STIHL.2489 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok so in 2016, when HoT came out, GW2 was making around 17 - 30 Million a Quarter, with anywhere between 1.9 - 2.5 million players. So roughly, everyone was spending some where around at least 10+ quarter, Or put another way, **everyone** was buying at least a one 10 dollar/400 gem purchase a quarter. With a bit more being bought on occasion. Not bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in 2018, we have 3.3 million and an average of 13 million a quarter, which means on average everyone is spending around 4 dollars a quarter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That means player spending has been cut in over half over 2 years, while they have increased their overall player numbers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They released Q4 financials? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q4 would be heavily influenced by PoF expansion sales, so would not be a good metric. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forgive me then, but where is the 2018 number you're using coming from? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I said _average_ so I was using the _Average_ spending over the last year. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, now I'm really confused... so, you're only using 2017Q1 & 2017Q2 sales figures versus 2016Q1-4? And population estimates from? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm getting at is, and maybe I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but I'm not seeing the apples to apple comparison of financials. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ultimately, I'm not even seeing what an estimated average spend per user is supposed to demonstrate. It doesn't equate in anyway to the financial health of the company. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually I am using 2016Q2 to 2017Q2 sales, because 2017Q3 was PoF pre-launch sales. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means in short.. we have more people playing and spending less. Draw from that whatever you want. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It kinda, sorta, but not really, means that... for that period of time.... and by not really, I'm mean it doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the simplest level, account population is not 1-1 versus actual person. So, at best you have average sales per account, not customer... which offers even less insight from a financial perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And it doesn't really matter what I draw from it, you're the one putting it out there. What matters is you're throwing those statistics out there for interpretation. When in fact, those statistics don't represent what you're claiming they do. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, here is what we have, Anet has more people playing and making less money. > > > > > > > > > > > > Draw from that, whatever you want. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, no... what we have is (1) more accounts for the period you provided (unclear how the population for that specific period was sourced) , and (2) less sales for that period (I did not verify) with no interesting correlation provided between the two. > > > > > > > > > > Still unclear what is supposed to be, much less can be, genuinely drawn from that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > What we have, is > > > > * Population Growth, based on a lot more research then anyone else in this discussion has done. > > > > * Income Decline. Direct from NCsoft earnings report, which anyone can look up. > > > > > > > > Now we can conclude a few things from that. > > > > > > > > For example, > > > > > > > > + We could conclude that people are spending less. And while this would be true on average, it does not mean that any individual player is spending less, but that the population as a whole is spending less, which is true based on the numbers we have open to us. > > > > + We could conclude that the population of paying players decreased and the people looking for a free game has gone up. This is the counter point to the above conclusion, that it is not that players individually are spending less, but that are less players overall spending money and the population of players coming here expecting everything for free has increased. > > > > > > > > Both those could be debated back and forth ad nauseam, which is all you are trying to do at this point. > > > > > > > > But is shows one very solid point, that is not open for debate, that _Population does not correlate to Profit_. > > > > > > > > If you don' like the OP's numbers, you can cry to them and find a better source, trying to debate that with me, is a pointless, as I don't care if you don't like their numbers, they are better then anything you have to provide and I am more then willing to trust they did their research on the subject matter. > > > > > > Ok... first, the accuracy of the population numbers is irrelevant... it's your methodology and conclusions that are flawed. > > > > > > In a nutshell: > > > > > > * The population numbers for base 2016 were as of ~September 2016, not the full year. > > > * The population numbers for current were as of January 2018 > > > - These 2018 numbers include the population of PoF > > > > > > * The 2016 sales numbers you provided, you claimed were 2016Q2-2017Q2 > > > - However, you included 2016Q1 sales, of ~30M KRW > > > - Average sales for your specified range (16Q2,16Q3,17Q1,17Q2) would have been ~15M KRW > > > > > > * You do not include 2017Q3 sales numbers of ~20M KRW, yet take into account population for that same period. > > > > > > * 2017Q4 numbers are not available yet, but should be included if those current population numbers are to be used. > > > > > > > > > No, I used 2014 - 2015 sales number for the 2016 population, just like I used the 2016 - 2017 numbers for the 2018 population, also, I didn't use the 33 Million Surge numbers from HoT pre-launch sales, nor did I include the HoT auctual launch sales, as expansions mess up calculations of average sales, as such to be fair, I didn't use the 16 million surge on 2017Q3 Pre-launch and the 2017Q4 Launch Sales from PoF to keep things fair. > > > > I have already explained this to you once before. > > > > > In short, you took a population sample from one period, and then sales numbers from a different period, while removing relevant > > > values for that period. Thus skewing your results. > > > > > > > I used numbers that would not be influenced by expansion sales, which is how you find more exact numbers when dealing with average player purchases. Which, again, I already explained this. > > > > > If you really want to go further, you're drawing conclusions based on pure speculation and conjecture off of this flawed data. > > > > > > > I am simply using the data I have available to me. > > > > > I could go into a better methodology, but again, sales to population metrics are pretty much useless in a vacume for determining any