I thought the survey was very good. I admit the sample size was a bit small, but it suggests people are aware of VR and intend to buy VR products in the future. Am I missing something? I don't see the problem with this survey. Maybe the sample size should be bigger, but you can get a good indication what people think surveying 300 people. I guess if you think the survey is hogwash and doesn't come from a reliable source then I could see a problem. CNET and CBS actually own the site.
Actually this survey is quite off if what I'm reading is correct.
For example.. lets look at exactly how this is worded:
"In terms of platform breakdown, 75% of console players wish to purchase a VR product, while 73% of PC players are on board- which is a bit amusing, because VR so far seems to be confined, and far more suited, to PCs more than consoles."
75% wish to purchase a VR PRODUCT: SO what constitutes as a VR product? Well you could say the Rift the Vive and PSVR right? You could also say any Galaxy Handset phone which is VR capable.. any Gear VR set, any small 3rd party VR set.. you could even go so far as considering the PS Move Controllers as "VR Products" As they are required as part of the PS VR package.
What constitutes as a "VR Product" is the first question I'd start with.
Second.. we're looking at "gamers" as being people that play more than 5 hours a week.. I'd say that would be a pretty modest sample of a "gamer" however.. I consider myself a gamer and I often go a week or so a month where I get less than 5 hours of playtime. They could have tried to open a survey up to 1000 gamers.. with only 300 applicants stating they play 5 hours or more a week.
But we really have little indication on what that sample was.. or what it consisted of.
Furthermore.. was there any qualifying accounts? For example, marketing firms have a vetting process. When I was in high school I worked for a survey company -- they ask qualifying questions. "Have you heard of this Telecom Company? No? Sorry to have bothered you, thank you for your time"
If one of the vetting questions was "Do you know what Virtual Reality is" and the answer was "no" they might be disqualified from going further.
On the other hand I've also been parts of surveys where they give you an idea of a product and then ask you after you look through it and learn about it, if you'd be willing to buy one within a certain time frame. Some even go so far as to allow you to watch videos.
This is the point of marketing... to gauge interest.... so they can go back to those that hired them, or to put out a paper the companies will buy to increase investment.
Probable answer: without knowing anything about the sample we basically don't know.
Example: stand outside Wal-Mart and ask people who come out where they shop and - it is very likely - that you will prove that 95%+ of the population shop in Wal-Mart. Which is why a lot of effort is put into a) coming up with what a scientific sample is b) designing the right questions.
However it is possible to construct a possible reason that fits the answers.
If the people asked were "keen" "younger" PC gamers then they are more likely to know about and be interested in VR. In general older folks need more convincing - especially when they remember the last VR hype and the one before it and the one before that.
So they say they plan to buy but what we are not told is when. As they probably have less disposable income it may be that their planned purchase may be at some point in the near-ish future when i) they assume VR sets will be cheaper and ii) they hope they will have more disposable income. However being "young" they probably hope that parents or grandparents might splash out and get them one.
Just a possible explanation. Without knowing the make up of the sample though and the exact questions we can't say. As indicated when talking about purchasing intentions "when" is usually pertinent.
(A note on sampling errors etc. Such numbers assume a specific population spread e.g. normal probability curves. They basically don't exist in nature. And without knowing the "shape" of the population you cannot "know" the errors. Basically you have to go into the realms of non-stochastic probability. Political surveys are comparatively known beasts - there are a lot of them, companies have been doing them for a long time, a lot of money and has been spent, a lot of mult-variate analysis will have been done and even then they can be wrong and have margins of error. Stuff like this - as I said at the start - we really don't know. This type of survey has no idea.
I thought the survey was very good. I admit the sample size was a bit small, but it suggests people are aware of VR and intend to buy VR products in the future. Am I missing something? I don't see the problem with this survey. Maybe the sample size should be bigger, but you can get a good indication what people think surveying 300 people. I guess if you think the survey is hogwash and doesn't come from a reliable source then I could see a problem. CNET and CBS actually own the site.
The survey didn't come from Gamespot, it came from a marketing group that shared the results with Gamespot. We don't know how they chose the sample, or what questions were asked.
Its like being give a poll that says 70% of voters will vote republican. Big difference if it was an actual representative sample of the US population vs a poll where the respondents were wealthy southerners.
Masked and Gervaise I'm not very knowledgeable about surveys but it seems really complicated. I was just reading it for what it is. Why does everything have to be so damn complicated?
This is the point of marketing... to gauge interest.... so they can go back to those that hired them, or to put out a paper the companies will buy to increase investment.
