Talk:List of best-selling video games

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories is listed as selling 8 million copies on page 12, but it doesn't specify if the figure includes both the PSP and PS2 versions, so I didn't change the 1.95 million PSP version figure in the article. Also what game is that on page 10 between BioShock and Carnival Games in the "Consistent Launches of New 1+MM-Selling IP" section? --Silver Edge (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrectly Titled Page

I apologise if this is beyond my mandate as a viewer of Wikipedia but I believe this article and others like it to be incorrectly titled. This article is named ' Best Selling ' which I think is inaccurate. Best Selling implies a high income and a very large overall profit. WHat you have here is a list of Most Selling. I believe this list should be either renamed or re-structured as it would be easy for multiple games to gain very high on this list and misleading readers (It's worth noting here that Wikipedia, whilst open to editing by ANYONE is still a trusted source of information) by being sold extremely cheaply and selling a large number of games as opposed to making large amount of money.

Suggestion: Shound this page, instead of being renamed or restructued, simply display the gross of the video games listed as well as their total sales?

Thank you for reading. BloodBowler (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting from the end: finding grossly revenue is pretty hard, because contrary to cinema tickets, prices vary often. Besides, only European figures show gross data (contrary to Japan and North America, which use sales unit, although Microsoft likes to talk about revenue in their latest press releases).

The discussion is valid, though. As far as I know, the whole industry considers a best-selling game by units and not by revenue. When talking about books, they also talk about units and not revenue. I believe the movie industry is the only one that uses gross information (I am guessing because they supply a service). However, DVD sales are usually given in units. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom Clancy Series Reaches 52 Million Units

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/30166/Clancy-brand-going-global-after-breaking-50m-sales-barrier

Nothing further to say.

MontanaHatchet (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I read that news some weeks ago while browsing old press releases. We will add it too, thanks. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wii Sports

Why is Wii Sports considered the top-selling game for the Wii? It is a bundle with EVERY Wii console, and, in some aspects, a demo of sorts. It should be removed from the list as it is mearly a promotional game that is more or less a demo of the Wii's capabilities. -- crazyconan —Preceding comment was added at 04:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wii Sports is not bundled with the Wii in Japan, where it was the best-selling video game in 2007. [1] --Silver Edge (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but still, the fact that it's bundled with every Wii in the US gives it a huge crutch over other games. Hydroshock (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Same as bundling SMB with NES gave it 40m, or Tetris and GB gave it 33m. If the Guiness recognizes Super Mario Bros. as the best selling video game ever, why we cannot do the same with Wii Sports? Huge advantage, yes, nobody discusses that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Tetris was bundled with the original gameboy to my recollection. Being bundled shouldn't count as being purchased. However, if, like Wii Sports, it is only bundled in the U.S., the purchased copies in Japan should count. Should we revise the numbers? Ravewolf (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it should only count for the Japan version, seeing as that is was purchased separately for them, rather than in a bundle for free. - Crazyconan (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It should stay as is. The numbers are there to show how many copies are out there. In the Top 20 best-selling games (where rank actually matters), we exclude bundled games specifically for the reasons mentioned above. -Zomic13 (talk)

Sims total franchise at 100 million

I guess it's a misunderstanding of the quote in Eurogamer, link 157, but according to IGN : The Sims Sells 100 Million Units It just happened, and for the whole franchise, not only The sims 2, as stated in wikipedia. 67.212.25.132 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I am guessing he wanted to say 100m including all Sims and Sims 2 units. However, if the 70m for The Sims is right, it would mean The Sims 2 sold around 15m expansions only... -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Up-to-Date?

Is this article somewhat up-to-date? LethalReflex (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We try to keep it as up to date as possible, but we always focus on verifiability rather than up-to-date, so some numbers are obviously outdated (but with a reliable reference) and never up-to-date (but with a unreliable reference). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, great. LethalReflex (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

GTA san Andreas

I'd just like to point out that according to San Andreas's own wikipedia it is the best selling game of all time, with 21.5 million units sold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.131.146 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The 21.5 million units sold includes the PC and Xbox versions. --Silver Edge (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why are the Vice City and GTA III totals from that source accepted? The source should not be accepted at all. --Dhyancraig (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Dhyancraig

GTA 4 PS3 - 35 million

Hmm, that can't be right...

MontanaHatchet (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing Wii and DS million sellers

We are missing 5 Wii million sellers and over 20 Nintendo DS million sellers. Anyone can guess which ones so that we can begin searching for references? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be tough to find those. They are almost certainly mostly 3rd party titles as Nintendo always notes when one of their games passed the million mark. Perhaps we will learn what a few of those are if Nintendo releases a million-sellers list as they have done in the past. -Zomic13 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

According to vgchartz Mysims 1.02 million Rayman Raving Rabids 2 1.05 million Lego Star Wars - the complete Saga 1.12 million Mario Kart Wii 1.71 million

I'm not suggesting vgchartz as a source, but it seems that these 4 games need some looking in to.

As for the 5th game, I haven't a clue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.36.2 (talk)

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue

I read on the Wikipedia and some other sites, that there were more than 1 million pre-orders from the PAL-region only. I think this would make the game a million-seller, as it´s out now.--84.146.73.194 (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We didn't include Halo 3 with their millions of preorders, neither we won't include GT5. Remember that preorder doesn't mean sale, you can preorder games without paying, and therefore is not a sale. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The sales by Genre should be removed or improved

Just a thought, But the highest sellers by genre section should be either improved or gotten rid of.

