Thank you, Belly. You did in one post what he couldn't do in sixty posts. You really came in to save him from disaster.
Numbers Discussion Thread
- Thread starter The Wolf King
- Start date
- Status
They are over 10 million copies sold
Horizon is within 10% if they stopped selling copies after 2 weeks. Pretty laughable given what we know
And those are just random examples. Could go on for days with more.
Since you are trying to push it, Horizon: Zero Dawn's sales haven't been updated on VGChartz since March 17th, a whole month. The same with Ni-Oh. That's why. And since you are pushing the Rocket League thing too, it's probably a black sheep. The game being released for free at the start probably threw off their ability to track and predict sales. I don't see anything out of order.
Plus copies aren't sales
They have Witcher 3 under 6. It was said to be near 10 last year.
They have South Park at 2. It sold over 5.
And don't even look at Minecraft.
It goes on and on
Digital sales threw VGChartz for a loop for a good year or two I'm sure, but most of their recent predicts have been doing a lot better now that I've seen. It was just a transition phase for the industry as a whole.
You didn't quote anything from the links. She did. You just posted links to random lengthy articles hoping it would have something in it that I would argue against. Same thing you did with posting links to random forum posters who don't get their stuff right.Um.....you know she got that from one of the links I posted
Sorry you didnt want to click on more than one link and read 
You said provide links and I did. But no please continue to spin everything now it's entertaining.
Ooh and that forum poster was right. They under tracked the game yet you claim they are reliable and accurate.
Here another bit from the link you didnt read in which they admit to making up numbers,
In particular, the site widely and loudly disseminated to the media its worldwide Day 1 Metal Gear Solid 4 sales, explaining:
"VGChartz can exclusively reveal that first day sales of Metal Gear Solid 4, released on June 12th 2008 in most major markets worldwide, were an impressive 1.3 million units."
The headline actually originally read 1.5 million, but was changed by a not insignificant 200,000 units after publication. Even more surprisingly, the figure debuted just 48 hours after the launch of the game - not a lot of time to compile data from retail sources.
I asked Brett Walton about the change, and why this figure was not advertised a little more prominently as an estimate, given the short amount of time to get real data, and he explained:
"It was based on first day Japan sales, first day America sales, and from that projecting for Europe / others which we didn't get direct day 1 for. We projected Europe would be ~20% higher than America given the larger install base and based on previous game releases, but it turned out at 430k for the week vs 510k for America - whereas we estimated it at more like 600k given America and Japan figures."
Firstly, Walton freely admits the numbers were based on zero actual data for the entire European market, just pure extrapolation. It's also very unclear how far the estimates for launch were based on real retail data for Japan and North America.
You said provide links and I did. But no please continue to spin everything now it's entertaining.
Ooh and that forum poster was right. They under tracked the game yet you claim they are reliable and accurate.
Here another bit from the link you didnt read in which they admit to making up numbers,
In particular, the site widely and loudly disseminated to the media its worldwide Day 1 Metal Gear Solid 4 sales, explaining:
"VGChartz can exclusively reveal that first day sales of Metal Gear Solid 4, released on June 12th 2008 in most major markets worldwide, were an impressive 1.3 million units."
The headline actually originally read 1.5 million, but was changed by a not insignificant 200,000 units after publication. Even more surprisingly, the figure debuted just 48 hours after the launch of the game - not a lot of time to compile data from retail sources.
I asked Brett Walton about the change, and why this figure was not advertised a little more prominently as an estimate, given the short amount of time to get real data, and he explained:
"It was based on first day Japan sales, first day America sales, and from that projecting for Europe / others which we didn't get direct day 1 for. We projected Europe would be ~20% higher than America given the larger install base and based on previous game releases, but it turned out at 430k for the week vs 510k for America - whereas we estimated it at more like 600k given America and Japan figures."
Firstly, Walton freely admits the numbers were based on zero actual data for the entire European market, just pure extrapolation. It's also very unclear how far the estimates for launch were based on real retail data for Japan and North America.
The forum poster was not right. Those games were within 5% margin of error. That's not inaccurate. He also said vgchartz doesn't edit numbers. All your links are long-winded and provide contradictory information.Sorry you didnt want to click on more than one link and read
You said provide links and I did. But no please continue to spin everything now it's entertaining.
Ooh and that forum poster was right. They under tracked the game yet you claim they are reliable and accurate.