meaningful financial conclusion. If you believe otherwise, please elaborate. > > > > > I could also try to flap my arms to get to the moon, but I'll take the word of scientist that tell it won't work. I am simply using what I have, don't like that, please provide better. > > Ok, for clarity's _sake_, let's assume your numbers for both population and sales are bang on. _(Edit Note: I am not conceding to the methodology, if for no other reason, surges of population due to expansions are included, while surges of sales are excluded. At the very least, sales data for the corresponding periods would be more comparative since population surges cannot be excluded. )_ > > Now, explain to me in simple terms, what the correlation between population (customer base) and sales alone is as it relates to any measure of a company's financial health. Much less an average across these factors. > > I'll save you the time, there is no such ratio used in any meaningful analysis. > > So again, what conclusion is the reader supposed to draw? I have explained this many times. # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to my companies future plans. But I don't own Anet.. so.. that's on them. * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shagwell.1349 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 People really use reddit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeL.8260 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 I was also expecting that kind of number, I mean the game is upgraded on regular basis and it's almost never skiped on by "top MMORPG" lists, it feels like we get updates and new content almost every second week, so much in fact that I personaly as a working person can't really expirience for example I didn't even touch Wintersday events (really wanted to try that jumping puzzle) and I only keep up with current events by watching videos on Youtube. It's obvious that Anet as a dev are doing financially fine. In my expirience the only real blow the game ever got was the PvP removal from E-Sports which I doupt many cared for anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourningcry.9428 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > I have explained this many times. No, you've said things many times, but you haven't proven anything. I'll elaborate below just to clarify. > > # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. > > * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. > > This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. > > Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think that is something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to any company with future plans. > Average player spending has nothing to do with company profitability. The sales figures alone are of concern. The addition of averaging these sales over customers does not lend any additional information beyond your personal interpretation of what the could mean. Nothing more; not even with dramatic fonts. My corporate finance is rusty, but, simply put, sales alone are no representation of profitability. And since the financial statements from NC Soft I've seen do not break out income factors across game divisions, it's impossible to determine GW2's profitability - regardless of population, or even individual sales figures. > * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. > > But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. Customer attraction and retention with respect to Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) is not something that you can determine based on sales and population alone. Anything beyond the two trends already established is speculation. To re-iterate, all you've shown is a decline in sales, and a growth in population. Neither of which shows any determination of profitability. What you've stated over and over is an opinion, based not on anything beyond an interpretation of the combining of two mutually exclusive factors to create a factor which has no real significance (Avg. sales per account). The issue I have is that some people reading that may draw the same, inaccurate conclusions you're offering as fact. Which it most certainly is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essence Snow.3194 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 Active accounts != Population Like others have noted lots of players have multiple accounts. Also players create temporary accounts, (pvp being a prime example). I'd be willing to put a decent wager on those numbers being significantly higher than the real population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunateric.3708 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"shagwell.1349" said: > People really use reddit? The subreddit for this game is several times bigger than this place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourningcry.9428 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > I have explained this many times. > > No, you've said things many times, but you haven't proven anything. I'll elaborate below just to clarify. > > > > > # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. > > > > * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. > > > > This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. > > > > Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think that is something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to any company with future plans. > > > > Average player spending has nothing to do with company profitability. The sales figures alone are of concern. The addition of averaging these sales over customers does not lend any additional information beyond your personal interpretation of what the could mean. Nothing more; not even with dramatic fonts. > > My corporate finance is rusty, but, simply put, sales alone are no representation of profitability. And since the financial statements from NC Soft I've seen do not break out income factors across game divisions, it's impossible to determine GW2's profitability - regardless of population, or even individual sales figures. > > > * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > > > Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. > > > > But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. > > Customer attraction and retention with respect to Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) is not something that you can determine based on sales and population alone. Anything beyond the two trends already established is speculation. > > > To re-iterate, all you've shown is a decline in sales, and a growth in population. Neither of which shows any determination of profitability. > > What you've stated over and over is an opinion, based not on anything beyond an interpretation of the combining of two mutually exclusive factors to create a factor which has no real significance (Avg. sales per account). > > The issue I have is that some people reading that may draw the same, inaccurate conclusions you're offering as fact. Which it most certainly is not. > A simple example for clarity: Game BS has 