Switch Theme:

What significance/size/impact is the 'online community'?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Omadon's Realm

Kingsley wrote:
 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Meaningless, counter the figures with figures or accept what is being shown you.


Kingsley wrote:The number of registered users is 71,461. The number of those users who play 40k is less than that. The number of those users who play 40k and are active is less than that.




Registered users /= Visitors. Are you not getting what Legoburner told us in this thread? Hundreds of thousands of individuals visit the forum, not the 71.5k who took the time to create a profile, but hundreds of thousands.

Right now, there are 6,529 online users: 737 registered, 5,792 guest. That transferred across to the 71k would give numbers well in excess of 500,000 visitors.


ammp wrote:There is no way you can correlate the online presence to what GW actually think of us.

Nothing to do with the thread, I started this thread because certain frequent posters maintain it's a tiny fraction of wargamers, not worth considering. I did not agree and the figures provided on the sales of the rulesets by GW + the number of users of this site alone provided by the admin, Legoburner, indicates that likely more than 15% of 40k players are using it.

Some folks, those prone to pooh poohing the use of forums and the types of people on forums (whilst themselves dwelling very regularly on forums) have again tried to dismiss this, as it would topple their favorite defense, yet are unable to produce anything to counter it other than 'I've got a feeling that'.... Which does not hold up to scrutiny, unless you're in the GW boardroom...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 13:50:20




 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
 mattyrm wrote:

I also kind of understand where the lad was coming from who MGS laughed at.. I mean.. maybe not the young are always partying kinda thing, but I do post way more on a weeknight (finish work, go to the gym, lounge about all night) than a weekend (get fething leathered) thanks to that whole.. youthful party lifestyle thing. I reckon younger people actually do use the site less than older, they probably do actually spend more time with their actual friends, as opposed to us old duffers.


I laughed at it for two reasons.

Firstly we're not known for being a hobby that attracts the sex/drugs/rocknroll brigade, certainly I left wargaming behind when I went into overdrive about 21 till around 30. The kids I see at the gaming stores aren't exactly living the 'skins' lifestyle.

Second, he gives his own removal from that age and life away when he says this, because kids these days are permanently connected to forums, facebook, twitter and the rest of the social networking. I'd imagine there are a few posting from iphones in pubs and out around town. This idea that 'the healthy, cool kids' are out doing important things instead of lurking dakka neglects the current situation, you can be anywhere and posting online now. FFS I'm friended with some young cool kids on facebook and those bastards are on it all the time, posting what they are about to eat, posting a message about every random thought they have.


Actually while we may not be known for attracting the crowd I mentioned but the majority of people in the world don't know who really plays these games most of the people who are actually into them are not social misfits but a few odd people have set up the perception. Of my play goups for the last almost 20 years in the hobby they have been mainly made up with young adults (17-30) most of them played pretty irregular but we kept a large player base so those people who wanted to put the time in had people to play with. Of the current 18 person play group in my area only 2 actually bother with forums and we are the older ones. The younger guys are playing some games but they just don't devote the time to go to forums. They are dateing, going to school, starting careers ect..

This has been my experience in New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, however not quite as much in California there tend to be more people interested in the online stuff in the California area.

Imperial Gaurd 18,000 Orks 16,000 Marines 21,900
Chaos Marines 7,800 Eldar 4,500 Dark Eldar 3,200
Tau 3,700 Tyranids 7,500 Sisters Of Battle 2,500
Daemons 4,000
100% Painted
 
   
Made in gb
Ian Pickstock




Nottingham

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Registered users /= Visitors. Are you not getting what Legoburner told us in this thread? Hundreds of thousands of individuals visit the forum, not the 71.5k who took the time to create a profile, but hundreds of thousands.

Yes but they also only view one or two pages. Even a small minority of registered users actively post, the number of visitors who actively follow threads must be tiny.

Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.

Na-na-na-naaaaa.

Hey Jude. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Omadon's Realm

 BryllCream wrote:
 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Registered users /= Visitors. Are you not getting what Legoburner told us in this thread? Hundreds of thousands of individuals visit the forum, not the 71.5k who took the time to create a profile, but hundreds of thousands.