There are two uses for surveys. One is to gauge interest for future products or modifications to current products. The other is to casually float out to the public as a form of advertising.
Take a guess which one this was?
(Actually surveys are often written to accomplish both of these at once, which I'm betting is what happened here)
I'm looking to buy a flying car but won't for a long time because of current cost and viability.
What matters is what people actually buy.
yes! and 'want to buy a porche' as part of a survey question and 'plan to buy a porche' on a survey question are not the same quesiton
I think his point is that entrance polls are much less accurate than exit polls. Someone can say they're going to do something, but it's less relevant than what they actually do.
but the article is not suggesting anyone is going to buy a VR headset is my point
So no one intends to buy anything VR related except that 74% of the 300 people (5+ hour a week gamers) surveyed.
and you consider yourself someone knowledgeable about statistics? Knowing that I know you know what standard deviation is how on in the world am I not supposed to read your post as T post?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
OP linked an article referencing a poll that is an obvious attempt at posting intentionally misleading 'data'.
He then tries to divert this by calling out that is, in fact, a potentially bullshit data set, but for a reason he knows is incorrect.
I point out that the sample size is fine, OP plays dumb and misinterprets (most likely on purpose) some random survey selling site's information. then another poster posts something fairly similar to what I posted earlier, and now OP is "well, looks like the survey is probably fine after all."
If you really feel VR is going to be that great down the road and want to argue it, fine. But if I wanted to see this kind of deceitful manipulation I would turn on coverage of the US presidential race.
I've given up trying to figure out the logic of @SEANMCAD a long time ago.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
OP linked an article referencing a poll that is an obvious attempt at posting intentionally misleading 'data'.
He then tries to divert this by calling out that is, in fact, a potentially bullshit data set, but for a reason he knows is incorrect.
I point out that the sample size is fine, OP plays dumb and misinterprets (most likely on purpose) some random survey selling site's information. then another poster posts something fairly similar to what I posted earlier, and now OP is "well, looks like the survey is probably fine after all."
If you really feel VR is going to be that great down the road and want to argue it, fine. But if I wanted to see this kind of deceitful manipulation I would turn on coverage of the US presidential race.
I've given up trying to figure out the logic of @SEANMCAD a long time ago.
ok let me recap.
1. in my OP I asked someone to let us know mathmatically if 300 was a good sample set. One poster explained some math but didnt answer the question, anther posted did answer the question. It appears the answer is yes 300 is fine but NOT for a 95% confidence which is fine, its still around 70ish+
2. so with the sample set question out of the way the next question is target audience which is defined in the article as gamers who play alot. that is the full definition of the sample.
3. then the questions, its clear from reading the article that 'you plan to buy' and 'you want as a gift' are two seperate questions.
Thus...'the majority' of those who play games often do in fact plan to buy a a gaming VR headset. Also, its clear that majority does not post here on MMORPG.com
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The problem is whether the interviewed group is a good representation of all games playing people. You can already easily point a flaw there. They were all members of a gaming website (Gamespot). Ask yourself, what percentage of the gamers can be reached that way? And are they representative for the whole gaming community in terms of buying new hardware.
Imo there is something really wrong with that article in the way they extrapolate these numbers from a small survey on a gaming website.
The problem is whether the interviewed group is a good representation of all games playing people. You can already easily point a flaw there. They were all members of a gaming website (Gamespot). Ask yourself, what percentage of the gamers can be reached that way? And are they representative for the whole gaming community in terms of buying new hardware.
Imo there is something really wrong with that article in the way they extrapolate these numbers from a small survey on a gaming website.
that is called statistics.
Statistics already understands that you will never get 'all' people
However if you want to try and target people who play often and you put the survey on gamespot and ask them 'do you play more than 5 hours a week' then yes, stastically that should capture the desired sample
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Looking to buy for a reasonable price more like it
Not many are looking to buy at $600+
the question was asked
'are you planing to buy' the answer was 75% yes. Statistically speaking most of those who answered the question where not answing it in a troll manner, meaning they are planning to buy at known price set.
In fact '66% plan to purchase a VR headset within the next 3 months'
I think its save to say majority
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Looking to buy for a reasonable price more like it
Not many are looking to buy at $600+
the question was asked
'are you planing to buy' the answer was 75% yes. Statistically speaking most of those who answered the question where not answing it in a troll manner, meaning they are planning to buy at known price set.
In fact '66% plan to purchase a VR headset within the next 3 months'
I think its save to say majority
66% of smokers plan on quitting within 3 months too
What people say and what people do are very different things.
again..
the article does not.. I repeat does NOT say that these people ARE going to buy them nor am I suggesting that they are either. so your kind pointing out the obvious
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
VR is failing, when you're failing you try to give the impression something is more popular and in demand than it actually is because of sheep mentality.