I think we need to add Real Time Strategy, on rails shooter, Turn Based Strategy, MMORPG, Flight Simulator, Point and Click/Adventure in order to make it acceptable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.36.2 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The genres you mentioned really either aren't prominent (for example: MMORPGs with consoles) or have very few titles in the genre (such as Flight Simulators). -Zomic13 (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The only modification that I would do is removing the MMORPG genre. The only game with sales is Guild Wars (5 million), which goes in the franchise. WoW reports subscribers and Lineage customers, and we have an edit war about that at least once per month. Just check above in the section about Lineage, it appears that removing it would make sense (best-selling game does not imply subscribers or customers, just as we don't take into account downloads). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is that there's a certain level of inconsistency in how units are tabulated. If you consider that Pokemon Blue is merely an upgrade of Green and Red, then the question is whether or not it counts as a separate game. If it does, then the sales of Blue and Green/Red have to be separated, which may free up the spot. Also, if R/G/B can be counted together, then the Street Fighter II series between original and ' should be counted together (Super Street Fighter II warrants separate tabulation), which would knock Smash Bros. Melee off of the top spot for fighting game. As is, I feel that it is tabulated in a way that favors console exclusives. -- User:Mega Lan 2:27, 11 May 2008 (EST)

That is the problems with SKUs. These games are considered one because they were released for the same platform and with very little modifications. Street Fighter II was released for several consoles. Nintendogs and Pokémon are largely the same game for the same platform but with minimum differences. For instance, Nintendogs is counted as a single SKU by Nintendo, and they have demonstrated they treat Pokémon in the same way. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not weighing in on either side here. Just wanted to point out that what I think Mega Lan was talking about in terms of Street Fighter II is the incredibly slight differences between the original game and Street Fighter II Turbo that one could argue (and which I am not personally arguing here) are not much different than the small differences between the various Pokemon titles released for a single system. Indrian (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The graphical upgrades from Red and Green to Blue are as big as the upgrades from SFII to SFII Turbo. My main issue is that Melee's status as a fighting game is questionable as is (some call it party, others call it fighting), and if you look at the SFIIs as a whole, they handily beat out Melee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mega Lan (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Command & Conquer: Red Alert

On the Wikipedia page for Command & Conquer: Red Alert, it says Red Alert sold 12 million. I think we should make some changes to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jutjutjut321 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• On the Wikipedia page for Command & Conquer: Red Alert, it says that the Red Alert subseries of several distinct games has sold 12 million copies. I think we should learn how to read. Indrian (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If the 3 million number for Red Alert 1 is correct, then Red Alert 2 should have 9 million, but I don't see it on the top-selling PC list at all. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jutjutjut321 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• If that 12 million number is correct (and right now the statement is unsourced), it most likely also includes the expansions for both games as well, so a 9-3 split is not likely. Without further concrete sourcing, we should leave this well enough alone. If you find something, however, feel free to bring it to our attention. Indrian (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the text: "The Red Alert sub-series is certified by the Guinness Book of Records as the best selling real-time strategy game in the world, with over 12 million units sold" from the Command & Conquer: Red Alert article as it had been unsourced since since July 2007. [2] --Silver Edge (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough this old Westwood Q&A mentions 4 million and counting (see 1.4): ftp://ftp.westwood.com/pub/redalert/info/RAFAQ19.TXT 89.36.53.11 (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Sims

From the available evidence, I find it highly doubtful that The Sims has sold 50 million copies. First, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I am aware that the franchise as a whole has sold a staggering 100 million units, a mind-boggling feat. However, while it is easy to find references online for this milestone, the only source that I find for this 50 million for the original game does not come from NPD data or an official press release, but some profile in an online magazine, where the author could have quite simply made a mistake. If one examines the source that we used to have for The Sims, [[3]], it is an actual news release based on info from the company. In that release, The Sims is said to have sold 16 million units by 2005 with the franchise total at the time being 54 million. Note that this press release came soon after The Sims 2 hit the market. I find it quite simply impossible to believe that the original game sole 34 million copies AFTER Sims 2 was released. Based on this info, it seems to me that The Sims AND its expansions were probably responsible for sales of around 50 million units with sales of Sims 2 and its expansions making up the other fifty million or so. As for the 70 million number with expansions bandied about in the Eurogamer article, it really appears in context that the author made that figure up as his own guess as to how many expansion products were sold. Note that this same Eurogamer article also claims that The Sims 2 and its expansion have topped the 100 million mark which is patently false since EA has clearly stated that it is the entire Sims franchise that met that milestone. The Eurogamer article author appears to have gotten his numbers mixed up. Indrian (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that as well, unless there are expansions that can be used in both The Sims and The Sims II. We can try to find updated sales and see how they compare. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bard's Tale

