Talk:List of best-selling computer and video games/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Half Life for DC

This game wasn't officially released for good old Dreamcast so I doubt it sold 1.5 million units on that plattform. I'll remove it. 213.157.11.194 15:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the exact same thing. I also highly doubt the majority of the Sega console games sales are anyways near correct. User:WhiteMinority 19:46, 22 Sept. 2006

Complete Update

Hey, Can someone do a thorough update on all stats on this? I have not been able to do this myself because I cannot find the most relable resource possible. Please include references and citation for everything. (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone found a reliable source yet? If so, post it immediatly, please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kinopi (talk • contribs) . -- ReyBrujo 03:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

VGCharts

Please, do not revert anymore, instead come discuss here about whether VGCharts should be used as reference or not. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 05:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

VGCharts is not sales numbers. They are sales estimates. A huge difference. WhiteMinority argued that because VGCharts' numbers were on the page, we needed to source them, and when I attempted to remove them, he reverted my edit. It was pretty obvious that he could not show that the numbers belonged on here by arguing that "they may not be right, but we need to source them anyway". Keeping these numbers is no better than changing the definition of up to mean down. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, seems WhiteMinority (talk · contribs) does not seem bound to discuss here, I suggest a full rewrite of the article using sources different than Vgcharts, as it is not considered a reliable site. -- ReyBrujo 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have converted all vgcharts.org external links into references, moving down from 253 links to just 9. That should keep VGCharts spam under control. We should now try to replace these links with reliable ones. -- ReyBrujo 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

e That's exactly what I think we should do, instead of just sweeping them all away just edit them when you come across something better. WhiteMinority 17:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So we should put a bad site up that has no actual sales numbers because we don't have any other sites? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The modification I did was not to agree that VGCharts is notable to be included as reference, but I prefer having 9 links to VGCharts than 250 (A Link, note that your revert reincluded all those 250 or so links into the article). I suggest requesting the opinion from someone else to determine if it is a reliable source or not. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The numbers there are the same as numbers elsewhere. WhiteMinority 23:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh? [1] :[2]

Brain Training 2, according to Media Create - 3,221,750

Brain Training 2, according to VGCharts - 3,500,000

Notice the mile-long discrepency? You want to know why? As he states in the sourced article, these numbers are shipments. There is no debate - shipments are not sales. No self-respecting Wikipedian would support your effort (which is suspiciously fervous) to have shipments counted as sales figures. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Some companies (Like Sony) the only numbers they give out are shipments so it's what gets used. WhiteMinority 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and good job on trying to completely mess up the page again. I hope Rey saved what he did and you stop trying to be a jackass.WhiteMinority 16:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We use as many sales as we can use. We do not use non-sales as an alternative to sales. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WhiteMinority, why you think VGCharts should be used to reference sales? What makes it a reliabl source? I am trying to understand both sides, and having it written down here will help other editors to understand the dispute. -- ReyBrujo 17:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have requested opinions from the Computer and video games WikiProject to try to settle this matter. The edit war is already two weeks old, and I would like this matter to be settled without having to request a mediation. -- ReyBrujo 18:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There need not be any discussion on the matter. Shipments are not sales, this article is not about sales. Just because Sony likes to twist words does not mean that them referring to PSPs sold is what this article is to be showing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We work towards consensus, not totalitarism. -- ReyBrujo 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not everything needs a consensus. It is undeniable that shipments and sales are two different things. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Many companies all they give out are their shipment numbers. And good job again on trying to ruin the page, with your deleting of numbers not only from VGCharts but numbers from other sites too. And you dislike having VGCharts but you keep putting up completely bogus Sega numbers.. why? WhiteMinority 21:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you would stop vandalizing the page, then the 32X content wouldn't get deleted. Don't expect me to take extra measures to readd a good edit, that you have failed to prove. And by the way, the fact that companies give shipment numbers does not make them sales figures. Companies also give information about the hardware, do the number of polygons in the average PS2 game count as sales for Final Fantasy X? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with ReyBrujo - using mere shipment figures, when actual sales figures are available, makes no sense. --Oscarthecat 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be A Link to the Past :-) My position is that we should use as many figures as possible from reliable sources. As I already explained before, we could use Next Generation estimations as they are a reliable source, but not NeoGAF posts because they are not reliable, according to Wikipedia definition of reliable. While VGCharts does estimations like Next Generation, in no way VGCharts is as reliable as Next Generation. -- ReyBrujo 21:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As Link staes: Shipping figures are NOT sales figures. It's as black and white as that. The Kinslayer 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be an acceptable compromise to note which numbers are estimates/shipment numbers and which are "real" numbers, with preference given to the latter? In big bold letters if necessary? Nifboy 02:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because the estimates are not only from a - not an insult, just cold hard fact - nobody who goes on forums and likes to guess how many games have been sold by how many have been shipped, but estimates are not sales figures. And shipment figures are as much sales figures as how many polygons are in FFX. And I'm talking about sales to gamers, not stores. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see where there is any cause for arguement here. Link is 100% correct and WhiteMinority seems more concerned with provocation than the good of the article. The Kinslayer 10:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

32x games.

I think the whole section of the Sega 32X should be removed considering the system itself never sold over 1 million units, so it's very hard to believe that any game ever did. May I remove it? WhiteMinority 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you do that, WhiteMinority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinopi (talk • contribs)

Since it's blocked...

I can't return a website I used to reference the sales of Sonic CD (it's still used in Vectorman and Streets of Rage 2). Please, keep it to future editions... as well as this:

• MagicBox has the reference to Virtua Fighter 2.
• OoT's numbers: [3]
• There's a reference (<ref name="goldeneye-sales">), that can be used for GoldenEye 007 and Donkey Kong Country.

igordebraga ≠ 14:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon Diamond and Pearl

shouldnt these 2 be treated as 2 diferent games? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.83.181.115 (talk • contribs) .

• • Unless they both come in the same box for one price, of course they are two games. The Kinslayer 08:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Like most of the Pokemon games, the only difference between the games released at the same time (i.e. Red and Blue) is the Pokemno available in the game, some types are only avaialable in one versiuon, while others are available in the other . . . besides that, they are the same game, and you can transfer/trade Pokemon between the two games, yet to the best of my knowledge, you're unable to transfer Pokemon between the different releases (i.e. between Pokemon Red and Pokemon Diamond)

Yes, but they are still two different games, each sold separately. Louis C. 02:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Console Sales

I would like to see the sales of the actual consoles also listed here, or perhaps a separate page linked to this one could list console sales. 71.164.246.103 18:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I created a page for console sales a few months ago. It can be found at List of best-selling video game consoles. Sonic_13 19:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

update page

This page is internally inconsistent. Many of the best selling PC games should be in the top 20 sales of all time by the page's own numbers.

The Top 20 list is for console games only... which is why it's listed under 'Consoles'. 71.0.171.222 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Shipped is basically sold. Use VGCharts.

Both terms mean "sold". If the game isn't selling in stores then retailers won't be ordering more consoles from a company, which means their shipping numbers would go down. Shipped is the numbers a company has sold to a retailer and then sold to the consumer.

And User:A Link to the Past is clearly just a bitter fanboy. WhiteMinority 15:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Of what, praytell? What exactly am I a fanboy of? Pro Evolution Soccer 6 shipped millions of copies in Europe in one weekend. In a hypothetical situation, if it were to not sell, it would be completely off. And no matter that shipped numbers technically are sold to retailers, this article does NOT exist to say how many games a retailer bought. Until you force the article to what you want it to be, shipped numbers will never be appropriate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And why do retailers order more games.... because they sold out! Retailers sell all games they order. Shipped=sold to retailer=sold to consumer. WhiteMinority 06:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WhiteMinority. Shipped is same as sold, every time Microsoft and Nintendo say "sold" they are really saying "shipped to stores." In the Xbox and Nintendo articles, we use their figures despite knowing that they are actually shipment figures. Dionyseus 07:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh? So you're saying that every copy of PES6 would have been sold if no copies of it are sold? So, friend, explain how you came up with the idea that the copy of DQVIII I saw at Best Buy was actually sold.

And the fact that you agree that bad information is good for this article matters not. We use what Nintendo, Sony and MS say because their articles AREN'T about sales to consumers. This is. The fact that other articles both use it and do not create precedence to be used in a completely irrelevant article does not warrant any posting. We actually have the choice to decide what this article is about. If people find that we should make this article about what people likely care about - sales to consumers, not Sony's ability to spend money on a billion copies of a game shipped - then VGCharts will not be acceptable. And by what I can see, very few people disagree with this. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

When a company ships a console to a store, that console has been sold, the store bought it, the company has received the money for the sale of that console. Dionyseus 07:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Everytime a company releases data based on video games sales, they are talking about the amount of games they sold and shipped to retailers. Every number you have ever gotten from a website and added to this page was the number of games sold to the retailer. WhiteMinority 21:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. NPD is not shipments, Media Create is not shipments, Famitsu is not shipments, and Chart-Track UK is not shipments. VGCharts is. We are NOT going to use shipments. End of story.