Yes but they also only view one or two pages. Even a small minority of registered users actively post, the number of visitors who actively follow threads must be tiny.


'must be'?

I would imagine that the number of visitors who view but do not comment is far larger than those who feel compelled, like you or I, to add comment.

Which 'one or two' pages are they visiting? News and Rumor seem a likely candidate, to stay informed of things, trawling for leaked pictures etc seems like it would appeal. It is in that arena we have seen yourself and others promoting the notion that 'internet faction is tiny'. You also have absolutely no backing up of that claim, they might be sat on a train and view a ton of pages whilst commuting, happy just to read. You are making a lot of assumptions with no valid reasoning behind it other than personal opinion.



 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

There's no way to get hard numbers on this, partially because we don't have the means, and partially because we don't have specific definitions.

I know that anecdotally, I'm one of the only players at my FLGS to post on Dakka. But... I know more that have accounts, but do not post. Others read it (or other forums).

But people dropping in to read a thread or two aren't what we mean by online community. We mean those that either post, or follow threads.

If I were a company, I'd be very careful in what I listen to. There's a difference between those members that are genuine tastemakers, or otherwise influential in the gaming community, that post, and those that are internet stars.

we all know a lot of posters that post a ton, but don't buy much, or get others to buy much. Other posters here post little, but are incredibly influention in clubs and FLGS.

I think if you learn to filter out the noise (malcontents, trolls, attention seekers, etc) you can probably get a pretty good pulse on the community through dakka. But... and this is a big problem... it's the vanity posters that make the most noise and superficially color perceptions.

Look at the new tau book: places like News and Rumors, or Dakka Discussions are drawn out diatribes about the merits of the release. Tactics, Army Lists, P&M, etc. are all full of threads about using the new stuff.



   
Made in gb
Ian Pickstock




Nottingham

MeanGreenStomper, your style of posting is highly offputting. If you want people to reply rather than leave the thread, you might want to try being a little less confrontational.

Also, quite obviously we have no data to show how big the "online community" is, so everything in this thread is going to be speculation. You can reply to speculation or ignore it, but don't simply go "no facts, go home" as if that's mature or intelligent.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 15:25:56


Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.

Na-na-na-naaaaa.

Hey Jude. 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Which 'one or two' pages are they visiting? News and Rumor seem a likely candidate, to stay informed of things, trawling for leaked pictures etc seems like it would appeal. It is in that arena we have seen yourself and others promoting the notion that 'internet faction is tiny'. You also have absolutely no backing up of that claim, they might be sat on a train and view a ton of pages whilst commuting, happy just to read. You are making a lot of assumptions with no valid reasoning behind it other than personal opinion.


The problem is that passive readers may or may not agree, and aren't letting their opinions be heard. I think the reach of the online community is pretty large, measured that way. But the actual membership is still pretty small.

It has to be, really. How many people can really engage on a topic at once?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Eternal Plague

 Polonius wrote:


I think if you learn to filter out the noise (malcontents, trolls, attention seekers, etc) you can probably get a pretty good pulse on the community through dakka. But... and this is a big problem... it's the vanity posters that make the most noise and superficially color perceptions.


The community as a whole supports Games Workshop vis-à-vis the continued support of the product.

Now individuals may disagree; there are many who do not purchase or have switched to monetarily supporting other game systems, but by and large, many people still play the game if not actively buy it, and many still have armies mothballed for use in the future (for whatever reason).

People will be discontented with GW and their policies (I hate several things they do for example and have voiced and mocked and criticized GW in the past) but I still continue to support the product and by extension the company because I do genuinely like certain aspects of the game that appeal to me.

   
Made in us
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





Although I think the online community is relevant because it's opinions reflects many hobbyists who aren't part of the online community...

Using "visitors" and "registered users" as measures of anything is really not all that useful.

Regarding "registered users", how many of those people are actually actively using the site in recent times? I'm a registered user on many sites I haven't visited for years or maybe visited once in the past year. Then of those "registered users", who actually reads more than just a couple of pages of painting articles or whatever? They might be part of the "online community", but are they actually involved?

