HiFi Rush debuts at no. 23 on XBL

[adamsapple]

Forspoken again

Just replying with academic info

Thank you. But I don't get where you are getting the "higher completion ratio" from.

I had a look at the percentage on the PS App for the last story trophy in Forspoken, which should be more accurate than PSN Profiles as it tracks all achievers on PS, and it's obviously lower than a page for dedicated trophy hunters. 20,7% for an open world game released a few weeks ago, doesn't sound bad.

The percentages on consoles are nebulous cause you don't know a number of how many people it is counting against. On the tracking website at least we get a solid number of people who have achieve it.

But, I do also mention in the first post that these are likely not fully representative of actual counts, it's just respective data based on tracking websites.

 

[Gediminas]

your metrics isn't good. just my specific numbers are good and valid fucking hell

 

[arvfab]

The percentages on consoles are nebulous cause you don't know a number of how many people it is counting against.

But absolute numbers are not relevant when talking about ratios, and the console value at least considers all PS players (which are connected, of course).

And it was you who was talking about ratios:

higher user ratio of completion compared to other AAA exclusives released in the same time on tracking websites

Also I think it's normal for a GamePass game to have low completion ratios, as more people will give it a try even when they might not be interested in the game, while people who bought a game, might be more willing to finish it.

 

[Gediminas]

Also I think it's normal for a GamePass game to have low completion ratios, as more people will give it a try even when they might not be interested in the game, while people who bought a game, might be more willing to finish it.

but if the game would be good, more would finished it. especially when the game isn't that long. it is clear that just small minority finishes it.

 

[adamsapple]

Also I think it's normal for a GamePass game to have low completion ratios, as more people will give it a try even when they might not be interested in the game, while people who bought a game, might be more willing to finish it.

That might be true in some cases, but in this cases example, the ratio of people who have beaten the final boss in HF Rush is almost 3 : 1 or 4 : 1 to the other game.

So being on game pass hasn't been a detriment to this games case at least.

 

[arvfab]

the ratio of people who have beaten the final boss in HF Rush is almost 3 : 1 or 4 : 1 to the other game.

I need to ask you again:

Where are you getting this from?

You linked me to this which shows 3% of players who beat the final boss (which should contain any difficulty, right?)

I show you the percentage of people finishing the final chapter of "the other game", which is >20% (raised from yesterday, btw). Maybe my maths became worse over the last years, but 20>3 from where I'm from.

 

[Vertigo]

Less people will finish games with gamespass than those who actually buy a piece of software.

More than likely they’ll just try a game for 5 mins and then dip. It’s free to them with the sub.

 

[Deleted member 417]

Xbox fans so desperate for positive news that they're really trying to have "more people completed it" as a win?

This is worse than Phil Spencer's "reloaded 5 billion times in Halo"

 

[anonpuffs]

Xbox fans so desperate for positive news that they're really trying to have "more people completed it" as a win?

This is worse than Phil Spencer's "reloaded 5 billion times in Halo"

the argument isn't even "more people completed it", it's "more people completed it based on some 3rd party tracking site"

 

[Old Gamer]

This is worse than Phil Spencer's "reloaded 5 billion times in Halo"

LOL what? Did he actually ever mention that?

 

[Deleted member 417]

LOL what? Did he actually ever mention that?

That's not the exact quote and I can't find it on Google, but both EA and Spencer bragged about pointless stats at one point. EA was (iirc) amount of times guns reloaded or fired in battlefield and the Spencer one was something like distance travelled in Halo.

It was more of a tongue in cheek thing

 

[adamsapple]

I need to ask you again:

Where are you getting this from?

From tracking websites which show the # of tracked people, not vague percentages. I don't know what the 3% of HF Rush is being counted against, 3% of how much, versus 20% of FS, 20% of how much. Outside of those tracking websites, we don't know the number of people being counted.

As you mentioned, being on GP, it means likely way more people have started or downloaded HF-Rush compared to a $60, $70 game, so the % of people who've beaten is probably very small to the relative people who have simply downloaded the game so far but not put in too much time.

With the tracking websites, we're at least seeing the actual count of people who have reached said milestones.

I hope that made it clear. I'm reading the available count of people, not a percentage value against a nebulous total.

the argument isn't even "more people completed it", it's "more people completed it based on some 3rd party tracking site"

Yes, I made it very clear in my first post that this is just running off of available data from the most popular achievement and trophy tracking websites on either platform.

Xbox fans so desperate for positive news that they're really trying to have "more people completed it" as a win?