I am going to remove the game from the PC list but wanted to explain why here. I have seen reputable sources give the total sales of the first game as 300,000 (print sources, not web unfortuneately) , which makes much more sense in the context of 1980s computer gaming where around 300,000 copies sold signified a major hit. Most likely, the press release was tallying the sales of both The Bard's Tale and its two sequels. Note that a different press release available here [4] does, in fact, state that one million in sales was for all three games combined. Indrian (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, here we have a problem then. The October 2003 release says The original game and two sequels sold more than one million units worldwide combined and later spawned a series of books. But the November 2003 says "After selling more than one million units worldwide, The Bard's Tale became a #1 best-seller and later spawned two sequels and a series of books." (first sold a million, then came the sequels). So, which one we believe? I am always one to pick the later reference, which supposedly fixes inaccuracies in previous statements, so we need more comments about this. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I have a print source (the book High Score) that gives sales of 300,000 units, which makes a lot more sense. I don't know how much you know about 1980s computer game sales, but this would put it in the realm of big hits of the period like Pinball Construction Set (300,000), Skyfox (320,000), and Starflight (250,000, the first game released originally on the IBM PC to sell that many copies). The 1984 EA game Seven Cities of Gold was considered a hit selling only 150,000 copies, as was the 1984 Epyx game Summer Games, which only managed around 100,000 in sales. LucasArts did not even have a game reach 100,000 in sales until PHM Pegasus in 1987. Sierra was one of the most important computer game companies of the decade, but not one King's Quest, Space Quest, or Leisure Suit Larry game hit one million in sales, as 1995's Phantasmagoria was the first release from the company to reach that mark. We therefore have two sources that refute a one million unit claim versus one that claims that many sales and a logical explanation both in terms of how the one million number even entered the picture at all and how computer games sold generally circa 1985. Just because the one press release comes later than the other is no guarantee that it is more accurate, and you should also note that different companies released each press release since U.S. and European distribution were handled by two different companies (Vivendi and Acclaim). With a little source critique, there is no reason to believe Bard's Tale sold one million copies. Update: As I was writing this, I saw that google books has a High Score preview with the page that gives the sales figure [5]. Indrian (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This was you, right? I usually revert changes done by IPs to talks from others, but I guess it is you who forgot to sign. If the book was published in 2003 it means it was written before the press release, so the press release is actually newer. I won't reply from the second sentence onwards, because it is plain original research. We should not judge what is a "hit selling" in "1980s computer game sales". We only report data, analysis is left to researchers. I still stand by my original comment: others should discuss as well here. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that wikipedia is an encyclopedia that needs to strive for accuracy in its reporting. A source can only be used in such a setting if it has proven to be reliable. The one million claim in the press release cannot be considered reliable because it is contradicted by two other reputable sources, a second press release and a video game history book released by a mainstream publisher. To say that one source is more accurate than the other two because it is newer has no grounding in good research as accuracy has nothing to do with the date something is released (or are you implying that between 2003 and 2006 a game released in 1985 sold another 700,000 copies?). Wikipedia can only use sources that are beyond repute, and I have illustrated that this press release is not. How many copies the game actually sold is irrelevent compared to maintaning the scholastic integrity of wikipedia. To report a number brought into dispute without providing additional indicia of its reliablility would be irresponsible. Indrian (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I work based on Wikipedia's very simple concept: Verifiability, not truth. We don't care if it is true or not, we only care about whether it can be verified or not. We have two contradicting information, and per undue weight both points of view should be included. However, I also work according to consensus, that is why I am hoping others will come and comment. I don't care if I am right or wrong, I just supply a reliable source, make an argument, counter your argument, and wait to see what others think. Most of the times I remain neutral. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The verifiability requirement is based on reliable sources. A twice contradicted source is not reliable. Indrian (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because 2 > 1? I could counter that by saying the press release is newer than the book and the press release you pointed, and I can say they have fixed the amounts after a misunderstanding. Our Street Fighter franchise shows 25m instead of 27m just because newer references say 25m instead of the old 27m. Gran Turismo franchise said 50m at one point, but now we are using 48m (IIRC) because it is what was stated in the latest press release. Again, due undue weight, all points should be shown. However, I am not one to cling to something unnecessarily. I made my point clear: others should opine too. If they agree with you, it is fine. If they agree with me, it is fine. I don't really care. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Date and accuracy have absolutely no correlation with the exception of a newer edition of the exact same source or a printed retraction of some kind. Lets say that tomorrow the greatest, most in depth book on World War II ever created by one of the leading experts in the field hits store shelves. This book is accurate on nearly all points and easily passes the reliability threshold required by wikipedia, but states that the bombing of Pearl Harbor took place on November, 7 1941 due to an oversight. According to your logic, due to the verifiability and undue weight policies we would have to put this alternate point of view into wikipedia because we only care about verifiability and not truth. In fact, it would be the most reliable source for the date of the bombing because it is the newest source written on the topic. Sure, every other reliable source says it happened on December 7, but they are older and 100,000 > 1 is not important to the evaluation. Care to explain how this fits in your logic? Indrian (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Show me first your 100,000 references that state TBT sold a million combined and then I will reply ;-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't back up your postition when presented with the extreme end result of your logic eh. 2>1 does not equal strong reliability, but neither does one having a later date than the others. The point is that none of the sources can be used in this article because the one million number cannot be verified due to contradictions among the few available sources. In fact, crediting the later press release as being correct just because it was released a little later would be giving that source undue weight, which you claim to believe is a bad idea above. Indrian (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't fight straw men. Comparing our case where we have two old references saying something and a newer one saying something else with a fictional case where there is one reference against a hundred thousand and the applying the solution to our case is a fallacy. My position is to give others the chance to give an opinion. Yours is, apparently, settle this once and don't allow further discussion. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on since yesterday, does it look like anyone else cares? Where exactly have I said "no one else may comment here"? Also, your definition of straw man is very interesting. Please explain how your comment "I work based on Wikipedia's very simple concept: Verifiability, not truth. We don't care if it is true or not, we only care about whether it can be verified or not" works with my above example. If a source that meets wikipedia's standards of reliability gives a fact that is known to be in error it would still be included according to your philosophy that I have actually quoted above. It is this philosophy that I am attacking, which means there is no straw man since I am responding to an actual position that you have articulated. If I have misunderstood your position, then please feel free to correct me. You have yet to say how you would handle that situation in a way that would not contradict said philosophy. I don't really expect you to be able to come up with such a solution, because this is an example on how every situation must be handled on a case-by-case basis rather than through some univeral platitude. The accuracy of the press release cannot be verified due to contradiction from other reliable sources, which is why even under a broad reading of the verifiability requirement the source cannot stand and the number cannot be quoted on this page. Indrian (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So you want to solve everything in a single day? Give it a week at least. I presented my side, and you keep refuting it. It gives the impression you are fixed in your position and will not turn back from it. If I were pushing my side, I would have restored the edit (which I would have been able according to the edit-revert-discuss and the one-revert rules), but I didn't.