Then regarding the "visitors", really this is not a good measure of anything. For one, if you bundle every random person who googles something and ends up on Dakka as part of the "online community", you increase the "size", but have you increased the "impact"? Because those people probably aren't reading more than a how-to thread or a "look at my X!" thread.

The other reason "visitors" isn't a good measure, many registered users don't tell their browsers to keep them logged in. I don't. So I'll often read a bit of dakka before I leave for work, maybe glance at it on my phone while I'm waiting for something at work, maybe check it after work or in my lunch break on my work PC.

So do I count as "3 visitors" because I checked Dakka on 3 devices without ever logging in?

Then if you are a "visitor", does the site actually remember your IP address for next time, so if you "visit" in the morning and "visit" again in the evening, will you be counted twice or once? What about if you visit one day and then the next?

I wouldn't take any website statistics as being relevant to the actual real world impact of a website. It might be relevant to see who is the more relevant website between a group of websites, but to then translate that to real world significance is a leap of extrapolation.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Omadon's Realm

 Polonius wrote:
 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Which 'one or two' pages are they visiting? News and Rumor seem a likely candidate, to stay informed of things, trawling for leaked pictures etc seems like it would appeal. It is in that arena we have seen yourself and others promoting the notion that 'internet faction is tiny'. You also have absolutely no backing up of that claim, they might be sat on a train and view a ton of pages whilst commuting, happy just to read. You are making a lot of assumptions with no valid reasoning behind it other than personal opinion.


The problem is that passive readers may or may not agree, and aren't letting their opinions be heard. I think the reach of the online community is pretty large, measured that way. But the actual membership is still pretty small.

It has to be, really. How many people can really engage on a topic at once?


I would agree that the usual posters are usual posters, I don't think, as Bryllcream has previously alleged, that dakka is a hotbed of haters any more than it's a hotbed of knights who seek to defend the fairly indefensible, there are just strident persona on both sides that hold the banners and post multiple times. The actual numbers having the debates is small, the actual number of registered users is small-ish, but the reach and influence of forums is large, the numbers seeing leaked photos of GWs models is large, the message going out that GW have screwed the pooch on things like finecast or triggerhappy C&D is large. As I said in a previous post, there may be several loud folks holding court on a board, but its being read by a great many and if they disagreed strongly enough, isn't it human nature to object?

The point of this thread was that I have read this ongoing defense, oft used, that the forums, hell the internet aspects of the hobby are minuscule and mostly unused by gamers. Not that the great majority do not pass comment, because that's obviously the case, but that noone really uses forums but a fringe of our fringe hobby. The figures provided for visitors to the site, not annual but bimonthly, compared against sales of GW rules, indicates a significant portion do use the boards. I've spent time in flgs, at clubs and gaming at home, you can bet 'oh have you seen the leaked photos for x' or 'have you seen Warmachine's new giant sized jacks' gets people logging in. Forums are a significant impact in the hobby and grow more so every year. I've seen Dakka grow phenomenally since I started lurking (because I lurked as a guest for about two years prior to joining). And this convenient notion that 'well it's just the forum types' no longer holds water as it might have been claimed, say, more than 5 years back.



 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

There are two meaures of opinion: breadth and depth.

I'm sure a lot of visitors to dakka find GW's antics distasteful. Just not enough to post, let along alter their buying habits dramatically.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Omadon's Realm

 BryllCream wrote:
MeanGreenStomper, your style of posting is highly offputting. If you want people to reply rather than leave the thread, you might want to try being a little less confrontational.

Also, quite obviously we have no data to show how big the "online community" is, so everything in this thread is going to be speculation. You can reply to speculation or ignore it, but don't simply go "no facts, go home" as if that's mature or intelligent.


There are those who've frequently claimed 'oh it's the internet', 'oh it's dakka, it's full of haters and not reflective'. You have, in this very thread, made absolute statements dismissing what other's including myself have said with single word statements like 'meaningless.' and if you're going to be that polite in opening discourse, I'd suggest you not play the blushing maid when I response with a similar lack of frills and sentiment. I've asked openly for people to evidence their statements. Alf provided sales figures, Sean provided GW's website usage expectations and Lego provided user stats for the site, along with clarity on dakka recognizing individuals rather than one person viewing from several different computers or anything else. Extrapolation of these figures eventually led to an agreeable and conservative figure, both being generous to GW's customer base and cautious about Dakka's usage, of somewhere between 10-30% of the player base, being conservative again to place that at 15-20% to further remove extremes from the mean.

