Talk:List of best-selling video games

Halo 3, misread source

I don't think this source is saying that Halo 3 sold 14.5 million copies - I think it is talking about the Halo series up to that point. This makes sense, as the Xbox versions of Halo and Halo 2 have sold 5 and 8 million copies respectively, according to this wikipedia article. That means there is only another 1.5 million to account for (from rounding, more recent numbers for the two games, or PC versions of the games). Does anybody know another source for copies of Halo 3 sold? Chris3145 (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch; someone clearly misread the source. I will do what I can to fix this. Indrian (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. The 8.1 million is clearly low (the number is 3 years old), but it may be the best source we have. Chris3145 (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Halo 3 is the Xbox 360 top 1 selling game

Reference: http://halo.xbox.com/en-us/games/halo3/Overview --ODST 02:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC) and it doesn't refer to the Halo series, it refers to Halo 3 itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachu896 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Common sense, grammar, and the sources all disagree with your position. Let's start by reading the source closely. For ease of reference, here is the offending sentence:

"Halo 3 is the concluding chapter in the Halo trilogy—an international award-winning action series that grew into a global entertainment phenomenon, selling more than 14.5 million games worldwide, logging more than 650 million hours of multiplayer action on Xbox LIVE."

Notice the use of a dash above. Everything after the dash is an aside that is separate from the first part of the sentence since there is not a second dash to indicate this interjection has come to an end. That leaves us with the following complete thought:

"an international award-winning action series that grew into a global entertainment phenomenon, selling more than 14.5 million games worldwide, logging more than 650 million hours of multiplayer action on Xbox LIVE."

So the clause "selling 14.5 million games worldwide" is further developing the preceding clause, "an international award-winning action series that grew into a global entertainment phenomenon." That's just how the English language works.

Also, check out http://on-screen.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html, a blog post from February 2007, which has the exact same language. The language on the Halo 3 web page is clearly from a press release issued sometime before Halo 3 was even released, perhaps even from the original press release announcing the game. Indrian (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sonic

The source for Sonic's 15 million says that it was included as a pack in for 15 million consoles and that there were sales approaching 1 million before the pack in. One would expect that some people who bought the console before the pack-in got sonic, and that others bought it after the pack in stopped. Furthermore, I have seen sources that say Sonic sold 4 million stand-alones. So shouldn't the number be 19 million?LedRush (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if we have a source that specifically states Sonic sold 4 million as a non-bundled or standalone product that would make sense, as the video specifically refers to bundled copies. Indrian (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Section title

Secion 2 of the article is titles "PC". Really, this shoudl be "Computer", since technically a Mac is not a PC. Also, renaming it Computer would allow for subsections (with manufacturers), like for consoles. Spectrum, Amige, etc, could then be added, and PC/Mac/Linux cold be the subsection for what we have now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.211.125.130 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In theory, what you are saying makes sense. In practice, unfortunately it just does not work. This is because there are a lack of reliable sources that break down computer games sales by platform. Since most games were ported to 3-5 systems in earlier times before the PC dominated everything, this makes it impossible to parse sales between platforms accurately. For example, we know Populous sold 4 million, but we do not know how many of those were on Amiga and how many on PC (not to mention it probably includes SNES and Genesis sales, which is a problem we just ignore). We also do not have figures for the split of Myst sales between Macintosh and PC. This problem repeats across virtually all games, with few exceptions. Indrian (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, this means that we have a great many games that have sold five million copies+, which are completely ignored by this list. As such, this does not represent a worldwide view (ie it's heavily US-biased).

As for data, we do have a lot of it. Two major retrogaming magazines are published by top-tier publishers in the UK every month, and they have numbers, interviews, etc.

Maybe we don't even need to have the data of the platform split to start with. After all, we have a Mobile phone section (Tetris, Angry Birds, etc), and yet these are grouped together, rather than being categorised as Symbian, iPhone, Android, etc. How about we just have a section 8-bit computers and 16-bit computers?