2 players (A&B). * A spends $100 on BS * Avg player spending is $50 C gets into BS * A only spends $90 this period on BS * Avg player spending is $30 What does this example mean? Population went up, sales went down, average player sales went down. The developers need to throw more BS to make player A happy. Maybe B & C will like the BS as well, but regardless, they don't really matter. Avg spend has nothing to add to this. Now, lets throw a ringer into this, and say it costs $200 per period to run this BS... in either scenario, there is no profitability. But this is completely obfuscated and also, completely unaffected by average player sales. Now remove population and avg player sales from the above. The situation, and valuation of the scenario doesn't change at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 Its very possible for the total population number to go up while the total number of people spending money to go down. Similarly it is possible for the total population to go down while the total number of people spending money goes up. Population increase matters because, in theory, a small percentage of your FtP game will spend money in your cash shop, and because in game population can be, functionally, content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourningcry.9428 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > Its very possible for the total population number to go up while the total number of people spending money to go down. Similarly it is possible for the total population to go down while the total number of people spending money goes up. Population increase matters because, in theory, a small percentage of your FtP game will spend money in your cash shop, and because in game population can be, functionally, content. I would suggest that it may be more accurate to say that changes of population composition matter, as what you're describing has less to do with the overall magnitude of population, but more so, the type of population that increases. The changes in population you're talking about are relevant to a certain demographic of the population, changes in other demographics are irrelevant. This kind of dovetails out of the above discussion... the overall magnitude of population is less interesting than the composition of that population - which, we have no insight into, so, cannot make any interesting commentary about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > I'm not arguing , I'm simply skeptical of the numbers. GW2 seems to be healthy. I never seem to run into dead maps. Maybe I feel like 3.3 Million should feel different. It could be my definition of active may be somewhat different. > > I'm trying to make sure that everyone is really clear on what the original poster was estimating, which includes people who logon for just a little each month. Those short-time folks aren't going to contribute to our feeling of how many people are online when you or I play. > > As I said in my follow up post, the specific number isn't all that useful to those of us playing the game. It doesn't tell us if people are having fun or invested heavily in the game; it just tells us that people are interested enough to logon. TBH I see no real point in pasting this reddit post over here.... in fact I am of the mind it serves no real point at all. We have no real clue what the pops are, we all consider pops to be different and we can all measure them differently. If you think the industry standard of 1 login per month is a more accurate way of defining a games activity and popularity then I guess we all have something to worry about. If we all did that then yeah the numbers might look pretty good but our actual in game experience would be pretty damn poor I think. It is well know that an MMO's numbers are always generally in decline.... its more about how to slow the decline long enough to make as much out it before it becomes yesterdays news, decent ones like GW2 find plateaus and see peaks when something happens like a patch or an expac, but generally it's always destined to continue to drop. To say GW2 is around 1/2 of WoW's numbers is I think very wishful thinking and I really dislike WoW, never played it beyond a very short trial 10years back, but it has managed to slow regression better than most other titles that have claimed to be the next big thing over the years So if I was to hazard my own illogical assumption into the mix I would say 500k accounts are genuinely active with concurrent logins of more than 1 hr, more than 10 times per month.. my proof - I have none, its all just heresay. Then again I never really understand why some players feel the need to see made up numbers and or post out the ..."oooh the population is dieing, the sky is falling." stuff The only thing that really matters is whether or not your still having fun in game and let ANET worry about the actual numbers. If the game still boots up tomorrow, then there is a good chance you still have time to enjoy yourself... when it doesn't then we all gotta move on or move back to other titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STIHL.2489 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > I have explained this many times. > > > > No, you've said things many times, but you haven't proven anything. I'll elaborate below just to clarify. > > > > > > > > # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. > > > > > > * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. > > > > > > This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. > > > > > > Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think that is something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to any company with future plans. > > > > > > > Average player spending has nothing to do with company profitability. The sales figures alone are of concern. The addition of averaging these sales over customers does not lend any additional information beyond your personal interpretation of what the could mean. Nothing more; not even with dramatic fonts. > > > > My corporate finance is rusty, but, simply put, sales alone are no representation of profitability. And since the financial statements from NC Soft I've seen do not break out income factors across game divisions, it's impossible to determine GW2's profitability - regardless of population, or even individual sales figures. > > > > > * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > > > > > Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. > > > > > > But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. > > > > Customer attraction and retention with respect to Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) is not something that you can determine based on sales and population alone. Anything beyond the two trends already established is speculation. > > > > > > To re-iterate, all you've shown is a decline in sales, and a growth in population. Neither of which shows any determination of profitability. > > > > What you've stated over and over is an opinion, based not on anything beyond an interpretation of the combining