Free-to-play games accounted for 4 out of every 5 dollars spent

Doesn't surprise me a bit. Even if you left out mobile games this would probably be true. Hell, I've spent more on Path of Exile than any other game except World of Warcraft.

POS is point of sale. You still have that data for e-commerce... It doesn't just disappear, it's integrated with b&m if that channel exists, it's reported out to vendors, and it's occasionally sold...

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:57:

Kxmode wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 22:17:
[rest snipped]

1) SuperData does not get Epic's POS data. I know this for a fact. The bulk of their work is not off POS data at all, but even if it were, they do not have Epic's. And you're ignoring how important payments are. We don't know what those payments are going to, in nearly all cases! Getting payments is virtually useless. Lastly, earlier you were all up and down first about me claiming algorithms, then you saying I do not know what extrapolation means (hint: algorithms), and now you're dropping them from your argument altogether.

2) Even if their data were perfect, you're making your assumption based upon ranking, which is a stupid thing to do. They're not telling you absolutes, yet you're treating it is if they are.

I get that you're bad at this. I get why you're conflating the two arguments, and why you completely fail to understand why you're using the data improperly. But here, I'll help: per The Verge, which has a SuperData subscription, Fortnite went from $2.4B in 2018 to $1.8B in 2019. At that rate of fall, they'll be $1.4B in 2020. Which means they're not rapidly dying, because their profitability will still be 10 figures. And this is the data you need - raw sales numbers, because simply showing a ranking and trying to determine those is a fool's errand (which, incidentally, is one you signed yourself up for.)

First, why do you keep bringing up POS data? Last year, most transactions were eCommerce based, meaning there's no POS data. So stop using that as an argument; it's not valid. I posted SuperData's About Us information repeatedly, which you refuse to acknowledge. For the umpteenth time, their data partnerships include data gathering from publishers, developers, and payment service providers. Payment service providers include companies like Authorize.net, Paypal, Visa, and more and it is how ALL eCommerce companies, including Epic, get paid. Through that network, SuperData figures out HOW to find the data they need for their monthly reports. They don't need "actual sales data" from Epic, they have most of it through payment service providers.

Further, placing Fortnite in a particular place on their list is only the result of all the data they gathered, ascertained, reviewed, dissected, analyzed, and filtered through their team of Big Data scientists. In other words, they created a comprehensive fingerprint to help determine Fortnite's success at #2 one month and #8 nine months later. You're implying all their information and efforts are meaningless because they don't have "actual sales data," which again, they can gather from payment processors as one data point.

Second, I'm not making an assumption. I'm making a best guess estimates from SuperData's research. Numerous times I point to their data as the source of my views. Further, I have NOT said anything is absolute. I have purposely used words like "look for" and "possibly." Those are forward-looking statements, so stop saying that I am using an "absolute" kind of language.

The bottom line is:

* The Epic Games store is heavily reliant on Fortnite's cash infusion to fund exclusives, freebies, and the platform. Fact. (Epic had YEARS before Fortnite's success to launch a store but didn't. I guess the billion they made annual from their engine licensing fees is not enough for Epic for such a venture. CDPR launched GOG on substantially less investment.)
* Fortnite makes Epic less today than it did a year ago. Fact.
* Epic isn't going to have the funds they desire in 2020 to fund all three, thereby likely leading (a forward-looking word) to occasional freebies or altogether disappearing. Fact.

This comment was edited on Jul 23, 2020, 13:30.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 13:34:

Blue wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 11:07:
Can agreeing to disagree on this vitally important issue enter into it at any time?

Respectfully, this is the internet and it's critical I win. Nothing in the world can be as important!

https://xkcd.com/386/

Blue wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 11:07:
Can agreeing to disagree on this vitally important issue enter into it at any time?

Respectfully, this is the internet and it's critical I win. Nothing in the world can be as important!

Can agreeing to disagree on this vitally important issue enter into it at any time?

Not to harp, but it's a basic SAT question: can you use rankings to determine absolute values?

No.

