Talk:List of best-selling video games/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories

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

Incorrectly Titled Page

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Clancy Series Reaches 52 Million Units

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

Nothing further to say.

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

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

Wii Sports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sims total franchise at 100 million

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

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

Up-to-Date?

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

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

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

GTA san Andreas

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

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

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

The PS2 version of the game has sold 17 million copies, so it should be above Gran Turismo 3... San andreas has sold 3 million copies more than GT3.

http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=3427&region=All —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.185.247 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

VG Chartz is not a reliable source, see #World Million Sellers games in VG Chartz. --Silver Edge (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now it is more reliable than Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.185.247 (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is only ever as reliable as its sources. This is why Wikipedia doesn't use VGChartz as a source. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

GTA 4 PS3 - 35 million

Hmm, that can't be right...

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

Missing Wii and DS million sellers

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

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

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

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

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

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue

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

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

The sales by Genre should be removed or improved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Command & Conquer: Red Alert

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sims

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

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

The Bard's Tale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GTA 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List

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

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

Semi-Protection

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous column

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multi-platform Section Issues

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

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

By Generation

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

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

Top 20 console games of all time

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

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

World Million Sellers games in VG Chartz

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sonic Mobile

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

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

Madden NFL 06

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

Crysis at 3m?

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

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

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

Outdated Statistics

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

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

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

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

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

Diablo 2

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

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

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

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

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

General reference

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

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

Changing the introducing text

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

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

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

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

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

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

May GTA4 sales (U.S.A)

360 = 871 300, PS3 = 442 900

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

Call of Duty 4 at ten million

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

MMORPG, final take (hopefully)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metal Gear Solid 4

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

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

Updated PS3 List and Xbox 360 List

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

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

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

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

Vice City and GTA III for PS2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forza Motorsport

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

Mario Kart Wii

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

1.584 million + 1.12 million = 2.704 million

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

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

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

Newest Wii Fit sales

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

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

Star Ocean: The Second Story sales numbers

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

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

Metal Gear Solid 4

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

Playstation 3 sales

Information about ps3 game sales should be correct to following data

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

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

Ninja Gaiden II

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

Commodore 64 computer

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

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

Ghost Recon Advanced Warrior?

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

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

US/Japan sales

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

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

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

Deca Sports ships 1 million copies

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

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

Rock Band

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

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

Arcade Games

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

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

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

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

Lineage II customers vs World of Warcraft subscribers

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

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

---

Valve Sales Numbers

In issue 187 of Game Informer, from pages 67 to 70, Valve released sales numbers for the following games. Half Life: 9,300,000, Opposing Forces: 1,100,000, Counter-Strike: 4,200,000, 1,500,000 (for Xbox), 2,900,000 (Condition Zero), 2,100,000 (source), Half Life 2: 6,500,000, Episode one: 1,400,000

These numbers should be updated on this page but I don't know if these numbers are PC only (except the xbox one obviously) or overall. --74.65.22.89 (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Opposing Force and Source only game out for PC, I added those numbers. Also the article stated the counter-strike numbers for Xbox so I added those. What I wasn't sure about is whether the Orange Box, Half Life 2, and Episode One numbers were just for PC or combined all sales so I didn't add those. I also put 2.7 for PC Counter-Strike even though it says 4.2. I did not know whether or not that was 4.2 for PC or 4.2 between PC and Xbox so I subtracted the Xbox numbers from that to err on the side of caution. --Xander756 (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

MGS4

Konami's recent quarterly report indicates that the "Metal Gear series" has "sold over 4 million units" in the quarter and that the "Metal Gear genre/category" sold 4.33 million units; however, an article from psu.com, which cites the Konami quarterly report as its source, states that the 4.33 million figure in the quarterly report as Metal Gear Solid 4 sales. I don't see why the psu.com article should be used as a source for Metal Gear Solid 4 sales in this article or PlayStation 3, when we can see that Konami's quarterly report itself doesn't state that the 4.33 million sales figure is specifically for MGS4. --Silver Edge (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I normally use Gamasutra, and they claim 4.33m shipped for the series, and 4m for MGS4. I agree that when the sources interpret another source the wrong way, we should keep the original one. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd doubt that Konami's sales are up to date, but I am also a little doubtful that MGS4 sold 4 million chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 11:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox Games

Shouldn't there be a sandbox genre in the genre section? Because I think Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is like the best selling game in that genre. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be... -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox isn't a genre. It's just a term used to describe non-linear gameplay. A genre is a specific type of game (i.e. action, sports, racing, shooting, platformer, etc.) while the term "sandbox" can be applied to describe the gameplay of games from any of those genres.-Zomic13 (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

pgr3

has anybody got any exact details on pgr3's sales. almost everywhere claims its sold at least 1.5M copies, but its not on the 360 list (prob coz of this) if anyone can find it. i know pgr4 was a flop (released around the time of halo 3), but i think pgr3 being missing is a big miss. (launch title etc) cheers guys chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 23:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

vgchartz. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

VGChartz is not an acceptable source for this list. -Zomic13 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just updated the 360 list with PGR3 but can someone put the link to vgchartz PGR3 page as Im new and dont know how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaza13 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns of the Patriots sells 4.33 million copies!

Here is the article.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=285433

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6200752.html?sid=6200752&part=rss&subj=6200752 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguy681 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being on the look out for new sales figures, but please see the MGS4 discussion above for why that figure is incorrect. -Zomic13 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

List format

A user has modified the list to show the different sections as ordered lists instead of dots. I reverted those modifications, since I believe using numbers gives the impression the lists are absolute. However, if others believe numbers are necessary for sorting, I have no problem in changing them (using # instead of ol tags, of course). Of course, the franchise uses them, but it is a single list and not several ones. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it sounds like a good idea. It can help show how many games reach a million on a single console. However, the user did do the same with the best-selling genres section. And that seemed stupid. If you revert it like that, don't add numbers to the genre parts.GamerPro64 (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• I concur with ReyBrujo, this list is not an accurate ranking since our data is incomplete, so we should not give a false impression through using numbers. Indrian (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Its not ranking, its just showing which game is better selling. This isn't gamerankings!GamerPro64 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but as soon as numbers enter the equation, it looks like an absolute statement that so-and-so game is the number one best-selling game on the system, the next game is the number-two best-selling game on the system and so on. What makes you think that an outside reader looking at a list with numbers will not believe that this is so? Indrian (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • They look at the references! Duh! That is how they get put on this list.GamerPro64 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Most readers do not bother looking at the references. Numbers add little of value and have the potential to cause confusion. Indrian (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I need a second opinion.GamerPro64 (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• I put a LOT of time into renumbering that wiki (yes I used OL and LI tags instead of # as I'm fluent in html but had only edited a whole 2 wikis as of me formatting this one). For you to just up and undo the changes, THEN open a freaking talk page was inconsiderate and just plain lame. It's a hell of a lot easier to go through and get rid of all those OL and LI tags then it is to go through and renumber each individual item.

Bullets are nice for short lists. They make a point. But when you're talking a gigantic ass list like this, using anything other then numbering is just plain stupid. OL tags (or the # wiki tag if you so wish to use) are ordered list tags and they do just that...order the list so people don't have to sit there and point at their screen counting "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7..." to see what the 25th top selling game is for playstation.

And as for this crap about "it's incomplete"...DUH! Of course it's incomplete. This list has never, and will never, be complete. There's always going to be a new console and new games and new sales records. It'll go on and on. And as for it being official, it's A WIKI. In high school, college, and in the military I've been told wiki's cannot be cited...ever. Because of their unreliability due to anyone being able to change said data (or in this case, format it from an easy to read system to something way more difficult to read...being that makes so much sense).

Disrespecting someone's want to add organization to a very large and very hectic list is nothing more then a sign of a control freak.

As for renumbering this thing, one of you all can do it. I contributed, got slapped in the face, and now I'm going to step back and let you guy's play "Wiki God's: The Legendary Journey".

--ZeroAccend (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

i believe policy is 2 stick 2 the original format until concensus is reached, so it was correct to revert then discuss. sorry, and thx 4 the work u put in chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving us your point of view, and sorry if you felt offended, it was not my intention. The etiquette for Wikipedia is usually "if you make a change and someone reverts it, instead of redoing your changes you open a discussion in the talk page". Considering an inexperienced user did the change, I opened the discussion myself. And while I don't like the general tone of your post, I understand your frustration. If other users agree that numbering is needed, it is a matter of replacing all the * with #. If they think it is not necessary, the list will stay this way. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I simply came here to help out the wiki and make it more readable/user friendly. Wasn't looking for a thanks, hand out, donation, props or whatever. I've referenced this page more then a couple times which is what brought me to the point of numbering the lists. When people are looking up certain games how are they suppose to know what number on the list that game is without counting from the top down. I can't seriously be the only one who thinks this makes sense. I've made all the points I can for the defense of my logic in my previous post above, the main point being it organizes the list by making it more readable and easier to sort through.

What benefit does bulleting have? It lists points just like numbering except it's unorganized. It's like having a graduated cylinder that measures liters. Sure, using dots to mark the 1/2 or 1/4 liter points is fine, but when you get to milliliters, who would want to count up 351 or 887 dots? Numbering is your friend when working with more then 2 or 3 or 10 things.

Also I'm having a problem with this "they" you keep talking about. Who is "they" or "other users"?

"If they think it is not necessary...If other users agree that numbering is needed..."

I noticed the same names over and over in this wiki's talk page. Do you want their general approval or is "they" any number of random people who say "yeah, good idea". If so, I'll get ya a few posts this talk page saying "Yes, numbering is a common sense formatting move" by tomorrow afternoon if it's truly what you're looking for.

And as far as replacing * with #, man that's a ton easier than doing the <OL> and <LI> method I used. My method was derived from the "new guy has zero experience with wikipedia but knows his html" logic. I'm not going to complain about it though. On the contrary it was nice to learn something new. But regardless of how you number this thing you still have to double check your work line by line. You don't want 1 character that's off skewing the whole page (did this yesterday when i was editing another wiki. Caught it and fixed it.)

I know my attitude probably isn't taken well but I get defensive when people want to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I respect the fact some of you have your own opinions about how numbering could be perceived but be realistic about this. Almost everyone who comes here comes for a quick reference or to cross check what they read on another website.

My 2 cents...

--ZeroAccend (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• My two cents: I don't believe the numbers imply that the list is complete. I think most people would just wand to see if game A sold more game b (which they can do without numbers), but I agree that some people might want to see which is the Nth best-selling game on ___ console. A numbered list makes this a lot easier. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 08:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

as was said earlier, the list is incomplete, you want to be able to know where a game is in the list, but there are 2 problems. 1: missing games - there are games with no ref that shud b on the list, eg pgr3 sold about 1.3m so any below will be 1 lower position. 2: references - all r different dates so an accurate position cant b made. chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears most of those pushing for a numbered system believe that this page has an accurate ranking of best-selling games, which I believe only reinforces the point that adding numbers will leave readers convinced we have complete sales figures for every game on every system and have generated a ranking of top games, which of course is not the case at all. This should be avoided. There is no value in knowing which game in the list of Playstation games is in the 25th position, because we are probably missing data on 5 or 10 games above it so that appearing in the 25th spot on our list means nothing at all. Indrian (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record (and in reply to ZeroAccend) when I refer to "others" I talk about Wikipedia users in general, readers and editors alike. If you see few names here, it is because a) the topic has a niche importance; b) it is extremely hard to come up with new games and references (especially for old games); and c) the list format is very simple and doesn't really require a lot of maintenance. ZeroAccend acted in good faith and being bold, which is what Wikipedia enforces. I am just taking another path, the one about consensus. I acted in the belief that having numbers may mislead users. However, I am pretty neutral (which is why I am relying in thirds to give feedback).

One of the advantages of having numbered list is to use IDs lo let readers and editors determined games. For example, the fourth best-selling PlayStation 2 game according to this list (no matter which one is now and which one will be in a year) could be accessed as List_of_best-selling_video_games#PS2_4, and the tenth best-selling Wii video game as List_of_best-selling_video_games#WII_10. It may make the list a little more complex (as you need to add a span to name the id), but may allow direct browsing.

However, one of the disadvantages is using the list as reliable. For example, the Final Fantasy article reads The series has been commercially and critically successful; it is the fourth-best-selling video game franchise, only bested by Mario, Pokémon, and The Sims, and Square Enix's best selling series, with more than 85 million units sold as of July 7, 2008. In this case, the article is using an article in Edge magazine, but others may use the Wikipedia article directly.

We can try having the numbered list for a while (a couple of months) to see how it goes, if others complain or not, how the editors, readers and forum goers quote our list. If it is indifferent, we can keep either. As I said, I am pretty neutral (in fact, for the franchise list I used numbering because it is a single list), so if Indrian agrees to try it out, ZeroAccend can modify it (just to let him practice the markup ;-)) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've come across many Wikipedia video game articles which use this list as a source for sales rankings, for example: Super Mario Kart, Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec, Diablo II, and even featured articles such as Final Fantasy X [11] [12]. Those are only some of the articles I found and corrected, there may be some articles that I have yet to find and correct. And this was while the list was not numbered, so it shows some users have come to believe this list is an accurate ranking even though it is not numbered. If it is numbered, I believe we'll come across even more instances where articles will use this list as a source for rankings. --Silver Edge (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

chocobogamer, I'm aware that the list is incomplete. There are some notable omissions due the the lack of reliable sources. But the list is incomplete whether it is numbered or not. I can see how you took my "see which is the Nth best-selling game on ___ console" comment though - I suppose I was forgetting that to a non-wikipedian, the scope of the list would not be so obvious. You are right that the page should not be taken as an accurate ranking and with that being the case, then games should not be listed in order of sales at all - numbered or otherwise. I'm saying that if they are going to be ordered the way they are, they may aswell be numbered. If they're not numbered, the list should be alpha-sorted to completely remove the implication of it being a reliable ranking source. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear Online

I think we should remove Metal Gear Online from the list. It says that it has 1 million members but this is a list tabulating games sales, not how many members they have playing it. Metal Gear Online was included in MGS4, so it is double counting the numbers on MGS4 and MGO. For this reason I believe it should be taken off the list. --Xander756 (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Party games: genre?

a guy named Pé de Chinelo is calling Tekken 3 the best-selling fighting game, not Brawl. He called SSBB a party game. I know its not, but is party games a genre?GamerPro64 (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ignore him, he's exhibiting either tekken fanboy or anti-nintendo mannerisms. he was trying to get it classed as a Vs action game before. every site (inc all nintendo official pages) except smashbros.com class it as a fighter. he was actively involved in the discussion and I consider the evidence conclusive. He keeps reverting and I have left a message on his page explaining this. If he reverts again he needs reporting.