Yourself, Nklesh and Kingsley, all folks from whom I've heard the original cause of me asking in the OP about usage, that forums are fringe, that it's just the wackos roaming about here (and yet, you see the significance of all three of you routinely being here, arguing your own cases, repeatedly), all showed up in this thread to say 'nope, that's not right' and not a one of you really says why, other than it seems wrong. We have looked at the numbers here, tell us, if you are sure they are wrong, what evidencing you've done to demonstrably prove that? What figures do you have to support your statement?

Help me to understand the validity of your counter-argument, show me what you have that does not correspond to the numbers we've gone over already here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Polonius wrote:
There are two meaures of opinion: breadth and depth.

I'm sure a lot of visitors to dakka find GW's antics distasteful. Just not enough to post, let along alter their buying habits dramatically.



I absolutely agree. I still buy GW stuff but am a confident communicator and a touch typist, sat at a desk, I'm comfortable sharing my thoughts on the hobby I love and the customer to business relationship that I've worked in a professional capacity at for a number of years for international corporations of a number of degrees larger than GW.

Having worked in complaint resolution for a number of years, I can assure you if there's one customer complaining about something, there's a hundred more feeling the same way and making up their minds about continued business.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 16:24:16




 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Registered users /= Visitors. Are you not getting what Legoburner told us in this thread? Hundreds of thousands of individuals visit the forum, not the 71.5k who took the time to create a profile, but hundreds of thousands.

Right now, there are 6,529 online users: 737 registered, 5,792 guest. That transferred across to the 71k would give numbers well in excess of 500,000 visitors.


What I'm saying is that users who didn't take the time to create a profile are unlikely to really be invested in the community. I suspect the vast majority view a page or two and then leave. That sort of activity is very different from the active participants in discussions that I'm referring to when I say that the Internet community is small and doesn't represent a broad view of the hobby. I don't think that the "visitors" metric is anywhere close to as relevant as the "registered users" metric, which itself is highly inflated due to displaying many inactive users.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Yourself, Nklesh and Kingsley, all folks from whom I've heard the original cause of me asking in the OP about usage, that forums are fringe, that it's just the wackos roaming about here (and yet, you see the significance of all three of you routinely being here, arguing your own cases, repeatedly), all showed up in this thread to say 'nope, that's not right' and not a one of you really says why, other than it seems wrong. We have looked at the numbers here, tell us, if you are sure they are wrong, what evidencing you've done to demonstrably prove that? What figures do you have to support your statement?

Help me to understand the validity of your counter-argument, show me what you have that does not correspond to the numbers we've gone over already here.


1. Other communities which parallel Dakka, have corporations with real data which prove online fandoms are statistically insignificant. And every fandom scoffs at that and thinks they are the one online community which actually matters. Skewing data on unconfirmed numbers is fun for a discussion, but you are manipulating data to prove an unprovable point with the data we have which makes the whole excersize moot.

2. Dakka is not a consensus, and the vocal minority is just that, minority. So what if Dakka has 70k users? I guarantee that all 70k users don't agree with one mind. So even if your numbers are valid and Dakka is 15% of the GW customerbase, you can't say that 15% of the customerbase is upset with GW... And you can't extrapolate whatever % of Dakkas users which are dissatisfied to the entire customerbase. Your method is biased, and while it could possibly end up being accurate, it can also end up being incredibly inaccurate. But you are motivated to rubber stamp it as 'data collected, point proved' when you can't possibly do it.

*You cannot say Dakka is a cross-section of all GW customers because everyone on Dakka has demographics in common which makes them not representative of the non-forum-going population.
*You cannot say Dakka has a consensus and that any point of view is overwhelmingly representative of the Dakka community, whatever % it may actually be of the total customerbase.