Here another bit from the link you didnt read in which they admit to making up numbers,
In particular, the site widely and loudly disseminated to the media its worldwide Day 1 Metal Gear Solid 4 sales, explaining:
"VGChartz can exclusively reveal that first day sales of Metal Gear Solid 4, released on June 12th 2008 in most major markets worldwide, were an impressive 1.3 million units."
The headline actually originally read 1.5 million, but was changed by a not insignificant 200,000 units after publication. Even more surprisingly, the figure debuted just 48 hours after the launch of the game - not a lot of time to compile data from retail sources.
I asked Brett Walton about the change, and why this figure was not advertised a little more prominently as an estimate, given the short amount of time to get real data, and he explained:
"It was based on first day Japan sales, first day America sales, and from that projecting for Europe / others which we didn't get direct day 1 for. We projected Europe would be ~20% higher than America given the larger install base and based on previous game releases, but it turned out at 430k for the week vs 510k for America - whereas we estimated it at more like 600k given America and Japan figures."
Firstly, Walton freely admits the numbers were based on zero actual data for the entire European market, just pure extrapolation. It's also very unclear how far the estimates for launch were based on real retail data for Japan and North America.
Something to do with IS IS/Ryan Seacrest...
(And I'm super surprised at Wildlands. No one speaks about it. Like... At All. I've heard more about the French election, and France hasn't been a real country for decades.)
The forum poster complained about vgcharts not retroactively editing their numbers. Another contradiction to your claims. And you complained about VGChartz not tracking Uncharted 4 sales because you couldn't read the bold print "First 10 Weeks Sales."
Kassen, Darling.
The quote I posted was in Wolf King's favour. Reread the diatribe between you two.
You even asked for PROOF that VG edit their tracking retroactively...
In your EXACT WORDS...
"vgchartz does not retroactively edits their numbers to reflect official statements. Lies aren't helping you."
The Quote I posted was from one of his links.
He said that VGChartz were innacurate. You were proven wrong.
Kassen. You. Are Wrong.
Accept it. Move on. Faboosh.
Literally nobody cares as much as you do.
And at this point... I literally have no idea what point I should be prooving... You have been proven wrong. Don't fish around for a stray comment by a poster in a link to discredit him. Your base argument was proven wrong. You were wrong.
MOVE ON! You're original arguments have been proven wrong... Don't shift your argument dude.
I find it rediculous, that you can find a forum post that can help you discredit Wolf, but you can't find one of the HEADLINES that he posted in a link to help you? Let alone that you ignored every request he made asking for you to provide some evidence for your own argument.
Anyway, if you literally google VGCharts Accuracy, or accountability, the first 10 results would have provided you with more than enough information.
But no. Fight an ignorant war.
You Do you!
No, 5% margin of error is not inaccurate. So you are proven wrong on that. And that bit wasn't until the end of a 3000 word article he never read. And all of his other links claim they don't retroactively edit their numbers. All his links have contradictory information. He's just posting random articles with headlines he likes and hoping something will stick. If it wasn't for you, he'd still be stuck at square one.
Last edited:
If it wasn't for Belly.... because YOU didnt read one of the links YOU asked for and I provided.
Or the first link for that game which shows them being off on more than just GT..
Anyways. Belly I know what you mean about Ghost as I don't see anyone playing it
You posted 16 articles with 2000 words or more. I stopped reading after the sixth and found everything was contradictory to your claims or some bogus deal you didn't properly read. I practically assumed you were dyslexic after you thought Uncharted 4 sales weren't being tracked because you couldn't read "First 10 Weeks Sales."
You know, you people should be ashamed of yourselves.
Forza 5: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20...w.vgchartz.com/game/72222/forza-motorsport-5/
The article where they admit they're predicting and adjust their data if they get real data: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20...o-vg-chartz-north-american-numbers-come-from/
archive.org - when hours of pulling things out of your ass gets tiring and you'd like to at least try to see what was posted somewhere some time ago.
Forza 5: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20...w.vgchartz.com/game/72222/forza-motorsport-5/
The article where they admit they're predicting and adjust their data if they get real data: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20...o-vg-chartz-north-american-numbers-come-from/
archive.org - when hours of pulling things out of your ass gets tiring and you'd like to at least try to see what was posted somewhere some time ago.