there prob should be a party game, but SSBB certainly isn't a party game. party games are like mario party, sceneit etc chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why it is not a fighting game? -No HP -No button sequence attacks, such as hcf+hk (special attacks and magics are by pre-defined buttons) -The characters don't fight at the same line, as there is platform jumping in the battles -No hit levels -Too many party influences. pure fighting games don't use items, they use SKILL -It requires no skill unlike Tekken 3 which is an actual fightin game Pé de Chinelo (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm upset about you now. And besides, this section is where we are trying to find out which game is the best-selling party game ever. Let it go! GamerPro64 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Chinelo. Don't be stupid, stuff like that is dynamic in beat em ups. Its the core of the game that makes SSBB a fighter - an arena and hitting each other. Its like a roleplayer, theyre all diff - some have random battles some dont, some use hp some use a % scale. let it drop or action may have to be taken. consider this your only warning before it goes on incidents page. chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Brawl is more of an action game. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

jus coz u say it doesn't make it so. the majority has spoken. it IS a fighting game. having got the game i can tell you i haven't played the adventure part so i have only played the fighter. let it drop chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 22:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No HP, no button attacks, no skill? Has Pe De Chinelo ever even played Smash Bros.? Smash Bros. is a fighting game and he's going to have to get over it and stop wasting our time. -Zomic13 (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this topic http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=208&topic=46973296 Pé de Chinelo (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WTF is this? Are you one of those people on the Gamefaqs thing? And good news, you just added another thing to your request for comment thing due to a similar incident you did.GamerPro64 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

wouldn't surprise me if he's all the guys on there, GamerPro64. Its fun to talk to yourself in public isn't it, Chinelo. Just leave this place, you clearly cannot contribute beneficially so don't bother. Also, GameFAQs isn't a reliable source anyway so we would disregard it anyway. Goodbye. chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 23:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Gamefaqs

Everyone knows what Gamefaqs is. But do you think we could make it an unreliable source like VGChartz is? Just suggesting.GamerPro64 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of Gamefaqs is already unacceptable for use as a source since most of the site is user-created content. -Zomic13 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

already assumed it was chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is implicitly known that user-generated sites (GameFAQs, Digg, N4G, etc) are unreliable unless they have some kind of editorial done by the heads of the site. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

smash bros brawl vs tekken 3

OK not wanting to EW I thought I'd get editors opinion on whether you think Super Smash Bros Brawl is a fighting game, and should therefore be no.1 selling fighting game of all time, or not, on the list. cheers guys chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 22:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As said, Smash is not a fighting game, it's too different from real fighting games. No Hit levels, the Japanese consider it a Vs. Action not a fighting game. vs action is a genre in Japan. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

yes I know, thats why I'm asking editors opinion, as its a genre that exists in Japan, but does not, as such, exist in the west where it may or may not be considered a fighting game. there maybe arent enough vs action games in the west to consider that a genre. chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 23:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it back to Brawl as to let there be a consensus whether it is a fighting or not. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo, in its page, says it belongs to the fighting genre. IGN says fighting too. Gamespot calls it a 3D fighting. I believe those are references strong and reliable enough to solve this dispute? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it not a fighting game? All you do in the game is fight. A brawl is just a big loud fight. Plus, since Nintendo, IGN, Gamespot and others all label it a fighting game, it should take the fighting game spot. -Zomic13 (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ah good so its not just me thinkin it is :D chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 00:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that... in US, Smash was the first of the Vs. Action genre, and because of that, they thought the game belonged to Fighting, as opposed to Japan, where there have been other Vs. Action games like Smash (AFAIK Konami has it in Wai Wai World for instance). Pé de Chinelo (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reference that says it is a Vs. Action game? My point is, there were two Smash games before this one, one in N64 and another in GC. I think they would have had time to change the qualification of the third game had they considered it to be a different one. Note that even Nintendo calls it a fighting game. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Smashbros.com. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

where on there?? direct link plz. chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 22:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Players: 1 to 4 Genre: Action. 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pé de Chinelo (talk • contribs)

• http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/KnFMt3BjmYvIGiGjIfIXqkuretT-KLyA "fighting"
• http://nintendo.com.au/games/wii/super-smash-bros-brawl "fighting"
• http://shop.gameplay.co.uk/webstore/productpage.asp?productcode=NW0041&title=super_smash_bros_brawl "beat em up"
• http://www.amazon.co.uk/Super-Smash-Bros-Brawl-Wii/dp/B000FQ9R4E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1226881294&sr=8-1 "fighter"
• http://www.nintendo.co.uk/NOE/en_GB/games/wii/super_smash_bros_brawl_2785.html "super smash bros brawl is a fighting game"

nuff said? let it drop now please. chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 00:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Tekken 3 is much more of a fighter than Brawl, Brawl, IF it is a fighting game, it has too many party influences to it. Tekken 3 is the pure fighting game. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

so on that basis you would say mario strikers is not a football game because its not 11-vs-11 and has silly characters, or that sonic riders isnt a sonic game because its not a platformer, or parasite eve isnt a survival horror coz its an rpg not action adventure, or gitaroo man not being rythm action because it doesnt have an accessory? chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

rite i've had it with your continuous edit warring despite logic and sources. its on the incidents page now. chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested in seeing a proper resolution, an RfC on Chinelo's edits has been started at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pé_de_Chinelo. Feel free to comment chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 10:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Rule of thumb for fighting games: UP is always in some way used to jump. An 'action button' cannot be jump.

Rule of thumb for platform games and beat em ups: They're not fighting games. Let's put Tekken 3, the king to the top. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done, you have just proved nothing, as the Dead or Alive series doesn't use up. Although you have doomed yourself by proving your fanboyism for Tekken. chocobogamermine 21:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you that a Request for comment for user conduct has already been initiated on you for your obvious NPOV pushing and edit-warring amongst other things. The community insists that you make a response to the actions you have made in an attempt that we may provide resolution for this. If you do not cooperate, this will be taken to mediation. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

layout

anyone reckon the layout is a bit messy? i was thinking about using a table similar to:

Game Title|Total Worldwide|Japan|US|Others

maybe also have a tick column for confirmed sales rather than shipped.

I think it'll keep it tidier, be able to sort by name, sales in total/country, console in the 'combined' list.

what you guys think? chocobogamermine 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Snake/Snakes on Nokia phones

sold as a pack-in over 350 million, without a doubt the best selling video game ever, where does that fit? 87.168.39.234 (talk)holy man87.168.39.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC).

First, no reference. Second, it would be like Minesweeper for Windows, unless there is a way to buy them individually, it could be considered freeware, and we don't include freeware games here. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncharted 2

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/uncharted2amongthieves/news.html?sid=6201806&mode=news See the update, 2 million sold. 81.240.11.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC).

Ah! Thanks for the tip, article updated! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

COLECOVISION SOLD 6 MILLION Donkey Kong carts, both as pack-in and alone.

Please do NOT delete the Colecovision entry, as it is stated by NINTENDO that the Coleco system sold 6 million Donkey Kong, as the court case Nintendo/Coleco vs MCA/Universal proves. Refer to book Game Over, page 117. Also in the book on page 121: Donkey Kong cartridges sold for Coleco system: 6 million, translated into $4.6 million. (Also see on mainpage under References, entry 46)...DO NOT DELETE THE COLECOVISION ENTRY.... Tomtomtomabc123 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Read Game Over again buddy. Donkey Kong sold six million TOTAL copies, which means this includes sales of the VCS and Intellivision ports that were also done by Coleco. Since this list is sorted by console and not by sales over multiple consoles and there is no way to know how many of those six million copies were specifically sold for ColecoVision, the game had to be removed. If you want to argue for a change in format for this list, feel free to do so and we will all listen to your arguments and maybe even add our own. Otherwise, I bid you good day. Indrian (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That might be so, but look at the main page. Did the sale of their conversions for VCS and Intellivision score over 1 million each? No they did not, otherwise it would be listed under VCS and Intellivision as million sellers. Therefore take away 1 million (let's say 500.000 for VCS (doubtful), 500.000 for Intellivision (very doubtful), leaves still a cool 5 million Donkey Kongs for the Colecovision. So I'm going to put it back. Tomtomtomabc123 (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • We cannot assume things like that. Maybe we can get consensus for adding it for in a "others" heading... -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Just to elaborate on what ReyBrujo said, you have presented a faulty premise, namely that our lists of million-selling VCS and Intellivision games are complete. These lists have been assembled piecemeal from the few reliable sources that provide video game sales and are in no way comprehensive. We have no idea how many copies of Donkey Kong were sold on those systems because we have no source for those facts. Indrian (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This article should suffice as a source for the 6 million figure [13]. Donkey Kong was bundled with every ColecoVision sold and the system sold 6 million units, thus 6 million Donkey Kongs. -Zomic13 (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Go look at the talk page for ColecoVision on wikipedia, where Marty Goldberg and I already proved the six million sold figure for ColecoVision is wrong. Indrian (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

But we know now that Coleco's pack-in sold 1.9 million, hence Donkey Kong should go on the main page for Coleco 'over 1 million' sales. 87.168.39.234 (talk)holy man87.168.39.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC).

• Actually, that's a good point. If someone wants to add ColecoVision Donkey Kong to the list at 1.9 million with the Time magazine article as a source, they could do that. Indrian (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we have the TIME exact reference somewhere? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, a link to it can be found on the talk page for ColecoVision. Indrian (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for coming back here, but see if I am correct:

• Checking the Wikipedia article about Donkey Kong, Coleco did not offer the game stand-alone; instead, they bundled it with their ColecoVision. The units went on sale in July 1982. Coleco's version is very close to the arcade, more so than ports of earlier games that had been done. Six months later, Coleco offered Atari 2600 and Intellivision versions, too. (The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story behind the Craze that Touched Our Lives and Changed the World, 211)
• Checking the Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. article, it says Universal admonished Greenberg for copyright infringement and threatened to sue if the ColecoVision shipped with Donkey Kong as planned. [...] On May 5 [1982], Greenberg agreed to pay Universal royalties of 3% of Donkey Kong's net sale price, amounting to six million units and worth about $4.6 million. (Game Over, 121)

So, a reference says Coleco agreed on May 5, 1982 to pay royalties for 6 million units before shipping the game. The other, though, says the bundles went on sale in July 1982, two months after agreeing. This same reference says the Atari 2600 and Intellivision versions came 6 months later (December 1982/January 1983).

In other words, the game did not sell 6 million. The 6 million number was agreed between Coleco and Universal before even shipping the game as royalties. I doubt they would have created 6 million of units before shipping them. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, the agreement between the two companies was a royalty on all Donkey Kong cartridges sold ever, before the lawsuit, after the lawsuit, into perpetuity. The quote in Game Over specifically states that they sold six million cartridges overall, not at the time the settlement was reached. Indrian (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't understand how, back in May 5, 1982, they have estimated 6 million units sold there have been no units sold until July (Coleco signed the contract on February 1982 but did not offer the game standalone but bundled, and those were only released after July). I think you are misinterpreting the quote, since they agreed to pay royalties for 6 million cartridges when the agreement was settled before even launching the game. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Royalties do not work that way. A royalty is a payment made for use of a copyright. For example, every time a radio station plays a song, it pays a small royalty to the rights holder for the privilege. Likewise, every time Coleco sold a cartridge, they paid a royalty to MCA. The settlement did not call for a fixed sum of money, it called for Coleco to give MCA 3% of the purchase price every single time they sold a cartridge. Here is the quote from page 121 of Game Over in its entirety to further illustrate the point: "'We entered a covenant not to sue,' Sheinberg said. 'And we received from Coleco an agreement that they would pay us 3 percent of the net sales price [of all the "Donkey Kong cartridges sold].' (the brackets are in the original quote and are not my own substitution of text) It turned out to be an impressive number of cartridges, 6 million, which translated into 4.6 million dollars." Notice the phrase "it turned out," at the start of the last sentence. This language indicates they did not know what the final tally would be at the time of the settlement. I hope this clears things up for you. Indrian (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha, now it is clear. The original sentence, Greenberg agreed to pay Universal royalties of 3% of Donkey Kong's net sale price, amounting to six million units and worth about $4.6 million. made it look like the royalties were calculated over sold units. Maybe a change in the wording would clarify that in the article. Thanks for the clarification! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon/Nintendogs

I'll admit, I'm not a big contributor, but I was using this page for some research. Can someone tell me why the Pokemon and Nintendogs games are lumped together statistically? By my count Super Mario Bros. 3 should be considered the best selling console game of all time, since the others are several titles lumped together into one statistic. Othernash (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is because Nintendo considers them a single game (when they release statistics, they bundle the game together). Super Mario Bros. 3 will be the best-selling single SKU game for a few more months, until New Super Mario Bros passes it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

GameCube list is lacking

The GameCube list is too short. There are other third-party games that have more than likely sold one million by now, if not a few years ago. Games like Pac-Man World 2, Namco Museum, and Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly, while not as high profile as Super Smash Bros. Melee, are still available at some places today (gamequestdirect.com, gamediva.com, discount bins, etc.) because they've had a long production run, making them some of the better selling GC games. There's no reason Sonic Heroes shouldn't be included in the list. With Europeon sales, the GC version has sold well over a million. According to The Magic Box, Star Wars: Battlefront II has sold over a million. I don't see why we can't trust this source, it's used for many of the PS2 games. I think cosidering Magic Box's numbers closely match Nintendo's numbers, we can trust that their Star Wars: Battlefront II numbers are close and accurate enough to be used in the article. As for the other games I don't have any sources that would be consider reliable (in the sense that they're ever used on Wikipedia), but I doubt their sales are far from being accurate and it really shouldn't be surprising that a game like the GC version of Sonic Heroes is a million seller. -- Mega Man 5 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We trust TMB because of historical reasons, if we haven't added games from TMB it is because they added those recently, so feel free to add that up. We have an idea of games that have sold more than a million (for example, most of the FIFA, Tiger Woods and other EA properties) but we don't have references for those. Maybe one day they will give full statistics. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll add Star Wars: Battlefront II to the GC list and have TMB as the source. I'll hold off on adding other games until other, more reliable sources are found (or until TMB adds the above games, if they do). -- Mega Man 5 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving a note here that this change was reverted because Star Wars: Battlefront II isn't available for GameCube. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Morrowind

According to The Magicbox, it lists Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind at 1.36 million sold. The problem is that it lists it as an Xbox 360 game but I was only aware of this game being released on the Xbox, not the 360. Was this just a typo on the site and it should be under the Xbox section here? --Xander756 (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been previously inserted and removed. We cannot assume they meant Xbox, because if they erred the platform they could have written the wrong game name or the wrong sales amount. So, we just kept it out of the list for now. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

About LittleBigPlanet sales

According to the reference, from Gamasutra, LBP has sold 1.3 million units worldwide, however, according to G4TV.com it was the number of people that played LPB online, not units sold("1.3 million unique users"). And on IGN it's "1.3 million people playing LBP". Rhonin the wizard (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been riots because of these numbers and it is extremely obvious it is 1.3 million units sold as Kaz stated that is what it was. You also need to use common sense. If 1.3 million people played online, and there have been 17,000 hours of play online, the average person would have played for less than 1 minute. Those numbers simply don't add up. --Xander756 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sony uses sold to retailers numbers, meaning it's actually 1.3 million shipped. The game has not sold anywhere close to that amount. TJ Spyke 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