Your trying to take 20 vocal posters in one Dakka forum and declare them the voice of 15-20% of GW's customer base so they must be listened and catered to which is not supported by your method. It simply isn't.

So 'flawed, biased, manipulated data' vs hard documented data in other similar fandoms that prove online forums are statistically insignificant... Yeah, I will continue to believe the trend in other fandoms opposed to this unscientific data manipulation. Until there is real data, Dakka is nothing more than anecdotal evidence of another 'group' of people... no more or less valid than what dozens of people are saying about their FLGS. No one user who posts here is a voice for a % of the community or customer base as a whole and they only represent one customer.

My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

I'm the only one in my group of 6 40k players that comes here with any regularity. Although, the other guys in my group do google searches for tactics for their armies, and read random blogs from time to time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 18:57:36


DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Omadon's Realm

 kronk wrote:
I'm the only one in my group of 6 40k players that comes here with any regularity. Although, the other guys in my group do google searches for tactics for their armies, and read random blogs from time to time.


So, 100% of your group uses the internet for their hobbying.



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
 kronk wrote:
I'm the only one in my group of 6 40k players that comes here with any regularity. Although, the other guys in my group do google searches for tactics for their armies, and read random blogs from time to time.


So, 100% of your group uses the internet for their hobbying.


Yep. That was my point.

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Huge Bone Giant





Oakland, CA -- U.S.A.

I somewhat regularly meet people that recognize my DakkaDakka screen name while gaming.
Very few have one of their own.

I find it hard to assume those folk have no "engagement" in DakkaDakka.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/12 19:17:11


"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."

DQ:70S++G+++MB+I+Pwhfb06+D++A+++/aWD-R++++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Omadon's Realm

 kirsanth wrote:
I somewhat regularly meet people that recognize my DakkaDakka screen name while gaming.
Very few have one of their own.

I find it hard to assume those folk have no "engagement" in DakkaDakka.



Indeed, but this is the wonder of what's being put forward now by those previously saying 'the internet is only used by a tiny fraction of the hobby', now that argument's goalposts are being moved to 'well, when we said community, what we meant was the very few who post regularly', despite all three here taking that stance are part of the 'very few who post regularly'.

It's evasive and manipulative and a shame they can't just admit 'oh wow, that's actually a bloody large amount of people, guess painting the forums as some tiny and insignificant outpost of wargaming was patent bollocks. Perhaps I should drop that argument.

But no, we instead get treated to more unwillingness to budge an inch or concede a whisker. Ah well, the figures have satisfied me and should be enabling for anyone else who wants to make up their mind about just how much reach and influence the internet's various forums and blogs have on the wider hobby.



 
   
Made in us
Huge Bone Giant





Oakland, CA -- U.S.A.

You know, this is inspiring me to do something Dash did and make some t-shirts.
That would probably instigate more people to speak up.
Especially since I take public transit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 19:31:44


"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."

DQ:70S++G+++MB+I+Pwhfb06+D++A+++/aWD-R++++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

'the internet is only used by a tiny fraction of the hobby'


I think that even as recent as a few years ago this might have been an accurate statement. Now, I seriously doubt it.

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Sslimey Sslyth




nkelsch wrote:
Long post.


I don't think that MGS is trying to say that Dakka is representative of the player base. I think he's merely trying to provide data for one site.

The "internet community" of GW game players span many different forums and web sites of a wide variety of different sizes and recognition. All of those together create that community. Dakka is merely one part of that community, just like France is just part of the European Union. There are many people who only actively post in a single forum. My local gaming group has our own web site and forum, and I am one of three of four people out of 50+ that regularly posts on any other forums. The only other person from that group who regularly posts on Dakka is Mohoc. I know a couple of others that post on BLS. The "internet community" as a whole consists of all of those people posting or reading all of thoses sites, big and small.

You really cannot underestimate the influence that these sites have over the community. From personal experience, I lurked on Dakka for literally years before I got so incensed by something inflammatory posted by Mauleed about eight+ years ago that I felt I had to create a profile and respond.

