game I play. I do go back to it quite often though, which more than justifies my $60 purchase.

I can tell you when I make a $60 purchase, I'd rather end up playing a game like Skyrim -- where it never ends -- than picking a game up that's 10 hours and I'll only play through it once. If they're both sitting on the shelf together, I'm going with the game where I can get endless hours playing. Even if I end up losing interest in it at certain points...

Like I said, everyone has different reasons why they stop playing a game. If you stop playing a game, it doesn't NECESSARILY mean you lost complete interest in the game. This is why I don't see how it's a reliable statistic. Too many variables.

Modifié par deuce985, 14 août 2012 - 08:21 .

[Sylvianus]

This isn't surprising. DA2 is a shorter game. Actually, 36 % compared to 40 % for DA2 is quite good given how DAO takes a long time to achieve.

[Sylvius the Mad]

deuce985 wrote...

Yes but it's still flawed.

How do they know what type of gamers the people are who are quitting early? Or what reason? Is the game too long? Did it appeal to people who are more casual and don't often complete games? Too slow? Real life got in the way? Way too many variables.

It's only showing a %, which is still flawed because you don't know the number of players behind it. Bioware does, obviously. When Bioware uses this data, it makes me feel uneasy. Because they're technically not asking any of these players why they refused to complete the game. It's just pure speculation on their part. Does that make Bioware decide a game should be much shorter just because people aren't finishing it as much? Do they think people lose interest completely when they stop playing? Because even that's a flawed viewpoint on development.

I play Skyrim in spurts. The game is so massive, it can't hold my interest forever as the only game I play. I do go back to it quite often though, which more than justifies my $60 purchase.

I can tell you when I make a $60 purchase, I'd rather end up playing a game like Skyrim -- where it never ends -- than picking a game up that's 10 hours and I'll only play through it once. If they're both sitting on the shelf together, I'm going with the game where I can get endless hours playing. Even if I end up losing interest in it at certain points...

Like I said, everyone has different reasons why they stop playing a game. If you stop playing a game, it doesn't NECESSARILY mean you lost complete interest in the game. This is why I don't see how it's a reliable statistic. Too many variables.

Exactly.  I've argued long and hard that Baldur's Gate is BioWare's best game to date.  And I've never finished Baldur's Gate.

There is no correlation at all between how many times I finish a game and how good I think it is.  Here, let me rank BioWare's games, but instead of listing the titles I'll list how many times I finished that game (three games rank equal second):

1. Zero
2. Twice
2. Once
2. Zero
5. Once
6. Thrice
7. Twice.
8. Once.
9. Zero

Is there a pattern?  I don't see one.

[Realmzmaster]

The problem is that game developers have to make decisions. Those decisions are made on data that is collected. The interpretations of that data can be right or wrong. The system may be flawed and usually is. The question is what does the developers put in its place? Certainly the developer cannot just depend on the opinions that come from this forum and reviews have to be taken with a grain of salt. Surveys usually result in low input and are often skewed one way or the other.

So the developer rightly or wrongly relies on data the developer can collect via the game itself. If a gamer chooses to opt out of that collection then their data will never be entered into the big picture, or if a game is begun but never completed. So the developer gets an incomplete picture which can produce a game like DA2 which splits the fanbase.

No data collection is going to give a completely accurate depiction. Now you could argue that DA2 should have been made using DAO as the base. The question is since roughly half of the gamers who bought DAO never bothered to finish it will that hold group of gamers buy DA2 or is Bioware only looking at a potential sale of 2 million copies (give or take) based on the data.

Why would Bioware think that those 2 million who never bothered to finish will want to buy another game in the same mold? Bioware knows that the other group who played and finish DAO would most likely buy DA2 if it was like DAO. Bioware wants to expand the audience so it changes the formula. It still gets 2.25 million in sales which equals what it would probably get any way if it had a DA2 like DAO..

Now all of this is conjecture on my part. None of it need be true, some of it could be true or all of it may be dead on.

