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.
You do see how bonkers this is right?
I am going to say this just one more time.
The point of the article and the point of me putting it here is that it appears from the article that people DO want the current generation of VR rather then what anti-VR people want to suggest which is that the technology is not something people want to buy.
The hint of what the article is saying is in the title.
I have continiously made the point that 'plan' and actually buying it are two different things and the latter I am not suggesting nor is the article.
I have also said there is difference between 'want as a gift' and 'plan to buy in the next three months' as an indicator of 'want level', the latter clearly being a higher 'want'
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
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.
I don't believe this current "VR" is VR. When I first heard the VR term it was back in the 80s and it conjured up a much different tech that covered more than just visual. Give us sound and motion control inputs.
As to who is going to buy it just remember, there was a fad called 3D tv and look where that went. Not saying that VR won't happen, but I doubt this current tech.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
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.
I don't believe this current "VR" is VR. When I first heard the VR term it was back in the 80s and it conjured up a much different tech that covered more than just visual. Give us sound and motion control inputs.
As to who is going to buy it just remember, there was a fad called 3D tv and look where that went. Not saying that VR won't happen, but I doubt this current tech.
semantics really more over you start by saying VR is an improper term and then end with using the term to describe current tech
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
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.
I don't believe this current "VR" is VR. When I first heard the VR term it was back in the 80s and it conjured up a much different tech that covered more than just visual. Give us sound and motion control inputs.
As to who is going to buy it just remember, there was a fad called 3D tv and look where that went. Not saying that VR won't happen, but I doubt this current tech.
There are probably a good many people out there who would like to have a VR headset, how many of them are willing to pay money for them, is another matter, particularly the current generation of VR that is available, personally i don't think the current generation of VR is good enough, hopefully they will improve on the designs so that is no longer an issue, but, they are huge, ungainly devices that are of questionable worth when it comes to gaming, the next generation will hopefully be lighter weight and less intrusive, i really don't see them becoming a must have device unless that happens.
"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."
They are talking about a VR Product. That could mean anything. Ask me "Do you want to purchase a VR Product" well.. the Galaxy Note 7 is going to be a VR product, it's going to be able to run VR... and it's slated as having enhanced VR capabilities, and a new Headset available as well.
If that was on the list of "VR Product" then yeah.. I would have said yes.
Realize it doesn't say Headsets exclusively. Or Hardware specifically. It's ambiguous for a reason.. and there's a reason the samples are so small and probably vetted heavily.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was only a sample of those that realized that VR was a thing. The vast majority of people don't know, nor care what VR is, including many gamers -- the majority of gamers in fact -- which was also shown in a recent study.
All this is, is yet another ploy from a marketing firm trying to put lipstick on a pig so they can bilk more resources and sell to the ill-informed.
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+ <snip>
Is 300 fine? Answer: we do not know.
Nor can we say whether it is 95% or 70ish. The answer is: we do not know.
Why? Before you can talk about whether a sample size is large enough to have x% confidence you need to know the make up of the population you are sampling. We know we don't know.
Political analysts spend a lot of time and money trying to find links between between e.g. age, sex, religion, education, car ownership, house ownership, you name it ownership ... and voting intentions. Which goes into the design of what they hope is a scientific sample. Time consuming, special case.
Marketing analysts know they cannot be "scientific" in the same way. To expensive, not enough time, its hard! Hence "socio-economic tags". A, B, C, D or adults aged 25-54 or aged 18-49. Or sometimes they simply head into a shopping mall or a store. In this case they may simply have targeted: people who play 5+ hours a week. Which implicitly means that the people have access to a PC.
As such the survey of 300 people is a "valid" survey. The problem is knowing how it relates to the population at large. And we know we do not know.
They do the survey anyway in part to - hopefully - drive demand. "You need one of these because everyone else is getting one".
I could expand - I have the stats background - but why not check out the history of tablets?
MS et. al. spent a lot of money developing and pushing tablets. The first MS tablet made by HP was launched in 2002. Yes over 10 years before Google launched the Nexus 7. Survey after survey said that people would buy them. Just do a search.
By 2012 the discussion had swung around to "would tablets ever take off" "will Apple's entry with iPad - in 2009 - make the difference". Again just do a search on some surveys even from early 2012. Then Google - seemingly overnight - made tablets a reality with the Nexus 7. And the rest is history. The surveys were "right" people did plan to buy tablets - a lot of them just got the decade wrong.
Hence the answer to your question is: we do not know. And recognise that - in part - this is a form of advertising
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+ <snip>
Is 300 fine? Answer: we do not know.
Nor can we say whether it is 95% or 70ish. The answer is: we do not know.
Why? Before you can talk about whether a sample size is large enough to have x% confidence you need to know the make up of the population you are sampling. We know we don't know.
Political analysts spend a lot of time and money trying to find links between between e.g. age, sex, religion, education, car ownership, house ownership, you name it ownership ... and voting intentions. Which goes into the design of what they hope is a scientific sample. Time consuming, special case.
