No Profile Found
Nov 12th 2011 6:37AM I wonder how much it is worth considering new players/short term players at all in a study like this. Unlike the real world, where gold is *almost* zero-sum, in wow, gold just exists and people get it. In other words, the amount of gold that can exist is tied to the number of players who play, while the potential real world economy doesn't get larger simply because a person is born. Given this, and that a person can (a) opt out of the WoW economy at anytime and (b) could theoretically play most of wow without participating in the inter-player economy, does it make sense to count those players at all?
If, for example, I were to play (like i did when i first played on my brothers account) for a few months at a time and never play the ah or interact with other players, do I really count as part of the economy? or am i like Jeremiah Johnson, just living in the woods on my own? I would guess (totally a guess...) that there are plenty of people who play WoW for long periods as a one-player game.
Those people, and folks who are new/playing for shorter periods, and do not participate in the economy are essentially children. When analyzing the distribution of wealth in a nation, you dont count each child's $200 savings account as their own, you count it as part of the parent's wealth.
Just some thoughts, feel free to debate, I'd be interested in what other folks think.
Nov 11th 2011 10:22PM so i forgot to mention that all of that is assuming a random, sample. since this wasnt necessarily totally random, the distribution is likely somewhat more skewed, cant really comment for sure, but it is still likely close to what Xsinthis has given us..
Nov 11th 2011 10:14PM so, silly comment, but, with a sample of 2500, and 11 million people playing wow, the confidence interval is about 2%, meaning we can be more than reasonably sure that the answers, if he polled everyone in wow, would be within 2%+/- the responses he got, with 95% confidence (for 99% confidence the plus/minus only goes up to 2.7%).
Now, there might be an arguement for some sampling bias (ie people with more money were more likely to answer than folks with less, or vice versa) but with such a low interval we can be more than reasonably sure that this is a representative sample for WoW.
as a point of reference, when big-time survey companies do political polls (who would you vote for... approval rating stuff) they usually sample between 1500 and 2500 people as representative of the entire US (300,000,000).
nice info! :)