Are forums representative of users?

[BriarMonkey]

If their numbers are anywhere near accurate, then I think the explanation for posters spending more is mayhaps related to those people being exposed to more. For instance, had I not been active here (for a number of years just a lurker), there would have been books, tools, and bits I'd never have heard of - like the recent remake of the Tome of Horrors. For my part, I know I've spent more money on gaming products because I'd hear of them here, then go look them up. I'd imagine that on various hobbyist boards it'd be similar.

As to the whole representation thing, as has been said, we are self-selective. And if it's right that the majority of active peeps here are DMs, then I don't think that this is a fair representation of gamers as a whole. This board may however, be a sub-set of those who enjoy DMing - provided that sub-set has the time and inclination (which may then be a sub-sub-set).

Um... What was the point?

 

[El Mahdi]

1) About 20% of users read forums but don't post.
2) About 2% of users post.
3) Those 2% who post spend FORTY TIMES more than those who don't post.

One of the conclusions they drew was that when everybody was upset on the forum (and it got picked up by the gaming press), it actually only represented a very small portion of their customers. In fact, the changes with the most rage had little effect on business performance measures.

...


TL; DR version: EA found that forum posters pay more money to play a game, but don't represent the opinions of the full customer base. Does that apply to RPGs?

Okay, some of this doesn't compute for me. Maybe it's just that the provided data seems incomplete. Based on just that data, one of two assumptions can be made and two conclusions drawn:

1. Either the 2% that post spend 40 times more than all other users/customers (as the 2% are the only one's that post, making all other customers those that don't post)
2. Or the 2% that post spend 40 times more than the other user/customers that read but don't post (18% of total users/customers).

Either way, if the 2% were spending 40 times more than all customers - that's a significant percentage of overall sales (the majority of revenue) and would be noticed if anything impacted the purchasing trends of that group...

Or, even if the 2% were only spending 40 times more than the 18% of readers-but-not-posters, that would still be a significant majority of revenue unless somehow the 80% of users/customers that don't read or post somehow spent more on average (per person) than the 20% of users/customers that read forums (whether they post or not) - and I'd sincerely doubt that.

So to me, the statement: "...the changes with the most rage had little effect on business performance measures." - just doesn't add up...



However, as far as the last statement: "EA found that forum posters pay more money to play a game, but don't represent the opinions of the full customer base. Does that apply to RPGs?" - I believe the statement is likely true, and probably does also apply to RPG's.

But even so, if posters are the majority of sales, does it really matter if posters are the minority opinion? I'd like to know what "business performance measures" they're talking about, as it seems to me the only business performance measure that matters in the end is money...

 

[RedTonic]

Of the actual tables I've sat in, maybe 10% (not counting the recent Boston game day!) of the people there are forum users beyond maybe lurking a bit and posting once in a blue moon. However, since I do most of my gaming online, about 50% of the people I game with use general traditional RPG discussion forums like ENW.

 

[gamerprinter]

I'd think its far smaller number of users than 20% who visit forums. Of the hundred or so local gamers I know of in my area, almost nobody visits gaming forums of any kind. I'm the only local I know that does (though I can't say for certain, but...) I'd guess it would be smaller than 10% maybe smaller than 5%...

 

[Mark CMG]

Are forums representative of users?

Yes. I've rarely have ever been able to think of an opinion that isn't expressed in some form or other online regarding any subject, and since there is also rarely equal distribution regarding opinions, it is just as likely that non-participants are represented, and possibly in proper ratio if the sample is large enough and the access is not restrictive. The notion of self-selection is a caution against giving any individual opinion too much weight, not a caution that negates collective opinions from being accurately representational. If I have an anti-gaming forum, I am likely to get a ton of anti-gamers. If I have an open forum for gamers I am likely to get lots of gamers of various stripes. Sure, if I ask if they generally like gaming, self-selection will dictate response from either group and individual opinions can be discounted. But if I ask what people dislike, in the case of the former group, and what people do like in the case of the latter regarding gaming, it is more than likely I will get a full array of useful data and possible, if the group is large enough, that the opinions will be representational of the non-gaming or gaming populations at large, respectively.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'd think its far smaller number of users than 20% who visit forums. Of the hundred or so local gamers I know of in my area, almost nobody visits gaming forums of any kind. I'm the only local I know that does (though I can't say for certain, but...) I'd guess it would be smaller than 10% maybe smaller than 5%...