[Darth Death]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Why would Bioware think that those 2 million who never bothered to finish will want to buy another game in the same mold? Bioware knows that the other group who played and finish DAO would most likely buy DA2 if it was like DAO. Bioware wants to expand the audience so it changes the formula. It still gets 2.25 million in sales which equals what it would probably get any way if it had a DA2 like DAO..

Now all of this is conjecture on my part. None of it need be true, some of it could be true or all of it may be dead on.

The fanbase is also to blame for the lack of appreciation regarding complexity, innovation, & satisfying content. An old game is like the superb quality of old music. What was performed well, stayed well & remained everlasting. Today's games are like the horrible quality of nowadays's music. Loveless, talent-less, & frankly just bad.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

No data collection is going to give a completely accurate depiction.

It will give you an accurate view of the data collected.  The trick is keeping track of what you know and what you don't.  Case in point...

Why would Bioware think that those 2 million who never bothered to finish will want to buy another game in the same mold?

Why would BioWare think those 2 million wouldn't buy another similar game?

That's the same mistake the OP is making - believing that the finishing rate is anything more than noise.  Yes, even if it's an accurate measurement, we have no reason to believe that it is meaningful or relevant.  It's just data.  That alone is insufficient basis from which to draw conclusions.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 août 2012 - 10:25 .

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

That's the same mistake the OP is making - believing that the finishing rate is anything more than noise. Yes, even if it's an accurate measurement, we have no reason to believe that it is meaningful or relevant. It's just data. That alone is insufficient basis from which to draw conclusions.

I agree – I don't think much of anything can be concluded based solely on how many people finished a game. It's certainly not enough on which to base an argument about how much a game was liked, or whether a similar game would be successful.

Modifié par jillabender, 14 août 2012 - 11:07 .

[MerAnne]

The trick is analyzing the data. From a friend who is a mathematical statistician-
Statistics is like a bikini
What is revealed is interesting
What is concealed in crucial.

I think the OP (and several others) are spending WAY too much time on what little is revealed by this so-called statistic. This isn't even a bikini more like long underwear - with footies.

[SafetyShattered]

Wait...DA2 better then DAO? Pft that was the best joke I've heard in months! Ow....my sides hurt.

[MICHELLE7]

Guess I'm in the minority here...I had 10 Hawkes and only 2 wardens. (Although I loved the origins part and in the minority again...the Fade) I probably would not have played DAO the second time through if I hadn't added a gameplay mod. It wasn't the length of the game...I spent three summers playing Morrowind over and over again...loved The Witcher...can't number the times I've played it or ME1 for that matter (didn't care much for the ME sequels). Am playing Dragon's Dogma right now and it's pretty long.

I loved the story and the gameplay...but then I had been wanting to free the mages ever since I played DAO the first time...so it was kind of up my alley. lol...I didn't even know people were upset about it until I came on the boards after about my 5th playthrough. I do agree it needed a little more time in development...no re-using of dungeons and a lot more de-bugging.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

No data collection is going to give a completely accurate depiction.

It will give you an accurate view of the data collected.  The trick is keeping track of what you know and what you don't.  Case in point...

Why would Bioware think that those 2 million who never bothered to finish will want to buy another game in the same mold?

Why would BioWare think those 2 million wouldn't buy another similar game?

That's the same mistake the OP is making - believing that the finishing rate is anything more than noise.  Yes, even if it's an accurate measurement, we have no reason to believe that it is meaningful or relevant.  It's just data.  That alone is insufficient basis from which to draw conclusions.

Data iself cannot be used to draw conclusions, but that data has to be processed into a form (usually information) that can be used to draw conclusions. Now the point becomes how the data is processed and through what filters it is seen through. The data is going to tranformed into a form from which conclusions rightly or wrongly will be drawn.

[cJohnOne]

What about my theory that there was a natural drop off in sales for DA2. Instead of a whisper campaign that must have occured almost before it was released. I think there isn't any statistical evidance to the whisper campaign theory.

DAO had unusal sales I assume from being 'hot' while DA2 had normal sales. I don't know what makes a game hot in sales.

