en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

Regression toward the mean refers to the fact that those with extreme scores on any measure at one point in time will, for purely statistical reasons, probably have less extreme scores the next time they are tested. Many extreme scores happen to fall with or against the initial score depending on whether your extreme score is extremely high or extremely low.

Consider an extreme example: a class of students takes a 100-item true/false test on a subject on which none of the students knows anything at all. Therefore, all students choose randomly on all questions leading to a mean score of about 50. Naturally, some students will score substantially above 50 and some substantially below 50 just by chance. If one takes only the top 10% of the students and gives them a parallel form of test on which they again guess on all items, the mean score would be expected to be close to 50. Thus the mean of these students would "regress" all the way back to the mean of all students who took the original test. No matter what a student scores on the original test, the best prediction of their score on the parallel form is 50.

If there were no luck on the test then all students would score the same on the parallel form as they scored on original test, and there would be no regression toward the mean.

Real situations fall between these two extremes: scores are a combination of skill and luck. If you choose a subset of people who score above the mean, they will be (on average) above the mean on skill and above the mean on luck. On a retest their previously above-average luck will revert to about average. They will therefore score above the mean due to their above-average skill, but not by as much as they did the first time because they will not be as lucky as they were the first time.

This concept can be easily applied to SOE's record to predict their future. Since SOE screwed up lots of their games to the point where they were unplayable, that gives us a really extreme set of data. The principle of regression toward the mean says that the next game they release won't be messed up anywhere nearly as badly. Just based on statistics, their next game will probably be screwed up somewhat, but not to the point where it's unplayable.

But that's just based on the numbers; that's not taking into account the fact that SOE has probably learned from their mistakes, because when the community hates a game developer, that game developer earns far less money. I'm sure that by now SOE has learned to listen to what the majority of players want, so that they can make more money off of their games. Couple that fact with the principle of regression toward the mean, and you get a pretty clear prediction:

SOE has had a really bad record in the past, but The Agency will be virtually flawless; it will be the game they use to redeem themselves and develop a new, better reputation.

What?

How about a different theory. Until company proves they have a clue about making/maintaining a good game why don't we just assume everything they put out will be crap>

Past performance "is" a good indicator of the future in the case of game makers.

Obviously you have no idea how regression toward the mean works.

Of course past performance is a good indicator of the future in the case of game makers. It's generally a good way to predict the future for anything. But when you're predicting the future, you always have to take into account the effects of regression toward the mean whenever you're dealing with extreme data.

When a game studio makes the Game of the Year, look at the average rating of the next game they release. 49 out of 50 times, the game is good, but not quite as good as the one that won Game of the Year. (Check for yourself if you don't believe me.) The same applies to studios that release the crappiest game imaginable; the next game they release will probably have improved somewhat.

Someone rush this classroom theory over to Perpetual Entertainment ASAP!  They must be informed that if they just keep trying eventually they will get a decent game to market.

Thanks Wikipedia for setting the record straight.

Originally posted by Puffles

Obviously you have no idea how regression toward the mean works.

Of course past performance is a good indicator of the future in the case of game makers. It's generally a good way to predict the future for anything. But when you're predicting the future, you always have to take into account the effects of regression toward the mean whenever you're dealing with extreme data.

When a game studio makes the Game of the Year, look at the average rating of the next game they release. 49 out of 50 times, the game is good, but not quite as good as the one that won Game of the Year. (Check for yourself if you don't believe me.) The same applies to studios that release the crappiest game imaginable; the next game they release will probably have improved somewhat.

Hmm, the only problem with that idea would be Blizzard.  They seem to just keep throwing out giant hits that all are games of the year(Warcraft 1, 2, 3, Diablo 1 & 2, Starcraft, World of Warcraft). Well, nice theory though.  And no I am not a Blizzard fanboi, I don't play any of those games anymore. :p

Even if they do produce a flawless game it is unlikely to become a commercial success due to rapant bad word of mouth over their past.

Originally posted by Stuhero

Even if they do produce a flawless game it is unlikely to become a commercial success due to rapant bad word of mouth over their past.

Regardless of whether or not The Agency is a commercial success, I'll still be playing it as long as it's fun.

Yeah people said this about SWG and V:SoH too.

Originally posted by Puffles

Originally posted by Stuhero

Even if they do produce a flawless game it is unlikely to become a commercial success due to rapant bad word of mouth over their past.

Regardless of whether or not The Agency is a commercial success, I'll still be playing it as long as it's fun.

I wont be playing as it sends the message to the industry as a whole that you can screw your customers without paying a price. If that is the message you want to send thats cool, freedom of choice is a wonderful thing, It is a poor choice in my opinion.

Originally posted by Stuhero

Originally posted by Puffles

Originally posted by Stuhero

Even if they do produce a flawless game it is unlikely to become a commercial success due to rapant bad word of mouth over their past.

Regardless of whether or not The Agency is a commercial success, I'll still be playing it as long as it's fun.

I wont be playing as it sends the message to the industry as a whole that you can screw your customers without paying a price. If that is the message you want to send thats cool, freedom of choice is a wonderful thing, It is a poor choice in my opinion.

So you're saying that SOE should be permanently boycotted, even if they get their act together and stop screwing the customers that want to give them a second chance?

Prior performance is a good indication of future performance.

Originally posted by darkboaz

Prior performance is a good indication of future performance.

Nobody said otherwise; in fact, I've already discussed that in a previous reply. I suggest you read the whole thread.

Sometimes it doesn't matter if you've had fifty spankings because you purposefully threw poo at someone more then 30 times.  Some people just don't learn.  I wouldn't get your hopes up, SOE has a very scratched record.  But if they nail it this time and hand me a chocolate pie instead of a flaming pile of crap then