Anyway, we need to keep in mind the simple fact that something like these internet forums does have an influence far beyond the number of people that actively participate in the discussions, just like publications like Time magazine has a greater impact that just those people who write letters to the editor. A person who reads an internet forum that presents a given position on a given topic will often, one way or another, use that knowledge going forward when interacting with others, even though they might never credit the forumation of that idea with a discussion they read online. It's just like how someon's ideas can be modified or formulated through face to face discussions with people.

Now, I personally have no idea how impactful the "internet community" is, or how representative of the gaming community as a whole we might be. I don't belive there's any way to quantify it. I would guess that it is somewhere between "totally representative" and "completely irrelevant." Probably close to exactly in the middle.
   
Made in us
Huge Bone Giant





Oakland, CA -- U.S.A.

Saldiven wrote:
You really cannot overestimate the influence that these sites have over the community.


/nitpick

"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."

DQ:70S++G+++MB+I+Pwhfb06+D++A+++/aWD-R++++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in se
Bloodtracker





 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We've been at this a long time, the GW threads and 'well, that's just the online community', 'you know it's only the online community that's negative, everyone else is fine with this?'. 'the online community represents a tiny fraction of the gaming hobby'.

It is an oft cited defense, that the forums and blogs represent but a fraction of the wargaming community.

I think, purely anecdotal as I have no figures to back it up, that that's horse poo.

This is a fringe hobby, no getting away from it, it's a small fraction of the community that plays these games. Of that community, the massive majority are fairly bright people, the massive majority of society is computer literate now, well, enough to use the internet, so looking at the wargaming 'stereotype' of a late teen through to late 30s demographic, that's going to increase the internet savvy level.

We have a small community, it is internet savvy to a very large extent, even (especially?) the youngest kids can open google, search 40k and find a forum to talk about it on.

I think the painting of the internet community as a fringe hostile faction of the wargaming hobby at large and GW often cited, is false and unrepresentative. I think, if questioned, more players of 40k would say they've been onto and read dakka, warseer etc than have not. Especially given that GW it's self does not provide an online community.

Does anyone have figures on this?


Defenders always use this tactic.. For years I have been a closed beta tester for diffrent MMORPGs, Warhammer online, Age of Conan, Star wars the Old republic, Star treek online, Lotro, champions online, Tera and many many others.. I have learnt to quickly predict if things will work or Fail.. I have been in endless discussions with "Fan boys" who all claimed the negativity on forums is nothing to care about.. Latest was A big fight I had back in Januray 2012 about Star wars the old republic.. that ended with me saying the game will be free to play before the year is out... I was right as usual..

The thing is that its not really hard to predict what direction things are going, Forums is just like any market survey... That are used in IRL by both politician and companies to get a feel for what people like and dont like... You just have to spend some time looking up all the sources and put your ear to the ground and you can quite easily come to understand where the wind is blowing....

And my latest prediction is that in a few years time Games Workshop will lose it's top position on the Table-top market... There is a simple reasoning behind this...

First little kidds dont play with toysoldiers anymore, they play on computers and on the Iphone.. Most of the little kidds who will try and come to like Wargames in the future will have a parent who is allready in the hobby. And because Games Workshop have done all they can to drive their veteran players away from their product, that game will not be games workshops. Also Balance have become the new mantra of a new generation.. Its balance this and balance that, Computer games have had a large part to play in this... Gamers Want balance above everything. "cinimatic gamplay" and playing for FUN, do not work in a world where the leading players (the computer companies like Blizzard) are trying to make Games into E-sports...

Table top games are facing an uphill battle as it is trying to compeat against instant gratification computer games. And when Childrean are not sitting in front of the computer the parents probably wants them to do some sort of sport activity instead so they get some exercis... If you also do your best to get ridd of your old players, the regrowth market is getting smaller and smaller for each year that passes.. Its doomed to fail...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kronk wrote:
I'm the only one in my group of 6 40k players that comes here with any regularity. Although, the other guys in my group do google searches for tactics for their armies, and read random blogs from time to time.


The more important question is do you talk about what is said on these boards? Do you gossipe with them about the latest happenings in the industry, that you have read on a forum like this?

