Quote Originally Posted by Kazemon15 View Post
Okay, thank you for the numbers. Would you mind linking the article? Because sometimes, articles still do not have the big picture, I would like to verify its source and what website it came from.

<snip>

According to the statistics they linked btw (https://steamcharts.com/app/39210), peak being around 94k on steam, and taking the almost 500k into account, then yeah, roughly 20% of the playerbase, as I said. So, I'm not sure I get this but, why is it okay to based statistics on 20% of the population? Please make me understand why ignoring 80% of the playerbase/population is a good statistic for things? And if that is how other companies do so as well, basing it on 20%, then yes, I will say that. Because it's largely ignoring the majority and should be looked at.

Naturally. These were the sources: daily player numbers were sourced from numbers tracked by https://mmo-population.com/r/ffxiv and Steam's public information respectively, and put side by side in this article by Dexerto https://www.dexerto.com/final-fantas...-2023-2112769/

As for your second question.. I am concerned you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how statistics work and what they are. Mathematically sound, probability based methods for approximating things for a large population based on a small representative sample of that population is exactly what statistics is. If you have a sample size that is 20% of the total population, you are not ignoring the other 80%, the other 80% are represented by the 20% that you do sample. If you are not happy until you are sample size is 100% of your population size.. you are not even doing statistics anymore, that is just a head count.

For example, the FDA approved 55 new medicines in 2023. Each of those medicines comes with whole sheets of numbers, like, "The chance of this or that side effect is 4%". Did you personally take each of those 55 medications, for their intended treatment duration? No? Then you must not have been in the tested sample. In fact, out of over 8 billion people on this planet, over 8 billion people were not part of the test group. Only a few hundred or thousand were. Did the FDA do an incredibly shoddy job ignoring over 99.9% of the population? No, the whole point is that by testing on a smaller volunteer group roughly representative of the general population, you already get a pretty good indication of what the stochastic probabilities are. You don't need to involve the entire planet's population in the test just to know that something is going to happen in around 4% of cases.

But please consult an impartial source for that as well - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics and https://www.fda.gov/media/175253/download?attachment