Hi Aqua, wherever you are... Thank you
Crab... Do you have a specific point you're trying to make? I can't understand from the posts what it is you're trying to get across. Help me out?
Sure, lemme try it this way...if we want to evaluate how big of a boost a platform enjoyed from a set of circumstances behind it, the question to be addressed is the following:
'How many new users bought a PS4 beyond the norm due to conditions XYZ being present?'
To address this question you'd need to have a baseline estimate for comparison, which we do (May 2015). Not all data nor all manipulations of data are relevant for addressing the posed question. I'd imagine everyone agrees with me up to this point and assume we are on the same page.
An estimate of how many new users bought PS4 specifically due to those conditions XYZ should focus on the difference between the control (May 2015) and the experimental (May 2016) data.
Example:
If console A sold 1.00k in one May 2015 and then 1.38k in May 2016, the boost would be 0.38k, (which represents a 38% increase compared to the baseline). Is that a massive, particularly significant boost? I'd contend no, it isn't. Well beyond the margin of error for sure, so I'd agree there is clearly a boost in this example, but simply have *some* boost doesn't automatically make said boost impressive.
Conclusion: Percentages aren't the best measures of how significant a boost in hardware sales is. They obscure the much more relevant data point (difference between result and baseline).
Opinions can vary on what constitutes a 'big/medium/small' boost. My opinion is that I would have expected a much larger difference than just 50k given the 3 or 4 very major conditions promoting PS4 sales in May.
If someone wants to argue that the relevant metric for quantifying a boost is not difference in sales compared to baseline but instead is an entirely multiplicative factor, that's fine and would make the pure % difference meaningful if compelling, but I have yet to see any such argument.