The thing about VG is that they say on their site they predict sales based off their modelling, which they don't clearly disclose.
That's fine. Anyone can come up with sales models. Heck, any of us can.
And any data research adjusting their data due to their own data sources or methodology is fine, but they should disclose changes. If let's say Sony publicly says to everyone they sold 507,000 digital copies of God of War 4 then that is fine. They are taking factual data from a source and using it to help their formulas.
But what is stupid is that if they are adjusting their data set because NPD releases numbers, it shows what they are not confident in their own analytics. NPD and AC Nielsen do sales data extrapolation too because no company will ever get 100% exact data..... unless it's a product that sells in a small number of sources. For example, Ferrari can probably tell how many Ferraris sell per year since there's only so many cars made and licensed dealerships.
It's like a sports analyst that says Mike Trout will hit 40 homers. He has his own analysis. But then ESPN has their Fantasy prediction chart and says Trout will hit 31. It's all predictions. A guessing game. If that analyst then changes his 40 to 33 because he feels ESPN is a better predictor, it shows his own opinions are worthless.
Now if he adjusts his number to 33 because there is late breaking news Trout will miss the first month with an injury, then sure, adjust. Put a little update note to tell sports fans Trout got injured so that's why the number is reduced to 33 before the season starts. But if there is no news to soundly make adjustments and someone is mucking with numbers to copy someone else, that's dumb.
You got to stick to your guns.
That's fine. Anyone can come up with sales models. Heck, any of us can.
And any data research adjusting their data due to their own data sources or methodology is fine, but they should disclose changes. If let's say Sony publicly says to everyone they sold 507,000 digital copies of God of War 4 then that is fine. They are taking factual data from a source and using it to help their formulas.
But what is stupid is that if they are adjusting their data set because NPD releases numbers, it shows what they are not confident in their own analytics. NPD and AC Nielsen do sales data extrapolation too because no company will ever get 100% exact data..... unless it's a product that sells in a small number of sources. For example, Ferrari can probably tell how many Ferraris sell per year since there's only so many cars made and licensed dealerships.
It's like a sports analyst that says Mike Trout will hit 40 homers. He has his own analysis. But then ESPN has their Fantasy prediction chart and says Trout will hit 31. It's all predictions. A guessing game. If that analyst then changes his 40 to 33 because he feels ESPN is a better predictor, it shows his own opinions are worthless.
Now if he adjusts his number to 33 because there is late breaking news Trout will miss the first month with an injury, then sure, adjust. Put a little update note to tell sports fans Trout got injured so that's why the number is reduced to 33 before the season starts. But if there is no news to soundly make adjustments and someone is mucking with numbers to copy someone else, that's dumb.
You got to stick to your guns.
Last edited:
No, you've been doing nothing but hurting your argument from the beginning. I wasted plenty of time reading your links only to find broken logic and contradictions. You just suck at producing a valid argument.You even tried arguing new IPs do great by listing off Minecraft as your example. That's how bad you are.
It's been like that for years.
The recent Minecraft and Forza announcements being recent examples
That's the one comment I made about Minecraft. At no point did I say what you just claimed... or rather lie about.
The amount of denial from you is sad. Several posters have shown examples of flaws in that site but feel free to keep trying to defend it and trying to spin everything.
Moving on.
The recent Minecraft and Forza announcements being recent examples
That's the one comment I made about Minecraft. At no point did I say what you just claimed... or rather lie about.
The amount of denial from you is sad. Several posters have shown examples of flaws in that site but feel free to keep trying to defend it and trying to spin everything.
Moving on.
Forza Horizon 3 shows 2.17 million on vgchartz for Xbox One. The only flaw there is they couldn't track pc sales to come up with the 2.5 million. Same problem with Minecraft. So nothing that would affect vgchartz ability to track Quantum Break's terrible sales. It's a new IP. You don't have to be so offended by the lackluster sales.
Interesting look at digital numbers
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...010.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...010.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Dude, you have been REKT left, right and top, bottom (no belly...not that top bottom). It's about time you step away from the keyboard and take your beating like a man.
Forza Horizon 3 at 2.5 million. And vgchartz shows 2.17 for Xbox One. How is that rekt? That's demonstration of their accuracy.
2.17 million units for Xbox One leaves 330,000 to be PC units sold for a total of 2.5 million world wide.
- Status