After watching the video, Kaz Hirai states "more than 1.3 million uniques users are playing this title"(it's at 42:10), and 17,000 hours is the time it would take for a user to play every level that has been created by players. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How could they say how long it would take to play all the levels. Each one is a different length and not every level would of been played enough to establish an average. I think it's fairly obvious that 1.3 is the number sold, it was just stupidly worded. It seems pretty realistic. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 23:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can confirm what Rhonin says? If they said players, it is not a measure of sales. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The video of the conference is on G4TV.com. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate their obsolete player, you must cache it all. Will check it out, though, if I can bear that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

After downloading almost 300mb of video reached the point (at around 42:38) where he Kaz Hirai says, indeed, that more than 1.3 million unique users are playing this game. So, what do we do? Leaving it as 1.3m units sold, changing that to 1.3m unique users (and using a {{cite video}} reference), or remove it? If we keep we will have to start adding games based on that (like Call of Duty 4 having 10 million Xbox 360 and 4 million PlayStation 3 unique users). But not removing that may only bring people to put it in. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove. I am a little iffy with us even listing games that have only shipped 1 million (meaning sold less), this is clear cut. 1.3 million accounts have played the game, that is counting multiple accounts one 1 system as well as rented copies and used copies. TJ Spyke 18:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My two cents, the article is about games that have sold or shipped 1 million units, the number Kaz Hirai states is neither, I don't think it should be kept. Plus on the 29th of January Sony will release it's financial results and hardware shipment reports for the holiday quarter, so there might be some info there. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. It's obviously sold over a million and it can always be corrected when the true numbers come out as Rhonin was talking about. When I watched the video, he said sold so I don't know if this discrepancy is because some sort of mis-translation turned it into playing or what happened, but 1.3 million playing it and 17,000 hours played simply don't add up. --Xander756 (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you saw the same video, he clearly said that 1.3m unique users are playing it, not that it sold that much. Also, Hirai was referring to 17,000 hours of total game the LBP has now including extra content ("When we first launched LittleBigPlanet, we launched with about 50 levels on the disk itself, that is about 10 hours of gameplay, but now with all the user generated content, this has grown to more than 300,000 levels, and that equates to actually 17,400 hours of gameplay and if you do the math, you could be playing 24/7 and you could be playing this game for two straight years" (translation may have a few mistakes, though). It is in the CES video, some seconds after the reference to the 1.3m unique users. Don't let forum guys mislead you ;-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As a conservative way, I am clarifying "1.3 million unique users" for LBP. After all, we clarify WoW has "subscribers" and Lineage "customers". -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But both of those are paying subscribers. LBP counts multiple profiles on the same system as different users. TJ Spyke 04:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wii Music and Guitar Hero World Tour

Wii Music sold 865,000 copies in US during 2008. I think we can pass the million barrier if we find the Japanese sales. And GHWT for Wii sold more than a million copies combining November and December US sales, but we haven't been able to find a reference for that yet. So, see if you can get them. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wii Music was at 323,882 in Japan as of January 6 ([14]). TJ Spyke 04:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, one game less to add. World at War for PS3 broke the million units with November and December NPD combined, but haven't found a reference for that yet. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Left4Dead also broke the million combining November and December. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"ownt" reference

The archive link in the reference named "ownt" no longer works, as the Internet Archive won't be able to access the archive of that webpage anymore. It's currently being used as a reference for 6 titles, which now need new references:

• Super Mario Bros. 3
• Super Mario Bros. 2
• Super Mario 64
• Super Mario Land
• Tomb Raider II (for the PlayStation)
• Civilization III

Feel free to strike out a title once it gets a new reference. --Silver Edge (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The best reference I can find for SMB:3 is The Magic Box one. Should I add it? GamerPro64 (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Browsing hidden spots in Internet I found this page with a JPG with a graphic that shows Super Mario Land at almost 18 million, Donkey Kong Land at almost 4.5 million (a game we don't have listed here) and Pokémon Red/Blue at over 13.5 million. Could it be used for SML and DKL? We may have to say "almost 18 million" and "almost 4.5 million", though... -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, why don't we use this one? The SML article is currently using it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, this one. It comes from Cake Group, an advertisement company of UK. They are apparently partners with Nintendo, since they mention having prepared the Pokémon launch in London. The press release mentions Super Mario Bros. at 40.24m, Super Mario World at 20.61m, Super Mario Land at 18.14m, Super Mario 64 at 11.91m and New Super Mario Bros at 10m (the press release is old already). I tend to believe this reference is valid because no company would be claiming they worked with Nintendo at such major event without being true. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

GTA: San Andreas

Didn't GTA:SA sell 17.66 million? It sold 12 million a little over 3 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jijjin (talk • contribs) 03:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for that number, be BOLD and add it. TJ Spyke 03:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Taiko Drummaster

This says it sold 2 million copies in Japan but it is not clear enough (at least for me):

Also getting good attention for two arcade-based titles that were big hits in Japan was Namco Hometek. "We had young gamers waiting eagerly to play our 'Time Crisis: Crisis Zone' two-gun shooter game with Guncon2 controllers," noted Senior Marketing Manager Ross Borden, "and Taiko Drummaster, which has sold over 2 million units in Japan." Both will be $59.99 for PS2, with either the two guns or drum and drumsticks respectively.

We got the name and the amount of sales, but I can't seem to link it to a game. The article is from May 31, 2004. There is a Taiko: Drum Master article, but according to Taiko no Tatsujin that game was released on March 17, 2005 in Japan (or so it looks like considering its Japanese name). Any ideas? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon game sales in Japan and USA

Leaving this article for future reference, where it states the original game has sold 10 million units in Japan (in case we are going to minimize Magicbox dependence). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And here is another piece that says the Pokemon games (Red, Blue, Green and Yellow) have sold 18.7 million in US alone. Since we have RBG at 10m and Yellow at 5m in US, we are missing 3m that are found in this reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And talking about numbers

Here (in Japanese) there is some shipment information about Pokémon games:

Name	Japan sales	Foreign sales
Red	4,180,000 ()	8,140,000
Green	4,040,000	8,190,000
Blue	2,010,000
Yellow	3,160,000	5,550,000
Gold	3,530,000
Silver	3,640,000

1. We have 10.23 million in Japan for Red, Blue and Green (in this table sales add up to 10,230,000 too), 9.85 million in US and 600,000 in UK (or 10.45m). Foreign sales in this table add up to 16,330,000. In other words, Red, Blue and Green now account for 20.68 million, and it would move to 26,560,000.
2. For Pokémon Yellow we have 3.16m in Japan, the same amount of here. and 5.7m between US and UK (which is higher than this 5.5m reference).
3. Gold here shipped 3.53m (we have at the article 3.4m) and Silver 3.64m (article: 3.51m).

So, should we make a few modifications to the article based on these 2000 shipment numbers? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Lineage 2

The ref for L2 doesn't seem to mention the 14.5 million claim anymore. Also our article describes a high unique count of 600k. While obviously this wasn't all subscribers that would imply less the 5% of players were online which seems odd to me. Most sources describe WoW as having a large share of the MMORPG market so all in all the figure for L2 compared to WoW seems potentially wrong or misleading. Also I noticed we appear to rely on official stats published by the companies themselbes. As they have a reason to mislead, it would be far better if we used reliable sources not simplying parroting what the companies say Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

GTA4 ps3

"Grand Theft Auto IV (3.229 million approximately: 1.89 million in US,[24] 570,000 in UK,[25] 169,000 in Japan,[194] 600,000 in UK)[30]"

This has to be a mistake, but I don't know how to fix it. Globe-trotter (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, missed that! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Once upon Atari

Set of 21 videos with interviews about Atari. I am sure a few may be useful, for example they may give insight about Yar's Revenge, a game said to have been one of the Atari 2600 best-selling games. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

May i suggest?

I think a game classification could be done showing an index value based on the total sales of a pc game for example taking in account the total sales market for pc games in that year. I mean it does not seem fair to compare 13 million sales of World of Warcraft in 2008 with 2 million sales of doom2 in 1989. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.213.136 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not? People could still buy Doom II for years. What about console games? TJ Spyke 21:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Update Wii and DS software numbers

A supplement(page 5) for Nintendo's financial report contains software numbers for DS and Wii games, also Wii Sports is the best selling bundled game. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article with both financial reports (there is a second one that has the total amount of DS/GBA/Wii games sold). TJ Spyke 07:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Third party million sellers for Wii and DS

According to this, there should be 30 third party million sellers for Wii (we have 14 only), and 49 third party DS million sellers (we have 14 if we count Square Enix basketball game with Mario). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Land sales

According to several sources (such as [15], [16], [17], [18] and several others which i am just bored to name right now.. go search yourself) super mario land's sales have surpassed the 18 million mark!! so why does this article say that it has sold only 14 million units. I mean there are so many reliable sources out there claiming that it has sold 18 million copies. Shouldn't I change the data or something?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.147.107 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't use uppercase in section titles, it looks as if you were shouting. Also, check #"ownt" reference, I brought that up. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that references #2 and #4 wouldn't be eligible. #2 is a wiki, which automatically disqualifies it since wikis can be edited by anyone, #4 is GameFAQs and they are generally not allowed as a source since they don't always verify the info that is submitted to them. TJ Spyke 20:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WoW:Wrath of the Lich King

Wrath requires Burning Crusade to play, yet BC sold less copies than Wrath. Can somebody please find the correct Numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.126.188 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo Rules All!!

According to GameSpot, it seems that 11 of Nintendo's games are pasted 10-million. Here's the reference http://www.gamespot.com/wii/puzzle/wiiplay/news_6203936.html. Good to be on the list? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Go where? All 11 are already on the page here (4 are Wii, 7 are DS. Although it's only 7 when you combine the Nintendogs games together). TJ Spyke 03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference 104 no longer works

It is used for Tetris. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Archive appears to have archives of that ref, but they aren't loading for me. Pagrashtak 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

They aren't working for me either. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the original page had some Flash animation that has not been cached, and so it automatically tries to redirect to a page that is not in the archive. Since the reference has been reviewed when inserted and worked for several years, it can stay with a {{dead link}} template besides it (it is not as if someone adds now a broken link that nobody can verify) until replaced. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New York Times reference for 30 million. Will try to find another with 33 million, but one must be careful since some sites may have picked Wikipedia as reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

According to this, Game Over has it listed as a 32 million seller bundled with the Game Boy, plus 3 million cartridges (guess these are either NES or GB cartridges). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deca Sports

Deca Sports is 1.6 million shipped according to Hudson's financial report (in Japanese) (via neogaf). I'll be on the lookout for a proper English source. Mahanga^Talk 07:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Split the article

This article needs to be split now!! It took me four tries just to load the damn thing in my browser it's so huge. SharkD (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It has become harder to open it or edit it. But, I don't see how we can split it. Maybe divide it into List of best-selling PC video games, List of best-selling handheld video games and List of best-selling console video games? And isn't there anything that can be done to make it smaller? I propose remove the Franchises section, it has it's own page. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Splitting it among computer/console/handheld/mobile/online etc. Sounds workable. SharkD (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article in its current form has become difficult to edit due to its large size. I think we don't need the Best selling franchise section either since there is a separate article for that already. TJ Spyke 17:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this is the list of best-selling video games, it would be fair to keep here the best-selling of every platform. So, I suggest leaving the top 10 of every platform here, with a {{main}} pointing to a list of the best-selling video games of that platform. If the platform doesn't have 10, or have have just above that amount (I am thinking about Atari, Intellivison, Mega Drive, Saturn, Dreamcast, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable and Mobile), we could keep the entire list here. Also, keep the bundled list, top 20, consoles by genre and PC by genre, and the franchise list. Famicom Disk would go with the NES, and Pocket Station with PS. Any new platform that can be obtained or released will be added here first, until it grows enough to justify a new article. No images here, moving them all to the respective console list. Referencing may become hell without a reference pool, but would make the list easier to manage. However, I am against using tables unless they add some information like the franchise list, but adding that for each game here would just turn the article just as big as it is now. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Got some free time, and split the PS2 section (which was the longest), creating a 30k article. I don't like how the new list doesn't have a heading, it is just a description and the list. Maybe if we can come with a good section name for the list it would be better. If everything is fine, we can split the PlayStation and NES ones (it should be done one at the time since we need to recover all the references that are missing in either article after you remove a chunk of it). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Platform infobox

I'd also like to suggest the creation of an infobox for the platforms instead of just the images. It should contain basic information like the dates when the platforms were produced, the company(-ies) who produced them, the regions in which they were sold, etc. It doesn't have to be a lot of info—just enough so that people know what it is you are talking about. SharkD (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's really necessary as each platform has it's own page. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree for that reason. Not to mention it would make the article even larger (when it's already over 150KB) for something that isn't needed. TJ Spyke 17:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, is there any need for the images at all? To me it seems they're just being used for decoration. In terms of bandwidth, the images slow things down a lot more than the text ever could, so if you're trying to reduce download times removing them might be the way to go. SharkD (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made a split of the article, and the images would go in the newly created one, so don't worry about that. I don't like the {{Video Games}} template, it should be in lowercase since most of the templates are in lowercase. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That has lowered the loading times for the article, should be even better as more get split. If you want, I can help out tomorrow with some of the splits (like the Wii one since I am a huge Nintendo fan). I am too busy to do it right now. TJ Spyke 02:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will continue splitting the others until I am too tired. If nobody edits the article, going back to single full list is just a matter of rolling back all my changes (except one that was a revert). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the lists are being split, it may also be a good idea to switch to a table format. Previously, the table format would simply have made the page loading problems even worse, but now this is no longer much of an issue. SharkD (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean once the splitting is done? May not be a bad idea, could also allow us to add in some other info like the publisher. TJ Spyke 03:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most of the video game navigation templates are upper-case. I'll see about creating a special navbox for these specific articles. SharkD (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the {{vgbestsellers}} one a bit as to not leave it orphaned. As for converting to table, I wouldn't mind that at all if we gave some information about the game (check the franchises list for an idea). Using tables for this article would make it long again, I am afraid. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking anything big, maybe just the game name and publisher. TJ Spyke 03:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of something like {{Vgrpg-chrono}} or {{VG history}}, where the template sits at the top and has a nice icon instead of having to scroll all the way to the bottom. I've already made a cute icon for it, but I have to clear up some license issues rgarding the source files (I think derivativeFX is producing a false-positive by throwing an error.) SharkD (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

New best-selling articles

Now that we are splitting the best-selling articles, we can create a new list of best-selling multiplatform video games where to put the games that have sold over a million units but on multiple platform (for example, Elder Scrolls 4, which usually includes sales for both Xbox 360 and PC versions, the Madden games which are usually grouped together by EA, Star Wars games, etc. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is being split? How did I miss that discussion? -Zomic13 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See above sections like #Split the article. Basically it was agreed to split the article because the huge size (over 150K) was making the page almost impossible to view and edit since it was taking so long to load. So it was agreed to limit systems to ~10 games each and link to a article that contains all games at 1 million for the system. It has worked already, the page loads just fine. TJ Spyke 23:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was done a few days ago when Wikipedia was running extremely bad (so bad it was impossible editing this article as it was throwing 510 errors every time you tried to save). First the PS2 section, which cut some 30kb to the article, then the PS1 and the others. This has been suggested a lot of times, and I used to be against the idea because you would have to keep track on more articles, and the references would be a hell to update and replicate, but last week was just too awful to ignore, so I was bold and did that. Also, the article was rather quiet (besides the occasional VGChartz or MGS4 editing), so if editors disagree with the splitting, it is just a matter of rolling back all the changes to this version, updating Resident Evil 4 Wii from 1.4m to 1.5m, and updating Pokemon in the franchise list to 186m. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 4 again

The report from Konami reads:

Computer & Video Games business: METAL GEAR SOLID 4 GUNS OF THE PATRIOTS, released simultaneously around the world in June 2008, was named by the U.S. major video gaming site Game Spot the Game of the Year in its Best of 2008 roundup of winning titles. The METAL GEAR series is exhibiting its strength as a brand, steadily increasing the number sold year-to-date to more than 4.5 million units as of the end of this consolidated third quarter.