In your fictional example, I would have brought the point and let others discuss it, staying neutral (or clarifying my position if necessary). It is just what I did some time ago when I found another reference for the amount of James Bond films.

I find it interesting that, at one side, you say the accuracy of one press release cannot verified because you have a contradicting one. Wouldn't that mean, as well, that the other's accuracy cannot be verified for the same reason? So, we have a position where we can either keep the game adding that the accuracy of the source can be disputed, or remove it until clarified. I haven't objected the removal "per se", I am just stating we need more opinions about the matter.

I am getting tired of all this. I understand your main points: you got more references, and there is no way to verify the accuracy of the press release used as reference. I hope you understand mine: in the same way, you cannot verify the accuracy of the contradicting references, and that we need someone else to weight in here. I don't care if that "someone else" comes tomorrow or in a year, or never. Since you like these fictional arguments, maybe you can answer one: if ten people come and say the reference is newer and cannot be misunderstood, and that the previous ones wrong, would you accept consensus? The way you are reacting leads me to think no.

I think I am done with this discussion. Both sides presented their point of view, and I am happy with that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just two things to quickly state here. One, just to clarify my position is exactly that none of the sources should be used on this page due to verifiability issues, as I have stated once or twice above. I agree that the older sources are not necessarily more accurate than the newer and believe the game should just be left off period at this point. Second, to answer your question I believe that consensus has to be the governing priciple of wikipedia or the system does not work. If ten people were to disagree with me I think it unlikely that they would provide arguments I found convincing so in that sense I would not be swayed. On the other hand, I would not try to assert my viewpoint on the page against the wishes of ten other people. Indrian (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One vote for Indrian's opinion. The quality of a source is the most important factor. I also agree on the argument "Date and accuracy have absolutely no correlation with the exception of a newer edition of the exact same source or a printed retraction of some kind.". I greatly admire ReyBrujo's effort to keep this page as good as he can, but I beg you not to be too hasty. What you wrote, "I work based on Wikipedia's very simple concept: Verifiability, not truth. We don't care if it is true or not, we only care about whether it can be verified or not.", is very bad. I must strongly disagree. We should struggle for accuracy, since, at least for me, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia meant to collect the knowledge of humankind, and as such, should always be correct. Indrians arguments are well said. I know it's not an easy job to decide which source is more reliable than the other, but I have a good basic method.

When something strongly contradicts the majority of data I saw and my personal knowledge about the given field, I tend to query that new piece of data, and will only accept it as true after some research. In this case, my general idea is that the article about 1 million copies sold can't be considered being in the same league as a printed book. I'm a regular visitor of this page, and usually stay as a silent spectator, but now I felt it necessary to state my opinion. Thank you for the chance. --Csdani84 (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One vote for ReyBrujo´s opinion. The search for truth is for researchers, and Wikipedia does not research. Wikipedia look what other researchers have said, and if it comes from reliable sources, Wikipedia also says it. Anyway, I praise both ReyBrujo and Indian for trying to make Wikipedia a better place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yawmoght (talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all fine and good, but the problem is we have different reliable sources saying different things. As soon as we decide one source is right and the others are wrong (which is what we do if we include the one million figure), then we have begun our own quest for truth. If reliable sources cannot agree and we cannot decide which source is right because that would be original research, then we must just avoid discussing the issue entirely. Indrian (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

GTA 4

I removed GTA 4 from the list as the source provided didn't explicitly state that 1 million had been sold - it just said that 1 million people had played the game on LIVE - which could mean that two or more people were playing the same copy of the game.

However, there's not a doubt in my mind that the game has already sold well over a million copies, but I feel we should wait at least a few weeks to try and get some solid numbers. Any thoughts? 124.186.60.227 (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with the general idea. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

GTAIV does not have split-screen gameplay or anything (no "guest" support), therefore every user playing that game on XBL is a unique one - same goes for CoD4 which this game surpassed. Fine with me though, I'm sure there'll be something more concrete in a few days. SeanMooney (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The number of people on Live could be augmented with used (resold) or shared disks. And with people playing pirated versions of the game. Live numbers should not be used to establish sales numbers.APL (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As of today, someone listed 6 million sales for the PS3 version of GTA4, the problem with that being that there was no source given and the subtext along the lines of "Xbox 360 sales included." I just removed it from the PS3 list entirely: If it's on there, it needs a source of some sort, and I see no good reason to include the numbers for the 360 version sales in the PS3 section. Vyran (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed GTA4 from the Xbox 360 section as well. Like in the PS3 section, there is no source to validate the number of sales, so there's no way to see where on the list it should actually be. Vyran (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

List

This list is sorta incomplete. It does not mention copies of games sold in Europe, Australasia, and other regions. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 05:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is why it has {{dynamic list}} at the top. Numbers for those regions are harder to come by than numbers for America or Japan. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Just so the editors here know, I've requested that this page be semi'd due to constant IP vandalism at least within the past 24 hours. Thought I'd help make Silver Edge's work load a bit lighter. --haha169 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it was declined. However...the history page is loaded with junk it is quite impossible to locate anything. I'll try again some time later if the amount of disruption increases. --haha169 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying though. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The issue does seem to have died down a bit, though. These guys are becoming uncreative. Playstation 3 -> Playstation 2... --haha169 (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous column