I would also point out that when they do market surveys they do not interview that many people.. Because they do not have to do that to make an accurate prediction. I can for example say that I represnt the views of my local gaming club, 12 people.. none of us play games workshop games, we play Warmachine and Malifaux... The same goes for you, most gaming groups play the same game and have about the same opinion about things. Because small groups do not function if people cant get along and do not agree with one another. Its simple pack mentality. So if all of us on these boards, and a few others would answer a survey, I really think you would get a fairly accurate understanding on what the Table-top community is playing and what they think about diffrent types of games... It would take more then Dakka Dakka forums, maybe 4-5 Larger forums would do the trick...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kingsley wrote:
 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Registered users /= Visitors. Are you not getting what Legoburner told us in this thread? Hundreds of thousands of individuals visit the forum, not the 71.5k who took the time to create a profile, but hundreds of thousands.

Right now, there are 6,529 online users: 737 registered, 5,792 guest. That transferred across to the 71k would give numbers well in excess of 500,000 visitors.


What I'm saying is that users who didn't take the time to create a profile are unlikely to really be invested in the community. I suspect the vast majority view a page or two and then leave. That sort of activity is very different from the active participants in discussions that I'm referring to when I say that the Internet community is small and doesn't represent a broad view of the hobby. I don't think that the "visitors" metric is anywhere close to as relevant as the "registered users" metric, which itself is highly inflated due to displaying many inactive users.


Kingsly I have heard this type of nonsense from "fan boys" on forums for years. The funny thing though is that they are always wrong.. and the games they keep championing always Fail. If you see a larger negative trend start to spread, and the criticism is justified, it will have an impact on the product, with reduced sales and people leaving because they find the whole experince not worth their money..

Market surveys do not need a GREAT number of people to make accurate predictions, Just ask anyone in the business. In fact you need surprisingly few to get a really accurate survey. This means that talking with about 500-1000 people would probably be enough to get exact numbers in an small industry like Table-top gaming...(and now I'm talking world wide, not just US). If you would ask about 1000 Table-top gamers across the world to answer a survey about what games they like, dont like etc.. That would be enough to get accurate numbers... I have been part of a few election survyes in my country(interviewing people etc) and 1000-1500 people has been the target number to get accurate figures on about 9 million people...

So you can just stop talking about numbers right now, because there is no Vast majoirty to take into account.. you just need to take a few samples here and there to get accurate figures.. It is way to costly to Interview tens of thousands of people, when ordinary companies do market surveys of products and elections. And if they can hit the mark (or come very close) by just interviewing a small part of the population, Table top wargaming will not need more then a few hundread people..
Even if you dont like to hear this, it is the truth and you best get used to it....

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2013/04/12 23:08:19


 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Indeed, but this is the wonder of what's being put forward now by those previously saying 'the internet is only used by a tiny fraction of the hobby', now that argument's goalposts are being moved to 'well, when we said community, what we meant was the very few who post regularly', despite all three here taking that stance are part of the 'very few who post regularly'.


The goalposts aren't beng moved. We disagree on what metric to use. That's okay, man-- things don't have to be objectively one way or the other. Incidentally, I very much consider myself part of the very few who post regularly and are hence unrepresentative of the hobby as a whole. If you wanted to draw conclusions about what the average 40k player thinks, studying me would not be a good way to do that. Now, I do know a bit about what the average 40k player thinks, and I can relate that fairly effectively, but I myself am pretty clearly not that player.
   
Made in us
Aspirant Tech-Adept





Large size does not neccasarily translate into large significance. A lot of debate on this forum is posted by and read by people that have already made up their mind on a particular issue.

Even though a valid statistical survey does not need tens of thousands of samples, the survey must be scientifically designed to avoid bias. So even though Dakka and other forums have a huge number of visitors, they would not really be a very good source of market research for anyone that was a trained statistician. In any event the opinions on dakka and other forums are far from uniform.

In most cases I believe that the online community is substantial, probably is reflective of the views of a larger community but has a relative small impact on the community at large.

A big exception is probably the very small group of highly competitive players that are really focused on tournament play.

   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator





Philadelphia

 Polonius wrote:

The problem is that passive readers may or may not agree, and aren't letting their opinions be heard. I think the reach of the online community is pretty large, measured that way. But the actual membership is still pretty small.