We already have this discussion in the past. I guess we should use the same rationale by not accepting the 4.5m units since it refers to the "series" and not MGS4 in particular for the amount. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• The gamespot link [19] (and the Konami report too) clearly states that its MGS4 that has sold 4.5 million and doesn't mention anything about the series. It also says that it sold .5 million in October to December which strengthens the point that its actually whole MGS4 which sold 4.5 million (as it would have sold less than 4 million till October, which we were already agreeing upon). So I think we should put MGS4 at 4.5 million cause these reports aren't mentioning the whole series anywhere.

kittoo (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check the PDF I linked. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

the konami source clearly states series, so it cannot be accepted, but for future reference we need to discuss the pointers, such as where these days can you buy MGS1/2/3 brand new on any format with official retailers/etailers? as they don't get sales figures from 2nd hand or resellers.

I'm always sceptical about sales figures for this game, no doubt its a seller, but 4.5 million seems to round, and too large, for the time its been out. I know that most people bought a PS3 for 3 main games: GT5, MGS4 and FF13 (before it became multiformat), but thats still like 1-in-4.

I think, until the game hits 5 million itself, there won't be a reliable source chocobogamermine 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just found a reference from GameSpot that says MGS4 has 4.5 million copies sold. Here's the reference. http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchnews.asp?newsid=163681 GamerPro64 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with that though. They state the info is from the Konami financial report. However, I just found the financial report they mention and it does not state how many copies MGS4 sold: [20]. TJ Spyke 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

the report is what started this convo, as the last konami report was misquoted identically. il say pretty soon that the sales figures will be so minimal for the other games (less than .1m, if they arent already), so it prob wont make a difference whether to quote the article as being all MGS4, after the first year the games out itl b exact figures anyway - its just 'fy' stuff chocobogamermine 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that most of those 4.5 million are MGS4 (the only other MG game that could have any real sales right now would be Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops Plus and that came out like a year ago). But yeah, we need the actual sales for just MGS4. TJ Spyke 01:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, professional gaming sites know what they're writing about. They don't simply hand out false info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchumiChamp (talk • contribs) 12:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying they did it on purpose, just that that they misinterpreted what Konami actually said (Konami said they have sold 4.5 million games in the Metal Gear series sine June, some sites thought that meant just MGS4.). TJ Spyke 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that no other Metal Gear games sell right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchumiChamp (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do. Unless you are saying that they sold every single copy of other MG games were sold before June? Just going by Amazon alone: [21], [22], [23]. While MGS4 probably made up the bulk of those sales, it is NOT the only Metal Gear game still selling new copies. TJ Spyke 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous, why would any other MGS game make up over 500,000 of the report? Ffgamera (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We cannot reinterpret sources (see WP:SYN). If the article says the series sold 4.5m, we cannot assume they are all from MGS4. "The METAL GEAR series is exhibiting its strength as a brand, steadily increasing the number sold year-to-date to more than 4.5 million units as of the end of this consolidated third quarter." is very different from saying "METAL GEAR series SOLID 4 is exhibiting its strength as a brand, steadily increasing the number sold year-to-date to more than 4.5 million units as of the end of this consolidated third quarter." Note that we are pretty strict (like when Halo 3 had a million preorders and people were adding it because they were virtually sold, or in the franchises list where we know the Smash Bros. series had sold over 5m but we haven't added that yet because we haven't found an article stating "The Smash Bros. series have sold over..." -- ReyBrujo (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this is ridiculous it says mgs4 sold 4.5 so why the un dont understand, or u dont WANT to understand, or maybe you CANT understand things oh well lol at wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuevo003 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it does NOT say that MGS 4 sold 4.5 million. TJ Spyke 23:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know where Qj.net have plucked "MGS4's 26.5 million sales" from? (other than their arses) [24] ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid franchise sold 22 million, plus the 4.5m reported by Konami. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-nesting headings

Anyone else I think the article would be easier to read if we scrapped the Consoles and PC top-level headings and instead had something like this?:

Section hidden so make talk page shorter.

• Atari consoles
  • 1.1 Atari 2600
• Mattel consoles
  • 2.1 Intellivision
• Microsoft consoles
  • 3.1 Xbox
  • 3.2 Xbox 360
• Nintendo consoles
  • 4.1 Nintendo Entertainment System
    • 4.1.1 Famicom Disk System
  • 4.2 Super Nintendo Entertainment System
  • 4.3 Nintendo 64
  • 4.4 Nintendo GameCube
  • 4.5 Wii
  • 4.6 Game Boy and Game Boy Color
  • 4.7 Game Boy Advance
  • 4.8 Nintendo DS
• Sega consoles
  • 5.1 Sega Mega Drive/Genesis
  • 5.2 Sega Saturn
  • 5.3 Dreamcast
• Sony
  • 6.1 PlayStation
  • 6.2 PlayStation 2
  • 6.3 PlayStation 3
  • 6.4 PlayStation Portable
• Top 20 console games of all time
• Top bundled console games
• Top console games by genre
• Top PC sellers by genre
• Top mobile phone games
• Top video game franchises
• References

It's hard to distinguish between levels 2 and 3 when their containing sections are quite long. For a moment I thought Top 20 console games of all time was on the same level as PlayStation Portable. Anyone else agree?

ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't have an opinion about that, other than the companies lists would be at the same level of the Top sections. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've changed my mind on in as well to be honest! ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Information appliance

I've proposed a change to a parameter, which is related to this article/list, in Template:Infobox Information appliance, the infobox used in video game console articles. The discussion is here. --Silver Edge (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Split

All Nintendo consoles except NDS and GB should be cut too. I am guessing it may drop the size of the article 15k or so more, to a little more than half the size before the splits. We also need someone to check which references have names here and in the split articles but that are used once to remove it (which may save a few kbs too). I believe I have copied all the correct references around, but someone else could verify and check the online ones to mark the dead ones as dead (I clicked in a Konami one that was 404, but forgot to mark it and can't remember which one was). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I will do those in a few hours. TJ Spyke 15:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I split off Wii, shaved about 4K from the article. Next I will tackle Nintendo's other systems. Should it be "List of best-selling Nintendo GameCube games" or "List of best-selling GameCube games"? The consoles name is Nintendo GameCube, but we have some articles like "List of GameCube games". TJ Spyke 23:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I followed the list of games, so since we have List of Nintendo GameCube games, I would go with the full name. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The page still takes a long time to load. I think it's due to all the citations. SharkD (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are the ones that make the page slow. We can split the GBA section too, but they aren't using many unique citations, so this article would likely stay with over 150 citations. We could reduce the top 10 to top 5, but we will have to split the sections like Atari 2600, and it is not worth to have an article for a list of 12 or so. Converting to tables would make it just slower. I guess we will have to accept this as something we won't be able to optimize. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bit late to the party here but wouldn't it be better to split the whole page by console generation in a similar style to the Histroy of video games consoles... articles and list PC ones on another.? ie List of best selling video games (8th generation consoles), etc. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 19:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. It could have worked (it would have combined several articles into one), although I prefer having a list exclusive for each console (just like you have the list of PlayStation 3 games and not the list of 8th generation games). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No reason we can't have both eventually. Right now we should concentrate on splitting off the article by consoles. If I have the time I will at least do Game Boy Advance tomorrow. TJ Spyke 05:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Main problem is redundancy. Having three lists with basically the same information is unnecessary and hard to maintain. New users would add the information here not knowing there are two other lists that must be updated too.

It is like the list of PlayStation games and the chronologically sorted list, just one table with sort fields is enough. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of those PlayStation lists (there is the same problem with 2 different PS2 games articles), i've tried to get those merged before, but no one was willing to do it. They are the exact same articles basically, so no need for both to exist. TJ Spyke 18:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Very nice! I'm actually *able* to load the page in my browser now. SharkD (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Top-10 of all time

Wouldn't it be nice to make a top-10 list of all-time bestselling games, on every possible console? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.139.28 (talk • contribs)

We have that, top 20 actually. If you mean combined with bundled games, there are only 4 bundled games listed and it's not worth creating another list just to put those 4 in. TJ Spyke 20:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiplatform games

This has been discussed before but it doesn't seem to of come to any resolution. Why isn't there an area to list multiplatform games by total number of units sold across all platforms? I ask mainly because it doesn't seem to make sense not to include games which have sold large numbers, just because a breakdown of the sales by platform isn't available. Any reason why this can't be added? I may be missing something really obvious here as it seems to me like a fairly important chunk of information. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested that a couple of times. No objections from me, but the list would be filled with EA games. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to be very interested in this. I'm just surprised it's not in the article already. I would imagine the numbers would be fairly easy to find. Don't see that the EA thing matters. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 18:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Table format

As an experiment, I converted the Atari 2600 section to sortable table format. Is it appropriate for the article? I'm not sure what effect it will have on page load times. The biggie currently seems to be all the references. SharkD (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is a bad idea having so many small tables around, especially in this article which only lists the ten best selling games only. It makes the list quite a lot more complex to modify for casual users (and even some editors).

Besides that, were we to keep the table format, the image should disappear, the first column should be "order number" so that you can restore the original sorting, the developer column sounds right, but the publisher is complex, since a game could be published by different companies in different years in different countries, year should be "original release date" instead, and the notes is unnecessary because you would have to reference that (we stripped the page to remove them, not to add unnecessary ones). Also, sorting by note does not make sense. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

starcraft

original Starcraft has sold over 11 million copies worldwide. [25] Mahanga^Talk 21:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, added those. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Duck Hunt

Okay this has got to be over a millin seller considering it was packaged with the NES and mario. Does anyone have how many copies it sold? I imagine alot 65.94.243.174 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It was not technically bundled with the NES. That was "Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt" and "Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt/World Class Track Meet" (it would be like saying that every copy of "Donkey Kong Classics" should count as a sale for "Donkey Kong" and "Donkey Kong Jr."). "Super Mario Bros." was bundled by itself with the NES for several years. TJ Spyke 19:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have the numbers, sorry. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

countires

What countries were these games sold in? -This wasn't clear to me in the article. 98.243.211.130 (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Everywhere. A few from US, some from Japan, Europe, etc. Some even are worldwide sales. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CoD4 11 Million on 360?

According to Rob Bowling, there are 11 million unique users on CoD4 just on the Xbox 360. If we list the 1.3 "unique users" for LittleBigPlanet, shouldn't we also update these numbers which would make CoD4 the best selling game on the 360? http://www.deeko.com/news/?p=10998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander756 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think we should even mention LittleBigPlanet. "Unique users" can include multiple accounts on the same system, people who bought used copies, people who rented the game, etc. TJ Spyke 20:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that. "Unique users" is not a substitute for sales, which is what this page is theoretically tracking. Indrian (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I have already raised this point once. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Another possible article using Wikipedia

I got a feeling that this article recently published in IGN got some of its information out of this page. Besides all the similar numbers (a few rounded up), the fact that they name Aladdin the third best-selling video game of the Genesis (just like we do here) makes me itch. What others think? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what to think about that article, but I do know that anyone who uses Wikipedia directly as a source instead of one of the sources Wikipedia references deserves to be fired. The problem is, if this is the case we need to start questioning the reliability of those media as sources. =( KhalfaniKhaldun 05:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so harsh. If the numbers are well referenced, there is no problem using us. In fact, we have been used several times by other media. However, I noticed that our Aladdin reference is broken, it may have been working back when they checked it, or did not at all. I am going to walk through every reference tomorrow (I noticed a few in the Atari section are broken too) and fix the ones I can, updating the accessdate in all of them just to be sure. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, maybe not fired. But reprimanded. If Wikipedia doesn't consider any open wiki to be a reliable source, then I don't see why anyone writing a respectable article shouldn't either. If the numbers are well referenced, then those references are what the writer should be using instead. If they're not, then why is the writer copying/trusting them? =P It's sad, but every time I read an article anywhere these days I feel like it should list its own references so I can check that for accuracy.

Question: what do we do if/when a new citation can't be found to replace the dead ones? Is it still considered to be cited, or does it then fall back into the category of things that need to be labeled with {{fact}}? KhalfaniKhaldun 06:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is certainly nothing wrong with a journalist using our figures, since we do source everything, but any journalist that uses our list to determine sales ranking should be fired. Aladdin may not be the third-best selling Genesis game because we do not have many Genesis sales figures, so that section is incomplete. I wonder if their retrogames section really has any editorial oversight, because that article is pretty bad. It incorrectly states that Genesis sold well early in the United States and fails to mention how Sega slaughtered Nintendo in North America in 1993. Indrian (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why I don't really using numbering lists, because it may give the idea to others that the positions are correct. If there is something I don't like from the franchise list are the numbers, kept there mostly because it is a single list with over a hundred items and can give an idea of where in the list the game is, but not overall position. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If a reference goes linkdead, you should use {{dead link}} keeping the broken reference there. This is because it is considered that, when a reference was added, other editors have reviewed it and determined it to be valid. Links go down from time to time, so we assume good faith because the reference was working before and others have checked it out. However, a replacement should be found because outsiders don't know about this, and will likely complain that the number cannot be backed up because they cannot verify it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

eh

list of games.... "that have sold or shipped at least one million copies". Well some of the sections have been cut down, like wii, so this header is incorrect, what should it get changed to. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We have split the article, listing the top ten here and linking to the full list. The article about The Beatles isn't titled "The Beatles except almost all of its influence on popular culture", it is called "The Beatles", has a section about popular culture naming a few examples, and then linking to another article with the full list. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

But this is specifically stating that this articles contains every single game that has shipped atleast one million copies. The beatle article doesn't state that in the article you will find every one of it's influences of popular culture. But this article says it contains something, and then doesn't. That comparison is weak. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the wording again. It says it contains games that have sold or shipped 1 million, it doesn't say EVERY game that has reached that mark. So including just the top 10 is still technically correct. TJ Spyke 03:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I kind of agree that the lead should be changed to reflect that only the top 10 games are listed. In fact, I think we can safely remove any mention of "1 million games" whatsoever, and simply list the top 10 best-selling games, regardless of volume. SharkD (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Level 5 sales data

Found here some info about the sales of games made by Level 5, It's in this picture. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I added Dark Soul to the PS2 list, and reused the reference for DQVIII. I think we could update the Layton numbers, but it is not clear in the picture. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not a problem. They give a total for those games at the bottom. If you take the total and subtract all the other games, that leaves 1.59 million. TJ Spyke 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't usually take totals and subtract the sales of a game to obtain the sales of another, do we? I think the numbers can be obtained in one of the other sites that covered the event, like Gamasutra. Will check around. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Killzone 2

I was looking at the source listed for Killzone 2's numbers and I was bothered by the fact that the article never give any source as to where he pulled the numbers from. He does reference "the charts" a few times during the article which makes one wonder if he is talking about VGChartz. Here is the article: http://www.gamercenteronline.net/2009/03/12/killzone-2-exceeds-1-million-copies-sold/comment-page-1/#comment-4659

Is this really a credible source? An alexa rank of 179,000+ and no source for his numbers? --Xander756 (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit: After further looking into it, the numbers he quotes also coincide directly with the VGChartz listed numbers at 700,000 for week 1 and 300,000 for week 2. It seems obvious to me he is talking about VGChartz now and I believe this should be removed. --Xander756 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, feel free to remove that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF!? Which is right about GTA IV?