I suggest creating a "Miscellaneous" list with the sales of games we cannot split, like Oblivion for Xbox 360 and PC, GTA4 for PS3 and Xbox 360, etc, etc. This is something we should have created some time ago, but pops up again everytime a multiplatform game is launched (and people want to put it their favorite console list). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is already listed in the "Xbox 360" section, it's just missing a PC version sales figure. Perhaps you meant The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, which used to be on the list. Depending on how the "Miscellaneous" section works, other candidates for the section might be Fable, BioShock, Grand Theft Auto III, GTA: Vice City, GTA: Vice City Stories, and Guild Wars. As for Grand Theft Auto IV, all we have to do is wait for NPD to release their April sales figures and we'll know exactly how many copies of GTA4 were sold for each platform in the US and possibly Canada, which should be over a million for each platform, but we can add it to the proposed "Miscellaneous" section until then. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with a "Miscellaneous" section is that it can become very long, very quickly just by adding in all the sports games over the years. -Zomic13 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the main objection. However, multiplatform games that hit a million belong to this list (otherwise it would be "list of best-selling single-platform video games". -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A game that needs six platforms to cross a million is not as notable as one that does it on a single platform. -Zomic13 (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That is true. But we don't measure "who is more notable", we just report all the notable ones. If a best-selling game is defined as one that sells a million units. A best-selling album doesn't mean it has been sold only as cassette, it could have been sold in many different media formats. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am all for creating such a list, but I feel that there are a few issues with this idea that we need to discuss first before implementing. See section below for discussion. -08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Multi-platform Section Issues

If we do make a "Miscellaneous" section (which should really be called a "Multi-platform" section) we need to discuss a few issues first. Please provide your thoughts on the following and add any issues you think are worthy of discussion. -Zomic13 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• If a sales figure is available for the combined total of all games, yet we already have the individual platform sales numbers listed, do we feature it? What if the combined total is more recent or adds up to a different amount from the individual platforms?
  • I think that the combined sales total should be listed, regardless of whether individual sales totals are also listed. Otherwise the list would seem skewed in favor of some games simply because individual sales numbers are not available. -Zomic13 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, people put it in the console they support ;-) Right now, we are listing sales information, and shipped if found and smaller than the sold numbers available. Adding multiplatform titles will make the list unreadable. Is that a useful number there? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Should this section be featured in this article or in its own, new article? This page is already very long and large in size (~125k). A multiplatform list will very likely also be large in size, adding significantly to its length.
  • Having the list in its own article could also solve the other issue I brought up (about having both multi-platform and individual system sales numbers). That way it wouldn't seem like we are featuring a lot of duplicate data. -Zomic13 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A game that sells a million copies, no matter the media, should fit the "best-selling" definition. It is not different from games for different countries, or books in different languages, or with different covers, etc. But I agree, this list is too long. Maybe we should create a draft of multiplatform games, and see how it looks like? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• What do we do about the list of Top 20 best-selling games? Do we add in multi-platform games? Do we create a new separate list for these games?
  • This is a special case, though. Would that be a useful list? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

By Generation

What do you think about creating a new section (maybe after By genre) for the best selling games by generation? SOAD KoRn (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I think those would be better in the articles about the generations, because "generations" are not clear (Where are Dreamcast? In the same generation as the Saturn? In the same generation as the N64?). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Top 20 console games of all time

Should the No1 spot be held by "Pokémon Red, Blue, and Green"? They're seperate games really, might be exactly the same, but I don't feel that they should be counted as one game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.129.8 (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just like Nintendogs, they are apparently considered a single game for the developer. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

World Million Sellers games in VG Chartz

Visiting the website http://vgchartz.com/, you can take a look at the world wide videogame and console sales. The site is refreshed every week and is reliable. But, i.e., today I changed the total sales for the Wii games with reference to vgchartz.com, but someone deleted the changes i made...

Anyway, please just stop changing it to incorrect total sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono kazumi (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently, WP:VG does not consider VG Chartz a reliable source, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 38#Old Game Boy game sales, and VG Chartz and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 38#VGChartz re-visited. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We aren't a mirror of VGChartz. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Vgchartz isn't 100% reliable, the site creator even admits it. While no sales data is completely reliable, we're best off sticking with press releases and the like. If the article took all its data from Vgchartz.com, you might as well not have the article. You might as well remove all the games and just link to the site.

MontanaHatchet (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sonic Mobile

According to this article, Sonic Mobile got over 8 million downloads. In these cases, downloads are sales (because there are not trials, just the game which you download after you pay). However, I want to see if someone objects adding it to the list of mobile games with over a million sales. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Got another source that states sales and not downloads, so I will be using that one for the time being. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Madden NFL 06

The Magic Box has Madden NFL 06 for the PS2 listed twice on their US Platinum chart. It's listed here as 3.71 million, but on The Magic Box it's listed as "Madden NFL 06" with 3.71 and "Madden NFL 2006" with 3.77. Should the list use the 3.77 million figure as it is the larger figure of the two? --Silver Edge (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Crysis at 3m?

Apparently the July 2008 PC Gamer UK issue has such statement. If anyone can supply the missing information (article title, author and page at least), we will be able to finish fulfilling the reference. Otherwise, we will have to go back to the old 1 million reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems 96.250.14.125 (talk · contribs), who changed Crysis' sales figure to 3 million in this article, also made a similar change to the Crysis article [6]; however, after Radare (talk · contribs) removed the IP's changes to the sales figure in the Crysis article, the IP went and readded the previous 1 million figure to that article. [7] So I've readded Crysis with the previous 1 million figure and source. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing we will get the citation on July, but for now it is the best step without having the exact information. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdated Statistics

Almost all of the statistics are out of date. I know where to find recent ones, but I do not know how to make refrences to it. The site is vgchartz.com. Can anyone help me with this? 67.173.143.88 (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the #World Million Sellers games in VG Chartz section. --Silver Edge (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You know the article policy. It's better having horribly outdated data than data that can be inaccurate but has also proven to have been correct on several occasions.