Marketing analysts know they cannot be "scientific" in the same way. To expensive, not enough time, its hard! Hence "socio-economic tags". A, B, C, D or adults aged 25-54 or aged 18-49. Or sometimes they simply head into a shopping mall or a store. In this case they may simply have targeted: people who play 5+ hours a week. Which implicitly means that the people have access to a PC.
As such the survey of 300 people is a "valid" survey. The problem is knowing how it relates to the population at large. And we know we do not know.
They do the survey anyway in part to - hopefully - drive demand. "You need one of these because everyone else is getting one".
I could expand but check out the history of tablets.
MS et. al. spent a lot of money developing and pushing tablets. The first MS tablet made by HP was launched in 2002. Yes over 10 years before Google launched the Nexus 7. Survey after survey said that people would buy them. Just do a search.
By 2012 the discussion had swung around to "would tablets ever take off" "will Apple's entry with iPad - in 2009 - make the difference". Again just do a search on some surveys even from early 2012. Then Google - seemingly overnight - made tablets a reality with the Nexus 7. And the rest is history. The surveys were "right" people did plan to buy tablets - a lot of them just got the decade wrong.
statistics is not an abstraction. a 95% confidence level can be mathematically determined using the size of the target population which is why I originally ask what I asked. Some answer abstractly and only one person gave specific statistical information that suggests 300 is enough. not enough for 95% confidence level (that is a mathematical term with specific meaning by the way) but a number is that still high
when talking statistics words like 'Population' 'Sample size' 'Confidence level' have specific meanings
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
The point of the article and the point of me putting it here is that it appears from the article that people DO want the current generation of VR rather then what anti-VR people want to suggest which is that the technology is not something people want to buy.
The hint of what the article is saying is in the title.
I have continiously made the point that 'plan' and actually buying it are two different things and the latter I am not suggesting nor is the article.
I have also said there is difference between 'want as a gift' and 'plan to buy in the next three months' as an indicator of 'want level', the latter clearly being a higher 'want'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I don't believe this current "VR" is VR. When I first heard the VR term it was back in the 80s and it conjured up a much different tech that covered more than just visual. Give us sound and motion control inputs.
As to who is going to buy it just remember, there was a fad called 3D tv and look where that went. Not saying that VR won't happen, but I doubt this current tech.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
more over you start by saying VR is an improper term and then end with using the term to describe current tech
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"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."
They are talking about a VR Product. That could mean anything. Ask me "Do you want to purchase a VR Product" well.. the Galaxy Note 7 is going to be a VR product, it's going to be able to run VR... and it's slated as having enhanced VR capabilities, and a new Headset available as well.
If that was on the list of "VR Product" then yeah.. I would have said yes.
Realize it doesn't say Headsets exclusively. Or Hardware specifically. It's ambiguous for a reason.. and there's a reason the samples are so small and probably vetted heavily.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was only a sample of those that realized that VR was a thing. The vast majority of people don't know, nor care what VR is, including many gamers -- the majority of gamers in fact -- which was also shown in a recent study.
All this is, is yet another ploy from a marketing firm trying to put lipstick on a pig so they can bilk more resources and sell to the ill-informed.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Is 300 fine? Answer: we do not know.
Nor can we say whether it is 95% or 70ish. The answer is: we do not know.
Why? Before you can talk about whether a sample size is large enough to have x% confidence you need to know the make up of the population you are sampling. We know we don't know.
Political analysts spend a lot of time and money trying to find links between between e.g. age, sex, religion, education, car ownership, house ownership, you name it ownership ... and voting intentions. Which goes into the design of what they hope is a scientific sample. Time consuming, special case.
Marketing analysts know they cannot be "scientific" in the same way. To expensive, not enough time, its hard! Hence "socio-economic tags". A, B, C, D or adults aged 25-54 or aged 18-49. Or sometimes they simply head into a shopping mall or a store. In this case they may simply have targeted: people who play 5+ hours a week. Which implicitly means that the people have access to a PC.
As such the survey of 300 people is a "valid" survey. The problem is knowing how it relates to the population at large. And we know we do not know.
They do the survey anyway in part to - hopefully - drive demand. "You need one of these because everyone else is getting one".
I could expand - I have the stats background - but why not check out the history of tablets?
MS et. al. spent a lot of money developing and pushing tablets. The first MS tablet made by HP was launched in 2002. Yes over 10 years before Google launched the Nexus 7. Survey after survey said that people would buy them. Just do a search.
By 2012 the discussion had swung around to "would tablets ever take off" "will Apple's entry with iPad - in 2009 - make the difference". Again just do a search on some surveys even from early 2012. Then Google - seemingly overnight - made tablets a reality with the Nexus 7. And the rest is history. The surveys were "right" people did plan to buy tablets - a lot of them just got the decade wrong.
Hence the answer to your question is: we do not know. And recognise that - in part - this is a form of advertising
when talking statistics words like 'Population' 'Sample size' 'Confidence level' have specific meanings
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me