I suspect it's not the same proportion across all hobbies or interests. Everyone who plays World of Warcraft, for instance, by definition has a computer (unless something really extraordinary is happening), so they can all get to a message board and are used to logging on to be part of an online community.

On the other hand, are all Kia owners Internet-savvy? There's no reason to assume they would be, and there's nothing inherent about owning a car that suggests there are thriving online communities devoted to its users.

My guess is that pen and paper gamers are somewhere in the middle, and EA's example -- which I think is probably pretty flawed to begin with -- isn't at all representative of the tabletop gaming crowd.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Giving the listed number of "gamers and counting" on the header, I find it hard to believe that the people actively posting in any given forum are even representative of those registered on ENWorld.

When was the last time we had a riveting, rip-roaring discussion with just us and a hundred thousand plus of our friends?

 

[gamerprinter]

I suspect it's not the same proportion across all hobbies or interests. Everyone who plays World of Warcraft, for instance, by definition has a computer (unless something really extraordinary is happening), so they can all get to a message board and are used to logging on to be part of an online community.

On the other hand, are all Kia owners Internet-savvy? There's no reason to assume they would be, and there's nothing inherent about owning a car that suggests there are thriving online communities devoted to its users.

My guess is that pen and paper gamers are somewhere in the middle, and EA's example -- which I think is probably pretty flawed to begin with -- isn't at all representative of the tabletop gaming crowd.

I guess I'm strictly talking table top RPGs, as I don't consider MMOs are RPGs at all, in fact I don't consider any online games other than VTT of tabletop games as RPGs. So I guess its a question of definitions.

In my previous post, I am only considering people who play face to face tossing dice on a table as qualifying as an RPGs. The others might count as gaming, but really not the same thing.

If the question is regarding gaming in general, well that's certainly a higher number. Of those I mentioned who don't go to forums, I'm not mentioning that are quite a number who check on the rules specifics of say MtG, but again trading card games, board games, online games and RPGs - IMO are four different kinds of games. I play three of the four mentioned above, but I only ever visit forums for tabletop and never any other kind of game.

But that's just me and my slighted opinion, I guess.

I'm also not including other kinds of forums only RPG forums...

Incidentally, I wouldn't touch an MMO or any online game even if they paid me to do it - really not my interest in the slightest.

 

[Umbran]

The notion of self-selection is a caution against giving any individual opinion too much weight, not a caution that negates collective opinions from being accurately representational.

Actually, it *is* a caution that negates the collective opinions from being accurately representational. That's the science of statistics. The self-selected group will generally be quantitatively and qualitatively different from the general population.

To say that a group represents the whole is more than just "all opinions that appear in the whole appear in the group". To be properly representational, the opinions of the whole appear in the group with the same frequency, with the same vehemence, and the group should not have opinions that don't appear in the general population.

If you poll a self-selected group, and you poll the general population, the poll results will usually be different. That means the one does not represent the other.

You can even often poll a self-selected group on things that seem entirely unrelated to the selection (for example, asking self-described "fiber artists" about politics) and still not have it match the general population. The biases can run deep and strange.

 

[Kzach]

Eh, I've long held the assertion that forum users are only a minuscule percentage of the overall player base and do not, even in this day and age, have that large an effect on things like D&D.

This is where I feel WotC really lets itself down. I feel they pay FAR too much attention to the posts of forum users. In effect, I think it's the lazy-man's customer feedback. You see feedback and think a forum is a useful means of feeling the pulse of your customer base when in truth they're only a very small minority of vocal users who aren't even representative of the overall customer base.

DDI, for instance. WotC have really shot themselves in the foot in terms of advertising this service. Most D&D players I sit down and play with at Living games or who I play with online, have never even heard of DDI. They have a few 4e books and are keen to play, but wouldn't have the faintest foggiest about all the forums and online content.

The same goes for finding players. There are dozens of player finder resources out there these days. I have an advertisement on all of them. Yet, 9 times out of 10 when I get a response to one of my advertisements, it's from either word of mouth from someone I already know, or it's from a paper ad I've put up in a game store.