Take-Two stated that GTA IV has sold 10 million copies since August, 2008. Wikipedia adds it up to be 4 million copies. Is that incorrect? Is this outdated, or is Take-Two lying? 最後の最初のチップを提供する (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Take-Two combines the Xbox 360/PlayStation 3/PC versions and reported the shipment numbers (i.e. sent to stores). The 4 million here is only the Xbox 360 version, and is sales (i.e. purchased by people). TJ Spyke 02:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Geometry Wars

I removed "Geometry Wars" from the Xbox Live section because the source clearly states the game has reached one million players, not one million in sales. 121.222.114.150 (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bundled PC games

What about bundled PC games like Minesweeper and Solitaire? Can they be somehow included? --Mika1h (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no way to know the numbers for those, that is the biggest problem. TJ Spyke 23:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda Wii

The Legend of Zelda: TP isn't featured in Nintendo's list of million sellers, which means it isn't a million seller and we are probably using GC figures. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3174148 80.201.219.75 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. In Nintendo's recent Earnings Release the list of million sellers contains games that have shipped over a million units un the period 4/08~3/09. This one, that covers 4/07~3/08, has The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (Wii version) at 4.52 million units. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

GTA: San Andreas figures

The GTA: San Andreas figures need updating. vgchartz.com lists the PS2 version of the game as having sold more than 17 million units, and although it might be unreliable, other sources claim that, across all platforms, it's sold over 21 million copies worldwide. Hopefully we need something to trump that evil Wii Fit. --172.164.246.25 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, update it. As you said, VG Chartz is not a reliable source so their is no point in even bringing them up. Also, Wii Fit is a pretty fun game (yes I know you are just joking). TJ Spyke 18:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Master System Section

Hi, I have added a sega master system section but I'm not really sure about the source, when I didn't find anything on Wikipedia I searched the web and that is all I could get. I found some other pages too but I didn't see them fit for a wikipedia source, they are: 1- http://malaysia.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060705212816AAkcDXc and 2- http://www.gamersrepublic.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t13265.html (which i believe is a copy of #1), anyway if someone has his hands on a better source please add it to this page or some people will probably delete the whole section and there wouldn't be any info at all!Gezegond (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for wanting to help, but neither of those are reliable. Yahoo Answers is just random people asking and answering each others questions, and as you stated the second is just a copy of the first. TJ Spyke 15:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Was http://www.baku.ru/blg-list.php?id=20936&cmm_id=80 unreliable too? And why do you delete everything? I'm sure if you search for each of the Master System title separately for sales, reliable source will be found. I can do that myself, but it takes time.Gezegond (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

They give a lot of numbers, but it is not clear from where they picked them. I picked a few like The Lion King (1.41 million) and noticed it was the same number as the one found from VGChartz, which is not allowed as reference. I have searched for early games quite a lot of times, but it is pretty hard, much harder when you try for the 8 bit consoles. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to admit but it seems you're right. I couldn't find anything myself. Since Master System came out before Internet there may not be any information about it on the net. However offline data must exist. I mean SEGA has never announced how much their master system games have sold? not even in the time that Master System was their only console? Gezegond (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Master System itself only sold 13.4 million systems, so there wouldn't be many million sellers. I don't know if it even had any. TJ Spyke 18:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am betting on a few ones, like Sonic, Alex Kidd and a few others. However, good luck finding references for old games. A pity not every company has a list of sales like Capcom. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Game Boy and Game Boy Color

Is there a reason for Game Boy and Game Boy Color games being mixed in one section? It's really confusing, I had to click on each one and take a look at it's platform to get myself a list for the Game boy top-sellers alone. Gezegond (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Because for some reason Nintendo does the same thing. They always say "Game Boy and Game Boy Color" when talking hardware or software sales numbers. I don't know if they consider them the same system or maybe want to avoid separating them (since the Game Boy Color was only out for 3 years when they introduced the Game Boy Advance), but they don't list them separately. TJ Spyke 17:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

PS3 top ten

Anyone able to check this reference? I am assuming good faith, will format the link and check when possible, but it is giving me timeout errors while trying to check it out. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just checked, and it's definitely not using VGChartz numbers - both the order of games and the numbers are different. But this website doesn't cite exactly where they get there numbers from, so they could very well just be guessing. In my opinion, this website doesn't meet the standard a reliable source should.

P.S, they also spell some of the game names incorrectly. 124.179.170.87 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally managed to take a look at it. I don't think we should just use any website as a source. Compared with VGChartz, hardware and top 3, plus Killzone 2, are similiar with the week ending 09th May 2009. Question, why are using this as the source for the Resistance 2 numbers, when it doesn't even have them? Rhonin the wizard (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an IP added it when they added that source. TJ Spyke 20:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was my thought. I have never heard of this site, although they seem to haver a good number of articles. There is no author for the article, nor references. Maybe we should roll back to the old PS3 numbers until we discover from where they took that information? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless it can be proven to be a reliable source, I agree. TJ Spyke 00:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

why not to use VGChartz as a source? I think it's far more reliable than the one that is provided. We should definitely use this as a source http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?&results=200&name=&console=PS3&keyword=&publisher=&genre=&order=Sales&boxart=Both&showdeleted=&region=All&alphasort= Deathclaw555 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't use VG Chartz because they make up their info. Their numbers are pure bullshit and not reliable. We are not gonna use a source that makes up their info. TJ Spyke 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think I will be reverting to the old numbers, since not everyone (myself, Deathclaw555 and TJ Spyke) feel the source is reliable. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Mac games?

Are there any Mac games that sold 1 million copies, or are they included in the PC game totals? SharkD (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

wrong / misleading figures

Some of the figures are wrong in one section. the 20 console games section has figures that do not match with the figures in previous sections so either there is a wrong figure somewhere or a disclaimer mis be added to clarify why there is a large difference. mario cart Wii has figures in the wii section of 7.4 million but in the 20 console section has around 14 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.139.12 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody vandalized the page, the numbers have been fixed. TJ Spyke 19:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bundled games. Super Mario Bros. wasn't bundled with the NES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 56wk21 (talk • contribs)

Yes it was, in fact there were 3 different NES bundles with SMB. (one with just the NES, SMB, and 2 controllers. One with everything from the first bundle plus Duck Hunt and the Zap gun. The third was everything from the first two bundles plus World Class Track Meet and the Power Pad). Even a basic search would have proven you wrong. Eventually they did stop bundling it, but it was bundled for several years. TJ Spyke 18:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Differences between this article and individual articles for each game

As a rule of thumb, to avoid a debate over accurate figures, it would be best if when a figure is updated on this article you take the time to update the figure with the same source on the game's article if it has one. The figures on this article are closely watched and moderated by some dedicated editors so I have a hard time believing that THIS article has inaccurate data. Someone should double check all the figures with the game articles to make sure they line up.  ^{æronphonehome}  07:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I know I do that. Part of the problem is that sometimes other editors will later change the numbers to unsourced data. I do watch some of the articles, but not all of them. TJ Spyke 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have enough time to update several articles at once (barely got time to update this one nowadays either). That will only be solved once the reference pool is implemented, though. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference pool?  ^{æronphonehome}  09:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an old idea of creating a pool of references, like ref.wikipedia.org, where you add the references (like <ref name="bestsellinggameever">{{cite web | url= ... }}</ref>, or creating a page for the reference, like creating ref.wikipedia.org/wiki/bestsellinggameever with the citation as body), and then use them in any article or Wikipedia (much like a commons.wikimedia.org image or media). It would be like having a template with the citation and then using the template everywhere (kind of what it is being done with the {{2009 flu pandemic table}} for the swine flu articles). This way you could copy the article and paste it in another Wikipedia (say, the Spanish one) and have all the references working immediately. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proof Smash is not a fighting game

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=208&topic=50849257Let me explain something to you:

"FIGHTING GAMES" is the name of a genre. It is not the descriptor of a genre. This is a very important sentence; it is the source of most of the "what is a fighting game" confusion.

The term "fighting games" was coined when SFII and its many clones gained enormous popularity. The whole purpose of naming the genre was to distinguish games like SFII from games like WWF and Final Fight because they had a unique set of characteristics. Genres are determined by characteristics, so saying "These games don't share the same characteristics yet they're still the same genre" is nonsense.

Here is a list of fighting game characteristics. Each characteristic is necessary but not sufficient. A game has to have EVERY item on this list or it is not a fighting game. Games in brackets beside each characteristic do NOT share that characteristic and are therefore not fighting games.

1. Multiple hit levels. At least two. (Smash, Wrestling Games, Beat 'Em Ups) 2. K.O. by health depletion. It doesn't matter how the health is represented or whether it's represented at all. (Smash, Wrestling games) 3. Character movement is relative to the direction they're facing. (Smash, Beat 'Em Ups) 4. 1 player vs 1 other player. It doesn't matter whether the players are human or A.I. (Power Stone, GG Isuka, 4P Smash) 5. Both players share the exact same view. (Virtual On, SLAPS ONLAY Goldeneye) TheLord99 Posted 8/15/2009 3:16:06 PM message detail Here is a list of things that are irrelevant to whether a game is a Fighting Game:

1. Whether or not a game has combos. Streets of Rage has combos. It is not a fighting game. Karate Champ does not have combos. It is a fighting game. 2. Whether or not a game has a comptetitive scene. Starcraft has a huge scene. AOF 1 has no scene at all. 3. Whether or not a game is good. Starcraft is a great game. MK1 is a terrible game. 4. Whether or not a game has special moves. Alien Vs Predator has special moves. Karate Champ does not. 5. Whether or not a game has items. Lots of fighting games have items, lots don't. Doesn't matter. 6. Whether or not a game has ring outs. Virtua Fighter and SC have ring outs. It's not the presence of ring outs that makes Smash not a fighting game, it's the absence of K.O.s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.205.77 (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about Original research. It IS a fighting game, now stop being a fanboy. TJ Spyke 23:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Pe De Chinelo again, I'm guessing. FFS give it up, we're all sick of you. We have already reached concensus a billion times and will not change unless the game suddenly gets the fighting section removed from it. chocobogamermine 00:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What's this? An old foe from the past? Man, I hope its not him. There's proof SSB is a fighting game. Just stop it Pe De Chinelo! GamerPro64 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Call of Duty 4

Under the "best selling games by genre" section, it says that Halo 3 is the best-selling FPS at 8 million copies. However, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare has sold over 13 million copies. http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-sells-13-million/?biz=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.95.29 (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That is only if you add up all 3 versions, none of the individual versions have outsold Halo 3. TJ Spyke 04:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PC Games.

Does the PC Games selection cover Atari ST, Amiga and other personal computers ? Or should they be listed under a different heading ? Specifically, Dungeon Master for the Atari ST, An innovative game, possibly the first 3D first person adventure game. Unfortunately I cannot find any figures for it's sales, also should the sales of clones or PC (IBM/WINDOWS) emulator sales be included ?

Also, Elite on the BBC Computer (PC) this was the top selling game for the BBC and surley hit the 1 mil mark, again, I have no sources to verify this. (Wayne) 13:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed the PC section does cover all personal computers, but you are unlikely to find many games from the 1980s for two reasons. First, sourcing is difficult to come by for this period, leaving some best-sellers without an entry. More importantly, however, computer games in the 1980s just did not sell millions of copies. In both the United States and the United Kingdom, sales of 100,000 represented a hit and sales of 300,000 a phenomenal success. I seriously doubt Dungeon Master sold one million copies, as even though it was the bestselling game on the ST computer, that machine did not have nearly the market penetration of models such as the Apple II, C64, or IBM PC. As for Elite, since it was one of the few computer games of the mid-1980s to hit on both sides of the Atlantic it is possible that it sold a million copies, though the odds are still againt it. Obviously, a source would be needed either way, which we currently lack. Indrian (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Indrian is right about the pure numbers. Back in the 1980s a PC games was considered to be a big success if it managed to even sell 100K copies. PC gaming didn't really take off until the 1990s (with soundcards started becoming more common and CD-ROM started to become more common for PC games to be released on). I agree that all PC games should be under the PC section, we shouldn't seperate them by brand. TJ Spyke 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

PC Section lacks Diablo series sold 18.5 million copies worldwide (source: http://www.blizzard.com/us/press/080628.html). There is no information available to see the numbers for Diablo 1, Diablo 2, and Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction separately. The game should be added to the list in the same manner as Starcraft which includes to the count both original game and expansion.

PC section also misses the likes of Lemmings which has sold 15 million copies approx to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.69.116 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

call of duty missing from ps3

call of duty:world at war is not on the ps3 list even though when looking at leader boards in game there is nearly 4 million, this is the same with modern warfare, there is much more then one million on it also yet it is not on the ps3 list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.55.115 (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Those go based on PSN accounts. That means 1 copy of the game could be dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of those leaderboard accounts (not to mention people borrowing their friends game or buying a used copy). All that means is that nearly 4 million PSN accounts exist for the game. This was discussed when somebody wanted to add LittleBigPlanet based off of how many accounts had played the game. TJ Spyke 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Top selling current gen games are way too outdated. CoD4 for 360 for example sites a source dated 2007

Current generation game sales fluctuates so fast that the whole list of 360, wii, and PS3 games are completely wrong. I know for example that Call of Duty 4 has sold over double what the page says.

Lots of the current generation lists hasn't been updated in OVER A YEAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.99.179 (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

First, your claim they shouldn't be on the list is laughable and not gonna happen (especially since the best selling game EVER is from this gen). Second, all of the current gen lists have been updated recently (if you are talking about certain games, there are many older games without sources for their updated sales, so we go by the latest source number). Third, do you have source for your COD4 claim (and no, VG Chartz is NOT a reliable source)? TJ Spyke 21:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No they haven't been updated recent. On most of the specific games webpages they have sales numbers that are way bigger and way more up to date.