of two mutually exclusive factors to create a factor which has no real significance (Avg. sales per account). > > > > The issue I have is that some people reading that may draw the same, inaccurate conclusions you're offering as fact. Which it most certainly is not. > > > > A simple example for clarity: > > Game BS has 2 players (A&B). > * A spends $100 on BS > * Avg player spending is $50 > > C gets into BS > * A only spends $90 this period on BS > * Avg player spending is $30 > > What does this example mean? Population went up, sales went down, average player sales went down. The developers need to throw more BS to make player A happy. Maybe B & C will like the BS as well, but regardless, they don't really matter. Avg spend has nothing to add to this. > > Now, lets throw a ringer into this, and say it costs $200 per period to run this BS... in either scenario, there is no profitability. But this is completely obfuscated and also, completely unaffected by average player sales. > > Now remove population and avg player sales from the above. The situation, and valuation of the scenario doesn't change at all. Lets use this analogy. Ok.. so what we have is Less Overall Profit. Player A spending 90 as opposed to 100. The Company might want to check that out, to ensure A is a satisfied player, because, B is a total freeloader that they could do without. Their next question is, why is C not spending any money. so at this point, 66% of their population is totally worthless as opposed to only 50% being dead weight (which is what is bringing down their average). So they are doing something wrong by Attracting and Retaining B and C, while not enticing valuable players A to spend more, or attract more clients like A to their game. Do you see the problem now, using your own example? Nothing I have said is anything other then fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeoLegend.5132 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 wheres the TL;DR? Is GW2 Dying or not? Is GW2 playerbase growing or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourningcry.9428 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > > > I have explained this many times. > > > > > > No, you've said things many times, but you haven't proven anything. I'll elaborate below just to clarify. > > > > > > > > > > > # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. > > > > > > > > * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. > > > > > > > > This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. > > > > > > > > Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think that is something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to any company with future plans. > > > > > > > > > > Average player spending has nothing to do with company profitability. The sales figures alone are of concern. The addition of averaging these sales over customers does not lend any additional information beyond your personal interpretation of what the could mean. Nothing more; not even with dramatic fonts. > > > > > > My corporate finance is rusty, but, simply put, sales alone are no representation of profitability. And since the financial statements from NC Soft I've seen do not break out income factors across game divisions, it's impossible to determine GW2's profitability - regardless of population, or even individual sales figures. > > > > > > > * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > > > > > > > Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. > > > > > > > > But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. > > > > > > Customer attraction and retention with respect to Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) is not something that you can determine based on sales and population alone. Anything beyond the two trends already established is speculation. > > > > > > > > > To re-iterate, all you've shown is a decline in sales, and a growth in population. Neither of which shows any determination of profitability. > > > > > > What you've stated over and over is an opinion, based not on anything beyond an interpretation of the combining of two mutually exclusive factors to create a factor which has no real significance (Avg. sales per account). > > > > > > The issue I have is that some people reading that may draw the same, inaccurate conclusions you're offering as fact. Which it most certainly is not. > > > > > > > A simple example for clarity: > > > > Game BS has 2 players (A&B). > > * A spends $100 on BS > > * Avg player spending is $50 > > > > C gets into BS > > * A only spends $90 this period on BS > > * Avg player spending is $30 > > > > What does this example mean? Population went up, sales went down, average player sales went down. The developers need to throw more BS to make player A happy. Maybe B & C will like the BS as well, but regardless, they don't really matter. Avg spend has nothing to add to this. > > > > Now, lets throw a ringer into this, and say it costs $200 per period to run this BS... in either scenario, there is no profitability. But this is completely obfuscated and also, completely unaffected by average player sales. > > > > Now remove population and avg player sales from the above. The situation, and valuation of the scenario doesn't change at all. > > Lets use this analogy. > > Ok.. so what we have is Less Overall Profit. Player A spending 90 as opposed to 100. The Company might want to check that out, to ensure A is a satisfied player, because, B is a total freeloader that they could do without. > > Their next question is, why is C not spending any money. so at this point, 66% of their population is totally worthless. So they are doing something wrong by Attracting and Retaining B and C, while not enticing valuable players A to spend more. > > Do you see the problem now, using your own example? And how is this problem at all related to your average player sales metric? Further, without the additional information I provided in the example, the only information you would have is population size and sales. The point being that you needed the additional details i provided to do any kind of analysis beyond trend. Which, you do not have in the main discussion. The answers to the problem you've identified lay in other metrics beyond that which sales and population you which you've attributed such insight. My point is that given the two factors you've introduced, no information beyond trend can be derived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaraki.5784 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 I don't want to offend anyone but what's the point of this discussion? I mean, why should we care about GW2 population? Even if it has decreased or increased, we can't do anything about it and it doesn't impact our way to play the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourningcry.9428 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Zaraki.5784" said: > I don't want to offend anyone but what's the point of this discussion? I mean, why should we care about GW2 population? Even if it has decreased or increased, we