Yeah, I'm one of those long-time lurkers, sometime poster, who pretty much disagrees with all the whining, complaining, and GW bashing, but I don't bother to actually post in GWs defense or to give my perspective. Its like spitting into the wind. That, and the group(s) I play with play 40k, fantasy, other specialist games, and a dozen different historicals sets, and we're perfectly happy doing so. And of those groups, maybe 1 in 10 post on Dakka or any forum, or even care about online communities.

Legio Suturvora 2000 points (painted)
30k Word Bearers 2000 points (in progress)
Daemonhunters 1000 points (painted)
Flesh Tearers 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '02 52nd; Balt GT '05 16th
Kabal of the Tortured Soul 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '08 85th; Mechanicon '09 12th
Greenwing 1000 points (painted) - Adepticon Team Tourny 2013

"There is rational thought here. It's just swimming through a sea of stupid and is often concealed from view by the waves of irrational conclusions." - Railguns 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Omadon's Realm

 Kingsley wrote:
Now, I do know a bit about what the average 40k player thinks, and I can relate that fairly effectively,


Everyone claims intimate knowledge of this mythical creature... State your credentials?



 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
 Kingsley wrote:
Now, I do know a bit about what the average 40k player thinks, and I can relate that fairly effectively,


Everyone claims intimate knowledge of this mythical creature... State your credentials?


I've been in the hobby for 15 years and played in multiple stores and across multiple states, at everything from a "pickup game in my backyard" to a major GT level. My depth and breadth of experience means that I know a fair amount about the way the game looks and the way people evaluate it. Note also that I don't claim to be an expert, just someone who knows a bit about the way people think. Lots of people are just as qualified as I am.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/13 00:46:49


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Nucflash wrote:


Market surveys do not need a GREAT number of people to make accurate predictions, Just ask anyone in the business. In fact you need surprisingly few to get a really accurate survey. This means that talking with about 500-1000 people would probably be enough to get exact numbers in an small industry like Table-top gaming...(and now I'm talking world wide, not just US). If you would ask about 1000 Table-top gamers across the world to answer a survey about what games they like, dont like etc.. That would be enough to get accurate numbers... I have been part of a few election survyes in my country(interviewing people etc) and 1000-1500 people has been the target number to get accurate figures on about 9 million people...

So you can just stop talking about numbers right now, because there is no Vast majoirty to take into account.. you just need to take a few samples here and there to get accurate figures.. It is way to costly to Interview tens of thousands of people, when ordinary companies do market surveys of products and elections. And if they can hit the mark (or come very close) by just interviewing a small part of the population, Table top wargaming will not need more then a few hundread people..
Even if you dont like to hear this, it is the truth and you best get used to it....


The issue is while you can take small samples... your samples have to have demographics attached to them in order for them to be valid in order to get a sample across all demographics. When you see a poll of 1000 people on TV, that poll had to gather samples not from 1000 random people, but 1000 people across every possible demographic with many duplicate demographics having those thrown out. Have you ever had a pollster call you and before they ask any questions ask your age, gender, race and so on? and as soon as you meet a demographic they have already sampled, the survey ends.

So while you only need to question a few hundred people, they need to legitimately be a few hundred people with a wide cross-section of the customer base. This means they would need to do multiple rounds of surveys to determine the ages, genders, races, income levels, geographic areas, shopping habits, online presence, news delivery, and so on each as individual metrics, then define an optimal sample that represents each one of those demographics in the appropriate numbers to then ask "so, what is your opinion on Issue X?" and to have an actually valid poll.

This is much easier in politics polls or things like publicly gathered info, where it is easy to know what the audience's demographics are so you only need to define a sample, a question and run with it. There is a ton of data which needs to be gathered before you can simply go ask 1000 random wargamers and get a result which is valid and actually can represent the entire customerbase.

Regardless... Online Forum goers is a biased sample set because everyone in it share a common demographic. It would be the same as if everyone being polled was a specific race, income level, age or shared some other particular demographic and then it was tried to extrapolate to people not represented in the sample.

My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: