Liabe Brave
Member
Footage was shown, and a title ("Halo") was associated with it. Multiple speakers referred to it as a singular game. This wasn't the final name, but titles can change in development. In any case, altering the data for this one game does not reverse the conclusions.1. You state the following in the OP: "For these purposes, "shown" means displayed footage with an associated title."...yet you later seemed to suggest that you abandoned this when deciding when to count Halo: TMCC as being announced.
The claim that "3rd party titles do not generally contribute in any way to that impression" is unsupportable. Deep down, Final Fantasy VII Remake, and Kingdom Hearts III are all very common examples given of Sony's delays. In any case, I did also present results for just first-party titles in the thread. This does not reverse the conclusions.2. You are not actually addressing the kind of research question necessary to speak to the general impression you sought to clarify. In other words, if you sought to understand whether the general impression in the community, which suggests Sony has a longer window for announce-->release, then you should not be counting 3rd party titles at all. 3rd party titles do not generally contribute in any way to that impression so why would you include them in trying to address said impression?
I started at the announcement of the PS4, actually. In any case, I did also present results including the development time of the PS3 versions of appropriate titles. This does not reverse the conclusions.3. Starting at E3 2013 would seem to strongly favor one competitor here over the other since it somewhat arbitrarily restricts the analysis only to games announced for current gen. Of course, there are high profile games form last gen that got announced and had to get revived on PS4, like The Last Guardian.
The claim that I avoided dealing with this factor is simply false. I did also present results cutting off at E3 2015 in order to eliminate the skew. This does not reverse the conclusions.4. Your methods skew the data to favor the platform with more titles recently announced. As those titles get announced their time to release starts at zero and seems like it should drastically drag down averages. You note this issue in your OP but seem to act as if it is no germane to your conclusions somehow.
The rationale is that the entire data set is already available to the public. (You yourself use some of it below.) I shared my methodology for analyzing this data, and anyone is capable of re-running the analysis. Several people have done so, on GAF and on Reddit, and come to much the same conclusions. I'm certainly open to correct any errors of fact you discover.5. Refusing to share your data makes zero sense. That is borderline indefensible given the stated purpose of your 'research' efforts. That is not how serious research is done. I know, 'vidya games' or whatever but when ya put so much effort into the OP and follow up replies it becomes hard to imagine a rationale for refusing to share the raw data.
So the only appropriate way to present this information would've been as a singular initial block, and never engaging with the following talk? I explained clearly in the OP that there were more results already developed and forthcoming, but that I wanted to react to discussion so that the most common requests were answered first.6. I know some of these issues are already mentioned and discussed beyond the OP, but the fact you did not seek to address them a priori makes me even more dubious as to your actual application of an appropriate methodology.
You seem to be saying that the cadence with which facts are presented affects their truth value. This is ludicrous.
The exclusion of Dead Rising 4 was an error on my part, I apologize. Its inclusion lowers the mean, but not significantly. The exclusion of Zoo Tycoon was intentional, as it was never shown onstage at a press conference.7. I checked the 18 titles you said you used in your Xbox One analysis for only first/second party titles, excluding Crackdown 3 since that is not released yet. Using the dates that I found online for when each was announced/released I got pretty significantly different numbers than you did. I can't see what you did in terms of your actual calculations since you refused to post your data, but I got 10.76/12.12 "months" (aka 30 days) for the 18 Xbox One games depending on how we count Ryse.
Further, if I include Dead Rising 4 (why did you leave that out?) I arrive at 10.5/11.78 depending again on how we count Ryse. When I add Zoo Tycoon we get 10.25/11.47.
Generally, though, your different results are due to flawed method. I did not use 18 titles in the analysis, I used 25. You have specifically removed the games that have been canceled or not released yet, so of course your "time to release" number is lower. If you did the same thing on the Sony side, that number would also be lower. This would leave the relative positions of the platforms unchanged.
In fact, I did already present the total results minus unreleased games. This does not reverse the conclusions.
There's a Bayesian operation at the metalevel of the thread. The prior probabilities of most observers are explicitly delineated. The frequentist results presented should impel a significantly altered posterior distribution for rational observers. (Provided the examined set of games is taken to be of a piece with the future set of announced games.)But you did not provide any contextual stats analysis at all, making the notion that you were researching probabilities about future release intervals and/or cancellations and whatnot nonsensical. You don't use small samples and frequentist stats for that kind of analysis, ya look towards Bayesian models instead.