Call of Duty 4's statistics for the xbox 360 for example site a source that's dated 2007. The game has sold millions since then. The fact that many of the games own wikipedia pages have more up to date numbers is kind of silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.222.65 (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We go by sourced info. If you have a reliable source with an updated number, Be Bold and add it. As for COD4, the only recent number I have seen is for all versions of the game (and doesn't break it down by system numbers). It's not silly to go by sourced numbers rather than guesses. TJ Spyke 17:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars

Shouldn't it be removed from the list? You are counting three games, not one. Guild Wars Factions IS NOT Guild Wars Nightfall. They are two different games - just glorified stand-alone expansions. Different plot, different characters, different skills - it's not the same game. Also, if the Starcraft figure includes its expansion, it should be removed as well. At the moment we are not applying the same criteria for all games on the list, making having a list rather redundant. If we can't find a figure which specifically, accurately and reliably details the sales numbers of Starcraft, it should also not be included at all.

At the moment we seem to have numbers taken by news organisations which were written in response to a rather vague press release, which, in the computer industry especially, are notorious for being incorrect or unreliable. There seemed to be consensus on the Guild Wars issue in the archives but it still remains. The page is protected so I can't edit it either. 114.78.4.191 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} The top 10 selling Wii games have changed, as Wii Sports Resort has reached 10th place. So I suggest to remove the line with Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games and replace it with Wii Sports Resort listed in the same way as on page List of best-selling Wii video games:

• Wii Sports Resort (3.61 million approximately; 1.25 million in United States, 1.266 million in Japan, 1 million in Europe, 100,000 in Australia )

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Honza.skypala (talk • contribs)

I'm marking this  Not done because the two sales figures are separated by more than a year, thus providing no meaningful basis for comparison, especially since the difference in sales figures here is relatively small (0.2 million). Tim Song (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation for MGS4

Having been brought to my attention from the PS3 talk page, I had a look here and sure enough, Metal Gear Solid 4 is shown to have over 4 million sales, with a citation which gives nothing more than a 3 month estimate of 700k-1 million sales. While it does most likelly belong in the section, some citation and accurate figures would be nice. Alphathon (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Just spotted this and removed it. Probably another instance of this common mistake. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 17:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

inFAMOUS

inFAMOUS can now be added to the list of PS3 games that sold over 1m copies, according to this http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/12/infamous-now-39-99-gigawatt-blades-coming-free-to-psn/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.76.150 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

vgchartz.com

http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=&console=&publisher=&genre=&minSales=0&results=50&sort=Total This site has a ton of data on game sales not yet added to this page.--70.20.246.58 (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That site is not allowed because they pull their numbers out of their ass (they make them up). They are about as reliable as Dick Cheney on human rights. TJ Spyke 01:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to have this on the discussion page for everyone's future reference. Thanks for the quick response. It would be nice if we could rectify the SNES article, in reference to MK2 "this time, Nintendo's version outsold Sega's." Wikipedia's articles show that statement to be false.--70.20.246.58 (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Amiga

Any perticular reason the Amiga platform and it's gamesis not featured in this article/list? It certainly is noteworthy in the history of computer games. If anyone got time maybe it could be added. (online references might be a bit hard to find maybe?)--83.249.214.239 (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can find sales info, then go ahead. Just remember that only games that have sold/shipped at least 1 million can be added though. TJ Spyke 15:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

modern warfare 2

teletext (www.teletext.co.uk/gamecentral) lists it today as selling 6m copies - specifically 4.8m on xbox and 1.2m on ps3. rs? chocobogamermine 20:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I find a more reliable source than that later today and add it. TJ Spyke 20:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem with WOW listings, values incorrect

There is a bloopers here :

• World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade [expansion pack] (3.5 million)[166]
• World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King [expansion pack] (4 million)[165]

To play Lich King, you need Crusade. So how can crusade sell 0.5 million more? Maybe because the one source is 2 years older than the other. Someone needs to update this, and cite a new value. Wolweseun (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Update it with what? If you have a source, feel free.

Top ten Apple games

Here (I know, but VGC is only the carrier, not the source, so we can discuss the information) is a list of games, with 3 over 1 million units. However, it is not clear whether we should believe FADE (the source) or not. Has anyone else heard about them? It was their first report apparently, but even Famitsu started from zero. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say no. FADE even admits they are basically guessing (using a formula, but guessing)[26] Basically they iPhone/iPod Touch userpolls, verify it through user reviews. They don't actually have access to any sales numbers and are like people that try to guess Xbox Live Arcade sales by counting the numbers of people on online leaderboards. The source I gave shows how far off Fade can be, one game they claimed had sold 843K was wrong since the publisher said they have only sold 550K. Their list is also missing several games confirmed to be over 1 million. TJ Spyke 04:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Guessed as much. At least we got a few numbers to add from the article you posted. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Tetris statistics

Here it says "Worlwide, 70 million mobile phone versions of Tetris have been sold." We could include it into the list of mobile games unless there is an objection. Also, it says 40 million units for the Game Boy version, even though the Nintendo site said 35 million. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Now up to 100 million units. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction

According to Guiness World Records 2009 Gamers Edition it's the best selling platforming game on the PS3 with 1.25 million units sold. It's on page 173 in the book and I don't know how to cite books. If anyone could cite this for me I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance. TehRYNOL (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall top 10?

There are a number of different lists, but perhaps an overall best selling games sections should be added at the top for those who don't want to go through the whole article to find them. Drig44 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

List of best-selling video games#Top 20 console games of all time. TJ Spyke 03:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of combining that with the other sections into an actual overall top list; anybody mind if I put it above Consoles, in order to be out of all the platform sections? ― Darekun (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the point to be honest. It would basically just be combining the console top 10 with the PC top 10 (plus the 3 bundled games). It's not like I hate the idea, I just don't think it is really needed. TJ Spyke 22:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is to provide a sort of "TL;DR" for the whole sprawling page, like the "inverted pyramid" of journalism. It takes a degree of reading/foreknowledge to know that that's what it would be, for example. ― Darekun (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't think it's necessary, either. What I do think the article needs is a top 10 multi-platform list. The current article is very gamer-centric, but we also have to take a look at it from the industry's perspective. The games industry does not care that Call of Duty/Madden/etc were distributed on several consoles, just that it sold x million. I can help with this list if I there's enough support for it. 129.120.94.148 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an overall list. --StormCommander (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

LittleBigPlanet

This press release states LBP is a "multi-million" selling game. Although it's not a precise figure, I think this is good enough to add to the list as "2 million". Everyone agree? Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 17:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair, although I'd probably list it as 2m+. Alphathon^TM (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would be extremely conservative and list it as "over 1m", because I don't like adding games or franchises without exact numbers and, while undoubtedly they have sold over a million, it is too vague. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but the article specifically says "multi-million", which by definition is AT LEAST 2 million. Alphathon^TM (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The prefix multi indicates more than. It can indicate more than one million (for example, 1,000,001 is accepted as multimillion) as well as multiple of one million (2m, 3m, etc). That is why I always take the most conservative reference, especially when treating with press releases (which are usually filled with these words). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, multi means MANY, or more than ONE, that is, more than one of the thing it is attached to. 1,000,001 is not multi-million (and it may be accepted as multi-million by you, but do not claim concensus), because it is a singular million with additional sub-million values added. Multi-million refers to 2 million or more (or to be more general, plural or multiple millions). Also, Wiktionary has a definition of multimillion (unhyphenated) here: [27] AND a defintion of it hyphenated here: [28]. Both definitions specifically mention the plural nature of million, i.e. X million, where X ≥ 2, and other dictionaries have similar definitions. Alphathon^TM (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Note the other multi-million accepted meaning: "An amount in the millions." as I mentioned. I considered linking to wiktionary, but then I noticed that wikt:multi-billion means, for them, "Having more than 1,000,000,000; in the billion range.", which showed me the inconsistence of the site as a dictionary. So, I prefered to simply mention both meanings (as I said, both are accepted). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am saying I am right, just saying that press releases are really tricky, and there is a reason about why they give numbers of connections or numbers of levels made, but not sales numbers. It happens with every company. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. To be fair Wiktionary can't be any better than Wikipedia for the same reasons. What we need is definitions from proper dictionaries (Oxford, Cambridge, Mirriam-Webster etc.) I can provide the definiton from Chambers FYI. I have never heard multi-million meaning 1million+, and I'm fairly certain it doesn't mean that ("An amount in the millions" is a bit ambiguous). That is not to say that the article can't be wrong in it's usage, but there's also nothing to say the whoever wrote it isn't really stupid and meant almost a million or something, or that they got their figures right. I think we have to take it at face value, and if we can't find any definition of multi-million that refers to it as simply over 1 million (wiktionary non-withstanding. Heck, I could go and change it right now if I wanted to to suit my argument, not that I would, but you get the idea) they assume that is what the article means. Alphathon^TM (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Chambers doesn't have a definition of multi-million, but defines multimillionaire as "one who is a millionaire several times over", and defines multi- as "in composition, much, many" Alphathon^TM (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the not giving out of sales figures thing, yeah, I know, but that's basically to stop it from affecting share prices etc. They are vague, but when a term means something, they cannot use it to mean something else or they can be done for misrepresentation. Alphathon^TM (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the fact that they use the phrase multi-award winning in the same sentence suggests that they are using multi to specifically mean "more than one of the following word", i.e. more than one [million] (by which I mean, more than one of the unit "million", rather than "a value greater than 1 million"). Alphathon^TM (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As we couldn't reach a consensus on what multi-million meant, but did agree that it was at least 1 million, I have gone ahead and added it to the article as "at least 1 million". I still stand by using 2 million, but as there is even a little doubt, I thought I'd play it safe. Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

NES

The NES list is rather lengthy and should be put on a separate page. 169.233.59.174 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's barely longer than the Game Boy Advance section. It'd make a lot more sense to just remove the bottom ten or so games from the NES section, rather than leave it totally unrepresented. --Darktower 12345 10:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, removing games is NOT an option. When I have spare time, I will do the list. TJ Spyke 15:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've taken care of it. Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

GBA list split

The GBA list is ridiculous - it's almost 40 entries long. The article mentions that it has been suggested to be split into it's own article, and I thought I'd voice my support for this. The NDS has one, so why not GBA? We can keep the top 10 in this article, like for the NDS. Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it wasn't split because of lack of time. So, go ahead. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As in people supported it but weren't willing to put in the time? If so, I'll get on it. Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I might also do the same for the NES titles. Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've taken care of it, as well as the NES list. Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Shipped or Sold?

Why are some titles ranked by how many they shipped whereas others are ranked by how many they sold?

Doing this makes the entire thing incredibly inaccurate. Nemeses9 (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not ideal no, but for some games we know only the sales, other we know only the number shipped, so it's a bit of a necessary evil unfortunately (better than no figures at all). Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Top 20 bundled?

I'm not sure about the proper route to get this message across, but it clearly states in the financial brief that "[Note] Software units include quanitity bundled with hardware." As such, the top20 selling games needs to be edited to somehow reflect this fact. Either by playing notes next to each individual title, or by changing the list to state that it does in fact include bundled games. I've tried myself but they keep getting reverted so I assume someone more important than myself has to do it. 68.177.197.249 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably needs to be clarified, but the main reason for that is that is that all copies of Wii Sports are bundled with Wiis. Your edits weren't undone because you "aren't important enough" it's because your edits didn't make it clear the reason for the edit (edits which completely changed the meaning of the section) and at the very least made the list confusing. An established user would have the edits reverted as well if they made the same edits as you in the same fashion. Also, you changed it to simply read something along the lines of "including bundled games". This made the info in the list inaccurate, as Wii Sports would immediately take the lead if that restriction were removed. That is a rather useless statistic as the number copies sold = the install base. The only other game which comes in an official Wii bundle is Wii Sports Resort, which is also available separately. Wiis are not the only ones though. Another example would be Alex Kidd in Miracle World which was built in to most Sega Master Systems (although it wouldn't make the list anyway). The proper way to go about getting this changed/clarified is to do what you have done now - mention it on the talk page. I will see if I can clarify it a bit. Alphathon^TM (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

not all copies of Wii Sports, it wasn't originally (IDK if it is now) bundled in Japan (and Alex Kidd wasn't on all MS's) chocobogamermine 16:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Never knew that about Wii Sports (it always has been in Europe, and I'm fairly sure it is in the US, so I just kinda assumed it was in Japan), but I did say "Another example would be Alex Kidd in Miracle World which was built in to most Sega Master Systems". The reason behind it is still the same regardless - if software is bundled as standard with a console, even if not initially, it can skew the figures dramatically, so providing useless figures (sales figures are usually used to show how popular software is, so including such bundled games would give grossly disproportionate figures). Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Arcades

No arcade game (that we know of) has sold a million units. So, I was thinking maybe we should keep a lower barrier for arcades to include them. Maybe 10k would be a good number to start, and then we could adjust upwards or downwards. I got some numbers around, like Street Fighter II being the best selling arcade with around 100k units, MK2 with 30k or so, etc. What people think about this? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This would be the correct thing to do in my opinion. Arcade games need to be represented, because of their historical significance on Video gaming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.18.23 (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone could find sources i suppose. But the thing with arcades is that the number of sales doesn't directly relate to the popularity. Arcades buy 4 or 8 of one racing game but will only have 1 Marvel Vs. Capcom, so I'm guessing racing games will have the advantage. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

By genre: Super Smash Bros. Brawl

I recommend the removal of super smash bros. brawl of the fighting genre, because according to the Japanese wikipedia, Brawl is an action game, not a fighting game. 200.158.246.102 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

These sources ([29], [30], [31], [32]) seem to classify it as a Fighting game. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself does not clarify as a citable source, only the source they cited for that information, so maybe if you found it. But you do fight in that game like many other games that are fighters, so i don't understand why it wouldn't be there, unless you expected a different fighter to top the list. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

MGS4 sales figures

Hi all. It would seem a person or people keep changing the MGS4 sales figures to 5 million without citation. Please understand that while it is highly likely that MGS4 has sold 5 million copies, without any citation you might as well say it has sold 500 billion or something ridiculous like that - we need proof. All figures in this article require citation. If you can find a source that says it has sold 5 million feel free to change it (as long as you provide the source) but until then the article must remain at 3 million. Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Monster Hunter Freedom Unite

The shipped numbers listed for Monster Hunter Freedom Unite are lower than the actual sales listed by Media Create and Enterbrain. Mid 2009 the game reached sales of 3.5 million. http://www.product-reviews.net/2009/07/08/monster-hunter-freedom-unite-psp-sales-top-35m/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.72.200.11 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done using Destructoid as a ref (linked page lacks detail and the page it links to is blocked by Wikipedia as a spam site) Alphathon^TM (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

World of Warcraft Question

Something about the sales figures for the expansions doesn't make sense. It has the first expansion at 3.5 million and the second at 4 million. The thing is, you are required to have the first expansion in order for the second one to do you any good. Did half a million people really buy the second expansion while not knowing this? Or do the sources of each need to be updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylith (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't play WoW, so I don't know how the expansions work - is it that you can have the second but will miss out on a lot of content without the first, or that you need the first to install the second (like an expansion of an expansion if you will)? Regardless it is likely just that we have no citation that says the first expansion is 4 million or more - without such a citation, it has to stay at 3.5 million. If you can find one, feel free to add it and correct the figure. Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Does Europe exist ?