[Realmzmaster]

cJohnOne wrote...

What about my theory that there was a natural drop off in sales for DA2. Instead of a whisper campaign that must have occured almost before it was released. I think there isn't any statistical evidance to the whisper campaign theory.

DAO had unusal sales I assume from being 'hot' while DA2 had normal sales. I don't know what makes a game hot in sales.

I think many fans of BG2 were looking forward to see how Bioware was going to top themselves especially since Bioware was touting DAO as the spiritual successor to BG. DAO was announced at E3 in 2004. The game was released in November of 2009. The anticipation was there. DAO came out and it sold well. Many gamers had their curiosity sated.

Many like what they saw. Some may not have liked what they saw. Those maybe some of the ones who never finished the game or finished it once and decide it was not what they wanted. So along comes DA2. There are changes that do not appeal to those who liked DAO. So those people go out and give their honest opinion of the game. Some of those who never finished DAO were not going to put money down on DA2.

Some gamers were scared off by poor word of mouth. As evident by some of the posters on the forum who were initially scared off and waited to purchase DA2 and found out that they actually liked it. Others did not.

There are many reasons why the data collected may not reflect the whole picture, but it never will. The best a developer can do is make guesses based on the data gathered. 

Maybe Bioware should have stayed with the formula of DAO.  Maybe the data told them (in their view) not to continue with the same formula.

Decisions get made. Some right and some wrong.

[Spicen]

I disagree strongly. I would say that DA:O is a better game. It has higher review ratings and more people bought the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Data iself cannot be used to draw conclusions, but that data has to be processed into a form (usually information) that can be used to draw conclusions.

And if the reasoning you use to transform the data into information is sound, then you will reach true conclusions.

[Lord Gremlin]

Not sure... DA2 was profitable, but not more popular. It sold less. It's DLC got canceled and retailers showed no interest in complete edition.

[Fast Jimmy]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The issue is not the quality of the data (it rarely is at the corporate level, an undergrad Statistics class can ensure that). It is in the filter which the data is viewed and the interpretations people pull from it that Statistics are made wholly inaccurate. 

To put this in context (which the OP did not do) this was a game design symposium where Fernando Melo, a Director of Online Development (read: the guy whose job revolves around selling DLC) was giving advice on how to best incorporate DLC into other developer's product roll out.

Melo was showing how, even with low completion rates, they were able to sell X amounts of DLC, thus proving his own success. It certainly behooved him to make it seem like the people who bought the original product disliked it, but then by his marketing and development genius, he was able to have all of these DLC downloads.

I'm sure his analysis also skipped over the fact that certain DLC were free or came with the shipped game. After all, that would make him look bad.

Always look at the person who is presenting data. I'm not just talking about "Bioware", I mean LITERALLY - the PERSON presenting the data. Melo made himself look better by making all of Bioware's core games look like dirt and gamers as uninterested, fickle, money sacks. And since he did it so well, EA is now able to sell their Day One DLC model to all sorts of other developers who want to be as successful as the Great and Mighty Bioware.

Its a shell game. They aren't real statistics, they are marketing statistics. And when you are being marketed to, you need to know the product they are trying to sell. Melo's product here? Base games, even for AAA developers, aren't interesting to gamers. So you need to have reasons to make them buy DLC - like crucial plot points, characters that input a lot to the story but can only be bought with Microsoft Points and locked content on the original disc to sell you later at a premium price.

I'm going to shamelessly repost my previous comment on this topic because it did not get any response the first time.

People are arguing if the data is correct or not, or if it was interpretted correctly or not. I am saying that is in Melo's best interest to interpret the data incorrectly in this case. He is trying to make his accomplishments selling DLC seem that much greater. After all (in this fallacy world of logic), who would buy DLC for a game they did not complete? Therefore, every DLC sale MUST have come from people who have completed the game. Which means Melo must be awesome at his job, because so many sales of DLC could only have come from a subset of the group that completed the game, meaning his tactics have nearly a 60-90% penetration rate with those who actually beat and enjoy the base game.

