Desild, on 12 June 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:
This reveals two things: one, the subjects are more willing on spending Gems on quality of life goods rather than cosmetics, exactly as we all thought and two, this means that a great deal of development is thrown at cosmetics that the subjects aren’t actively buying.
I find this to be a questionable conclusion. Is it true? Maybe, but the data as published does not support it. The survey doesn't correlate the quantity of gems spent with the cosmetic purchase category. Buyer numbers mean nothing compared to gem quantity. It must be considered that a large portion of the 51.1% low-end gem buyers (Below 800) might possibly overlap with the Services/Upgrades categories.
It was a fascinating read but the conclusion as stated suggests interpretation bias. The data could better back the conclusion if you show a direct correlation or if you separate one-time service and upgrade purchases that represent a very small portion of the overall gem usage.

Find content
Male