This list has a threshold of one million copies for inclusion. There were no Spectrum or Amstrad or BBC Micro or British-made C64 games selling five million plus units in Great Britain in the 1980s; those games were selling in the hundreds of thousands with just a very few exceptions like The Hobbit and Last Ninja that moved a million or two copies. Worms sold five million plus in the 1990s, but that was on multiple platforms and includes console adaptations. Other Amiga games like Populous and Lemmings are in the same boat, though we do have Populous listed here anyway. The PC section covers all computer platforms, as the term Personal Computer used to be a generic one before IBM clones took over the market, but there are just very few games before 1993 that meet this sales threshold, and by then the IBM PC had driven off all competitors. List of best-selling PC video games has a section for older computers with a lower threshold for inclusion (100,000 instead of 1 million), so feel free to add some games there, as the list is currently very incomplete. Finally, I have read every single issue of Retrogamer and while the magazine often gives sales figures, they are rarely broken down by platform, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make there. The issue is simply that both the US and British computer game markets in the 1980s were too small for games to amass sufficient sales for inclusion on this list. Indrian (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sonic CD speculation

With 6 million Sega CDs sold and Sonic CD being the main attraction, it's possible that Sonic CD was a million seller at a time when Sonic was mega popular. No concrete evidence though. Pure speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.32.121 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't VGchartz list Sonic CD at 1.5 million? You know, not that it's a reliable source or anything...but I've been thinking lately, that for games that don't have any other sales sources, shouldn't VGchartz be fair??? The reason they aren't considered reliable is because of the way they gather and interpret data. Making other sources of information more reliable. But doesn't that still leave them in fair game if no other reliable source exists??? This could possibly be brought up at the VG sources discussion page for re-evaluation. Old games have just about no other way to get sales information.--SexyKick 23:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point of reliable sources somewhat. We don't use sources because they are comparatively reliable, but because they are objectively reliable. The lack of a reliable source does not lower the standard by which data may be included. An unreliable source, like VG Chartz, cannot be used because we have no idea how accurate, if at all, its figures are and in this case they have proven inaccurate in the past. To put it another way, it is better to have no info than false info. Since we have no way of judging the veracity of VG Chartz's claims, and in fact have reason to suspect that they may be false, we must assume that they are false until demonstrated otherwise. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources need to be reliable for the subject matter at hand. I would argue (and I think policy agrees) that if a subject matter is more obscure, lesser standards apply. That seems to be the case here.

However, I also never understood why VGChartz is not a RS at all. They have proven to be more accurate than what we consider to be reliable sources on multiple occasions. But I am overwhelmingly shouted down in this opinion.LedRush (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I assume that this is not a RS? [1]LedRush (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not a reliable source because it is just a copy of this very page as it existed back in 2006. As for VGChartz, the site is clearly not reliable for current game sales because its collection methodology is faulty. The question is, where does it get its figures for older games? Clearly VGChartz was not tracking sales data for NES, Genesis, Sega CD, etc. since the site did not exist, so it is entirely possible some of those figures are accurate. Without knowing how it collects this information though, it cannot really be considered reliable. Indrian (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, assuming their older figures are accurate, it is also quite likely that we could cite their source instead VG Chartz themselves, i.e. if we were to discover that they are well sourced to a particular, reliable place, why cite the middle man? If it were a news site or something that was citing them then it would make sense according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy (for mainstream publication use etc. rather than primary sources) but if it's just an aggregator like VG Chartz would be in this case I don't see what the advantage would be. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I have always thought that those who call VGChartz unreliable based on their methodology to not understand market analysis, but whatever. The community, rightly or wrongly, has voted. I haven't been able to see how VG Chartz collected their old data, but will look again.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it is still the case, but there was a time when they claimed that their figures were derived from at least one of their methods, some of which were tenuous at best. Probably the most obvious example was (or maybe still is) polling users to find out what they are playing and/or purchasing. If a figure is based solely on that criterion, then it cannot be trusted due to the bias inherent in users of gaming sites (they tend to be more "hardcore" type gamers, thus skewing figures towards "core" games such as shooters, and away from "casual" titles, such as puzzle games); see self-selection bias and participation bias. If memory serves, some of their other methods were better (such as polling retailers) but since we have no guarantee that any figure includes any data from these methods, we cannot give their figures any credence. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing in their methodology which indicates that any one method is relied on exclusively for any of their data, though it does mention that all data is confirmed with reference to publicly available tracking information. But this is probably not the place to re-argue long settled disputes.LedRush (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that, I said that at one time (not necessarily still the case) they guaranteed that any given figure was arrived at using at least one of the methods they had listed (so some may have only used a single one of them). This policy may well have changed, but they currently don't state the minimum number of methods used, so we still don't know if any figures are arrived at via just a single method.

Quote: "… it does mention that all data is confirmed with reference to publicly available tracking information"

No it doesn't. It says it is checked, which isn't at all the same thing as confirmed. What that implies to me is that if data is available they check their data to ensure it corresponds to the official/professional data. They have been shown in the past to even go so far as to change old press releases to correspond to newly available data, which seems to me more of a way of hiding their inadequacies than providing accurate data (if they were doing it to be accurate, they would have issued corrections rather than "covering it up" so to speak). Besides, we can use data that is publicly available too - anything that hasn't been checked is subject to the same limitations, and anything that has been checked against such public info should correspond to this public info, which negates the reason for using VG Chartz (i.e. the lack of publicly available info to cite). Incidentally, we have no idea how frequently these checks take place, only that it is "regular".