It seems that no one care about the selling in Europe. Everytime there is a figure for Europe you refer it as UK sales. Can you consider that Europe actually EXIST ? It would be nice because there is not only UK in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.164.137.138 (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We can only list what we have. We do not refer to European sales as UK sales. We refer to UK sales as UK sales. Pan-European figures are fairly rare for individual games and most editors of the English-language Wikipedia get their figures from English-language sources, which focus on the USA (occasionally including Canada) and the UK, since those are the primary English-speaking markets. If we listed units sold in the UK alone as "European sales" we would be presenting false info. If you have (reliable) sales figures for "Europe" or other European countries then feel free to add them. Beware though - Sony figures are often actually the PAL region, which includes Australia and New Zealand, while Microsoft figures often refer to the EMEA region, which is Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Alphathon^TM (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok I understand and you are right, it is hard to find figures for Europe. Thanks for the answer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.164.137.138 (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposition: addition of "Please cite. Do not use VGChartz" comments

Hi all. Since this article has such a problem with uncited edits, and edits which are cited to the horribly unreliable VGChartz, I propose we add a note at the head of every section warning that all figures must have valid citations, and the VGChartz is not a valid source. I say at the head of every section, as if it is simply at the head of the article, most editors won't see it (due to editing the sections specifically). This should make all our lives much easier. This would of course be placed in comment tags, so those reading the article wouldn't see them. While we're at it, we could say something about ensuring figures are console specific, rather than cross-platform (there seem to be a lot of people at the moment editing Final Fantasy XIII figures within the PS3 and 360 sections and adding in cross-platform sales, for example).

P.S. If you edit this section (or view the page source), you should see the proposed note, which of course will be invisible to those simply reading the page. Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

An edit notice might be better? Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 12:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I didn't actually know you could do that and would have suggested that instead had I known. I assume those are similar to the boxes that appear on semi-protected pages. I'll look into it. Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you have to create Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of best-selling video games and design the banner you want then place a {{editprotected}} tag on it so that an admin can create it. See this one that I did recently. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 13:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say either use vgchartz information or delete the entire list because it is so out-of-date the thing is entirely irrelevant now. vgchartz may not be 100% reliable but name a better source. Waiting in hope that once in a blue moon a studio might release its internal figures isn't very viable either. --Crazymaner2003 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is either a) use figures from a site which has been proven to be false on numerous occasions and have even been retroactively changed to reflect new, officially released data (or worse, the estimates of other sites/companies, such as the NPD)^†, and is therefore disallowed by Wikipedias policies or b) delete all info pertaining to video game release numbers. Please read this before saying we should use VGChartz.

As for "name a better source" - any source which has reliable numbers. Just because you have no more up-to-date figures, doesn't mean we can add false info to an encyclopedia. I say false, rather than potentially false because VGChartz goes so far as to give figures to the individual sale, so the chances so small that they are correct that they might as well be 0.

† Note that I said retroactively changed, not updated. They have been known to even put out news articles etc stating figures, then quietly change the data in the article without any note stating that they have etc. They also state their figures as facts, when they are at best amateur estimates.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Edited by Alphathon^TM (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

vgchartz may not be 100% accurate but I guarantee you it is more accurate than a list stating that Halo 3 has sold 8 million units (for example). Again, this information is so out of date how can it be useful to anyone? vgchartz might be out by a couple of thousand. This list is out by several million. As for retroactively changing numbers: 1) Luckily this wikipedia is editable, so people can also update the list here and change the numbers as vgchartz do so or if a more reliable source is obtained. 2) The movie industry does this as well, yet this site accepts sites such as Box Office Mojo as a reliable source. Again as it is easily editable I don't see a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymaner2003 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're willing to accept numbers from VGChartz, you may aswell just make them up yourself. The only thing that makes their estimates seem more reliable than if you or I had a guess, is that they happen to post their guesses on a website. That being the case, if we were to just accept guesses from VGChartz, we may aswell just scrap citation altogether and allow editors to enter their own best guesses. Sorry for the stupid hypothetical, but that's how unreliable VGC is.

One solution (and I'm sure this must have been discussed before) might be to list the citation date along side the numbers so readers will know how old the figures are? I know dates could/should be added to the citations themselves but most readers won't know about/look at these. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with Chimp's view (which you might have guessed from my previous post). I'll reply to each part of your post to show you why.

"vgchartz may not be 100% accurate but I guarantee you it is more accurate than a list stating that Halo 3 has sold 8 million units (for example)."

Actually, it's not. You are mistaking how recent the figures are with accuracy. You must also take into account verifiability. Accuracy is a measure of how close something is to reality. We know the 8.1 million as of January 2008 figure for Halo 3 is 100% accurate since it was released by Microsoft (other than Bungie, the only company who can give truly accurate info). It may not be particularly precise (more decimal places would have been nice), but it is as accurate a figure as we can get. VGChartz on the other hand states that Halo 3 has currently sold 11.05 million units. The fact that someone (VGChartz in this case) has guessed the number of units sold since does not make it accurate. Do you know that 11.05 million is closer to the real figure than the 8.1 million given by Microsoft? No, and this is where verifiability comes in. Wikipedia has a policy that states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" (See: Wikipedia:Verifiability). What you are doing is attributing an accuracy value to the figure without verification.

With regards to how up-to-date the figures are, I would fully support the addition of "as of date" after all figures in the article to clarify them.

Right, that's the first sentence down; now on to the second one...

"Again, this information is so out of date how can it be useful to anyone?"

It provides verifiable, accurate figures. From the article, we know that Halo 3 has sold at least 8.1 million units. We also know without even reading the article that every game on the list has sold at least 1 million units. I would like to know how you define usefulness. If by useful you mean "can be used to compare things as they are right now" then I don't see that VGChartz is any more useful. Why? Well, as I already said, we have no idea how accurate they are. Are their figures artificially skewed towards one platform/developer/publisher or another? Are they within a reasonable range of values of the real figure? What info are they based on?

Here is a quote from their own methodology page:

All sales estimates on VGChartz are arrived at via a number of proprietrary and ever-developing methods:

• Polling end users to find out what games they are currently purchasing and playing
• Polling retail partners to find out what games and hardware they are selling
• Using statistical trend fitting and historical data for similar games
• Studying resell prices to determine consumer demand and inventory levels
• Consulting with publishers and manufacturers to find out how many units they are introducing into the channel

For all hardware and top 50 software, sales estimates will be arrived at from at least three of the distinct methods listed above to ensure accuracy. For software below the top 50, sales estimates may be arrived at from only one or two of the methods since less data (and time!) is available.

Looking at each of these individually, it should be obvious why I don't consider the figures useful:

• Polling end users to find out what games they are currently purchasing and playing - This is very likelly to be skewed by fanboys and the like, and those who have some other motive such as stock in a particular company. It also skews it towards "hardcore" games since casual gamers are unlikely to be members (I am assuming for this that by end users they are meaning people who have accounts on the site. I may be wrong) and even if it is on-the-street polls etc, how likely are the casuals to answer a gaming survey?
• Polling retail partners to find out what games and hardware they are selling - many companies do not divulge such info to third parties, so will be skewed towards the figures of those which do (which may ore may not be representative).
• Using statistical trend fitting and historical data for similar games - This one may be fairly useful, but we have no way of knowing how accurate their specific methods are. Also, from what figures is this extrapolated? Presumably their own figures gained from other methods.
• Studying resell prices to determine consumer demand and inventory levels - This is pretty useless as a way to determine sales numbers. It may provide some context to improve the results of other methods, but on their own cannot tell you much at all (how do you take into account perceived value of an item (some games such as Fallout 3 will last you much longer than God of War for example), the fact that many games come bundled with DLC codes or have restrictive DRM deterring resale etc)
• Consulting with publishers and manufacturers to find out how many units they are introducing into the channel - This seems like the only truly useful method, but it is interesting that they say how many are being introduced into the channel rather than the actual number sold.

The worst thing about this is this sentence "For software below the top 50, sales estimates may be arrived at from only one or two of the methods since less data (and time!) is available". The figures for some of the games listed may be derived completely from used sales rates or user polling. Also, what do they mean by top 50? is that top 50 for the week, month, year or for all time?

"vgchartz might be out by a couple of thousand. This list is out by several million."

Yes, but VGChatz may also be out by several million. It may even be more out than the out of date figures. We don't know.

"As for retroactively changing numbers: 1) Luckily this wikipedia is editable, so people can also update the list here and change the numbers as vgchartz do so or if a more reliable source is obtained."

That doesn't mean figures for which we have no verification can be added. If that were the case, why don't you just make up all the figures and cut out the middle man?

"2) The movie industry does this as well, yet this site accepts sites such as Box Office Mojo as a reliable source. Again as it is easily editable I don't see a problem."

I am unfamiliar with Box Office Mojo, so I don't know how verifiable that is, but if that is done by the movie industry (do you mean that or do you mean specific sources) then they are also unsuitable as sources. I have a feeling that as an industry though, they do not do what I said (simply change figures in online articles) but add things to them in addenda or in retractions etc. If not then they are breaking the law by skewing the market.

Sorry for the essay :P

Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If VGChartz is so unreliable how come Square-Enix used their numbers in a financial report(page 7)? Or an EA employee(page 38)? or Metacritic? I'd like to note that just because the info is outdated it should not be removed(@Crazymaner2003). Rhonin the wizard (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hard to say. The Sqenix one just seems irresponsible, but is probably due to the fact that they needed PAL (called "Europe, others" in their release) sales figures, and there is no PAL equivalent of the NPD. The other two I'd say were probably just two individuals who didn't (but should have) know any better. Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps VGChartz numbers are closer to reality than you believe and for Europe there are the research firms GfK and Chart-Track. Also you might want to see who else has quoted VGChartz. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Or perhaps VGChartz numbers are closer to reality than you believe" I don't think I ever said that they were particularly far from reality, just that we have no/little reason to believe that their figures are close to reality. The point still stands that their figures may or may not have much basis in reality. While some are probably much better than others, given their track record and their methods, I shall choose to assume the worst until shown otherwise.

With the Metacritic one, I am almost certain that either the person who wrote it is either blissfully ignorant of VGChartz's shortcomings (didn't dig very deep or think very hard about the source of the numbers, or maybe saw that other people had used them so assumed they were fine), or chose to ignore them to increase traffic (probably not, but possible). This is gaming journalism we're talking about - a field not really know for it's in depth analysis (such sites often seem to be more focused around the comments section than the actual articles).

With the EA one, I'm a little confused - it looks like they've taken a graph of various install bases but only used the Wii column (which kinda defeats the object of a graph, no?) so I'm not filled with confidence about it's author either.

Regardless of who's used it though, if it cannot be shown to be accurate (it's usage by other people does not do this - if this were the case then every one of the worlds major religions would be simultaneously true which is obviously false) then it is still not allowed by wikipedia's policies. It is best to not follow the herd and accept something as accurate just because a number of other people do - to do so is an Argumentum ad populum, a form of flawed logic. Also do not assume that it is true because people in (relatively) high places (EA or Metacritic employees) say it, as that is another logical fallacy (Argument from authority). Look at VGChartz methods and if you can provide some viable reason to accept their figures as fact then I am all ears. Until such a thing can be demonstrated however (and looking at their methods and past history, things like the retroactive alteration of figures, I'm not sure it can), they cannot be held to be any more reliable than info with a citation needed tag.

It should be noted that even VGChartz has it's place, as long as it is treated as nothing more than an estimate. If used in an article about a game for example, something like "The website VGChartz estimates that the game sold x copies in it's first month on sale" would be permissible, but in an article such as this which is stating things as cold, hard fact, it cannot be used, since it is just that - an estimate.

P.S. I'm fairly sure that GtK is UK stats not Europe-wide and Chart-Track is part of GtK. Don't take my word for it though - look it up (we wouldn't want to commit another logical fallacy now would we?)

Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The presentation may be incomplete, regardless it was shown at MIGS(Montreal International Games Summit) so the author trusted VGChartz data enough to use it.

Chart-Track covers UK and Ireland, while GfK reports on the rest of Europe, and GfK owns a majority stake in Chart-Track.

I do not assume that VGChartz numbers are true or not on what other people say. I believe they are close enough to reality that they can give a good idea of how the industry is doing, I reached this conclusion by following VGChartz for years and seeing how their numbers compare to both data from other tracking firms and from game publishers. And I never stated that VGChartz numbers are accurate just because they are frequently used by a lot of people or from high ranking people, however, if people from inside the industry who have access to numbers from probably all the the tracking firms use VGChartz' numbers maybe they know a little more about its accuracy than you or me.

The numbers from NPD, GfK, Enterbrain, etc. are accepted as genuine, even though at the end of the day these are also nothing but estimates, not cold, hard facts. And these companies also correct their numbers from time to time and can make mistakes. The difference is that they have more resources and experience than VGChartz, So if I asked you to prove that NPD's methods are accurate, could you?

And you have not come up with a decent reason why company would use data in a financial report, in which by law they can not put false information, when they could easily get them from other sources.

From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: Usage by other sources How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"The presentation may be incomplete, regardless it was shown at MIGS(Montreal International Games Summit) so the author trusted VGChartz data enough to use it."

I do not doubt that the author trusts the numbers, only that such trust is (possibly) misplaced or irrelevant

"Chart-Track covers UK and Ireland, while GfK reports on the rest of Europe, and GfK owns a majority stake in Chart-Track."

Fair enough. It would seem I had picked up some false information somewhere (perhaps I had fallen victim to an argument from authority :P). Also, according to the GfK site, chart-track also covers Denmark for some reason.

"I do not assume that VGChartz numbers are true or not on what other people say. I believe they are close enough to reality that they can give a good idea of how the industry is doing, I reached this conclusion by following VGChartz for years and seeing how their numbers compare to both data from other tracking firms and from game publishers. And I never stated that VGChartz numbers are accurate just because they are frequently used by a lot of people or from high ranking people, however, if people from inside the industry who have access to numbers from probably all the the tracking firms use VGChartz' numbers maybe they know a little more about its accuracy than you or me."

I, too, believe they are probably close enough to reality to give such a general idea. That however does not mean that their info is suitable for an encyclopaedia.

"The numbers from NPD, GfK, Enterbrain, etc. are accepted as genuine, even though at the end of the day these are also nothing but estimates, not cold, hard facts. And these companies also correct their numbers from time to time and can make mistakes. The difference is that they have more resources and experience than VGChartz, So if I asked you to prove that NPD's methods are accurate, could you?"

Ideally, such numbers wouldn't be included either. I think to be really encyclopaedic we essentially need 3 categories: first-party data (direct press releases from developers/publishers, interactions between PR rep and websites etc), professional estimates (NPD etc) and unreliable sources, rather than the current "is this true? yes/no", with the professional estimates reflected as such on the page with something like (NPD estimate: -date-) next to applicable figures and (official figure: -date-) for the official ones. In such a system you could list both pro. estimates and official figures for a single title, much like multi-region figures are now. In such a system VGChartz methods would likely still put it into the unreliable category, but there would possibly be more reason to include it than under the current system.

An example of such an entry might be:

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots: 3 million shipped^REF (official figure: December 31, 2009); 4.5 million^REF (NPD estimate: May 2010)

NOTE: The NPD figure is made up for the purposes of the example

"And you have not come up with a decent reason why company would use data in a financial report, in which by law they can not put false information, when they could easily get them from other sources."