It's just sharing available data, you don't have to take it as a loss

 

[arvfab]

From tracking websites which show the # of tracked people, not vague percentages. I don't know what the 3% of HF Rush is being counted against, 3% of how much, versus 20% of FS, 20% of how much. Outside of those tracking websites, we don't know the number of people being counted.

As you mentioned, being on GP, it means likely way more people have started or downloaded HF-Rush compared to a $60, $70 game, so the % of people who've beaten is probably very small to the relative people who have simply downloaded the game so far but not put in too much time.

With the tracking websites, we're at least seeing the actual count of people who have reached said milestones.

I hope that made it clear. I'm reading the available count of people, not a percentage value against a nebulous total.

But you were talking about ratios, and if the ratio is what you are looking at, it's unimportant "out of how much". And in that case the "nebulous" percentage is more meaningful as it actually shows the completion rate in respect to the "owners".

And btw, you linked me to that 3%.

But if you want to go by the values you want to compare:

Current completion percentage on PSN Profiles for Forspoken is almost 34%.

For the achievement you linked, on Trueachievements the unlock percentage is currently a bit above 15%.

Again my question:

Where are you seeing the ratios 3:1 or 4:1?

 

[adamsapple]

Where are you seeing the ratios 3:1 or 4:1?

Sure.

1116 tracked gamers who have beaten the final boss of FS
12298 tracked gamers who have beaten the final boss of HF-Rush

For every 1 player whose completed FS, 10+ have completed HF Rush. I thought it was 1 : 3 but it's closer to 1 : 10

And, again, before anyone blows their gaskets, this is just based on sources which show actual # of people who have achieved those rewards based on whatever available tracking data we have, not nebulous percentages of an unknown amount.

 

[Vertigo]

How do they get their data. If it’s one of those samples of 500 registered users to their service… throw all that data out the window. Absolutely worthless.

We have anecdotal psn store sales rankings for Forspoken… it’s not doing well. I doubt it will break one million across all platforms.

 

[arvfab]

Sure.

1116 tracked gamers who have beaten the final boss of FS
12298 tracked gamers who have beaten the final boss of HF-Rush

For every 1 player whose completed FS, 10+ have completed HF Rush. I thought it was 1 : 3 but it's closer to 1 : 10

And, again, before anyone blows their gaskets, this is just based on sources which show actual # of people who have achieved those rewards based on whatever available tracking data we have, not nebulous percentages of an unknown amount.

So you are counting and comparing absolute numbers (which is already wrong) on two webpages where it's facultative to register and where only "hunters" register, but call completion rates given on the respective console "nebulous".

 

[adamsapple]

So you are counting and comparing absolute numbers (which is already wrong) on two webpages where it's facultative to register and where only "hunters" register, but call completion rates given on the respective console "nebulous".

Yes, I very clearly said and have been saying this is based on actual number of tracked users who've reached those milestones and that this might not be accurate but it's the only data of its kind.

How do they get their data. If it’s one of those samples of 500 registered users to their service… throw all that data out the window. Absolutely worthless.

We have anecdotal psn store sales rankings for Forspoken… it’s not doing well. I doubt it will break one million across all platforms.

I think it just actively tracks whichever user unlocks an achievement/trophy and is registered on those sites, obviously it can't get the data for any user that isn't specifically registered there.

So, like I've been saying since post 1, this is just relative data, not a representation of what might be 100% accurate stats.

 

[Vertigo]

XBL rankings are 100% representative and complete data direct from the source.

Obscure tracking websites that polls data of 500 users that somehow stumbled across one of the darkest corners of the internet is crap.

 

[arvfab]

Yes, I very clearly said and have been saying this is based on actual number of tracked users who've reached those milestones and that this might not be accurate but it's the only data of its kind.





I think it just actively tracks whichever user unlocks an achievement/trophy and is registered on those sites, obviously it can't get the data for any user that isn't specifically registered there.

So, like I've been saying since post 1, this is just relative data, not a representation of what might be 100% accurate stats.

But at least for Forspoken, I'm giving you a much more accurate value, why are you dismissing it as "nebulous"?

And why comparing the absolute numbers? They would only make sense if the total would be equal. But because it's not, seeing at the percentages ("how many achievers out of the players") makes much more sense.

 

[Darth Vader]

From tracking websites which show the # of tracked people, not vague percentages. I don't know what the 3% of HF Rush is being counted against, 3% of how much, versus 20% of FS, 20% of how much. Outside of those tracking websites, we don't know the number of people being counted.

Percentages don't require absolute numbers to be accurate. This is literally middle school stuff, so either you're dumb as rocks, or you're trying to mislead people.

Information that's directly related to how sample sizes affect margin of error.

How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error?

Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our understanding of the world and shape our lives.

www.scientificamerican.com