Also, to me it seems rather suspect that they give their figures to an exact number of copies; for example they currently state (correct at time of writing) that SSX for the 360 has sold 224,966 units.^[2] Given that these are estimates/extrapolated data, they cannot possibly be both that accurate and that precise. They seem to completely ignore the concept of a significant figure, which to me implies that they are not professional statisticians. This seems to be backed up by the founder's bio on the site, which states that he "read" engineering at Cambridge University (quite what is meant by "read" I don't know, and it doesn't even mention what kind of engineering he "read"; was it software, chemical, structural… ) and makes no mention of a background in statistics or market analysis.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You did say that, and hence the reason I repeated it. If you think there is a difference in meaning, I fail to see what it could be. My statement remains true, and your objection to the material remains unfounded (with regard to the one point about using at least one method).

Your semantics regarding checked/confirmed are interesting, yet irrelevant. As is your follow-up reasoning. There are many ways to conduct market reasearch, and there is nothing in their methodology to suggest that theirs is not valid.

Other than this, you are merely inventing possible scenarios and backgrounds to support your assumed premise. It is not helpful. Oh well, congrats on totally sidetracking the conversation.LedRush (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ In an attempt to get back on topic, it would seem to me that as the criteria for what makes a reliable source fluctuates with the subject matter, that it would be perfectly reasonable for VGChartz not to be a reliable source for "modern" games, but be one for classic ones. Of course, this argument would probably best be brought up on the appropriate board, where the editors are as hostile to anyone making such arguments as Alphathon is above.LedRush (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going to address individual points here, so it'll be quite long. To get the gist of what I am saying, read the final two paragraphs.

What you paraphrased isn't the same as what I said; I didn't claim that it is the case that they only used one method for any of their figures, merely that we don't know that it isn't the case. I am certainly not saying that any of their figures are based on only one method, I am saying that the fact we don't know either way calls their reliability into question.

Similarly, how is my "follow-up reasoning" irrelevant? I feel we have good reason to believe that their figures are not arrived at by professional statistical analysis, which again calls into question their figures' validity and reliability. Anyone can say that another person's points are irrelevant, but that doesn't make it true; if my points are irrelevant, please explain why.

I also don't feel I am sidetracking anything. Your premise seems to be that VGC should be considered a reliable source for old games and/or consoles, and I am saying I don't think it's reliable full stop (and why).

Regardless, the default position for a source is "not shown to be reliable", not "assumed reliable unless shown otherwise". I am not assuming any premise - I can't even think of a reason why I would be in this case - if VGC were a reliable source it'd be better for everyone. All things being equal, I am not against using any source, and am not assuming that it is unreliable. However, it needs to be shown to be reliable first, not assumed so. If you have a good reason to believe that VGC is a reliable source (for any figure, be it old or new, specific or general) then please let us know so that we evaluate it. If not then on what basis are you suggesting it be considered a reliable source? This is quite apart for the fact that we have reason to believe it is actively unreliable, but if there is no good reason to think it reliable in the first place then we have no reason to uses it regardless.

^† This is not the same as "unreliable"; that needs to be proven too, not that it really matters from a usage standpoint, since only "reliable" sources should be used.

When you say "and there is nothing in their methodology to suggest that theirs is not valid", to me, you seem to be making an argument from ignorance (i.e. it seems fine to me, therefore it is fine). Clearly I do not agree (and have explained why), so such an argument is a waste of time. If you disagree with my reasoning, please explain why; simply stating the fact is what is unhelpful here.

Also, as far as I am aware "the criteria for what makes a reliable source fluctuates with the subject matter" is true, but a bit of a simplification. Different kinds of statements/claims need to be backed up in different ways, so sources vary according the claim/statement (e.g. professional news organisations are far more suitable for current events citations than they are for, say, scientific consensus or historical events). Additionally, the mundanity and specificity of a claim affect how reliable (not what makes it reliable) a source has to be to be useful. I'd say that sales figures are low-average on the mundanity scale but fairly specific, so probably need an averagely reliable source. It still needs a reliable source though, and the fact that the criteria for what is and isn't reliable change based on context does not imply that those criteria will ever be null. If it did, there would be no purpose for the citation at all.