Kxmode wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 22:17:
Literal conversation

Kxmode: "we collect point-of-sale and event data from publishers, developers, and payment service providers. This allows us to base our analyses on the monthly spending of over 160 million unique, paying digital gamers worldwide."

Beamer: They don't get actual sales data!

Kxmode: "we collect point-of-sale and event data from publishers, developers, and payment service providers. This allows us to base our analyses on the monthly spending of over 160 million unique, paying digital gamers worldwide."

Beamer: Interstellar never hit #1 at the box office, but Dumb and Dumber To did over it. Does that mean Interstellar was a dying movie and a flop? No. Because rankings don't tell you even a fraction of a story.

Kxmode: "we collect point-of-sale and event data from publishers, developers, and payment service providers."

This episode of Abbott and Costello is sponsored today by the number 42 and letter REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Again, you're struggling with two arguments.

1) SuperData does not get Epic's POS data. I know this for a fact. The bulk of their work is not off POS data at all, but even if it were, they do not have Epic's. And you're ignoring how important payments are. We don't know what those payments are going to, in nearly all cases! Getting payments is virtually useless. Lastly, earlier you were all up and down first about me claiming algorithms, then you saying I do not know what extrapolation means (hint: algorithms), and now you're dropping them from your argument altogether.

2) Even if their data were perfect, you're making your assumption based upon ranking, which is a stupid thing to do. They're not telling you absolutes, yet you're treating it is if they are.

I get that you're bad at this. I get why you're conflating the two arguments, and why you completely fail to understand why you're using the data improperly. But here, I'll help: per The Verge, which has a SuperData subscription, Fortnite went from $2.4B in 2018 to $1.8B in 2019. At that rate of fall, they'll be $1.4B in 2020. Which means they're not rapidly dying, because their profitability will still be 10 figures. And this is the data you need - raw sales numbers, because simply showing a ranking and trying to determine those is a fool's errand (which, incidentally, is one you signed yourself up for.)

jacobvandy wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 22:44:
Aren't you making assumptions as to what their "point-of-sale and event data" actually consists of? That statement is hardly specific.

Minorly. Like I said, I work with Nielsen. I know what goes into their data for other category measurement. I have not worked directly with SuperData, but would be outright shocked if major publishers are giving them POS data. Again, when your only income is this revenue stream, you're really very reluctant to let a third party see it, and the demand isn't high enough that they get paid enough to overcome that.

if you made a game, how is it in your interest to let SuperData know if it's declining? What could SuperData offer you to allow them that kind of access to your financials, and then help analysts make arguments that it's dead or dying, which hurts your future revenues?

Aren't you making assumptions as to what their "point-of-sale and event data" actually consists of? That statement is hardly specific.

Literal conversation

Kxmode: "we collect point-of-sale and event data from publishers, developers, and payment service providers. This allows us to base our analyses on the monthly spending of over 160 million unique, paying digital gamers worldwide."

Beamer: They don't get actual sales data!

Kxmode: "we collect point-of-sale and event data from publishers, developers, and payment service providers. This allows us to base our analyses on the monthly spending of over 160 million unique, paying digital gamers worldwide."

Beamer: Interstellar never hit #1 at the box office, but Dumb and Dumber To did over it. Does that mean Interstellar was a dying movie and a flop? No. Because rankings don't tell you even a fraction of a story.

Kxmode: "we collect point-of-sale and event data from publishers, developers, and payment service providers."

This episode of Abbott and Costello is sponsored today by the number 42 and letter REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 18:48:
Regardless, again, you're missing the bigger point. You've been dancing on the grave of a foe you've decided personally offended you, but using the wrong data to do so. Interstellar never hit #1 at the box office, but Dumb and Dumber To did over it. Does that mean Interstellar was a dying movie and a flop? No. Because rankings don't tell you even a fraction of a story.

Dumb and Dumber To is a culturally relevant classic that will be discussed in film schools for decades to come. Interstellar, not so much.

Kxmode wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 14:26:

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 14:17:

Kxmode wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 13:58:
snip

They don't get actual sales data!

