Originally Posted by T-Ray
AAANND he gets it 
What i am referring to is a subset of a subset of an even smaller subset. The assumptions are very generous in my opinion |
No, wrong. It is not necessarily the case that the percentage goes down with each subset. The percentage stays exactly the same.
You arrive at smaller and smaller numbers of people, but you do not necessarily arrive at a smaller percentage. You may by chance, but not mathematically necessarily.
If 100 percent of men have penises, and five percent of those are gamers, and only 5 percent of those play Planetside, it doesn't mean only .025 percent of men who play Planetside have penises. Your perception of the math is wrong. Five percent of any male population anywhere is colorblind. That's five percent of gamers, five percent of Planetside gamers, five percent of any population, EXCEPT any population that excludes the colorblind.
Take a cross-section of men, say five percent are colorblind. That's, say, 100,000 guys from some population, 5000 are colorblind.
Of that 100,000 guys, seven percent are gamers. Five percent of those gamers will also be colorblind.
Of that 100,000, 1/10th of a percent play Planetside. Of those 100 guys, five percent will STILL, on average, be colorblind, which is five guys. Which is still five percent of that part of the population.
Say 50 percent of all cars are red. It doesn't matter if you slice subset after subset. If 50 percent of all cars are red, and 50 percent of all cars are Japanese, that doesn't mean only 25 percent of all Japanese cars are red. It means 25 percent of ALL cars are red AND Japanese.
So, saying the PERCENTAGE of people who are colorblind who play PS is less than the PERCENTAGE who are colorblind in the population as a whole is not a mathematical necessity. All that is a mathematical likelihood is that there are FEWER in number people who are colorblind AND play PS than there are just people who are colorblind only, in the general population.
If you have 1,000,000 users who play PS, then 50,000 will be colorblind, according to the statistics, if five percent are colorblind. And that is a significant number.
If it is seven percent, that's 70,000 people.
If seven percent of men are colorblind, then seven percent of ANY selection of men are colorblind. If they are blonde, 6' tall German-speaking PS players, there will still be seven percent of that subset that is colorblind. Seven percent of any male population doesn't somehow shrink to a smaller PERCENTAGE no matter what subset you take. It shrinks to a smaller NUMBER. But it still stands, if you have 1,000,000 users who are male, then, statistically, since they are MALE, 70,000 of them will, statistically, be colorblind. If the game is 50 bucks, do you want to throw away 3.5 million dollars by doing erroneous assumptions based on misinterpretation of set theory?
I think it would be more cost-effective to throw in a few things to cater to those who have trouble with colors, as options, than it would be to just ignore that many potential users. It's a good PR coup, too. And the small amount of graphics you would have to add to name tags as an option is not something that would take much money or brains to implement.