Anyway, to summarise, the default position regarding a source is "not proven reliable", and I believe VGC falls into the "unreliable" category. However, for a source to be used, it must be shown to be reliable. As far as I can tell, you have not provided any arguments in favour of VGC's reliability, other than something equivalent to "I see nothing wrong with it" (a fallacious argument from ignorance) and a statement that reliability standards vary depending on the topic (which doesn't seem to address the point). Yes, not all claims need equally rigorous citations, and sales figures for old games and consoles aren't particularly "important" in this regard, but their source must at least be tentatively reliable. At the moment I see no reason to consider VGC even that, but am open to arguments if you have any. Additionally, stating that an argument that someone has made is irrelevant without saying why helps no-one, as it will not convince the person who presented the argument and is unlikely to sway third-parties (you might as well say "I'm right and you're wrong" for all the good it will do). It would be far easier for everybody if VGC were reliable, as they have many figures for which we have none, and as such I don't see why you would think I am arguing to "support my (non-existent) assumption" (why would I assume it is unreliable?).

If you feel this would be better discussed at WP:VG or something then by all means bring it up there. If I am wrong about something then I want to be corrected so that my views and thought processes are as close to reality as possible, so I welcome the involvement of more editors.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

We are talking past each other, with you using enough words to ensure that the base conversation cannot occur. Oh well...LedRush (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware I tend to be rather verbose; that is exactly why I said "To get the gist of what I am saying, read the final two paragraphs." I assume however that by "talking past each other" you mean my post was tl;dr (since you replied no more than 4 minutes after I posted).

How about this? We draw a line under this, start again, and you make your case for why VG Chartz should be considered a reliable source for older games and systems? Then, we try to make only one point per post so as to keep responses as short as possible (most of the reason my post is so long is that you made quite a few short statements that required long responses to rebut).

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Before we start, what do you see as the relevant reliable source guideline/policy/principle?LedRush (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(BTW: I don't know that having this conversation here makes any sense as local consensus will not outweigh community consensus, which I understand has already said that VGChartz is bad).LedRush (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(BBTW, I read your post, started to compose a point by point rebuttal, and then realized it's a ridiculous waste of time. Thank you, though, for changing your tone to be far more civil than in your earlier reply).LedRush (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure about the policy (beyond the general citation guidelines); I'll get back to you on that. For the location, WP:VG seems as good a place as any. Tone wise, I apologise if my tone came off as aggressive or uncivil or whatever. I don't know if it's the language I use or my matter-of-fact manner (that's one flaw I'm painfully aware of) or the verbosity or what, but I get that a lot; rest assured it isn't/wasn't intentional. As I said above, I'd much prefer it if VGC were reliable (it'd make everyone's life here much easier), but I just don't think it is, and I certainly am not trying to attack you or shout you down or anything - I'm just not very good at conveying tone in text form. Anyway, you won't hear from me again today, and probably won't tomorrow; just thought I'd give you a heads up. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Magic Box; a reliable source?

The Magic Box is used here and throughout the more console-specific best-selling lists (at least 36 for US sales and 21 times for Japanese sales on this page alone). However, I really don't know if it should be considered a reliable source. The site certainly doesn't seem to be professionally designed and doesn't carry any copyright info (which usually suggests it doesn't belong to anyone who cares about copyright, including big corps, government bodies etc), and they give no indication (as far as I can tell) of their sources or (if applicable) their methods of estimation. Even VG Chartz does that, however dubious their methods are. I also can't find any big-name sites using them as a source. Basically, to me, there seems to be no good reason to take them seriously, and certainly no good reason to view them as a reliable source. Does anyone else have any thoughts or insights on this? Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 18:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I believe that Magic Box took all of its Japanese figures from Dengeki, which would make these figures reliable. If you look at older versions of the site in the Internet Archive, it used to track Dengeki sales figures on a weekly basis. Dengeki has since stopped reporting figures, and Magic Box's million-seller figures have not been updated since Dengeki stopped providing this info, so that all seems to gel. I have no idea where its U.S. figures come from. Indrian (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well if that's the case then fair enough. I assume there's no easy way to directly cite Dengeki (would probably require citing every weeks sales if I understand correctly). Good thinking on the Internet Archive thing; it never even occurred to me to check previous versions of the site for their sources. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

World of WarCraft

Doesn't WoW qualify as a best selling PC game if it hit like 12 million subscribers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.226.51 (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• WoW is certainly a best-selling game, but the problem is that subscriptions do not equal sales. While this is the way it works in Western markets, the Asian market uses a different system that does not involve retail copies. Indrian (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)