In another thread Johan quoted a data that 35% of their usebase uses ironman based on steam statistic - and used it as an arguement.
My concern is their method of getting such data is misleading. And this might be the very reason of most discontent with their recent games. If their data gathering method overrepresents a subset of the userbase, then their needs are overrepresented.
Facts:
- All caring for achievements have to use Steam. Therefore their usage statistic is gathered.
- Pdx Games can run without Steam. Once you downloaded by steam nothing prohibits you from making a copy of it.
-At least some do it for sure. I encountered advices to edit this and that file to solve some issue, and in some case disclaimer do it on a local copy.
This summed up: While 100% of achievement hunter uses it through steam therefore paradox captures their playstyle, only a subset X% of the rest of the community measured.
While I am sure 99% of my playtime is not captured on Steam, I have no data on X. Yet I suspect it is significant.
And this data gathering bias might lead to bias in the outcomes leading indirectly to recent arguably oversimplified releases which while loved by a subset of userbase, losing many long term fans.
The relation is the following (assumption only):
Goals of an Achievement hunter or Ironman player is challenge + speedy gaming. To get many achievement you need multiple playthrough to be done fast. Then detailed message settings are not necessary, micromanaging (even if interesting - I agree some case a burden) is to be avoided, etc. HoIIV supports this playstyle better than ever.
While probably those of us that get out of radar for example to let us tweak our gamefiles enoy the richness of information available in previous installments. It takes months to play through etc. For us these new releases a big letdown.
I admit it might be a conscious coice from paradox, but the fact forexample that some cut feature gets reintroduced after release, and that at least in case of Stellaris they admitted by being surprised with certain feedbacks, probably they underestimated certain segments of their userbase.
And selective data gathering through steam might be the very reason:
Suggestion:
To get this verified on your EUIV data make a simple test:
Query that segment of the userbase who bought last two from Steam in a separate time. Then measure time played between those two buying decision. Those who purchased it but did not play - are the ones you completely miss from your statistics.
Other is to measure correlation of logged hours with number of DLC-s bought (somehow remove impact of package deals) and calcualte a linear correlation on the two dimension. (Use number of DLC to explain played hours logged and benchmark it with some hard steam game) But a lower correlation already a strong hint.
My concern is their method of getting such data is misleading. And this might be the very reason of most discontent with their recent games. If their data gathering method overrepresents a subset of the userbase, then their needs are overrepresented.
Facts:
- All caring for achievements have to use Steam. Therefore their usage statistic is gathered.
- Pdx Games can run without Steam. Once you downloaded by steam nothing prohibits you from making a copy of it.
-At least some do it for sure. I encountered advices to edit this and that file to solve some issue, and in some case disclaimer do it on a local copy.
This summed up: While 100% of achievement hunter uses it through steam therefore paradox captures their playstyle, only a subset X% of the rest of the community measured.
While I am sure 99% of my playtime is not captured on Steam, I have no data on X. Yet I suspect it is significant.
And this data gathering bias might lead to bias in the outcomes leading indirectly to recent arguably oversimplified releases which while loved by a subset of userbase, losing many long term fans.
The relation is the following (assumption only):
Goals of an Achievement hunter or Ironman player is challenge + speedy gaming. To get many achievement you need multiple playthrough to be done fast. Then detailed message settings are not necessary, micromanaging (even if interesting - I agree some case a burden) is to be avoided, etc. HoIIV supports this playstyle better than ever.
While probably those of us that get out of radar for example to let us tweak our gamefiles enoy the richness of information available in previous installments. It takes months to play through etc. For us these new releases a big letdown.
I admit it might be a conscious coice from paradox, but the fact forexample that some cut feature gets reintroduced after release, and that at least in case of Stellaris they admitted by being surprised with certain feedbacks, probably they underestimated certain segments of their userbase.
And selective data gathering through steam might be the very reason:
Suggestion:
To get this verified on your EUIV data make a simple test:
Query that segment of the userbase who bought last two from Steam in a separate time. Then measure time played between those two buying decision. Those who purchased it but did not play - are the ones you completely miss from your statistics.
Other is to measure correlation of logged hours with number of DLC-s bought (somehow remove impact of package deals) and calcualte a linear correlation on the two dimension. (Use number of DLC to explain played hours logged and benchmark it with some hard steam game) But a lower correlation already a strong hint.
- 9