MontanaHatchet (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Wikipedia's policy: as long as it was correct at one time, then even if it's REALLY wrong it's okay. By the way, Assassin's Creed has sold 6 million units - not just over 1 million. That's according to Ubisoft, and the figures have been available for months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.186.198 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Diablo 2

The figures for Diablo 2 do not match what the article on Diablo 2 says. The source is obviously outdated (2001). The source quoted in the article is newer (2006) but the figures quoted are a sum of Diablo + Diablo 2 sale. The article says 17 million and if both numbers are true that would mean 11 million copies for Diablo and 5 million for Diablo 2 which is obviously untrue. Please fix it with some better source or at least make the numbers match up.

Stilgar (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Look Stilgar, this page will never be 100% accurate because it can only be updated when a new reliable figure appears and companies in the video game industry guard sales figures zealously, generally only releasing numbers when they can put a positive spin on the information to generate increased consumer and investor interest. As far as we know (not that I have personally done a comprehensive search or anything) there is no more recent figure for Diablo II sales. We cannot make the numbers match in the manner you suggest because it would be irresponsible to extrapolate sales of one game based on the criteria you set forth. Also, no one has a responsibility to fix this article. If YOU would like to search the web and print sources for an updated Diablo II sales figure, don't let us stop you. Otherwise, please refrain from making ridiculous demands. Indrian (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Suppose you have two games, Diablo and Diablo II. Now, suppose we also have a reference for the sales of Diablo, 11 million, and the total sales, 17 million. Now, anyone would say "If Diablo and Diablo II sold 17 million, and Diablo sold 11 million alone, we can say Diablo II sold 6 million". However, according to Wikipedia policies, that is original research. We cannot make assumptions like that because we report plain data, we don't study it. So, obviously either Diablo sold 12 million or Diablo II sold 6 million, but since we don't have references for those numbers, we can only hope to find one. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making this clear. My point was slightly different though. I just pointed out that one of the article contradicts to the other. If the figures are true for the article of Diablo 2 why are not they true here. Though after your explaination I can see why you cannot change them. Also I am not making a demand I was just hoping that someone more experienced on the subject will handle this. As you can see if I had changed the numbers myself I would have violated Wikipedia's policy. I never assumed that it is someone's duty to fix the article. Sorry if it sounds that way. Stilgar (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

General reference

Looking at reference 19, I think it would be better to have "General References" instead of having 182 citations for a single reference -- Coasttocoast (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But a general reference "invites" other general references like VGChartz which we don't want here. Also, having numbers without pointing to a singular reference may be misunderstood (and as time passes, harder to verify). Ideally, we would never use a single reference more than a few times, because we prefer diversity of sources. Unfortunately, it is pretty hard to find good references for old numbers like the ones given by The Magic Box. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing the introducing text

There should be a clear text, explaining exactly what this list tells the reader. That text should also make it clear to the reader that there are several numbers which have only been counted in US/AS, EU/US, and so on. I don't want to wright one myself, because i suck at writing those kinds of texts. 81.227.177.252 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is a good idea. The article as it exists is not an accurate reflection of game sales, but rather as accurate a picture as can be put together based on available data. I think an intro that explains where the numbers come from and the difficulties involved in obtaining accurate numbers should be addressed in the intro. Indrian (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a disclaimer about accuracy, though, because that is included in our general disclaimer. We could explain that we are not using combined platform sales, and that for mobile games "downloaded" usually mean "sales", just as "units sold" for PC games usually count expansions as well. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure which disclaimer you are referring to. If it is the general disclaimer about the list being incomplete, I do not think that relates to what I am getting at. I think a perception problem that could develop with this list is that since every figure is sourced, a reader coming in here will believe that every number quoted is the accurate gospel truth of where that game stands in total sales. Indeed, every so often we get someone posting to this talk apge about how this or that needs to be updated or contradicts another article on the site. A general introduction stating that not all figures may be accurate and explaining why accurate sales figures are difficult to obtain would alleviate this issue. Its a minor point and not one that makes or breaks the list, but I feel it may be more academically honest than sourcing all these figures and leaving it to the reader to figure out how accurate we are. Indrian (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe ReyBrujo was referring to the WP:General disclaimer that is found at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia. Also see WP:No disclaimers in articles. --Silver Edge (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, an analysis of where video game sales numbers come from and why accurate numbers are hard to obtain would not be a disclaimer it seems to me. Indrian (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

May GTA4 sales (U.S.A)

360 = 871 300, PS3 = 442 900

Should be added to the stats dawgzzzzzzzzzzzz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.163.170 (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Call of Duty 4 at ten million

In an article over at C-net, they say that Call of Duty 4 has sold 10 million as of June 3. This certainly puts the PS3 version of Call of Duty 4 over a million and the 360 version at a higher number, since it claims in the article that the 360 version sold best. Can someone try to find individual figures for the PC, PS3, and Xbox 360? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.223.14 (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

MMORPG, final take (hopefully)

(See Lineage 2 does not have 14 million customers for previous discussion).