And so what if the consensus is a month old? There is no expiration date on consensus. You are more or less assuming that the opinions of the consensus changed since it was gathered. If you want people to agree with you, create an RfC on the issue and see if others agree, do not just decide that your reasoning is so great that people must agree. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You may not realize this but it is in fact you Link who has decided that everyone must agree with you, it is you who has decided to remove information that has always been in the article. Seems to me that it should be you who should create an RfC. Dionyseus 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have proven, however, that the sales information is bad. It is shipments. And, no, the fact that shipments are sold to retailers does not mean that shipments can replace what this article is about - sales to the consumers. I have seven people on my side, and there are only two people arguing for VGCharts. That alone gives me enough reason to remove VGCharts. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so where are these 7 people? And since when does it say that the article has to be about sales directly to the consumer? WhiteMinority 01:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CVG and this very talk page. And because it's actually useful information? I'm just going to assume that no one cares that Sony is rich enough to ship a million billion copies. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You're totally missing the point. Sony would never ship that many copies unless they had sold that much to retailers. WhiteMinority 03:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that every copy of every shipment of every game gets sold? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

1st, they were already sold, that is why they were shipped in the first place and 2nd, yes, every game a retail orders gets sold to a consumer, in the long run. Why do you think all you can buy of older games are used copies? WhiteMinority 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Oh, and looks like 3 people agree with me... who's backing you up? WhiteMinority 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I guess I have no support. I mean, I only have seven people, and it's so astounding that you have that much support!

Anyway, you can't just decide that every copy of every single game that has ever existed and been available for sale online or at retail has been sold. Prove it. You have no evidence whatsoever to show that all shipments sell out. We are not about to put wool on a wolf and call it a sheep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so where are these so-called "7" people? And I can prove it, when the hell do you ever walk to into EBGames and see a brand new copy of a pre-PS2 game. You rarely even see new copies of games pre-2004. Get Real. WhiteMinority 23:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, it's really my fault. I shouldn't have actually assumed you'd READ anything I said, including telling you WHERE the discussions were. And you can prove it by theorizing? Yes, I suppose that since GS and EB do not SELL PRE-PS2 GAMES ANYMORE, you won't see them. And tell me - can you prove that they are not there because they were sold? If a game cannot sell, they do not sell it. Stop making theories and declaring to the world that they are facts. You prove it by supplying a theory, not supplying proof? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, I guess they just throw out the copies of perfectly good games... right? Jeez, ignorance is typical. WhiteMinority 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So I'm ignorant because I ask that you prove that what you say is true, not theorize why it's true. What you are saying is original research, based on literally no more than what you believe is true. You do not use any evidence to support what you say. The PSP has shipped millions more than what we know it's sold. Your logic may make sense for PRE PS2 GAMES, but it cannot replace current gen. The distinction between PSP shipments and sales is huge - by using shipments, PSP suddenly sells ten million systems. So no, we will not be using shipments. Create an RfC for the change that YOU want to make which you and someone else seems to support. Your third supporter is nothing more than someone who seems to think of VGCharts as a bad site, but not the numbers that were created by it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This list is about video games that have sold over 1 million copies. The numbers from VGCharts is nothing but that. No where does it say that this has to be direct sales to the consumer. There is nothing wrong with those numbers. WhiteMinority 03:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It also doesn't say that it's not a list of games based on how many times each individual copy has been sold, so let's estimate that!

The argument is good FOR SONY. For Sony to do some PR. Not for this article. The fact that at least seven people fought against VGCharts being used shows they're against shipment numbers as well. So if you want it to reflect how many copies a game has shipped, DO AN RFC. For Heavens' sake, it'll end the edit war and if you are as right as you think you are, this article will focus on shipments instead of sales figures. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Link you seem to have an agenda against Sony, but I don't understand your argument, you seem to be arguing that Sony ships far more games than are actually sold, do you actually have any evidence of this? Also, if you are anti-Sony, why is it that you allowed for the Xbox section to be silently removed from the article? I actually had to reinsert that section. Dionyseus 04:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because I am not "anti-Sony"? What in the world are you talking about?

Additionally, the theory that shipped is just as good as sell through has been proven false by someone who lives in Japan who showed the wide array of new copies of many games such as Pikmin, DQVIII, etc. at game stores in Japan. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I thought you had an anti-Sony agenda because you kept saying that using shipped numbers would be an advantage "FOR SONY" in your arguments. As for the Japanese guy you are talking about, do you have a source for this? How many unsold copies did he find? Dionyseus 06:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The picture of the game rack showed a lot of copies of the same game. I would have to search in the Media Create threads.

And I do so because Sony is more notorious for referring to shipped figures as sold. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd argue it's the other way around, Sony reports shipped numbers, whereas Microsoft and Nintendo report shipped numbers as sold. Dionyseus 08:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no? I actually research this. On many occasions, Sony's claimed that they have sold more PSPs than NDSes; however, everything we have seen from reports indicate that the PSP has sold significantly less than the NDS worldwide. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Provide a source. Dionyseus 09:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is a little off of the current topic, but I feel this will just get loss in the mess if I start a new thread. While I am not sure how big a problem this is as long as the page is up front about it, shipped and sold really are two very different things and the differences can be drastic. Now, companies are certainly a little better today about trying to ship what they can sell, but overshipping is part of what caused the video game crash of 1983. In 1982, Atari shipped ten million units of Pac-Man and sold seven million. That is a huge discrepancy. For E.T., they shipped 4 million units, only sold one million, and had to bury unsold inventory in the desert. To say that shipped and sold are the same is laughable. Now, I think thgese cases are extreme exceptions and that, at least for the NES, it is most likely that most of the shipped copies have been sold at some point, meaning the correlation is there and can be discussed appropriately on this page with appropriate caveats. I just think it is silly to take such an extreme and easily disprovable position that shipped and sold are basically the same thing. Indrian 20:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question for A Link to the Past

Ok, so did you read my last comment that is a perfectly good reason why the numbers should be used? And why do you keep deleting all Nintendo and Microsoft numbers, leave Sony numbers and re-add Sega numbers (and they are games that haven't even had 1 million copies produced)? WhiteMinority 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bad comment. We dabble in only one type of sales, to the consumers. And I delete all of he Nintendo and Microsoft numbers because logically, if VGCharts sources them, they are VGCharts numbers. As bad as the links themselves. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And the Sony numbers aren't from VGCharts? And where are those Sega numbers from?, someone just randomly put those up there and you keep re-adding those (The sega games you keep re-adding are games that hadn't even had 1 million copies manufactured! And then you delete shipment numbers! What's up with you?). What is wrong with VGCharts? You don't like it because it is shipments to a retailer? And those are what gets sold?WhiteMinority 06:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted all numbers associated with VGCharts. If I left any VGCharts numbers up, I left them up unknowingly. And I reverted them because you did not explain why you deleted them in the first place.

And, yes, because this article is not about shipped numbers, I am of the opinion that we shouldn't USE shipped numbers. And so are you saying that all games sell every single copy shipped to retailers? Unless a significant amount of copies that were shipped were sold, it is a very inaccurate descriptor of how well a game sound. Sell one copy out of 1 million, hardly makes it appropriate to tell people it sold 1 million copies. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

VGCharts = bad. Verifiability = good. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is VGCharts bad, Ned Scott? The way I see it, when a company ships out a product, that product has been sold (the store bought it). I think games ususally sell a significant amount of copies that were shipped, the worst case was probably E.T. for the NES and that was ages ago. Dionyseus 07:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Because we don't care that a game developer spent millions to ship out as many copies as possible. This is an article that tells readers what they actually care about, how many copies consumers bought. Yes, both are technically sales - and guess which sale this article focuses on?

And two notes about E.T.: One game not succeeding destroys the idea of calling shipments sales to consumers. And it's an Atari 2600 game.

And if you want this article to change to sold to retailers, propose it. But readers do not care how many were sold to retailers. Wikipedia exists for the people, not for members of NeoGAF to advertise their website. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"We"? Who is "We"? Are you the sole determinator of what the readers care about? I am glad you admitted that shipped games are technically sold games (the store bought them). As for the Atari 5200 game E.T., it appears that 5 million cartridges were produced, but the distributers returned most of the cartridges, so I don't see how this case would hurt the shipment=sold argument. Dionyseus 09:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

They're bad because their information is not a reliable source of information (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games#VGCharts). -- Ned Scott 10:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In the first discussion ReyBrujo made a good argument that VGCharts might actually qualify as a reliable source, but no one replied to it. [4] Dionyseus 10:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on WT:CVG#VGCharts (2). -- Ned Scott 10:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"This is an article that tells readers what they actually care about, how many copies consumers bought."--- And consumers buy the number of copies of a game that are shipped. If a game isn't selling in stores then retailers won't be ordering more from the company, which means their shipping numbers would go down. WhiteMinority 23:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And that isn't original research because...? That is a completely unprovable statement. We are not going to throw caution to the wind and assume that's actually true, that all games sell out their initial shipments. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why would retialers order more if they weren't sold out of the game? WhiteMinority 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you implying that every game is restocked in every store all of the time without exception? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... what? You're so ignorant. WhiteMinority 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that games are restocked when they sell out and the demand is still there. I understand why you don't want to use it for recent games, but why not pre-PS2 games?WhiteMinority 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Question for Myst sales figure.

If you look at the Myst sales figure of 11 million and goto the cited webpage, it states the figure is for the entire series, not just Myst 1. Shouldn't this be fixed? I have been trying to fix it, but for some reason, someone keeps reverting that change.

If you look at the sales figure of Riven, and goto the cited webpage for that item, it states that Myst sold only 6 million as opposed to 11 million. 132.236.117.155 02:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Where's the page that has the 6 million sales figures so could be switched with the one currently there? WhiteMinority 03:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside View

Ugh, swimming through the discussion here, I'm going to have to agree with ALttP here. Shipments do not equate to sales. Many stores will order a supply of games on consignment in anticipation of sales, but if the sales don't happen, the games may get returned for newer titles, or discounts. Please stick to actual sales numbers. Thanks. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 05:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Torinir, thanks for your opinion although I disagree with it. I believe an estimate is better than no source. Dionyseus 06:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not even an estimate. Retailers will order based on what they expect to sell, not what they will sell. Some titles didn't even sell half of their consigned shipments. It is not a reliable measure. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, is that shipments ARE sales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhiteMinority (talk • contribs) .