Valve isn't handing over a single shred of Steam data to them. They survive on panel data and algorithms. Yes, they get some data from Visa, telling them that their users spent an average of $100 per month on Steam. But remember, does your credit card bill show what you bought? So how do they know if you spent it on CS:GO micro transactions or on Dishonored 2?

They don't. They have to make guesses at that. What if someone buys Steam gift cards at Target? That's not captured.

Meanwhile, again, you're misusing what they're saying. They told you that Fortnite was the #1 game in 2018 and the #7 game in 2019. They're not telling you how much the market changed. A flat rank doesn't tell you anything about actual sales figures, yet you treat it, well, as gospel.

Listen, you don't work with this shit. It's clear you don't even deal with numbers, given how poorly you analyze data. You're making a fool of yourself.

They don't need to provide actual sales data to provide "gaming publishers, developers, hardware manufacturers, investors, and brands fast access to timely XR-related intelligence to help inform new investments, product launches, global sales strategies and maximize ROI." Before that, investors used SuperData research to create extrapolated insights that affected investment decisions. Most of the data provided by SuperData fills in the missing "actual sales data."

You're really not understanding what extrapolation means. Google it.

Buddy, do you know how they extrapolate? Algorithms. Remember when I said they use algorithms?

It's only as good as the data they're receiving. Epic isn't giving them a single sales point. Very few of the top devs or publishers are, because it only hurts them. So they're using data from a few dozen places to triangulate, and there is a huge amount of room for error there.

Regardless, again, you're missing the bigger point. You've been dancing on the grave of a foe you've decided personally offended you, but using the wrong data to do so. Interstellar never hit #1 at the box office, but Dumb and Dumber To did over it. Does that mean Interstellar was a dying movie and a flop? No. Because rankings don't tell you even a fraction of a story.

Blue wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 14:34:

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 13:20:
I didn't say their data is crap. I said it isn't gospel, because they're worse than IRI and Nielsen, and you shouldn't use panel data to make big, sweeping statements of surity. They don't have access to actual sales data, so they're using panels and algorithms. That's not 100% accurate. It's often not even 75% accurate.

How would they be worse than Nielsen if they're a Nielsen company?

Yeah, they were purchased a bit back, but I mean Nielsen proper. Most people think of Nielsen for their TV market sizing, but what they do is total market sizing. In this, their main competitor is IRI. This is the data that brands eat up - using it for category management, marketing, and strategy. For traditional retailers, they generally have agreements in place to buy data directly. For others, they do panels, which is basically like what they do for TV - certain consumers agree to give their receipts over, and if you get enough consumers doing it, you can statistically cover the entire US.

But the big black hole is digital. Digital is something very new (relatively), and utterly different. Walmart will sell its point of sale data to IRI and Nielsen, but not its e-commerce sales. Amazon doesn't share this, and everyone follows their lead. This leads all the market research companies scrambling to piece things together.

I've dealt with both quite a bit. Nielsen was missing about 30% of my sales at my prior company, and we had the largest share of our category. Since, I've worked with them in far more categories, and generally seen their estimates to cap out around 85% accurate.

For something like this, I'd put good money on it being less accurate. I know they crow about partnerships with publishers, but if you're a publisher, why are you sharing this data? It's the most sensitive data you have, and therefore it isn't given very easily. Smaller publishers often will give it, but if you're a larger one, too much of your financial well-being can be determined from this data, so you hold on to it as tightly as possible.

Regardless, my issue is less with the data being ingested, and more with the certainty that kxmode is interpreting the data they're outputting, which is simply a list of what the top 10 products are, without any context around it.

jdreyer wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 17:49:

Blue wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 14:34:

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 13:20:
I didn't say their data is crap. I said it isn't gospel, because they're worse than IRI and Nielsen, and you shouldn't use panel data to make big, sweeping statements of surity. They don't have access to actual sales data, so they're using panels and algorithms. That's not 100% accurate. It's often not even 75% accurate.