VR is failing, when you're failing you try to give the impression something is more popular and in demand than it actually is because of sheep mentality.
lol..which clearly when reading the article it appears they failed to give any false impression. they could have but they didnt
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Looking to buy for a reasonable price more like it
Not many are looking to buy at $600+
the question was asked
'are you planing to buy' the answer was 75% yes. Statistically speaking most of those who answered the question where not answing it in a troll manner, meaning they are planning to buy at known price set.
In fact '66% plan to purchase a VR headset within the next 3 months'
I think its save to say majority
66% of smokers plan on quitting within 3 months too
What people say and what people do are very different things.
again..
the article does not.. I repeat does NOT say that these people ARE going to buy them nor am I suggesting that they are either. so your kind pointing out the obvious
So the article is basically wishful thinking?
yes...the article is explictly stating that 74% of regular gamers are wishingful thinking.
I dont understand why its that hard to understand
dont forget the orginal frame on why VR will fail is that people dont want it. Not that they do want it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Thing about sample sizes, and the results, is that, its most likely correct, but with the proviso, that of those people questioned, who expressed an interest in VR, that was the result. It does not mean that the results represent gamers in general, but just those who are interested in VR already.
Apparently, I don't personally know any of this 74%. I know some people who think they're neat or would like to try one out, but I don't know any who have bought or are thinking (even in passing) of buying a VR setup.
It seems more like fuzzy numbers to make VR seem more popular than it is.
Thing about sample sizes, and the results, is that, its most likely correct, but with the proviso, that of those people questioned, who expressed an interest in VR, that was the result. It does not mean that the results represent gamers in general, but just those who are interested in VR already.
one of the questions that was asked was 'do you play more than 5 hours a week'.
so it not just because it was on gamespot. the survey itself was explicitly making sure the pool was actually gamers.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Apparently, I don't personally know any of this 74%. I know some people who think they're neat or would like to try one out, but I don't know any who have bought or are thinking (even in passing) of buying a VR setup.
It seems more like fuzzy numbers to make VR seem more popular than it is.
people on gaming forum sites tend to be the laggards of the population, just an fyi
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
the article does not.. I repeat does NOT say that these people ARE going to buy them nor am I suggesting that they are either. so your kind pointing out the obvious
So why did you make the thread? To talk about an article that doesn't say anything?
The study doesn't say they will buy VR. You're also not saying that they will buy VR. So . . . are you purposefully trolling?
At this point, you may as well go all-in and report yourself for trolling as it's the ultimate conclusion to a thread that you are stating the linked material has no relevance and that you also don't believe it has any relevance.
I don't understand what this thread is. You literally posted something knowing that it was bunk when you posted it . . . and then discussed/argued with people over stuff that you then dismiss because it was bunk from the start? WAT? What is happening?
the article does not.. I repeat does NOT say that these people ARE going to buy them nor am I suggesting that they are either. so your kind pointing out the obvious
So why did you make the thread? To talk about an article that doesn't say anything?
I say again.
the orginal frame from 'anti-VR' people was that people would not want VR as it is.
turns out they do want VR as it currently is.
that is why. This is not a post suggesting VR is a success or that people will buy it, its a post that illustrates people do WANT them as they currently are.
Sorry but I thought that was obvious
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
the article does not.. I repeat does NOT say that these people ARE going to buy them nor am I suggesting that they are either. so your kind pointing out the obvious
So why did you make the thread? To talk about an article that doesn't say anything?
I say again.
the orginal frame from 'anti-VR' people was that people would not want VR as it is.
turns out they do want VR as it currently is.
that is why. This is not a post suggesting VR is a success or that people will buy it, its a post that illustrates people do WANT them as they currently are.
yes! and 'want to buy a porche' as part of a survey question and 'plan to buy a porche' on a survey question are not the same question
&
I think its funny how everyone is disecting this study in ways to pew pew it but overlooking the most obvious of pew pew problem.
ONLY 300 PEOPLE IN THE POPULATION STATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
&
the indentended population is 'serious gamers' (not what they said exactly but yeah gamers) so I think the selected sample is good. leaving only the questions I think those questions would have to be wildly obviously wrong in order to sway the result set.
which incidentally means on gaming forums like this one there are more laggards then not.