No they are not. Please take a look at consignment and see its definition. The product is still owned by the manufacturer. The retailer never actually buys the game or has ownership of it at any time. It's only when the consumer buys the game at the retailer that it becomes a sale.

From the consignment article:

Consignment is the act of consigning, which is placing a person or thing in the hand of another, but retaining ownership until the goods are sold or person is transferred. This may be done for shipping, transfer of prisoners, or for sale in a store (e.g. a Consignment shop). In the context of sale it is usually understood that the consignee (the party to which goods are sent or the consignment seller) pays the consignor (the party by which the goods are consigned or the person with items to sell) only after the sale, from its proceeds.

Consignment orders are NOT sales. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but Gamestop, Target, WalMart, etc. are not consignment shops so this argument means nothing. They buy the games from companies like Nintendo or Sony and have the right to do whatever they please with it, because they own it. WhiteMinority 01:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, now that I think about it, if you get sales numbers from all retailers combined (which aren't around) the numbers would be higher than the shipment numbers because they count number of USED games they sell as a brand new sale. WhiteMinority 01:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to describe GameStop and EBGames perfectly - they sell used games for cheaper than new, and often sell new games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and as an addition to WhiteMinority's post, not even NPD has 100% exact numbers on how many units were sold as it would take a huge effort to get exact numbers from every store, in the end their reports are technically an estimate as well. In fact, according to NPD's retail tracking service description, they state that they receive reports from over 600 retailers (department stores, specialty stores, etc) representing approximately 140,000 stores. While this is an impressive amount, it certainly doesn't cover every store in the nation, and is thus an estimate, albeit more exact than other estimates. Dionyseus 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am probably really going to regret getting involved in this quagmire, but I really have to ask, what's the big deal? This page attempts to track how many copies of a game were sold, something impossible to do with anything nearing complete accuracy. Therefore, it seems to only make since to use what numbers are available with a discussion about how none of the numbers are completly reliable. If the info on VGCharts represent a close approximation as to how many copies of a game were shipped by the publisher, then that info has some correlation to actual sales. Sure the numbers will be off by several thousand or more, but if the article is up front about this fact then it is no big deal. Everyone estimates in this business, so there is nothing wrong with using an estimate as long as the limitations are clearly defined. If that is not acceptable, then there is no wisdom in having this page in the first place, as it will never be completely accurate. Indrian 20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I have just as much knowledge and experience in estimation of sales figures. I have never stated to "get rid of estimates". I stated that his estimates are not good enough to be used as a source.

As for NPD, you ruined your point by stating the fact that they actually get information. ioi looks at shipments and guesses how much a game might have sold, while NPD looks at how many copies a game has sold from many major retailers and estimates how many copies the other retailers have sold in addition to what they know a game has sold. NPD is a serious sales estimater - to have direct access to the data, you have to pay thousands of dollars a year (or was it a month?) to subscribe. They use better data. We cannot just settler for an infinitely inferior source just because it's more convenient. All sales figures are estimates - but the question is - do we want quality of numbers or convenience of numbers? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that ruins my point, my point was that in the end all sales figures are estimates, some estimates like the ones NPD provides are more thorough than others. What I'm arguing is that it is better to use a source's estimate, whether it be from VGCharts or whatever, than not using an estimate at all. Dionyseus 02:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And my point is the same. This entire page is about estimating. Of course some estimates are more reliable than others and the best possible one should be used in each case, but as long as the page explains the reliability of the various estimates, I am afraid I do not see a problem. The point of this page, I believe, is to gauge the relative success of games across various platforms. By including the VGChart estimates, the page illustrates how well those games did in general even if the numbers are off a bit. If we only accept those numbers that are known to be true, then this page would have to be deleted for not having any information at all. Indrian 02:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And it's not like VGCharts numbers are drastically off from any numbers you might be able to find elsewhere. WhiteMinority 03:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Except for Media Create, right? I've already shown that his Brain Age 2 numbers were several hundred thousand copies off.

And how does it not ruin your point? You pointed out that NPD is a professional site! Compare:

Professional? NPD = Yes, VGCharts = no.

Credible? NPD = Yes, VGCharts = no.

Reputable? NPD = Yes, VGCharts = no.

Not only have I and several others shown that VGCharts has literally no verifiability as a sales estimater, but I have shown that one estimate is not as good as the other just because of convenience. And Indrian, you do realize that you more or less said "we should sacrifice truth for a perceived completeness for the article". I'm not about to say that unverifiable information from nothing more than a random forumgoer is as good as a company that exists for the sole purpose of providing estimates based on infinitely more useful data than how many copies a game has been shipped to the DEVELOPERS, who have to pay several thousands of dollars to have a subscription. The lack of another source is not my problem. It is not my responsibility to replace an inferior source with a superior one - it is your responsibility.

I have proven lack of verifiability. I have proven lack of professionalism. You have not proven that ioi is even as professional as a spec of dust on the tip of a strand of hair on NPD's arm. He is as far from the industry as you can get. He has no connections. You say that because we can't be 100% complete, we should settle for unprofessional and unverifiable numbers. Fact: He has no more connections to the industry than I do (Hell, that's generous, considering I HAVE connections to the industry, although for different purposes). Knowing this, I could make a similar website and estimate my own numbers.

Now, tell me - other than the fact that his estimates are convenient to use, what verifies that VGCharts is a good site to use? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that you have been involved in a long and futile arguement with WhiteMinority, so I will show some patience with you, but I would like to remind you that I am not him, that I am trying to establish exactly what is going on here, and there is absolutely no need for you to get snippy. This is what I was afraid of happening when I got involved in this discussion, and I hope this does not turn ugly. Now, it may be that some time in the distant past in the archive you have shown how the information on VGCharts is completely disreuptable. If the info is nowhere near accurate on what it purports to show, then I have no problem with not using it. If you have shown this in the past, I would appreciate a source or two so I can be brought up to speed. I also am not trying to claim, as is WhiteMinority, that shipped and sold are virtually the same figures. My only concern, which you have either misunderstood or ignored is that IF (and just to be very clear I will put here IF IF IF IF IF) the VGCharts numbers are generally reliable for what they purport to track (and like I said, please do show me the data that says they are not reputable, for if you have shown it in the past I was not here) then I see no harm in using it as anything on the page will be an estimate of one kind or another and we might as well use the best available with caveats and warnings as needed until something better comes along. IF VGCharts is not reliable in any way, then obviously it should not be used. This is all I am attempting to find out, and I am not trying to champion VGCHarts, so some of your comments above have portrayed my purpose in a completely inaccurate light. Now, I hope I can get a response to this question. All I want is the proof you have provided that shows VGCharts has bad data so I can see it myself. Indrian 05:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I was not intending to respond to you entirely, although I should have clarified as such, so I apologize.
2. While it is not my intention to say "no, I shall not provide proof", there should be proof presented in the first place to indicate that the source is reliable or verifiable. I say this because I have a lot on my plate at the moment, and have a deadline to meet with regard to reviewing Clubhouse Games and Elite Beat Agents. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... VGCharts says Brain Age 2 has sold 3.50 million and magic-box says 3.39... which, um, isn't several hundred thousand off. WhiteMinority 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That is far out-of-date.

"Oh? [5] :[6]

Brain Training 2, according to Media Create - 3,221,750

Brain Training 2, according to VGCharts - 3,500,000

Notice the mile-long discrepency? You want to know why? As he states in the sourced article, these numbers are shipments. There is no debate - shipments are not sales. No self-respecting Wikipedian would support your effort (which is suspiciously fervous) to have shipments counted as sales figures. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)"

Now not only do I have lack of verifiability and lack of professionalism of the web site, but the user has not updated the sales figures of a high-profile video game, which is also the second best selling DS game in Japan. So by using his numbers, we would be knowingly presenting out-of-date information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess this just goes to show that all websites have slightly different numbers. Magic-Box says Brain Age 2 has sold 3.39 million. [7] And then the 3.50 million from VGCharts and 3.22 from Media-Crate. WhiteMinority 15:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Magic Box merely lists Media Create numbers. The NeoGAF thread was for a week of September. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, like I've said before these are all estimates. Is it the end of the world if a source is .10m or .100m off? Once again my argument is that every game listed in this article should have a source, if it's not sourced the game shouldn't be listed. Dionyseus 19:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability issue

As I have stated before, I believe this is a notability issue. Is VGCharts a notable, reliable source? We consider NPD, Char Track, Media Create, Famitsu and Dengeki (between many others) reliable sources. I think we do this not because their numbers are exact, it has already been clarified that each of those tracking systems survey only a subset of the market. So, why they are reliable? Because they are considered reliable by other reliable sites, like IGN, Gamespot, GameSpy, Eurogamer, Gamasutra, etc. If we consider these tracking systems primary sources, then we should reference them --Zaxios 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)through reports in secondary sources (the just listed game sites). If we think those tracking systems are secondary sources, we can quote them directly. Personally, those tracking systems are primary sources, as they recollect data and release raw information, leaving analysts and game sites to make their own conclusions, even if they provide an initial draft of the market situation.