can't do anything about it and it doesn't impact our way to play the game. Exactly. Thank you. Population in and of itself is not an interesting metric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STIHL.2489 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Zaraki.5784" said: > I don't want to offend anyone but what's the point of this discussion? I mean, why should we care about GW2 population? Even if it has decreased or increased, we can't do anything about it and it doesn't impact our way to play the game. Well for me, it's fascinating trivia and academia. If that is not your thing, then feel free to move on to another discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > Its very possible for the total population number to go up while the total number of people spending money to go down. Similarly it is possible for the total population to go down while the total number of people spending money goes up. Population increase matters because, in theory, a small percentage of your FtP game will spend money in your cash shop, and because in game population can be, functionally, content. > > I would suggest that it may be more accurate to say that changes of population composition matter, as what you're describing has less to do with the overall magnitude of population, but more so, the type of population that increases. The changes in population you're talking about are relevant to a certain demographic of the population, changes in other demographics are irrelevant. > > This kind of dovetails out of the above discussion... the overall magnitude of population is less interesting than the composition of that population - which, we have no insight into, so, cannot make any interesting commentary about. Changes in paying players is obviously important, but so too are fluctuations in overall population. Even non paying customers can contribute to perception of liveliness of the game. They can be teammates, or opposition, in pvp, party members in open world content, and so on. That minority of the customer base that represents the majority of spending on the game can disappear in an instant if the game feels dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourningcry.9428 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > Its very possible for the total population number to go up while the total number of people spending money to go down. Similarly it is possible for the total population to go down while the total number of people spending money goes up. Population increase matters because, in theory, a small percentage of your FtP game will spend money in your cash shop, and because in game population can be, functionally, content. > > > > I would suggest that it may be more accurate to say that changes of population composition matter, as what you're describing has less to do with the overall magnitude of population, but more so, the type of population that increases. The changes in population you're talking about are relevant to a certain demographic of the population, changes in other demographics are irrelevant. > > > > This kind of dovetails out of the above discussion... the overall magnitude of population is less interesting than the composition of that population - which, we have no insight into, so, cannot make any interesting commentary about. > > Changes in paying players is obviously important, but so too are fluctuations in overall population. Even non paying customers can contribute to perception of liveliness of the game. They can be teammates, or opposition, in pvp, party members in open world content, and so on. That minority of the customer base that represents the majority of spending on the game can disappear in an instant if the game feels dead. I completely agree... what you're describing are some of the intangible benefits of a healthy player base. The contribution, influence, or whatever mojo it is that allows a player to indirectly influence sales can't be seen as easily as a sales receipt, but is indispensable nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STIHL.2489 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > > > > > I have explained this many times. > > > > > > > > No, you've said things many times, but you haven't proven anything. I'll elaborate below just to clarify. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. > > > > > > > > > > * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. > > > > > > > > > > This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. > > > > > > > > > > Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think that is something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to any company with future plans. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Average player spending has nothing to do with company profitability. The sales figures alone are of concern. The addition of averaging these sales over customers does not lend any additional information beyond your personal interpretation of what the could mean. Nothing more; not even with dramatic fonts. > > > > > > > > My corporate finance is rusty, but, simply put, sales alone are no representation of profitability. And since the financial statements from NC Soft I've seen do not break out income factors across game divisions, it's impossible to determine GW2's profitability - regardless of population, or even individual sales figures. > > > > > > > > > * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > > > > > > > > > Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. > > > > > > > > > > But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. > > > > > > > > Customer attraction and retention with respect to Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) is not something that you can determine based on sales and population alone. Anything beyond the two trends already established is speculation. > > > > > > > > > > > > To re-iterate, all you've shown is a decline in sales, and a growth in population. Neither of which shows any determination of profitability. > > > > > > > > What you've stated over and over is an opinion, based not on anything beyond an interpretation of the combining of two mutually exclusive factors to create a factor which has no real significance (Avg. sales per account). > > > > > > > > The issue I have is that some people reading that may draw the same, inaccurate conclusions you're offering as fact. Which it most certainly is not. > > > > > > > > > > A simple example for clarity: > > > > > > Game BS has 2 players (A&B). > > > * A spends $100 on BS > > > * Avg player spending is $50 > > > > > > C gets into BS > > > * A only spends $90 this period on BS > > > * Avg player spending is $30 > > > > > > What does this example mean? Population went up, sales went down, average player sales went down. The developers need to throw more BS to make player A happy. Maybe B & C will like the BS as well, but regardless, they don't really matter. Avg spend has nothing to add to this. > > > > > > Now, lets throw a ringer into this, and say it costs $200 per period to run this BS... in either scenario, there