The problems with this logic are too numerous to name. But it makes Melo (maybe not Bioware directly, but Melo indeed) look good. And, hence, the DLC model that Bioware employs look good. Which is all he cares about. This wasn't a statistical analysis presented to the gaming community as empirical evidence, it was part of a powerpoint presentation to help make the DLC model look appealing to every other publisher out there. It can't be taken as fact because they did not reveal a single thing about their data collection methods or their logical inferences.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Data iself cannot be used to draw conclusions, but that data has to be processed into a form (usually information) that can be used to draw conclusions.

And if the reasoning you use to transform the data into information is sound, then you will reach true conclusions.

And there lies the problem the reasoning must be sound, but how do you come to that sound reasoning?

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


I'm going to shamelessly repost my previous comment on this topic because it did not get any response the first time.

People are arguing if the data is correct or not, or if it was interpretted correctly or not. I am saying that is in Melo's best interest to interpret the data incorrectly in this case. He is trying to make his accomplishments selling DLC seem that much greater. After all (in this fallacy world of logic), who would buy DLC for a game they did not complete? Therefore, every DLC sale MUST have come from people who have completed the game. Which means Melo must be awesome at his job, because so many sales of DLC could only have come from a subset of the group that completed the game, meaning his tactics have nearly a 60-90% penetration rate with those who actually beat and enjoy the base game.

The problems with this logic are too numerous to name. But it makes Melo (maybe not Bioware directly, but Melo indeed) look good. And, hence, the DLC model that Bioware employs look good. Which is all he cares about. This wasn't a statistical analysis presented to the gaming community as empirical evidence, it was part of a powerpoint presentation to help make the DLC model look appealing to every other publisher out there. It can't be taken as fact because they did not reveal a single thing about their data collection methods or their logical inferences.

Of course it is to make Melo look good and sell the DLC model. The question is if we strip away the smoke and mirrors is there some truth?
Oh! What a tangeled web we weave When first we practice to deceive (Sir Walter Scott).

Unfortunately the best lie is the one that contains a degree of truth.

[jillabender]

Fast Jimmy wrote…

This wasn't a statistical analysis presented to the gaming community as empirical evidence, it was part of a powerpoint presentation to help make the DLC model look appealing to every other publisher out there. It can't be taken as fact because they did not reveal a single thing about their data collection methods or their logical inferences.

That certainly does put those statistics into perspective. It sounds as though the person who originally presented the data that the OP posted wasn't trying to make an argument about which game was liked more – he was just trying to sell his method for marketing DLC. Thanks for providing that context!

Modifié par jillabender, 15 août 2012 - 03:01 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster,

It is true that the best lie has a degree of truth... but in this case, there 359 other degrees to take into account to make sure we are pointing the right direction.

I doubt very much that the percentages he was using (mind you, these were only percentages given, not actual numbers) that they are looking at the number of playthroughs started, not the number of players. Since we don't know (since the presenter did not clarify or, if he did, no one in the media present clarified it in their articles) then it makes the entire chunk of data worthless to assume is correct, let alone extrapolate to infer customer satisfaction.

Ergo, DA:O was the best game to come out in a decade.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

And there lies the problem the reasoning must be sound, but how do you come to that sound reasoning?

I find formal logic pretty handy in this regard.

[MerinTB]

Completion rate as a measure of enjoyment ignores the seeming reality that many (a majority) of players buy/play far more games than they EVER finish, and the rate of finishing games probably has AT LEAST AS MUCH TO DO WITH how many games were released at the same time AS WELL AS how long the games take to complete AS IT DOES WITH how much each game is enjoyed.

Just for one example - I completed 3 plays of DA2 in less time than it took me to play DA:O once.  Another example would be me playing untold Telltale adventure games in less time than it took me to play one time through DA2.

Modifié par MerinTB, 15 août 2012 - 05:20 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I decide for myself what I consider enjoyable, OP. For me DA2 was the worst BW title until ME3 popped up.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 15 août 2012 - 05:30 .