How would they be worse than Nielsen if they're a Nielsen company?

Heh.
I think Nielsen still collects some hard viewing data for TV, so those data should be a bit more accurate than the game data.

And yet, according to their "How we do what we do," that's what they do for game data.

From their About Us page: "Through proprietary data partnerships, we collect point-of-sale and event data from publishers, developers, and payment service providers. This allows us to base our analyses on the monthly spending of over 160 million unique, paying digital gamers worldwide. This makes us the only provider to offer insights into the age of personal media using transaction-level data that is truly comprehensive and cross-platform."

I feel like people are missing that part. When I post comments based on SuperData, I'm extrapolating their research. They're already did the work to provide those figures, and it is about as close to the "actual sales figures" as one can get.

So if they show Fortnite is no longer in the TOP 10 for PC and Mobile and has dropped to 8th place on Consoles (were early in the year Fortnite dominated), then the logical, extrapolated conclusion is Epic is suffering from a substantial drop in income. Epic Games Store is heavily reliant on Fortnite's cash infusion for fund freebies, exclusives, and platform improvements. Guess which one goes when they can no longer afford to do all three.

Blue wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 14:34:

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 13:20:
I didn't say their data is crap. I said it isn't gospel, because they're worse than IRI and Nielsen, and you shouldn't use panel data to make big, sweeping statements of surity. They don't have access to actual sales data, so they're using panels and algorithms. That's not 100% accurate. It's often not even 75% accurate.

How would they be worse than Nielsen if they're a Nielsen company?

Heh.
I think Nielsen still collects some hard viewing data for TV, so those data should be a bit more accurate than the game data.

So no real data, but they seem pretty sure about their $120 billion figure, and the majority of that is microtransactions on F2P games, and the majority of that on casual mobile games. Not unexpected I guess, but a bit disheartening. Makes me wish that they categorized Candy Crush and Clash of Clans as something other than part of the gaming industry. I know they won't, since Jack and Jill and Citizen Kane are both considered part of the movie business, but a guy can dream.

Bhruic wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 14:57:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 13:20:
I am extremely glad not to ever have bought a single mobile game, f2p game, or anything that would put any cent in that 4 out 5 dollar figure...

That's just fucking sad. Gaming can be a medium of art, thought and immersion but that's apparently only worth it to 20% of the people who play games. Mobile gaming is nothing of the sort, because it always will monetize the whales and make everything else a grind. Employ psychological tricks to get minors to spend money (Fortnight!) and generally run scummy lottery like gameplay elements.

That seems an incredibly stupid thing to be "glad" about. There are plenty of quality f2p games out there (Path of Exile and Warframe both spring to mind), and spending some money in those games so that the developers can continue to provide great updates is, to my mind, quite a deal. You would have to be quite the ideologue to pass up the great f2p games out of the idea that they are inherently bad.

I don't pass em up, I just don't give em money.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 13:20:
I am extremely glad not to ever have bought a single mobile game, f2p game, or anything that would put any cent in that 4 out 5 dollar figure...

That's just fucking sad. Gaming can be a medium of art, thought and immersion but that's apparently only worth it to 20% of the people who play games. Mobile gaming is nothing of the sort, because it always will monetize the whales and make everything else a grind. Employ psychological tricks to get minors to spend money (Fortnight!) and generally run scummy lottery like gameplay elements.

That seems an incredibly stupid thing to be "glad" about. There are plenty of quality f2p games out there (Path of Exile and Warframe both spring to mind), and spending some money in those games so that the developers can continue to provide great updates is, to my mind, quite a deal. You would have to be quite the ideologue to pass up the great f2p games out of the idea that they are inherently bad.

Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 13:20:
I didn't say their data is crap. I said it isn't gospel, because they're worse than IRI and Nielsen, and you shouldn't use panel data to make big, sweeping statements of surity. They don't have access to actual sales data, so they're using panels and algorithms. That's not 100% accurate. It's often not even 75% accurate.

How would they be worse than Nielsen if they're a Nielsen company?