is no profitability. But this is completely obfuscated and also, completely unaffected by average player sales. > > > > > > Now remove population and avg player sales from the above. The situation, and valuation of the scenario doesn't change at all. > > > > Lets use this analogy. > > > > Ok.. so what we have is Less Overall Profit. Player A spending 90 as opposed to 100. The Company might want to check that out, to ensure A is a satisfied player, because, B is a total freeloader that they could do without. > > > > Their next question is, why is C not spending any money. so at this point, 66% of their population is totally worthless. So they are doing something wrong by Attracting and Retaining B and C, while not enticing valuable players A to spend more. > > > > Do you see the problem now, using your own example? > > And how is this problem at all related to your average player sales metric? > > Further, without the additional information I provided in the example, the only information you would have is population size and sales. The point being that you needed the additional details i provided to do any kind of analysis beyond trend. Which, you do not have in the main discussion. > > The answers to the problem you've identified lay in other metrics beyond that which sales and population you which you've attributed such insight. > > My point is that given the two factors you've introduced, no information beyond trend can be derived. I didn't need additional information what I said was fact. This still stands as absolute > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > I have explained this many times. > > # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. > > * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. > > This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. > > This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. > > That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to my companies future plans. But I don't own Anet.. so.. that's on them. > > * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. > > But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. Your little example, was just one way my facts could have come to be, they did not change the irrefutable nature of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STIHL.2489 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > Its very possible for the total population number to go up while the total number of people spending money to go down. Similarly it is possible for the total population to go down while the total number of people spending money goes up. Population increase matters because, in theory, a small percentage of your FtP game will spend money in your cash shop, and because in game population can be, functionally, content. > > > > I would suggest that it may be more accurate to say that changes of population composition matter, as what you're describing has less to do with the overall magnitude of population, but more so, the type of population that increases. The changes in population you're talking about are relevant to a certain demographic of the population, changes in other demographics are irrelevant. > > > > This kind of dovetails out of the above discussion... the overall magnitude of population is less interesting than the composition of that population - which, we have no insight into, so, cannot make any interesting commentary about. > > Changes in paying players is obviously important, but so too are fluctuations in overall population. Even non paying customers can contribute to perception of liveliness of the game. They can be teammates, or opposition, in pvp, party members in open world content, and so on. That minority of the customer base that represents the majority of spending on the game can disappear in an instant if the game feels dead. This is something that gets said a lot, but, I was never one to believe it. I don't think Non-paying players add any more to the game them those that pay into it, in the sense of community and feelings of being alive, mainly because they are just like everyone else, they have the same chance to be the jerks that drive paying players away as they may be the very reason some people keep playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourningcry.9428 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 * deleted * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourningcry.9428 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > I have explained this many times. > > > > > > > > > > No, you've said things many times, but you haven't proven anything. I'll elaborate below just to clarify. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. > > > > > > > > > > > > * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think that is something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to any company with future plans. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Average player spending has nothing to do with company profitability. The sales figures alone are of concern. The addition of averaging these sales over customers does not lend any additional information beyond your personal interpretation of what the could mean. Nothing more; not even with dramatic fonts. > > > > > > > > > > My corporate finance is rusty, but, simply put, sales alone are no representation of profitability. And since the financial statements from NC Soft I've seen do not break out income factors across game divisions, it's impossible to determine GW2's profitability - regardless of population, or even individual sales figures. > > > > > > > > > > > * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. > > > > > > > > > > Customer attraction and retention with respect to Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) is not something that you can determine based on sales and population alone. Anything beyond the two trends already established is speculation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To re-iterate, all you've shown is a decline in sales, and a growth in population. Neither of which shows any determination of profitability. > > > > > > > > > > What you've stated over and over is an opinion, based not on anything beyond an interpretation of the combining of two mutually exclusive factors to create a factor which has no real significance (Avg. sales per account). > > > > > > > > > > The issue I have is that some people reading that may draw the same, inaccurate conclusions you're offering as fact. Which it most certainly is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > A simple example for clarity: > > > > > > > > Game BS has 2 players (A&B). > > > > * A spends $100 on BS > > > > * Avg player spending is $50 > > > > > > > > C gets into BS > > > > * A only spends $90 this period on BS > > > > * Avg player spending is $30 > > > > > > > > What does this example mean? Population went up, sales went down, average player sales went down. The developers need to throw more BS to make player A happy. Maybe B & C will like the BS as well, but regardless, they don't really matter. Avg