Now, VGCharts takes the information found in those tracking systems, and by using their own studies, release information. This is accepted by our guidelines (if we agree that those tracking systems are primary sources and that VGCharts is a secondary source). However, is VGCharts a reliable source itself? I believe we have two ways of determining if VGCharts is a reliable source: if it passes our web notability guidelines, and if it is quoted as a reliable source by another reliable publication. The discussion was focused in whether VGCharts numbers were exact. They state their numbers come from reliable primary sources. If I create a Geocities page and publish my own analysis of the sales number, I would be matching VGCharts behaviour. Now, would a reliable site, one that we use as reference, quote me as a reliable source? That is the question for this site: has a reliable source quoted VGCharts numbers? I have stated that I think VGCharts can't demonstrate to be a reliable source, but have done a neutral analysis and would accept it if I am shown others notable and reliable enough (no blogs, forums, mailing lists, myspace, youtube, freewebs, free.fr, Geocities, Tripod, etc, etc) consider it a reliable source. -- ReyBrujo 19:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Even Famitsu uses shipment numbers. I don't get what's wrong with VGCharts, they're statistically correct. WhiteMinority 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As I had written above, it is not a matter of primary source, but secondary source. Famitsu is a notable publication by a notable company. Is VGCharts notable enough? What is different between VGCharts and Bob Generic Smith who created a Geocities account and uploaded his information coming from the same shipment data VGCharts has? We have been focusing too much about "from where" VGCharts collects information, when we should be asking "who VGCharts is". -- ReyBrujo 21:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand this argument and agree with it to a point, but am not entirely satisfied with this answer. I agree with you that VGCharts is not notable and fails your criteria. I also agree that if VGCharts met your criteria, then it would be good evidence that it was a reliable source. Where we diverge is in that you equate reliability and notability entirely. If (and I really mean if, as I am neutral in this arguement) it is possible to examine the methodology VGCharts uses and illustrate that this methodology leads to an accurate result, then it is a good source for the information. I would say the same for the hypothetical Geocities site you posited. Therefore, I believe that it does matter where they get their numbers. If, for the sake of arguement, Famitsu were to grossly misreport the sales of a particular game and other sources picked up these numbers and spread them far and wide, we would not use those numbers even though the notability standard you referred to is met. In the same token, if it can be shown that for any particular game the numbers at VGCharts are accurate (for shipments, I know this is not the same as sales), then that number is acceptable to use. Accuracy, not notability. Indrian 22:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that we are about verifiability, not truth. We don't need to know which methodology they use to create their own charts, as we are not examining their accuracy. However, I am not for or against VGCharts at this point. I just want the article to be stable. -- ReyBrujo 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If stability is the issue, the article seems to be quite stable to me at the moment, the only one who made a big deal out of this is User:A_Link_to_the_Past and he hasn't reverted the article for the past four days. Dionyseus 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't reverted it in four days because I would just be edit warring. Additionally, there is an issue of stability. I have given proof that VGCharts is not a good source, while you have given nothing to show that it is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WhiteMinority and Dionyseus -- the use of shipment numbers as roughly equivalent to sales figures is accepted industry practice. The bigger question is VGCharts' reliability. By their own admission (http://www.vgcharts.org/welcome.php), "the data on VG Charts is unofficial and in some cases incomplete." On the other hand, short of sourcing directly from Famitsu, Media Create, Dengeki, etc., I don't see that we have any better option. Perhaps the best option is to include the data but clearly state our reservations about its reliability. --Zaxios 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh? As ReyBrujo stated, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. And the fact of the matter is that we do not use lower quality information for the simple reason that we don't have anything better.

Is there a reason why I could not merely create a page, make my own estimates, and have it not used over VGCharts? He is no more than Generic Bob - he is a nobody. If we use a nobody and claim that he is a reliable source, then anyone who does their own estimates is suddenly able to be used as a source.

And I repeat: His numbers are out-of-date, I've proven it. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that his numbers are wrong. We might as well say that George Bush is Big Foot and give a geocities link as a source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, you really haven't given any good proof to why VGCharts is not a good source. WhiteMinority 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't? So are you daying that every person on the face of the Earth is a reliable source? Because ioi has no expertise in this field. That is absolute fact.

And I have proven that his data is out-of-date by the fact that according to him, Brain Age 2 stopped selling.

Those are two definitive proofs that show his site to not be a reliable source. I don't know how you can say that out-of-date estimates of shipment figures from a (banned) member of NeoGAF with absolutely no expertise, professionalism, or experience in sales estimation is just fine for this article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Brain Age 2 is actually called Brain Training 2. VGCharts says Brain Training 2 has sold 3.5 million copies worldwide. [8] Dionyseus 01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's referred to as Brain Age 2, Brain Training 2, More Brain Age, More Brain Training, and Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training. And the information you gave is two months old. I gave that same link months ago to show that they stated 3.5 million while Media Create stated 3.3 million. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Moreso the game hasn't been shipping from Nintendo... see how this works, they ship the copies then the sales catch up to it. WhiteMinority 03:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

...So you are saying that Nintendo hasn't shipped a single copy of one of their best selling games this generation?

I think it's not that Nintendo's not been shipping copies of an extraordinarily successful game, and more that ioi hasn't updated his page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Help me understand you Link, are you saying that there's a source out there that states Brain Age 2/Brain Training 2 has sold more than 3.5 million copies worldwide? Dionyseus 03:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe he is saying just the opposite and that the 3.5 million number is inaccurate because it represents shipments while the smaller number from Media Create represents the actual sales, therefore showing that VGCharts is overestimating sales. Indrian 03:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought he was saying that VGCharts was out of date and therefore unreliable. Maybe he can clarify for us all. --Zaxios 03:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That is one of my points, that Media Create is indisputably more accurate. However, my point at the moment is that two months ago, it was 3.5 million, and now, it's still 3.5 million.

Better example of VGCharts' out-of-dateness: [9] It does not acknowledge Pokémon DP, which has sold more than 2.95 million copies. This shows that it VGCharts has not been updated since before the 28th (the release of D/P). - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that VGCharts should not be used at all for newer games. I am curious how this plays out for NES games though. Indrian 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It cannot be verified that all NES games have been sold. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Same can be said about every game, like some of us have said all sales figures (even ones from NPD) are estimates. Perhaps we should just delete the article? Dionyseus 05:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So I guess you think that anyone that can play baseball should get paid as much as the average player for the Yankees, right? Because that idea makes as much sense as comparing ioi to NPD. NPD is a multi-milion dollar company that most of the major video game publishers subscribe to and pay them for their estimations. The people who do these estimations went to college to do so. They are highly trained. They are professionals. They get paid for doing this. And the simple fact is that they actually have sales figures to go off of. NPD said that they can confirm that their sales figures are 70% accurate. ioi cannot confirm that anything he says is accurate. Quit comparing someone who has as much training as I in this field to people who actually worked to get their positions. Put his site on Geocities and it's not better, nor is it worse. Bluntly: His site is Geocities caliber. NPD is not. NPD is extremely verifiable. Media Create is extremely verifiable. Chart-Track is extremely verifiable. They are constantly used in major video game websites, video game magazines, and by video game developers. VGCharts is used by forumites who do not know better.

Stop dodging the question - is VGCharts verifiable? And if so, why? If you answered no to the first, then VGCharts cannot be used. If you answered yes, I expect you showing a very good reason why. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I asked if the article should be deleted because after all it is impossible to have a 100% accurate sales data. Your statement that NPD is only 70% accurate makes it even more reasonable that this article should be deleted. Unless someone can give a good reason not to, I'll be listing this article for deletion. Dionyseus 06:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And it will be speedily kept. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. You have stated that VGCharts is somehow just as verifiable as NPD. As has been stated, #Verifiability|Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We can verify that NPD, Chart-Track, Media Create, Famitsu, and Dengeki are all good sources by the fact that they are used by major gaming publications and web sites such as Electronic Gaming Monthly, Nintendo Power, IGN, and others. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never stated that VCGcharts is as verifiable as NPD, I've only said that I'd rather a game listed in the article have a source than no source at all. Dionyseus 07:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That violates policy. No matter how much you want it, Wikipedia wants policy to be enforced and followed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I utterly failed to make my point clear above, so I will go into more detail here. When it comes to NES games, this page only claims to compile a list of games that have sold over a million copies. If VGCharts says that a certain game has shipped many millions of copies, I beleive that is a decent source to prove that point. Now I agree that the exact numbers on VGCharts are not completely reliable and should be removed from the page. However, I think it is a perfectly acceptable source for the fact that Super Mario Brothers 2 or Dragon Quest III sold over a million copies. Indrian 17:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's original research to assume that a million copies have been sold of a game based on shipments of said games. Additionally, the site lacks verifiability, plain and simple. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability may still be an issue, but your first claim that shipments of 7 million copies of a game is not proof that a game sold at least a million copies borders on the ridiculous. I do not think Nintendo would exist anymore if they over produced by that amount. You may be entirely right that VGCharts is an unacceptable source, and I certainly see no problem with that stance if it is true, but you do seem unwilling to even attempt to find common ground with other users in what has unfortunately become a rather ugly issue (not that your main opponents are making any efforts at compromise either). Indrian 22:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Veriability is the only issue. If it's not verifiable, it cannot be used. Period.

But let's assume that policy doesn't say that verifiability is more important than truth. A vague usage of it violates the original research policy. It may be common sense that out of seven million copies, a million copies SHOULD be sold, just like it's common sense that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, we cannot say in the sun article that it will rise tomorrow, and we cannot say that a game has been purchased by 1 million customers on the basis that 7 million copies were available for them to purchase. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(ninja kicking indent) Calm down everyone. VGCharts' numbers are sorely inaccurate, making them of dubious quality at best. I wouldn't go as far as to say they're original research, but there are better quality sales estimates out there. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and update the page with those numbers. WhiteMinority 23:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Very clever. But as I repeat, it's not our job to replace sources. If a source is not good enough, it gets removed and replaced if possible. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, I simply don't care anymore and this article might as well be deleted. I'll still continue to use VGCharts on a personal basis. WhiteMinority 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, just make sure to keep it off of Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how Link has removed the source that was most significantly used in this article, I have removed the now unsourced games, games listed without sources should be removed immediately. The article looks rather empty and silly right now, perhaps it should be deleted. As I noted earlier, if the state of this article doesn't improve soon I will nominate it for deletion. Dionyseus 04:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. Removing uncited information would effectively void any need for the citation tag. And if you AfD it, it'll be speedily kept because it's a bad faith nom. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In your version of the article, practically the entirety of it is unsourced, it's completely ridiculous. Several users have said they now feel the article should be deleted and I agree. Dionyseus 05:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In my version of the article, the citation tag is used. And the ciation tag is used everywhere on Wikipedia. Being unsourced is not logic to delete. And you are not deleting because it's beyond repair, you only suggested it when VGCharts was proven to be unusable. Unsourced information is not simply deleted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In your version of the article the citation tag is used on practically the entire article, for what reason should a game be listed if it has no source? What is the reason in having the article if we can't source even 3% of the article? If your version is chosen, I believe a nomination for deletion would succeed unless the article improves miraculously. Dionyseus 05:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would enjoy to see your logic explaining why this article is unsourcable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is so 'sourcable' why don't you source it then? WhiteMinority 13:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, since I'm a magician, I can go gather sources for hundreds of games instantly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't even edit one. You clearly don't care about the quality of this article or anything about it except that VGCharts isn't used in it, just leave. WhiteMinority 02:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I though. WhiteMinority 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, I'm such a fiend. I mean, I was only trying to remove false information, while you were putting policy, logic, and truth out of the way so you can put false information in Wikipedia. I mean, why would people want someone editing an article with the idea of making it good in mind when they can have someone who is editing it for the sake of destroying it? Let me guess - you are the one who cares about because you fought tooth and nail even without being able to show verifiability in the site or person to keep their information on.

And I did source information. NPD. Chart-Track. Media Create. Famitsu. Dengeki. Media Create numbers are posted every week at GoNintendo, who ranks higher than 10,000 on Alexa. And posting NPD numbers is a simple matter of gathering up the DS top 50, PSP top 50, GBA top 50, PS2 top 50, GCN top 50, Xbox 360 top 50, PS3 top 50, and Wii top 50. We are contantly given the NPD info for LTDs and monthly figures; it matters not that NPD doesn't want them posted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All you ever did for the article was do a sloppy job trying to remove VGCharts. You never sourced a thing. WhiteMinority 06:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So I did your job poorly? It's not my job to fix the article. Nowhere does it say "bad information must stay until better information is found". I removed it. That's my job. You fought against any progress towards removing VGCharts. The fact that you cared more about VGCharts' usage than truth, verifiability, or accuracy, so you certainly cannot criticize anyone for "not replacing bad sources with better once". - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But you say you have much more reliable sources available to you, but you fail to be able to add any of them. WhiteMinority 21:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have NPD, Media Create, and Chart-Track. The fact that I have not gone out of my way to find sources that show those numbers does not suddenly mean that I care less about the quality of an article than someone who would rather have a misleading article as opposed to an unsourced article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First, nothing about it is misleading. Second, but you can go out of your way for a over a month arguing about how bad a website is, and claim how much better other sites are but you fail to show any of their numbers. WhiteMinority 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

First, yes it is.

Second, I have to prove that someone on a forum is not verifiable? And I have to prove that a million dollar company is more so? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job continuing to dodge the question. WhiteMinority 23:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact that you did not ask a question? Fact: If you put no question mark in a question, it is not a question. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have all these numbers from much better places then why can't you even give any? And don't give me some stupid BS answer like "it's not my job to do it" Ok, I never asked you to go redo the whole article, you can't even supply somewhere that has the numbers. You give sites, cool, but where are the numbers from them? WhiteMinority 23:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I give tracking services, not web sites. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then if you have all these numbers from much better places then why can't you even give any? And don't give me some stupid BS answer like "it's not my job to do it" Ok, I never asked you to go redo the whole article, you can't even supply somewhere that has the numbers. You give some services, cool, but where are the numbers from them? WhiteMinority 00:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Because they're not easy to get. Let me guess your response: "See? THAT'S why I wanted this article to suck, because it was easier than to make it quality!" - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, then stop saying there are other, more reliable, numbers readily available. WhiteMinority 02:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - I didn't realize anyone would decide that I had magical powers and am able to will the article complete.

I never stated they "were readily available". I stated VGCharts "was readily suck". You are trying to spin this discussion. You tried to portray me as destroying the article because when I removed false information, I didn't add the real information despite you being the one fighting against its removal. Snowball's chance in Hell that a statement of a user fighting for false information attacking another user for merely "removing it and not replacing it with anything better". Lying to people is much worse than telling them nothing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Never expected you to replace the ones you deleted. Just when you say that we have Media Crate, NPD, etc. and fail to show ANY of their numbers it's just stupid to even point them out when they are useless. And educated estimates aren't lies. WhiteMinority 04:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Now if you don't have anything to add to the article why don't you just leave? WhiteMinority 04:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - I should have taken a note from you and done damage to the article, I suppose.

And, see, one who does damage to an article cannot say "hey, you who fought against my damaging the article, go away!" The fact that you defended VGCharts blindly ruins your right to suggest that someone who simply leave for the act of "removing bad sources but not giving the good ones".

Are the chart tracking services better than VGCharts? Yes. That eliminates VGCharts' superiority to quality sources.

Are the chart tracking services accessible? Yes. That eliminates any need to use VGCharts.

Will I source this article with them? No. My having removed VGCharts is more tan you've done for this article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't source the article with them because you don't have access to them. That is what YOU said. Anyone messing up the article it was you. Do you read what you say? Do you remember what you already said? You completely contradicted yourself. WhiteMinority 16:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fact: I was the one who removed a link which was little more than linkspam from this article. Therefore, the idea that I did any damage to this article is false. And from you, laughable.

Fact: You inserted VGCharts and prevented its removal. This prevents real sources from being gathered.

Fact: Yes, I do not have access to them at this very second. I would have to work on getting the web sites. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So you lied? And since they aren't accessible then that means we do have a need to use VGCharts? This is all according to what you have previously said. WhiteMinority 19:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and back to him not updating that world totals page recently, um, look at Magic-box, they don't even acknowledge that a single DS game has sold over 1 million copies. WhiteMinority 19:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Well, if I said "if we don't have a good source, we should make the article bad", I guess I'd be lying. But of course, I specifically stated that VGCharts is not appropriate.
2. And? Throw out all argument but verifiability. It's not verifiable. Hooray. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You said this: "Are the chart tracking services accessible? Yes. That eliminates any need to use VGCharts." and then this: "Yes, I do not have access to them at this second" (With the "at this second" part, that means that you have gone your whole life without having them and you can just suddenly have them in a matter of seconds? If you don't have access to them now, you most likely won't ever have access to them. And that was thousands of seconds ago anyways, do you have them yet?) That completely contradicts yourself. And with you saying you don't have access to them then it necessitates a need to use VGCharts, based on what you said. WhiteMinority 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How is this a lie? WhiteMinority 05:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Because not having access at the second does not mean "I do not have access and cannot have access". There is no purpose to selectively quote something other than to twist what I say to match what you believe. You are making the accusation that I have lied. If you can quote the entire sentence that the statement came from and it still has the same meaning, then you can keep it. But if you cannot, you have libelled me. Voila. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy? WhiteMinority 05:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy that you gave me fuel in reporting your actions to an administrator? Yes. See, admitting that you knew what the whole statement shows you didn't just happen to read only that part of the statement. And since there's no reason to only quote part of the sentence and it has a different meaning when you add "this second" to the end of that so-called statement, it is impossible for it not to be a libellous statement. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially when I knew what libel was 20 minutes ago, right? And since it is fixed and is the whole sentence now. And the "at this second" part makes no difference to the rest of the post. WhiteMinority 05:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not knowing what libel means is not an excuse for having done libel. Libel is a false statement (negative statement) in print intended to make a false statement about a person. What you have done is libel. You have failed to explain why you did not give my whole statement, why you excluded "at this second". The only reason to do so is because it is a different statement with it added. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It is there, isn't it? What about the statement it false?WhiteMinority 05:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so you say that if I said "so bad, it's spectacular!" about a movie, that if someone said I said "it's spectacular!", that would mean I find it spectacular?

And the lie is that I was lying. I am not threatening to sue. I am not taking this to a court. I'm taking it to an administrator, who will look at your selective reading of a statement and argument that saying those words in order means I have that opinion, even if my entire statement has a different meaning and either give you a harsh warning or a block. You did not simply state I made the statement, you said that the incomplete statement shows I have one opinion, when the entire statement shows I have a different statement from what you claimed I had. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you don't have access to them at this second or you just plainly don't have access to them is the same thing. You currently don't have access to them. And anyways, you didn't have them at that second, do you have them now? Didn't think so. And that first part, um, yes, you did say it's spectacular. WhiteMinority 06:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Again - you mean to say that everything I don't have access to now, I cannot possibly access.

Yes, because I chose not to access them. Are you implying that by not choosing to access them, I cannot access them?

I didn't ask that. I asked if it meant I found the movie spectacular. You altered a statement to mean something it did not to show I was lying. It would mean that you made a libelous statement. Again, there was no purpose to give only part of a statement. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you never did have access to it. You can't get it now (or you would have), and you didn't before. Yes, I am implying that. Because if you did have access to them you would have showed me and this would have been over, but you didn't show me anything and gave some BS excuse to why you didn't. WhiteMinority 06:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a gift, pal. "So you lied? And since they aren't accessible then that means we do have a need to use VGCharts?" I don't have access to the info at this second does not mean "it is unaccessible". I clearly show motive to modify my statement. The fact of the matter is that unmodified, it does not back up what you say. Modified, it does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But it clearly is unaccessible to you or you would have it by now. WhiteMinority 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I mean, it cannot be that I choose not to go looking for sources. No GUIDELINE, let alone policy, even implies that I have to source it. You are accusing me of lying because of a perception of my actions that cannot be backed up by anything that has ever existed or exists right now. If you could have possibly used that argument, you would have argued that before I had used it against you. Let me just educate you for a second. By implying, without evidence that when I say I choose not to look them up I am clearly lying and just doing it because they are uneccessible, you have commited libel. Two libels in one day - I suggest quitting before you hit three. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not the reason and you know it. WhiteMinority 06:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, I forgot - you don't actually need to provide evidence of such. I must be an idiot, for I don't realize that my reasoning for not doing something is false, but your reasoning (AKA: Your libel towards me). Accuse me of lying and you will be blocked from Wikipedia for abusing the privilege to edit Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You claim the reason you haven't showed the numbers is because lack of time, but you can spend hours on here arguing with me? If you had access to the numbers it would take no more than minutes to get it. It's obvious to everyone reading you don't have them. WhiteMinority 07:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me help your case. I also go play baseball, go to the movies, play games, and take naps. So because I do those, I must be lying when I say I have better things than reviewing games that I received from various game developers and have to review.

But in reality, the fact that I do not completely abandon other things to focus on reviews does not prove that I must be lying. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that ever one of the links next to the name don't work?

Seriously, click on that one GTA game for PSP, that is a *PRIME* example Zabrak 04:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why they don't work for you but they all work for me. Included GTA for PSP. WhiteMinority 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo's new Virtual Console

The Virtual Console allows for downloading legally (at a cost) copies of some of the video games mentioned on the list (most of them being "classic"). If we're going to keep this article, we should address if we're going to count those new purchases from the Virtual Console as a "sale of a copy" of a game. Thoughts?

Kuro Yoake 00:07, 19 November 2006

I was wondering that myself, I guess we'll see when a Virtual Console game sells high enough. WhiteMinority 02:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sales of the Virtual Console version of the game won't count towards say a NES version of that game, but would count towards franchise sales. Let's say the Virtual Console version of Super Mario 64 sells 20 million copies, we would create a Virtual Console section, and list Super Mario 64 and put 20 million as the figure. As Super Mario 64 is part of the Mario franchise, we would add 20 million to the Mario franchise figure. Dionyseus 02:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this would be the only logical way to handle this. Indrian 02:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And make "Virtual Console" a sub-section under "Nintendo Wii". WhiteMinority 03:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Top 20

I think that the Top 20 of all time list should be Top 20 stand alone titles and not have bundled games in there. If not, delete the bundled games section. WhiteMinority 02:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a console bias to the Top Twenty? I am going to kick off the ones that have been been beaten by the PC games to refelct a more accurate picture of the industry.Merc25 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Because you see how there are two main sections titled "PC" the other "Consoles" and the 'Top 20' section is under the "consoles" section and therefore only has console games in it. ; WhiteMinority 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Gran Turismo 3 a-spec

According to VGCharts, the is the best selling PS2 game. --Ragnarok Addict 13:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• [10]

What's the current scenario about User:A Link to the Past vs. All? Can I change to the correct numbers ?

After lots of vicious arguing we have decided that we cannot use VGCharts. User:WhiteMinority and User:A Link to the Past are still battling it out. Dionyseus 13:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, for how much time Wikipedia will continue contradicting itself? If you change the game in the console pages ppl will not accept there. --Ragnarok Addict 16:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? There's no contradiction in removing VGCharts.

Additionally, if "All" means a few users including someone whose edits comprise of defending VGCharts' usage, then I guess I'm the only one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to use one of the "many other accessible sites" out there that have worldwide video game sales statistics. User:A Link to the Past claims to have access to these but fails to show them to me. WhiteMinority 07:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fails? I have not made the attempt to show them to you, nor am I required to. I cannot fail at something before having attempted it. I choose not to do the research. And you lack the right to make any accusations about me based on that fact. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so now you'd have to do research to find the numbers? The reason you have not done this is because you know you'll come up empty handed. You, I and everyone knows you don't have access to these numbers and you're just coming up with BS reasons to why you won't supply them. WhiteMinority 07:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of proof in your statement? Check.

Lack of good faith in your statement? Check.

Great way to get blocked in your statement? Check.

Enjoy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You're just mad because I made it clear to everyone that you're just lying, aren't you? WhiteMinority 07:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Made it clear? You made baseless conjecture. Are you implying that you are not required to follow WP:AGF? Unless you can show my intentions, what you are doing is a blockable offense. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you are lying about it, that's what I'm trying to figure out from you. WhiteMinority 08:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't lying then why can't you even tell me how many copies worldwide one game sold, such as Metroid Prime. You said sites such as GoNintendo have those numbers, if they are so accesible why can't you give me one game? That should take less than a minute. WhiteMinority 08:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confused. See, if I were lying, I would be saying this:

"I am lying".

If you make another message with the claim, I will get you blocked for AGF, No personal attacks, and Libel. You are unable to prove that I am lying. you refuse to cease and desist the unprovable claim. I ask you - are you required to assume good faith? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I said GoNintendo has Media Create numbers. The burden of proof that I am lying lies with the accuser, not the person being accused. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My proof is that you can't even tell me one single game or show me any links and then give me BS reasons to why you can't do that. WhiteMinority 08:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Did I say I was "unable" to do so? At what point does "I choose not to do so" indicate an inability to do so? Proof is proof. Proof is me saying that I lied. Proof is not your absurd conjecture based on a theory that my reason that I do not source must be a lie. You are required to AGF. You either AGF or leave. Pick. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So wait, I could say I ran a mile in a minute and it would only be lying if I said I was lying? This is according to your logic. WhiteMinority 15:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you required to assume good faith? If so, then you are violating policy. If not, you are confused, because you must assume good faith. If you had evidence I was lying (a theory that I could be lying is not evidence, it's a theory), you could make the accusation. But you have none. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You're essentially calling me a liar for calling you a liar. Do you have any proof to show I am lying? WhiteMinority 19:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I say that I am not lying, you say that I am. You are unable to present evidence that I am lying; your only "evidence" is that you "know" that I am lying. Because when you call me a liar, and cannot prove it, and when I know I am not lying, I can confirm that you are lying when you call me a liar. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But you can't prove it. If you could prove I was lying you'd show me the numbers you supposedly have. WhiteMinority 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You are lying about me lying. You lack evidence. I have the fact that I am not lying. You cannot prove otherwise. Simply put: If I say I am not lying and you cannot prove I am lying, then it is a lie to say I am lying. And note - you cannot use that argument. An accusation that I am lying without evidence is a lie if I deny it. An accusation that you are lying about me lying is a lie if I claim I am not lying and you are unable to prove me wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you can't prove that you aren't lying!!! You simply saying that you aren't lying isn't evidence to support yourself. It's that simple. WhiteMinority 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I cannot prove that I am not lying, and nothing says that I have to. Do you understand burden of proof? You are the one making the claim, and I have proven it wrong by denying it. If you have evidence that I am lying, wonderful. Then I'd be wrong, correct? I do not have any reason to support myself. You cannot make a claim and say that the person you are making the claim has to disprove your nonexistant evidence. Tell me - if I claimed that somebody was a Nazi sympathizer because they were from Germany, who would have to prove it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

..*sigh* you just proved you were lying. By saying that you cannot prove you are not lying means that you are indeed lying. WhiteMinority 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can one accused of being a Nazi sympathizer prove they are not? And whether or not I am lying doesn't matter. If there was some proof, I'd worry. But if you can't prove what you say, I should hardly be expected to disprove what you say. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because he is indeed a Nazi sympathizer. If he wasn't he'd be able to prove it. Could User: A Link to the Past prove that he is telling the true? No, because he is indeed not telling the truth. WhiteMinority 20:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you quite sane? Do you understand the law at all? Are you saying that I am the only one that must prove what they say? Let's do a theory. I say that you are a Nazi sympathizer. Is there any evidence to show otherwise? Note that I am not making the claim that you are. I am asking if you can prove yourself to not be a Nazi sympathizer. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because I don't know any Nazis. And besides, if you had access to these sites you'd be able to prove it without a problem, but since you can't prove it means you're lying about it. WhiteMinority 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But how can you prove that? And I am not obligated to prove i am not lying, you are obligated to prove I am. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because you can't prove you are not lying. We already declared that when you said it. If you had access to them it wouldn't be hard at all to look them up (probably less than a minute). If you really had access to the pages you'd be able to prove you weren't lying. But you can't prove it because you don't have access to them and therefore are lying. WhiteMinority 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked you a question. Can you prove you do not know a Nazi? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a do not question, yours is a do question. It's simple to prove you do have something or know someone than to prove you don't know someone or don't have something. I could prove that I do know a Nazi simply by going and introducing you to him. It's hard to prove I don't know one. You're question is similar to the first one and was do you have access to those "more reliable sites" which you could prove if you had them. If I asked you if you didn't have acess to them that would actually be hard for you to prove. The questions aren't the same at all. WhiteMinority 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And my above statement proves you are lying. WhiteMinority 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You claimed that if someone could not prove themselves to not be a Nazi sympathizer, they are a Nazi sympathizer. Do you still believe that, and are you going to prove you know no Nazis? Because if so, then in this argument, if someone had seriously made the accusation, they would be able to label you a Nazi sympathizer by your own logic. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read my last post? Proving I do know something or someone is easy to prove. Proving I don't know someone or something isn't as easy. You're question is the former... the easy one, and you still can't do it. WhiteMinority 21:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So answer me this - because you cannot prove that you do not know a Nazi, you cannot prove that you are not a Nazi sympathizer. Answer that with a yes or no, please. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I could prove I was a Nazi sympathizer, if I were. And that is exactly what the question to you was like. I could prove I own a DS, easily. It'd be hard to prove I didn't own a DS. It'd be extremely simple to prove I had access to a web page with more reliable numbers than VGCharts. It wouldn't be to prove I didn't have access to it. WhiteMinority 21:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But you have claimed that if someone accused another person of being a Nazi sympathizer and the accused couldn't disprove it, they would be a Nazi sympathizer. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, your example has nothing to do with the real debate. The questions are complete opposites. Now I'm done with this. You know you're lying about having more accessible, reliable sources, I know it, everyone reading knows it. I accomplished what I tried to do. I'm done now. WhiteMinority 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe you accomplished what you sought to. If you sought to make yourself look embarassing by claiming that the burden of proof lies solely with the accused, not the accuser, that is. Nice to know that I "won" this, and that you are pulling out because I created a situation where your logic is either destroyed or used against you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I accomplished what I wanted to do by making it obvious to everyone that you were lying about there being more "accessible and reliable sources" out there. Claiming you have access to them when you really didn't. WhiteMinority 22:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So basically, because you theorized that I do not have access, it must mean that I do not have access. Again, answer the question. You either answer the question or stop acting as if you are not required to prove anything you say. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia contradicting itself?

In the console pages (PS2, Playstation Portable) Wikipedia reports best seelling games different from here. This must be fixed with a pool and users vote for a consensus. The user who doesn't agree with the consensus must be warned, your editions reverted and finally blocked. Wikipedia is a community and not a Fanboy one sided POV view. --Ragnarok Addict 13:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto

I used to check this list up regularly,but when i logged in today to check it,i found that there were no pointers towards the sales figures of GTA:San Andreas and GTA:Vice City Stories.These two games have become the top selling titles of the PS2 and PSP,respectively.Also,i think Shadow Of The Colossus,The Godfather and 50 cent:bulletproof crossed the 1 million mark.Please correct Sugreev2001 01:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All games that were referencing to VGCharts.org were deleted, so in order to include a game we need a source to verify the sales information. -- ReyBrujo 02:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Accessible, more reliable sources.

So does anyone have access to these "accessible and more reliable than VGCharts" sources. User: A Link to the Past says he does, but we all know the real story behind that. And if no one does, wouldn't that give a perfect reason to use VGCharts (at least for games that were released pre-PS2)? WhiteMinority 15:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fun fact: You cannot "know" anything without having any education as to what the actual truth is. If you continue to libel me, you will be blocked, and seeing as how you aren't exactly a productive or civil Wikipedian, you will be blocked for a while most likely. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But I do know the actually truth. I've gathered it from our long discussion. It's that you were lying about having access to more reliable sources. And that's what made me ask the above question and I'd like to see what other people think about it. So I'd enjoy if you stopped posting lying nonsense. WhiteMinority 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

One of your main reasons on not to use VGCharts was that there are more "reliable and accessible sources" out there. But you don't have them, I don't have them, no one seems to have them. So I don't understand why the numbers can't even be used for PRE-PS2 games... someone clarify, please? WhiteMinority 22:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a distinct feeling you lack proof that I am lying. Anything to show that I am lying other than because I am choosing to do something that I am not obligated to do by any policy or guideline on Wikipedia? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

DUDE, if you had access to them you would be able to prove it, BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!! MAKING IT COMPLETELY OBVIOUS YOU DON"T HAVE ACCESS TO THEM!!! Now quit trying to hijack this and talk about the topic on hand. WhiteMinority 22:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So basically: If I refuse to do something that I am not required to do by any policy, then I am lying. You are derailing your own discussion by attacking me in an unrelated discussion. I have asked you throughout this whole discussion why your version of the universe is different from the actual one. Burden of proof - you have not met your burden of proof, you have not proven anything. And PS: saying "yes huh you so were lying" is not proof that I am lying. I am going to end this juvenile discussion between a serious Wikipedian who does more than participate in arguments with those who cannot follow basic policies (and a policy is, by the way, something which you have to follow, no questions asked). If you ever intend to edit Wikipedia seriously as opposed to just attacking others, drop a line. But until then, it's not worth debating with you since you lack understanding of basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have access to them you would have proven it by now, it's that simple. WhiteMinority 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Major reformat

I have converted most external links into references. I also got sure the values shown here were the ones shown in the article, so some sales may appear now lower than before (people would update the sales figures but would not change the reference). I have found some links that are questionable. I will post them here, I would like to hear opinions whether these links are reliable or not.

• www.video-games-survey.com (used for FIFA franchise sales)
• www.zeldaelements.net (used for Minish Cap and Wind Waker)
• swfeatures.tripod.com (used for Streets of Rage 2, Vectorman and Sonic CD)
• www.americanmcgee.com (used for American McGee's Alice)
• barracudanet.com (used for Microsoft Flight Simulator, Doom, Doom II and SimCity 2000)
• www.spokesmanreview.com (used for Myst and Riven)
• www.thescratchpost.com (used for Warcraft II and Starcraft)
• www.gamesfirst.com (used for Diablo and Diablo II: Lord of Destruction)
• www.sunflowers.de (used for Anno 1602)
• irl.eecs.umich.edu/jamin/courses/eecs494/fall06/lectures/lecture1-history.pdf (apparently an essay, used in Smash Bros Melee)

That is all (I may insert more later). -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Rey. I'll take a look at these sources, but just looking at the names they seem to be unreliable and unnotable. Dionyseus 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The first one, www.video-games-survey.com, only 212 google hits, I can't see any mention of that website at notable gaming sites such as IGN, Gamespot, Gamasutra, etc. The website claims that the "data is culled from a number of different sources such as company announcements, market research companies and bulletin boards." Sounds like what VGCharts does, and thus we cannot use it. Dionyseus 04:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The second one, http://www.zeldaelements.net, seems to be a Zelda fansite. A Google search returns 17 unique hits, no mention of the website from notable gaming sites such as IGN, Gamespot, or Gamasutra. Dionyseus 04:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The lecture one seems like they got most of it off of Wikipedia in the first place and shouldn't be used. I'd have to look into the others, but the americanmcgee.com one seems legit. I mean, I think he'd know how well his games sold. Oh, and good job on the converting, man.WhiteMinority 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

swfeatures.tripod.com obviously cannot be used, it's a tripod website that was probably created in less than two minutes. Dionyseus 04:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would trust americanmcgee.com on first sight, but the about section of the site (www.americanmcgee.com/wordpress/?page_id=216) quotes Wikipedia :-) Guess that is on purpose, though. -- ReyBrujo 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the link says that he was told from someone at EA. I don't know though, whatever you guys think. WhiteMinority 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yea I saw that he mentions it was an anonymous source at EA. Dionyseus 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A Google search of http://barracudanet.com returns only 321 unique hits, and I see no mention of the website at IGN, Gamespot, or Gamasutra. Dionyseus 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The news website http://www.spokesmanreview.com/ seems to be notable enough. Dionyseus 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The "art resource" website www.thescratchpost.com does not seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia, with only 651 Google hits, and an alexa rank below 2m. Dionyseus 04:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The video game website http://gamesfirst.com/ does not seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia, with only 85 unique Google hits, and an alexa rank below 100k. I was unable to find any mentions of the website at IGN, Gamespot, or Gamasutra. Dionyseus 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sunflowers.de is apparently related to Sunflowers Interactive Entertainment Software, who are the makers of Anno series. The website has an alexa rank of 73k, and according to alexa sunflowers.de also owns http://anno1503.com/ and http://anno1602ad.com, although the latter website is no longer operational. I don't know what to say about this one, what say the rest of you? Dionyseus 05:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have problems with www.wiieurope.com/article-29.html for Smash Bros Melee. It is apparently the 29th article of the site (a site that has only 57 of these articles). I will use japanese numbers from the Magic Box until clarified. -- ReyBrujo 12:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found a GameDaily article to use as reference for the 6 million units. -- ReyBrujo 13:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. Aren't .net sites always reliable? or is that .org sites? WhiteMinority 23:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you convert this into references? Or explain to me how to? http://www.the-magicbox.com/Chart-USPlatinum.shtml Then I'll add the games on it. WhiteMinority 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Already done. Use <ref name="magicboxus" /> to reference it. -- ReyBrujo 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link for those metroid sales numbers, two games were already using it, but I guess the link isn't down there: http://wiieurope.com/articlenav-38-page-3.html

Could you show me where it tells you how you are suppose to add a reference?WhiteMinority 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty technical. See Wikipedia:Citing sources, m:Cite/Cite.php and {{cite web}}. Also, can you find a better reference? I preferred to search for another link for Smash Bros Melee (as noted above here) because the site has only 57 articles. -- ReyBrujo 00:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest cube.ign.com/articles/579/579600p1.html for Metroid Prime (1.2 million in US only). -- ReyBrujo 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll check that out tomorrow, thanks. And about the Metroid games, I can't find anything for any Metroid games except Metroid Prime which magic box has at 1.26 US only. And I updated all the Nintendo games from Magic-Box, I'll do the others tomorrow. WhiteMinority 01:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but looking around the WiiEurope webpage and their affiliates it seems reliable. WhiteMinority 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeux France

Is www.jeux-france.com a reliable site? WhiteMinority 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes, it is the most important French site about games, has an Alexa rank of 15,838 (considering it is a French-only site, it is pretty impressive), and they publish the official French sales information every week. -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

They reference to VGCharts at the bottom of their page. WhiteMinority 17:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is because they both belong to the Advanced Media Network, but Jeux-France does not reference VGCharts as far as I know. -- ReyBrujo 17:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So if they are reliable, why not VGCharts? WhiteMinority 18:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is like asking, if Yahoo! News is reliable, why not Geocities or Flickr, since both belong to the Yahoo! Corporation... or if Fox News is reliable, why not MySpace since both belong to News Corporation. -- ReyBrujo 19:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, they are a blog. They are only reliable if they have a source. So you would need a reliable source that can verify VGCharts.

