@pilias_simber, I agree with everything that pilias_simber has stated. I think he's put a much finer point on everything i have felt and experienced, as well as everyone I've recruited as well. My recruits complain to me; If they stop playing, then i will as well. I see the genus for the input into the predictions as a whole. It's clear that powertrade, arbiter, et al. see this from a statistical standpoint alone. I don't think I'm alone in being someone who completely disregards the numbers and is still successful.
Numbers are easy, statistical analysis is easy in the sense that after it's clear what the numbers predict, theres a certain solidity in choosing based on what has the highest probability for success. It's a lot easier to be more frequently correct. At the same time, that type of input has no way to account for new untested titles, play methods, and ideas. The stock exchange, and to some extent the Hollywood exchange deal in trading known entities the majority of the time, or at least proven ideas that have a significant financial and contractual obligation to even get listed. With the exception of the consoles, everything that gets listed here is a work of art. It's an abstract construct for experiencing what a designer thinks would be entertaining. You're predicting how well received someone elses creative idea will ultimately be received. For this very reason i view the input from the pokemon fans, or the people who don't care one bit about how many sales the first title had, how successful a studio was or is, or even if the title itself make any logical sense as the most important. That has NEVER been important in regards to selling an idea like Katamari, Mario, Zelda, or roughly any first party Nintendo title. The game industry enjoys its simulation titles, and they provide entertainment. The classics, the legendary, are not of that caliber. They are radical creativity unlike anything that came before them. They made the most money, and will continue to do so. Will super mario galaxy sell 20million copies? Probably not. Is there still a chance? Probably. To me, those who take this game as a statistics machine are only useful for keep people like myself in check. For bringing reason back to the table. To codify the "wisdom of groups" with hard rational and statistical backing, not by changing the rules so it's easier to make a statistical profit. It's a good thing. It's not the only thing that makes this work. If that's where this is headed, then i want no part of it.
pilias_simber is correct, to make the profits that the top 10 are making on a regular basis, you need all hours access to the exchange, which isn't realistic for 90% of the population of users of the exchange. But if the intent is to slowly remove every input but the hard math and sales figures as the basis for the stock price, then there's no point in doing this. Wedbush Morgan does a perfectly fine job of that, and it's a lot easier to just read their report every month. To me, the mix of Rash and Reason that goes into the predictions make our predictions unique. Anyone can do the math, but math can only take you so far. If it could, then there would have been more than just the odd game designer here and there stating that Nintendo would win this console race. This is the one industry that rewards radical development projects, with fantastic sales. Statistics is notoriously bad for predicting the outcome of an outlier. If i remember correctly, outliers fall into the +/-3% that's not accounted for. Statistics simultaneously accounts for the possibility of the chance something might be fantastically negative or positive, but immediately disregards those possibilities as insignificant because of the lack of information to predict anything further.
We are that information, we are that "je ne sais quoi" that makes it possible to see past statistical reason and account for the fantastic. Ignoring this means never understanding why something like the Wii is "cool," while never being able to account for it ever again.
2
Numbers are easy, statistical analysis is easy in the sense that after it's clear what the numbers predict, theres a certain solidity in choosing based on what has the highest probability for success. It's a lot easier to be more frequently correct. At the same time, that type of input has no way to account for new untested titles, play methods, and ideas. The stock exchange, and to some extent the Hollywood exchange deal in trading known entities the majority of the time, or at least proven ideas that have a significant financial and contractual obligation to even get listed. With the exception of the consoles, everything that gets listed here is a work of art. It's an abstract construct for experiencing what a designer thinks would be entertaining. You're predicting how well received someone elses creative idea will ultimately be received. For this very reason i view the input from the pokemon fans, or the people who don't care one bit about how many sales the first title had, how successful a studio was or is, or even if the title itself make any logical sense as the most important. That has NEVER been important in regards to selling an idea like Katamari, Mario, Zelda, or roughly any first party Nintendo title. The game industry enjoys its simulation titles, and they provide entertainment. The classics, the legendary, are not of that caliber. They are radical creativity unlike anything that came before them. They made the most money, and will continue to do so. Will super mario galaxy sell 20million copies? Probably not. Is there still a chance? Probably. To me, those who take this game as a statistics machine are only useful for keep people like myself in check. For bringing reason back to the table. To codify the "wisdom of groups" with hard rational and statistical backing, not by changing the rules so it's easier to make a statistical profit. It's a good thing. It's not the only thing that makes this work. If that's where this is headed, then i want no part of it.
pilias_simber is correct, to make the profits that the top 10 are making on a regular basis, you need all hours access to the exchange, which isn't realistic for 90% of the population of users of the exchange. But if the intent is to slowly remove every input but the hard math and sales figures as the basis for the stock price, then there's no point in doing this. Wedbush Morgan does a perfectly fine job of that, and it's a lot easier to just read their report every month. To me, the mix of Rash and Reason that goes into the predictions make our predictions unique. Anyone can do the math, but math can only take you so far. If it could, then there would have been more than just the odd game designer here and there stating that Nintendo would win this console race. This is the one industry that rewards radical development projects, with fantastic sales. Statistics is notoriously bad for predicting the outcome of an outlier. If i remember correctly, outliers fall into the +/-3% that's not accounted for. Statistics simultaneously accounts for the possibility of the chance something might be fantastically negative or positive, but immediately disregards those possibilities as insignificant because of the lack of information to predict anything further.
We are that information, we are that "je ne sais quoi" that makes it possible to see past statistical reason and account for the fantastic. Ignoring this means never understanding why something like the Wii is "cool," while never being able to account for it ever again.