spend has nothing to add to this. > > > > > > > > Now, lets throw a ringer into this, and say it costs $200 per period to run this BS... in either scenario, there is no profitability. But this is completely obfuscated and also, completely unaffected by average player sales. > > > > > > > > Now remove population and avg player sales from the above. The situation, and valuation of the scenario doesn't change at all. > > > > > > Lets use this analogy. > > > > > > Ok.. so what we have is Less Overall Profit. Player A spending 90 as opposed to 100. The Company might want to check that out, to ensure A is a satisfied player, because, B is a total freeloader that they could do without. > > > > > > Their next question is, why is C not spending any money. so at this point, 66% of their population is totally worthless. So they are doing something wrong by Attracting and Retaining B and C, while not enticing valuable players A to spend more. > > > > > > Do you see the problem now, using your own example? > > > > And how is this problem at all related to your average player sales metric? > > > > Further, without the additional information I provided in the example, the only information you would have is population size and sales. The point being that you needed the additional details i provided to do any kind of analysis beyond trend. Which, you do not have in the main discussion. > > > > The answers to the problem you've identified lay in other metrics beyond that which sales and population you which you've attributed such insight. > > > > My point is that given the two factors you've introduced, no information beyond trend can be derived. > > I didn't need additional information what I said was fact. The equivalent example using the two metrics you've introduced would be: Period 1- Population: 2; Sales: $100; Period 2- Population: 3; Sales: $90 None of your analysis can be derived from that information alone. The only thing you can absolutely derive from that is: * Population has increased, Sales have decreased, Average Player Sales has decreased. That's it. Anything else is conjecture. > > This still stands as absolute > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > I have explained this many times. > > > > # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. > > > > * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. > > > > This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. > > > > This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. > > > > That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to my companies future plans. But I don't own Anet.. so.. that's on them. > > > > * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > > > Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. > > > > But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. Ok, let's take the first one, and say it's absolute "On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game" I've asked before - what does this prove? Nothing beyond conjecture can be derived from that metric alone. You have yet to provide anything beyond your opinion on what this equates to. And in fact, nothing more beyond opinion can be provided based on this. And second: * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. Was never even close to be proven as absolute for the simple fact that no one outside of NCSoft has the actual financials to determine profitability. If by "profit growth" you meant "sales growth" , it still doesn't matter as you've not proven, or disproven any correlation. You've just made a statement which is neither fact, nor absolute, only, again, opinion. > > Your little example, was just one way my facts could have come to be, they did not change the irrefutable nature of them. > The fact that I can merely change the sales numbers (and expense for that matter), yet maintain the growth and average values, and arrive at completely different conclusions inherently means this is neither absolute nor irrefutable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted January 20, 2018 Author Share Posted January 20, 2018 Let me review what was posted on Reddit: * Industry insiders use the 80|20|5 rule to accurately estimate the ballpark numbers of a certain category of players. * This is a demonstrably accurate rule of thumb for estimating this particular cohort of players; it's very limited otherwise. * Think of this group as "actively interested players", not even "actively playing" or let alone "paying customers" — even though the industry calls it "active players", it's a misnomer _for those of us reading here in the forums_. * The actual number is not very useful except in relative terms: it doesn't help us tell how many people are going to be available for fractals or metas... or how often people play. It just tells us that there's a lot of people who logon. Nearly all the criticism posted is interesting, but irrelevant relative to this methodolgy. Yes, many players have duplicate accounts. Yes, many people frequent Reddit and don't play or play often and don't Reddit. Yes, these numbers would include F2P. The point is that 80|20|5 rule turns out to be demonstrably true across the industry, _despite_ those things. It's only counter-intuitive because we humans are really bad at estimating crowds and large numbers. Nearly all the criticism also tries to take issue with things that the original poster never said: the numbers aren't estimating map populations, health of the game, or financial health. The numbers don't tell us if the game is financially successful, if Mo's Mountfit pricing is working for or against overall sales. It really doesn't tell us much. Except how many people are estimated to logon often enough to say that they have an active interest in the game. **** Or more briefly: * There are an estimated 3.3 million accounts that logon for at least an hour or so each month, as of this month. * There were (also estimated) 2.6 million accounts that did that in September 2016. **** What can we conclude? Not much, other than people are still _interested_ in this game. A lot of people. That's a good thing for ANet and for us, but it only tells a tiny portion of the story we'd like to know as players. So if you're a strong supporter of ANet, don't read too much into the large number. And if you're an intense critic, don't read too little from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 I haven't read all the comments but here's my take on the situation. 3.1 million accounts logging in doesn't actually represent 3.1 million individual players. Just as many people have multiple WOW accounts, many people have multiple Guild Wars 2 accounts, so accounts don't translate to players anyway. In that I think the 3.1 million number might not be too far off, considering how many accounts I own between my wife and I. I don't spend as much in the gem store as I used to either, so the idea that there are less gem store sales doesn't mean that much either way. I surely spend half of what I used to spend. At the end of the day it's all just guessing anyway, educated or otherwise. Unless we get some sort of count from Anet we just don't know All I care about is that, in PvE at least, I see people every where I go, even in LS Season 3 zones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STIHL.2489 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have explained this many times. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you've said things many times, but you haven't proven anything. I'll elaborate below just to clarify. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think that is something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to any company with future plans. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Average player spending has nothing to do with company profitability. The sales figures alone are of concern. The addition of averaging these sales over customers does not lend any additional information beyond your personal interpretation of what the could mean. Nothing more; not even with dramatic fonts. > > > > > > > > > > > > My corporate finance is rusty, but, simply put, sales alone are no representation of profitability. And since the financial statements from NC Soft I've seen do not break out income factors across game divisions, it's impossible to determine GW2's profitability - regardless of population, or even individual sales figures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. > > > > > > > > > > > > Customer attraction and retention with respect to Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) is not something that you can determine based on sales and population alone. Anything beyond the two trends already established is speculation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To re-iterate, all you've shown is a decline in sales, and a growth in population. Neither of which shows any determination of profitability. > > > > > > > > > > > > What you've stated over and over is an opinion, based not on anything beyond an interpretation of the combining of two mutually exclusive factors to create a factor which has no real significance (Avg. sales per account). > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue I have is that some people reading that may draw the same, inaccurate conclusions you're offering as fact. Which it most certainly is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A simple example for clarity: > > > > > > > > > > Game BS has 2 players (A&B). > > > > > * A spends $100 on BS > > > > > * Avg player spending is $50 > > > > > > > > > > C gets into BS > > > > > * A only spends $90 this period on BS > > > > > * Avg player spending is $30 > > > > > > > > > > What does this example mean? Population went up, sales went down, average player sales went down. The developers need to throw more BS to make player A happy. Maybe B & C will like the BS as well, but regardless, they don't really matter. Avg spend has nothing to add to this. > > > > > > > > > > Now, lets throw a ringer into this, and say it costs $200 per period to run this BS... in either scenario, there is no profitability. But this is completely obfuscated and also, completely unaffected by average player sales. > > > > > > > > > > Now remove population and avg player sales from the above. The situation, and valuation of the scenario doesn't change at all. > > > > > > > > Lets use this analogy. > > > > > > > > Ok.. so what we have is Less Overall Profit. Player A spending 90 as opposed to 100. The Company might want to check that out, to ensure A is a satisfied player, because, B is a total freeloader that they could do without. > > > > > > > > Their next question is, why is C not spending any money. so at this point, 66% of their population is totally worthless. So they are doing something wrong by Attracting and Retaining B and C, while not enticing valuable players A to spend more. > > > > > > > > Do you see the problem now, using your own example? > > > > > > And how is this problem at all related to your average player sales metric? > > > > > > Further, without the additional information I provided in the example, the only information you would have is population size and sales. The point being that you needed the additional details i provided to do any kind of analysis beyond trend. Which, you do not have in the main discussion. > > > > > > The answers to the problem you've identified lay in other metrics beyond that which sales and population you which you've attributed such insight. > > > > > > My point is that given the two factors you've introduced, no information beyond trend can be derived. > > > > I didn't need additional information what I said was fact. > > The equivalent example using the two metrics you've introduced would be: > > Period 1- > Population: 2; Sales: $100; > > Period 2- > Population: 3; Sales: $90 > > None of your analysis can be derived from that information alone. The only thing you can absolutely derive from that is: > * Population has increased, Sales have decreased, Average Player Sales has decreased. > > That's it. Anything else is conjecture. > > > > > > > This still stands as absolute > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > I have explained this many times. > > > > > > # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. > > > > > > * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. > > > > > > This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. > > > > > > This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. > > > > > > That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to my companies future plans. But I don't own Anet.. so.. that's on them. > > > > > > * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > > > > > Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. > > > > > > But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. > > > Ok, let's take the first one, and say it's absolute "On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game" > I've asked before - what does this prove? > Nothing beyond conjecture can be derived from that metric alone. You have yet to provide anything beyond your opinion on what this equates to. And in fact, nothing more beyond opinion can be provided based on this. > > And second: * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > Was never even close to be proven as absolute for the simple fact that no one outside of NCSoft has the actual financials to determine profitability. > > If by "profit growth" you meant "sales growth" , it still doesn't matter as you've not proven, or disproven any correlation. You've just made a statement which is neither fact, nor absolute, only, again, opinion. > > > > > Your little example, was just one way my facts could have come to be, they did not change the irrefutable nature of them. > > > The fact that I can merely change the sales numbers (and expense for that matter), yet maintain the growth and average values, and arrive at completely different conclusions inherently means this is neither absolute nor irrefutable. This is so painfully wrong it's gotten to point of not even being funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now