Basically, what should we consider for MMORPGs: Subscribers, customers, sales? If subscribers, World of Warcraft has almost 11m. If customers, Lineage II has 14m. If sales, Guild Wars has 5m. I never really liked this genre in the list because we are talking about best-selling, not most-subscribed or similar. My suggestion is to create a new column for MMORPGs and not include them in the genre list, or remove them all altogether. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I second this, I will not repost everything I said in the previous thread, but comparing MMORPG subscriptions/customers/etc. to game sales is a true apples and oranges kind of situation. Indrian (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Another option is to send all the information we have here to Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games#Statistics table, since it is virtually the same. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WoW has 10 million subscribers and therefore has over 10 million sales. If any MMO goes on the list it will be WoW; the MMO which currently holds a world record for being the most popular MMO (and for holding the largest virtual beer festival but that it besides the point). It is impossible to list "customer" or "sales" as very few MMOs make that kind of information public. The list is "best-selling" but as we have no information regarding sales (only subscriptions) then I feel it would be best to omit the category entirely. Of course it would be better to be as inclusive as possible but it is only one line of text and it would be shame for people to get the wrong idea about the MMORPG market (not to mention the fact that listing an MMO other than WoW as the "best selling" brings the article's credibility into question). ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We cannot assume 1 subscriber = 1 sale, though, otherwise, Blizzard would have mentioned that just like NCSoft does. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

One subscriber DOES = 1 sale. There is no assumption required. To subscribe one must buy the game. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 03:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why they don't mention it in the press releases? That is why we specify "subscriber", "customer" or whatever, because we cannot be sure if they are equal to sales. Assuming that is original research, and we have tried pretty hard to keep that out of the article. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The 10 million subscribers would mean that there are at least 10 million sales. Sure there might be more copies out there (of people who stopped subscribing or for some reason bought the game and never subscribed), but there certainly isn't going to be less. -Zomic13 (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ameliorate is correct that in order to have an account in WOW, a person must buy a copy of the boxed game. A single account may have multiple characters, but if two people in the same household want to play the game at the same time, they must buy two boxed copies of the game to have two accounts. What I do not know is if the term "subscriber" and the term "account" mean the same thing. Depending on how Blizzard defines "subscriber" it may not be an accurate reflextion of sales. Since MMORPGs use different lingo, I think it is appropriate to list them separately. Indrian (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think we should take MMO's out of the list of best selling PC games and other lists and leave them to their own list. Because at the moment lineague 2 has been put above wow, yet the chances are that wow has probally seen 140 million customers over its lifetime. This estimate is that lingeague 2 has 1 million subscribers and 14 million customers, so if wow has 10 million active subscribers, its customers by that stanadard should be somewhere very roughly in the ballpark of collectively 140 million customers. So i think we should remove them from best selling pc game, especailly as their positions are very very likely to be totaly wrong as they are now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.193.99 (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 4

MGS4 seems to be over a million now, according to some sources: http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=6970 75.157.133.116 (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No VGChartz. There is a big template on the top of the talk page... --haha169 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated PS3 List and Xbox 360 List

I just updated the PS3 list with FULL SOURCES and some idiot has changed it back? What the hell is that all about? Those numbers are all WRONG! Its the same the Xbox 360 list. They are all well out! Both GTAs on both systems have sold well over 4 million each! Is there something retarded going on or what?

I also don't understand why no one says no VGChartz. Its perfectly acceptable, they have fully updated lists every week! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andysimo123 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A consensus has been found to indicate that VGCharts is a bad source for this list, as it does not have actual sales figures or professional estimates. Artichoker^[talk] 15:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and do not make personal attacks. Concerning VG Chartz, see #World Million Sellers games in VG Chartz. --Silver Edge (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Vice City and GTA III for PS2

The source used (#127) for the units sold total of these two games is for every version of these games, not just the PS2 version. Therefore, it is incorrect to use the source for PS2 units sold.

The source in question is: #127 "Recommendation of the Board of Directors to Reject Electronic Arts Inc.'s Tender Offer" (PDF) 12, 14, 16, 20. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (March 26, 2008).--Dhyancraig (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Dhyancraig

Sounds like that, yes. I have always wanted to remove all those games that combine platforms (although a best-seller is a best-seller regardless of the format). Can we find independent sources for those games? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Magic Box has the US sales of GTA III and Vice City PS2 versions, while Japan Game Charts has the Japan sales. --Silver Edge (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine enough, should we make the change? It will bring some complains around, but I would be fine with that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the change, since it would remove the bias currently associated with the GTA III and Vice City sales figures. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made the proposed changes and have also removed Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories from the list, since that was the only source that stated it had sold over a million copies. [8] --Silver Edge (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Forza Motorsport

Hasn't Forza sold 1 million worldwide? 76.126.15.78 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mario Kart Wii

(2.704 million approximately: 1.584 million in Japan,[79] 1.12 million in US)

1.584 million + 1.12 million = 2.704 million

These figures seem to indicate that the game sold no copies at all outside of Japan and the US, which is clearly untrue. --Az bont (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, unfortunately we don't have numbers for Europe (that is why we add the "approximately" there, we could have used "over", "at least" or "not counting Europe", but we have been using it for so long...). Once numbers are available for Europe (or worldwide figures) we will update the numbers. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On the page it said that mario kart wii is the best selling non bundled game on the wii.Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.211.41 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Newest Wii Fit sales

Hey all, just letting you know that the newest Wii Fit sales of 3.42 million is it's sales for April - June 2008 only. It sold more earlier, especially in Japan. (Check the reference if you don't believe me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.36.2 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Dancter (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Ocean: The Second Story sales numbers

According to the tri-Ace website Star Ocean: The Second Story has sold(don't know whether it's to costumers or retailers) 1,094,000 units worldwide. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the list, thanks for the source! --Silver Edge (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 4

http://kotaku.com/5033383/metal-gear-solid-4-is-a-giant-angry-sales-pac+man-ships-394m-copies shipped 3,94 million copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.8.98 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Playstation 3 sales