&
They are not saying '74% of people will buy' they are not saying '74% of the people have bought' they are pretty clear, they are saying 74% of the people want to buy. seems straightforward to me
&
but the article is not suggesting anyone is going to buy a VR headset is my point
How are you both arguing the semantic difference between "want to buy" and "plan to buy" when the survey clearly states the words: "66% of gamers surveyed PLAN to purchase a VR device in the next three months"
So "want to buy a porche" and plan to buy a porche" are not the same thing according to you, but "plan to buy VR device in the next three months" actually just means "want to buy".
You then dismiss the survey by claiming small sample size - which is then explained to you so you go back to agreeing with it.
Then, while you're believing that it's totally 74%, none of that 74% is represented on MMORPG.com which is mathematically preposterous if the survey is remotely accurate. PC & Console Gamers who play 5+ hours a week and prefer RPG's are somehow all absent from this forum?
And of course, you reiterate your point to be that the survey is not suggesting that anyone is going to buy a VR headset despite 66% have that very intention.
But then your most recent take away is that most gamers do want VR as it is . . . but that they won't be buying or that VR will be successful.
Apparently, I don't personally know any of this 74%. I know some people who think they're neat or would like to try one out, but I don't know any who have bought or are thinking (even in passing) of buying a VR setup.
It seems more like fuzzy numbers to make VR seem more popular than it is.
people on gaming forum sites tend to be the laggards of the population, just an fyi
Certainly. But looking on VR stuff and forking out a huge sum is different as well. Half that percentage probably will get one when the prices go down to a third and enough games get made for VR.
At the moment you will get a very expensive piece of beta gear that supports far too few games and there is zero chance that 20% of the gamers would buy that. With 10 times as many games (including some games like GTA, Fallout, ES and so on) and lower prices things will change. Also, VR needs to become more comfortable and more computers (and consoles) need to be able to run it with good FPS.
VR has a potential but it will not be something most gamers will own for some years yet. It is pretty likely that a lot of gamers will own one 5 years from now though.
Comments
For example.. lets look at exactly how this is worded:
"In terms of platform breakdown, 75% of console players wish to purchase a VR product, while 73% of PC players are on board- which is a bit amusing, because VR so far seems to be confined, and far more suited, to PCs more than consoles."
75% wish to purchase a VR PRODUCT: SO what constitutes as a VR product? Well you could say the Rift the Vive and PSVR right? You could also say any Galaxy Handset phone which is VR capable.. any Gear VR set, any small 3rd party VR set.. you could even go so far as considering the PS Move Controllers as "VR Products" As they are required as part of the PS VR package.
What constitutes as a "VR Product" is the first question I'd start with.
Second.. we're looking at "gamers" as being people that play more than 5 hours a week.. I'd say that would be a pretty modest sample of a "gamer" however.. I consider myself a gamer and I often go a week or so a month where I get less than 5 hours of playtime. They could have tried to open a survey up to 1000 gamers.. with only 300 applicants stating they play 5 hours or more a week.
But we really have little indication on what that sample was.. or what it consisted of.
Furthermore.. was there any qualifying accounts? For example, marketing firms have a vetting process. When I was in high school I worked for a survey company -- they ask qualifying questions. "Have you heard of this Telecom Company? No? Sorry to have bothered you, thank you for your time"
If one of the vetting questions was "Do you know what Virtual Reality is" and the answer was "no" they might be disqualified from going further.
On the other hand I've also been parts of surveys where they give you an idea of a product and then ask you after you look through it and learn about it, if you'd be willing to buy one within a certain time frame. Some even go so far as to allow you to watch videos.
This is the point of marketing... to gauge interest.... so they can go back to those that hired them, or to put out a paper the companies will buy to increase investment.
Example: stand outside Wal-Mart and ask people who come out where they shop and - it is very likely - that you will prove that 95%+ of the population shop in Wal-Mart. Which is why a lot of effort is put into a) coming up with what a scientific sample is b) designing the right questions.
However it is possible to construct a possible reason that fits the answers.
If the people asked were "keen" "younger" PC gamers then they are more likely to know about and be interested in VR. In general older folks need more convincing - especially when they remember the last VR hype and the one before it and the one before that.
So they say they plan to buy but what we are not told is when. As they probably have less disposable income it may be that their planned purchase may be at some point in the near-ish future when i) they assume VR sets will be cheaper and ii) they hope they will have more disposable income. However being "young" they probably hope that parents or grandparents might splash out and get them one.
Just a possible explanation. Without knowing the make up of the sample though and the exact questions we can't say. As indicated when talking about purchasing intentions "when" is usually pertinent.