Seriously, stop trying to get VGCharts put back up. This article is actually of some quality now. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Advance Media Network uses their numbers. And aren't ".org" sites reliable ones? Or is that .net? WhiteMinority 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And... WhiteMinority 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia.org a reliable site? Is the.animearchive.net a reliable site? If you want, the only reliable sites are .gov ones. -- ReyBrujo 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Probable best selling

Let's put games (with source!) that are likely to have passed the 1m mark, but that are not clear (because it is across multiple platforms, etc). Feel free to edit this table directly instead of replying. -- ReyBrujo 12:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Article date	Name	Amount	Link
2006-06-01	Tomb Raider: Legend	2.6 million across multiple platforms	[11]
2006-06-01	Hitman 2: Silent Assassin	1.7 million across Xbox and PlayStation 2 in US	[12]
2006-06-01	The Sims series	60 million in PC only	[13]
2006-06-01	GUN	1 million across all platforms	[14]
2006-11-28	Scarface: The World is Yours	1 million across all platforms	[15]
2006-06-01	Shadow the Hedgehog	1 million in USA	[16]
2004-11-18	Need for Speed: Underground	7 million worldwide (platform not specified)	[17]
2006-10-21	Prey	1 million (platform not specified)	[18]
2006-08-22	Madden NFL 06	6.5 million (platform not specified)	[19]
2006-11-03	Madden NFL 07	5 million (platform not specified)	[20]
2006-11-03	FIFA 07	2 million (platform not specified)	[21]

What about Wii Sports? When you add in the Wii's total sales in US, Europe, then Media-Creates numbers for the game in Japan it equals over 1 million. WhiteMinority 06:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wii Sports is not bundled in Japan. But without Japan, it most likely has done enough to break 1 million (although sources are necessary). - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's why I said Media Creates numbers for the game only. And there are sources for how many Wii's were sold in NA and Europe and then how much the game alone has sold in Japan, but do we want to put all those together on the page? WhiteMinority 17:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

US only ?? What the heck ?

I haven't checked up on this page for a while, but what is with all of this US only crap now, shouldn't the sales be worldwide for each game ? I'm seeing in Japan only or US only and it just looks like a way to slash deserving titles mostly across the ninendo and sony consoles. The only time I feel this should be used is when an accurate world statistic isn't available and only a news feed for a single game showing sold X amount within that country. I vote for removal of this and ask for all of the old titles to be reverted back. I hope some of you will support this. --70.48.32.8 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bother to read the debates, please. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to be more helpful, we only add verifiable information. We need a source for sales information (except when we add the different sourced numbers to get an approximate total to sort the game in its list). It is easy to get information about US and Japanese markets. If the source specifically says "1 million in Europe", we specify that the game sold 1 million copies in Europe, so that readers won't think the game sold 1 million worldwide. Numbers that do not specify Europe, Japan or US are referring to worldwide sales. -- ReyBrujo 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Warcraft III...

The PC games lists Warcraft III's expansion as selling one million copies... ...and you need the original in order to run the expansion... ...and the original doesn't appear on the list! Not only that, but the statistics on this page suggest that between Warcrafts one two and three, 13 million copies were sold. Surely there's something wrong here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.151.162.200 (talk • contribs) .

Hello there. There is a small problem: Wikipedia is a collaboration between many, many users. As you can imagine, anyone can say "I heard it sold 3 million", "No, I read somewhere it sold 4 million", "No way, the original sold 6 million, the third part should have sold more". But we can't just add all that information in the article because, when the casual user reads something, we need to also say "If you have doubts, check this reliable source to learn more". Now, maybe Warcraft III sold more than a million, but we have a source that says it sold a million. Yes, the source is over three years old (published in 2003!), but unluckily, we do not have a newer source saying "Warcraft III sold six million". Between having a reliable but outdated list, or having an estimated list made by fans, we choose the former. -- ReyBrujo 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What about just asking the manufacturers?

I watched Link to the Past and WhiteMinority duke it out over who had reliable sources or not, and it was laughable. Come on, WhiteMinority; please grow up. It says that the guidelines for this page is "Be Polite" among others.

That aside, why not have a representative of Wikipedia Gaming actually ask the manufacturers themselves about the sales to date? I'm sure they must have a reliable list somewhere. We could have that rep update the page every month or so. That'd probably solve most of the problems concerning this one page. Kuro Yoake 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because that is considered original research. We are not the reporters asking sources, we are the editors searching for reports. In order to put information in Wikipedia, we must be able to say "Game X sold Y copies worldwide because Z said so." with Z being a reliable source. This puts every Wikipedia editor at the same level, otherwise we would have "reliable" editors whom we must trust no matter what they write because they have talked with the sources, and "unreliable" editors who must search for sources. -- ReyBrujo 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. Many thanks, then. I'll keep a close eye open for a "reliable source", then. Kuro Yoake 03:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is that publishers like Sony report SHIPPED numbers (how many have been sent to retailers, or even just sitting in warehoused like Sony does) while others like Nintendo) use sold numbers (how many copies have actually been bought by people). TJ Spyke 23:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly helpful information

Here are a few things taken from http://www.gamespress.com - which unfortunately is not open to the public. They may be helpful, but they cannot stand on their own.

• The Crash franchise has sold over 20 million copies worldwide, with over 8 million units sold in North America alone. [May 17, 2001] [This figure includes Crash Bandicoot + Crash Bandicoot 2 + Crash Bandicoot 3 + Crash Team Racing + Crash Bash]
• Driver and Driver 2 - which have sold more than 12 million copies worldwide [Feb 16, 2004]
• Spyro the Dragon is a real-time, 3-D platform fantasy adventure game with broad demographic appeal. Produced by UIS and developed by Insomnia Games, Spyro was launched in September 1998 by Sony Computer Entertainment and was followed by a second title in November 1999. Combined, these two releases have sold in excess of 5 million units worldwide, and have consistently ranked in the top 10 of Playstation title sales in both North America and Europe. [September 3, 2000]

I'll have a further look to see if I can find any unique sales figures, not just figures for multiple titles. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Age of empires total collection sales check

Hi i'm new and I've just edited the Age of empires collection total sales. However, I'd like someone to have a look and make sure everything is A OK. I posted the link for the 16 million copies sold for the first age and age of kings plus 2 expansions which was a report before the age of empires 3 went gold. So with the refrence for age 3 selling 1.5 million, that total is 17.5 million. So Once someone is kind enough to verify that I haven't messed up this wonderfull site, they can delete this post. Incase you need the website here it is http://pc.ign.com/articles/653/653518p1.html—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.80.69 (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I reverted the amount to 16, as the reference stated 16 only. I think it could be possible to add a reference to the 1.5m for AoE 3 and add both numbers, we are doing something similar when we have scattered numbers from Japan, US and Europe. However, I am not sure if everyone will agree. -- ReyBrujo 04:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Franchises in PC games list (re: Guild Wars franchise)

I've noticed that people have been putting the 3 stand alone expansions for Guild Wars as one complete game in the best selling PC games lst. I do not think this should not be done because there are numerous franchises games which would then qualify for entrance, eg GTA 3, Vice City, San Andreas and HL2, HL2:Ep1, HL2:Ep 2 etc would all be grouped together and thus be higher on the list. It would open the way for many other games and is a false indication of the best selling individual games. The only other item on the list that meets this categrory is Starcraft and the Brood War expansion but I can't find numbers for just Starcraft so I left it. So do you guys think that the list should only be for individual titles or should we be grouping expansions and such? Most of the other lists on this page do not group games together and Guild Wars should not be the exception. (To ReyBrujo: World of Warcraft is an individual retail game, not a franchise)nutcrackr 03:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Starcraft was left there because the only amount that was found was with the BW expansion pack. And since you need SC to play BW, we considered it a single game. GTA:VC and GTA:SA cannot be considered a single game because you can buy and play one without having the other. Let's see what others have to say (I don't play games PC games other than Counter-Strike, Starcraft and Heroes of Might and Magic). -- ReyBrujo 05:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Resourses

I have been observing this page of the website for a while and would thank you all for contributing to finding a good source. I think we have for four different sections of this page(not the talk page), 1 with European sales, American Sales, Japanese sales, and of course, WorldWide sales.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_computer_and_video_games" —Kinopi (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 December 2006

Metal Gear Solid 3 source

The Gamespot article says the source came from Konami, that's acceptable. But if for some reason you don't want to use the Gamespot article, here's a Gaming-Age article that has the same information. [22] Dionyseus 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In the whole Gamespot article, there is not a single reference about Konami other than the infobox article. I am switching to Gaming-Age, as the Gamespot one is pretty vague. -- ReyBrujo 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

we need to come to a decission on the Top 20 games

either we lump all 8 million game sellers as tied or we choose one to be off of the list or we increased the list to fifty, but I suspect a similiar problem would arise. any thoughts on this matter?Merc25 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)