Information about ps3 game sales should be correct to following data

1. Grand Theft Auto IV ( 4.31M )
2. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare ( 3.52M )
3. Motorstorm ( 3.42M )
4. Resistance: Fall of Man ( 3.04M )
5. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (3.03M)
6. Assassins Creed (2.83)
7. Gran Turismo 5 Prologue (1.97 )
8. Uncharted: Drakes Fortune (1.73 )
9. Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 ( 1.69 )
10. FIFA 08 1.52
11. Guitar Hero III 1.45
12. Need for speed prostreet 1.31
13. ratchet and clank future tod 1.28
14. devil may cry 4 1.24
15. heavenly sword 1.15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neki-bezveze (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I formatted your post. Note that you did not mention any reference at all, so they cannot be considered reliable amounts. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden II

According to this, Ninja Gaiden II has sold over a million units, it says "over one million fans", so that means that it's to consumers, but I don't know what to think. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Commodore 64 computer

Why is the C64 under the heading 'console', it should go under the heading 'computer'. If you want to leave it under 'console', it should say 'C64GS'. Tomtomtomabc123 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... could be... we were thinking PC as new PCs, but it could be. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Recon Advanced Warrior?

GRAW is listed twice under the 360, once with 1.21 million and then for 1 million even. Any reason for this? 72.19.152.183 (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The 1.21m one is the first game Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, the 1m one is the second game in the series, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

US/Japan sales

The Nintendo console game sales divide between US and Japanese sales. Wherever these are stated, the maths don't leave a single copy sold in PAL territories? There is definitely something wrong here. E.g.:
Mario Kart: Double Dash sold 4.676 million approximately
said to be 3.85 million in US, 825,894 in Japan (add up to 4.676 million)
So they didn't even sell the game in Europe? Or sales in Europe don't count as sales? - Comartinb (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating how many copies have been sold in Europe? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

US and Japan both have organizations that track sales numbers and release those numbers publicly (weekly in Japan, monthly in US). While Europe also has a similar organization, they do not release sales numbers publicly. Thus that is the reason why we only have US and Japan sales numbers for a lot of games. As ReyBrujo said, if you have a reliable source providing European/PAL sales numbers, than they can certainly be added. -Zomic13 (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Deca Sports ships 1 million copies

According to this Deca Sports(known as Sports Island in Europe) has shipped 1 million units. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks! Whenever you find these games we have not added, feel free to add them to the article. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rock Band

According to Microsoft the Rock Band franchise has sold nearly 2 million in the US on Xbox 360. Being that Rock Band 2 just came out in September and has sold 363,000 units, that would obviously mean the rest of sales were of the first Rock Band.[9] [10] There aren't any hard numbers in their press release but I think you could put down "at least 1 million in US" similar to how The Orange Box is listed. SeanMooney (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the wording is found in the Orange Box article (I think the Xbox 360 version did just over a million) while in this Rock Band you need to assume that there are only two games, and that sales for one is equal to sales of the franchise minus sales from the newest version. The problem here is that next year, once Rock Band 3 is released, the reader would have to first guess there were two games in the franchise by the time he reads the reference. Also, WP:SYN could apply (A+B=C cannot be used in articles unless you find a reference for that). Personally, I would wait for a reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Arcade Games

Could arcade games be put on this list? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... has any arcade game ever hit a million copies? Not even Street Fighter II sold that many, if I recall correctly... maybe we could keep an arcade list in the talk page to see how it goes. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, no arcade games have sold a million copies. However, that is not a good rubric for measuring arcade game success anyway since that industry is not about moving cabinets so much as how many people put quarters in those cabinets. At the height of the golden age, there were 10,000 arcades in the United States plus who knows how many games in bus stations, bars, Laundromats, bowling alleys, ice cream and pizza parlors, etc. Obviosuly, that number is far lower now. There are good sources for units sold of many arcade machines in that era, which provides a baseline for what constitutes arcade success. I am not going to cite anything I list on this talk page, but citations are available for all these figures should we put arcade games on the page itself.

The best-selling arcade cabinet of all time in the United States was Ms. Pac-Man at 115,000 units. 'Pac-Man was another incredible success with sales of 100,000 units. Atari's best-selling game was Asteroids, which moved 70,000 in the United States and 30,000 units overseas. The company's second best seller was Centipede at 50,000 units. Space Invaders moved 100,000 units in Japan and at least 60,000 in the United States. Defender was a 55,000 unit machine, while Donkey Kong clocks in at 60,000. Capcom has not released official figures for how well Street Fighter II sold, but reliable industry estimates place the number at 60,000 cabinets, which has been reported in reliable sources as the most units any arcade machine moved after the 1982-83 crash. Based on this data, it appears that 50,000 units would be a good cutoff for a hit arcade machine, as every game I have listed here is considered one of the biggest games of its time. Don't really care myself one way or another whether arcade games are included or not, but if we don't include them I do not think it would be right to dismiss them just for not selling a million copies because the business model is completely different. Indrian (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lineage II customers vs World of Warcraft subscribers

Isn't it a bit unfair to compare lineage customers to wow subscribers? On subscribers alone it sounds like lineage is dramatically less - http://gigaom.com/2007/06/13/top-ten-most-popular-mmos/ .

79.79.72.195 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do NOT delete the Colecovision entry, as it is stated by NINTENDO that the Coleco system sold 6 million Donkey Kong, as the court case Nintendo/Coleco vs MCA/Universal proves. Refer to book Game Over, page 117. Also in the book on page 121: Donkey Kong cartridges sold for Coleco system: 6 million, translated into $4.6 million. DO NOT DELETE THE COLECOVISION ENTRY. Tomtomtomabc123 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)