(A note on sampling errors etc. Such numbers assume a specific population spread e.g. normal probability curves. They basically don't exist in nature. And without knowing the "shape" of the population you cannot "know" the errors. Basically you have to go into the realms of non-stochastic probability. Political surveys are comparatively known beasts - there are a lot of them, companies have been doing them for a long time, a lot of money and has been spent, a lot of mult-variate analysis will have been done and even then they can be wrong and have margins of error. Stuff like this - as I said at the start - we really don't know. This type of survey has no idea.
Its like being give a poll that says 70% of voters will vote republican. Big difference if it was an actual representative sample of the US population vs a poll where the respondents were wealthy southerners.
One is to gauge interest for future products or modifications to current products.
The other is to casually float out to the public as a form of advertising.
Take a guess which one this was?
(Actually surveys are often written to accomplish both of these at once, which I'm betting is what happened here)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
1. in my OP I asked someone to let us know mathmatically if 300 was a good sample set. One poster explained some math but didnt answer the question, anther posted did answer the question. It appears the answer is yes 300 is fine but NOT for a 95% confidence which is fine, its still around 70ish+
2. so with the sample set question out of the way the next question is target audience which is defined in the article as gamers who play alot. that is the full definition of the sample.
3. then the questions, its clear from reading the article that 'you plan to buy' and 'you want as a gift' are two seperate questions.
Thus...'the majority' of those who play games often do in fact plan to buy a a gaming VR headset.
Also, its clear that majority does not post here on MMORPG.com
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Imo there is something really wrong with that article in the way they extrapolate these numbers from a small survey on a gaming website.
Statistics already understands that you will never get 'all' people
However if you want to try and target people who play often and you put the survey on gamespot and ask them 'do you play more than 5 hours a week' then yes, stastically that should capture the desired sample
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
'are you planing to buy' the answer was 75% yes. Statistically speaking most of those who answered the question where not answing it in a troll manner, meaning they are planning to buy at known price set.
In fact '66% plan to purchase a VR headset within the next 3 months'
I think its save to say majority
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
the article does not.. I repeat does NOT say that these people ARE going to buy them nor am I suggesting that they are either. so your kind pointing out the obvious
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I dont understand why its that hard to understand
dont forget the orginal frame on why VR will fail is that people dont want it. Not that they do want it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It does not mean that the results represent gamers in general, but just those who are interested in VR already.
It seems more like fuzzy numbers to make VR seem more popular than it is.
'do you play more than 5 hours a week'.
so it not just because it was on gamespot. the survey itself was explicitly making sure the pool was actually gamers.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The study doesn't say they will buy VR. You're also not saying that they will buy VR. So . . . are you purposefully trolling?
At this point, you may as well go all-in and report yourself for trolling as it's the ultimate conclusion to a thread that you are stating the linked material has no relevance and that you also don't believe it has any relevance.
I don't understand what this thread is. You literally posted something knowing that it was bunk when you posted it . . . and then discussed/argued with people over stuff that you then dismiss because it was bunk from the start? WAT? What is happening?
the orginal frame from 'anti-VR' people was that people would not want VR as it is.
turns out they do want VR as it currently is.
that is why. This is not a post suggesting VR is a success or that people will buy it, its a post that illustrates people do WANT them as they currently are.
Sorry but I thought that was obvious
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Have you read your own thread?
How are you both arguing the semantic difference between "want to buy" and "plan to buy" when the survey clearly states the words: "66% of gamers surveyed PLAN to purchase a VR device in the next three months"
So "want to buy a porche" and plan to buy a porche" are not the same thing according to you, but "plan to buy VR device in the next three months" actually just means "want to buy".
You then dismiss the survey by claiming small sample size - which is then explained to you so you go back to agreeing with it.
Then, while you're believing that it's totally 74%, none of that 74% is represented on MMORPG.com which is mathematically preposterous if the survey is remotely accurate. PC & Console Gamers who play 5+ hours a week and prefer RPG's are somehow all absent from this forum?
And of course, you reiterate your point to be that the survey is not suggesting that anyone is going to buy a VR headset despite 66% have that very intention.
But then your most recent take away is that most gamers do want VR as it is . . . but that they won't be buying or that VR will be successful.
You do see how bonkers this is right?
At the moment you will get a very expensive piece of beta gear that supports far too few games and there is zero chance that 20% of the gamers would buy that. With 10 times as many games (including some games like GTA, Fallout, ES and so on) and lower prices things will change. Also, VR needs to become more comfortable and more computers (and consoles) need to be able to run it with good FPS.
VR has a potential but it will not be something most gamers will own for some years yet. It is pretty likely that a lot of gamers will own one 5 years from now though.