I can't think of one, but that doesn't mean there isn't one (introducing logical fallacy number 3: argument from ignorance). Also, as far as I am aware, it is not illegal to present false info unless it is done intentionally (i.e. if they did it knowingly but proceeded regardless. I think the term is misrepresentation, although that may only apply to advertising - I'm not a lawyer after all). Since the info is from a source (VGChartz), it would be the source that would likely be liable, although there is a nice little disclaimer in the methodology page that waives all responsibility for their numbers (doesn't really fill me with confidence about how they view their own stats, but it may just be a legal thing. A similar point was brought up in the Gamasutra article though).

"From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: Usage by other sources How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them."

In my opinion, this section is also largely based on the assumption that the subject in question is a fact. By the very nature of VGChartz, it does not provide facts, but estimates, so I'm not sure it applies. Also, I think it is useful to draw attention to these lines:

"How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it."

I would say that there is both widespread doubt and citation without comment, so it is pretty much neutral in that regard (with "citation without comment" possibly edging ahead). The very fact that there are two comments on the Metacritic article you posted about such a thing and the fact that consensus had already been found on this subject before I even started editing wikipedia (as far as I know. I certainly wasn't part of that discussion) seems to suggest that Chimp and I aren't the only ones to hold such a position. Also, the consistency of use in things such as game publisher press releases seems at best sparse. On gaming news sites/blogs (Joystiq, Kotaku, Gamasutra etc). Interestingly, I can only find two mentions of VGChartz info Eurogamer, which I would consider to be one of the more reliable sites (they seems to try to verify more info rather than just push it out ASAP), one of which is giving them credit for a scoop (which is fair enough) and the other specifically notes them as unofficial (in relation to Halo 3 worldwide sales). Joystiq seems to have it's [doubts] as well. I havn't checked the other sites, but I will do (if only to see what their view seems to be) and report back when I have.

"If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims."

As far as I can tell, this is all VGChartz has going for it, so at the very least I would suggest caution.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Halo 3 sells 10 million copies worldwide

Somebody include this in please - http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=halo+3+10+million&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=7e46ad9b77ec82e2 68.185.9.2 (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No. First of all, in order to add a figure to the page you need a proper citation. A google search is not that (for one thing it can/will change over time, for another it provides only links to info, not the info itself). That would be fine if one of the linked pages had the info (we could have used that page as a citation) but all the ones linked cite VGChartz as their source, which at best give educated guesses (the fact that they do so to the nearest 10,000 is just irresponsible and misleading on their part). Sorry Alphathon^TM (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

New Nintendo Info

There are new info of Nintendo sales here : http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2009/091030e.pdf

I am not sure how to incorporate them into the page, what with the sourcing references and the fact that a couple of games have to appear at multiple places. But I think it means that Wii Fit becomes second best selling games of all time non bundled, for one thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.196.66 (talk • contribs)

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.0.104 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So what do we think of this Sonic retrospective??

GameTap made these four videos...this [33] is possibly claiming Sonic 1 sold 15 million. This other one [34] claims that Sonic 3 combined with Sonic & Knuckles sell 4 million. Is this reliable information??--SexyKick 05:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's always the MegaDrive/Genesis with you isn't it :P. Anyway, the Sonic 3/Sonic and Knuckles one is certainly not, since it is the combined sales of both games (we don't know how any each has individually for that 4mil. The other one has been posted here before, but I think it was removed since it is a YouTube video (I would say it is a viable source itself, but youtube is not the best place to have it uploaded - url could be changed, video could be deleted etc). Alphathon^TM (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Or Mortal Kombat, or SNES (you guys have that covered though TBH) or Xbox 1, etc. - whatever I'm most knowledgeable in. Yeah, I agree about Youtube. The change initially appeared in some article I was watching, and I reverted it. But now I'm thinking...Sonic 1? 15 million? Maybe???? Probably not though. IMHO I think it's the main Sonic The Hedgehog series lumped up. Sonic 1=4 million + Sonic 2=6 million + Sonic CD=1.5 million + S3 combo=4 million = 15.5 million--SexyKick 10:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I was just joking :). Anyway, it certainly seems plausible - if it was bundled with a system that sold 29 million (lets assume that for now, regardless of the whole ambiguity of sources etc) then giving away 15 million copies with the system certainly holds up (depends how long it was bundled). The source isn't really usable though (especially since there is even a little doubt as to what it's referring to, although I tend towards Sonic 1), so it's kinda a moot point. Alphathon^TM (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the guy that made the "15 million" edit earlier today. I'm 100% sure that the SEGA VP is referring to Sonic 1 when he mentions 15 million copies. That whole part of the interview talks about the controversial decision within SEGA to bundle Sonic 1 with the Genesis in order to sell more hardware. He's definitely referring to that 1 game only. Anyway, I suppose I understand why YouTube videos shouldn't be used as a source. I just wish SEGA would release some official sales numbers for Genesis games, since Genesis games seem to be severely undertracked. 69.112.139.252 (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kinda unfortunate, but there's no real reason for them to do so :(. Generally a company will release it's figures either because it has to for a financial report or to make themselves look good to the public so increasing share prices (by, in turn selling more). Neither of these really apply to SEGAs Meqa Drive/Genesis games since they're long dead. The only reason I can think of for them to do so would be in the marketing or sales comparison for Sonic 4 Alphathon^TM (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Reformat

Hi all. In the discussion above regarding VGChartz, I proposed a reformat to make it clearer where numbers come from and how old they are. Since most people probably didn't read that I thought I'd start a separate discussion on the topic.

My proposition is this: all figures should be labelled to show where they come from and up to what point they represent. The example given above is thus:

• Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots: 3 million shipped^REF (official figure: December 31, 2009); 4.5 million^REF (NPD estimate: May 2010)

NOTE: The NPD figure is made up for the purposes of the example

This way we can show both professional estimates (i.e. NPD, ELSPA etc) and officially released figures. Notice that this also changes the format slightly, removing the figures from the brackets (I believe they are called parentheses in the US) and instead having them follow a colon. Obviously for games where we only have one kind of figure only that would be listed; for example the Super Mario Galaxy 2 figure I just added to the List of best-selling Wii video games:

• Super Mario Galaxy 2: 1.1 million in the US (NPD estimate: July 2010)^REF

This of course could create a lot of clutter, so I also propose that we put multi-region figures on multiple lines like so:

• Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare: 4.226 million approximately
  • 3.04 million in US (NPD estimate: January 2008)^REF
  • 78,000 in Canada (NPD estimate: June 2008)^REF
  • 54,742 and 53,722 Platinum Collection/The Best in Japan^REF*
  • at least 1 million in UK (ELSPA platinum certified)^REF

*I'm not sure I trust the ref for the Japanese Modern Warfare sales - it doesn't look like a professional site and doesn't seem to cite any methodology, sources etc. It looks like it may be just as reliable as VGChartz. I have added {{verify source}} to the page.

I know that citation is already supposed to perform these functions (date of the ref etc) but at the very least this would make the figures more transparent and allow people to see at a glance how old figures are and where they originated without clicking on each individual ref to find out, and also shows more clearly where data originated (Joystiq may be the referenced site for example, but that doesn't tell us if it is publishing official figures or professional estimates without following the link).

Alphathon^TM (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There should be only one standard used. The official figures are always available for every game. Estimates, even from professional bodies can vary wildly and, at the end of the day, are guesses, however educated.

You do raise a good point though and people are going to continue getting refs from just about anywhere to prove their favourite game is top of the list (I'm on a safe bet with Wii Sports) but mixing the refs looks messy and will end up getting even messier and confusing(er). This could be solved with a table format with (Title)(Official)(NPD)(ELSPA)...(ESPN)(BLOKE DOWN PUB) and the ref being just added by the quoted figure. This will still give a few blanks and need a little maintenance (but what page doesn't), but most people should get the idea and the twerps can get their fix by using a dynamic table so they can order it by whichever body rates their game the highest. And it would save on creating a whole new page just for each type.

you could include the date in a side column: (Title)(Off|Date)(NPD|Date)...Where is WikiResearch? (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that would work - there's just far too much to manage and for the most part would be just be an empty table. Also "The official figures are always available for every game."... what? They are always available within the company sure, but that doesn't mean they are always available publicly. Alphathon^TM (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Top Ten PC

I do not believe that World of Warcraft and Guild Wars should be included in this list. They are constantly evolving worlds that, without extant expansions, can be drastically changed as it is played over the years. For most games, sequels are released with improvements and alterations made, garnered from feedback by the users; with MMORPGs this can be done live without the need for a new release. To include these in the list seems to me like advocating including all 9 games from the Ultima series or all 12 (non-online) from Final Fantasy. They deserve a mention, surely, but should be as an addendum to the list, not part of it.Where is WikiResearch? (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

While online games certainly could be updated online alone, manufacturers never fail to rob you for that extra penny by releasing endless expansions. SharkD  Talk  04:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Games bundled with phone

http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/01/what-to-call-the-past-decade-has-to-be-the-nokia-decade-heres-why.html this blog lists 2.5 billion phones bundled with snake. also i'm sure blackberry has broken these records as well with brickbreaker.

should these be counted, or only games bundled with "video game consoles"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yincrash (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. iPhone alone would make a significant difference in any game released for smart phones and consoles. In a September 18 Keynote from Apple, Steve Jobs claimed they "outsell Nintendo and Sony combined" What he means by "outsell" is unclear but Apple and other smart phones are racking up sales for many games. Maybe smart phones should receive their own category. 72.129.20.253 (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Brawl, a fighting game?

Sure there are many (ill-informed) sources listing Brawl as a fighting game, however it lacks lots of fighting game elements such as health bars, combos, hit levels and KOs. I think Tekken 6 is a better choice for best selling fighting game. 187.35.38.173 (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (it'll be in the archives somewhere) and I'm fairly sure it was concluded that Smash Bros. is a fighting game. There a a few questions that must be asked here:

1. What makes you think the sources are ill-informed?
2. Why does your definition of fighting game take precedence?
3. What is you definition of fighting game?
4. If it is not a fighting game then what is it? - "It's own genre" may be an acceptable answer as long as it can be shown to be sufficiently different from fighting games (and not a subgenre which I think is the closest it can come to not being a fighting game personally).
5. What do you mean by "Tekken 6 is a better choice for best selling fighting game"? - There is no choice here; it either is or it isn't (assuming Smash Bros. is considered a fighting game, it is the best selling that we know of, end of story).

Also, I'm fairly sure SSBM had K.O.s (not in the traditional sense, but still present); are you sure SSBB doesn't?

Alphathon™ (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither Brawl nor Melee had K.Os. and neither of them are fighting games, fighting is the name of a genre, not the descriptor of a genre. Chigurgh (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Before I start, I would like to note that this is not the discussion I was referring to when I mentioned the previous discussion. As I said it is in the archive somewhere.

OK, now that's over with…

1) Melee definitely had K.O.s; not in every mode, but it did. Perhaps the definition is what varies here (the announcer yelled K.O. at the end of matches for example, but that may not meet your definition of a K.O.).

2) Please define fighting game before declaring that SSB isn't one. You say "Fighting Game" isn't a description of a genre, but the name of it, so what exactly is a "Fighting Game" by your definition?

Alphathon™ (talk)

Fighting game, a genre where TWO (no more than TWO, otherwise it's a party game) fight out too see who is the best, it has lifebarss, hit levels, K.Os, a plain arena (no platforms), no items (except swords), no knocking-out-of-the-ring (except soul calibur)> Chigurgh (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so by that definition, SSB is not a fighting game. Now, why should we accept that definition?

Why can't games by multi-genre (i.e. fighting and party).

Why does 3+ people instantly make it a "party game"?

Why do the percentages used in SSB not count as "lifebarss" (health bars)? It may be a different graphical representation, but it displays the same info.

Why can't fighting games have multi-levels?

Also, surely "no knocking-out-of-the-ring (except soul calibur)" is a meaningless statement. If ring-outs disqualify it from the fighting genre, then SC isn't one. If they don't, it is not part of the definition.

Alphathon™ (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Japan doesn't consider Brawl a fighting game, but an action game, also www.smashbros.com lists it as action. Brawl doesn't have combos, which is a big part of fighting games. Chigurgh (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So what? Wikipedia, no matter what language, is not a valid source for anything - it is only as good as its editors. As for smashbros.com, where does it say that? Action is a fairly vague genre itself anyway. Heck, action games states: "The genre includes diverse subgenres such as fighting games, shooter games, and platform games, which are widely considered the most important action games, though some Real Time Strategy games are also considered to be action games.". Of course as I said, Wikipedia isn't really a useful source, but I think you get the picture.

Also, if memory serves, the previous discussion (I'll find it tomorrow) included a press release from Nintendo that clearly stated that they consider it to be a fighting game. Alphathon™ (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Smashbros.com clearly states "Genre : Action " , Whereas at streetfighter.com or capcom.com ,It is Clearly stated that Street Fighter 2 "Genre : Fighting ". If the people running the website are sure Brawl is a fighter why are they avoiding labeling it as a fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.162.230 (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As already pointed out to Chigurgh, replying to a post does not mean the discussion is over, so please wait until consensus has been reached. Also, "Action" encompasses the fighting genre, along with shooters, platformers and any number of other genres. Besides, I don't see that it says "Genre: Action" anywhere on smashbros.com anyway (nor on streefighter.com either)

To be honest I'd be in favour of completely removing the section, along with the "20 best-selling console games" section, since they both constitute original research (they are the highest sellers that we know of, but not necessarily the highest overall; see discussion on "Table format" below).

BTW, nobody is doubting that SF2 is is a fighter, so what it's websites say is irrelevant. Alphathon™ (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't anybody able to see it , well anyway here is some (lol paint work) picture of where it is.

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/6651/83594932.jpg .

Main page of Smashbros.com and like you said Action could refer to many genres but when you put Fighting specifically , It refers to what are traditional fighters like Tekken ,Street Fighter and Virtua fighter. In this list it has been put that Metal gear solid 2 is the best selling stealth game , But one could argue that even Call of Duty is a stealth game since you can play it that way .COD can be considered as an RPG since it has leveling systems and perks , am not saying it is a stealth game or an RPG am just saying by giving it a vague description such as action you cant consider it in a genre traditional sense. The reason we specify genres like that is to put up games that are considered true to that genre only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.193.186 (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Why isn't anybody able to see it" To be fair, I think I was the only one who couldn't see it and I have no idea why (I even remember specifically looking there, but still didn't see it :/).

Anyway, fair enough. Still, as I said before I don't think the whole section should be there anyway (constitutes original research). Actually, come to think of it, the numbering of the items within sections which have their own dedicated page would be OR as well. The whole page really needs a re-think. Luckily it is already being discussed below.

Alphathon™ (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If no further proof is given to why Smash is a fighter, I'm going to remove it from the list. Chigurgh (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote from the back of SSBB's box: "Anything can happen in this action-packed fighting game". The official Nintendo website also lists Brawl as a fighting game. It should be fairly obvious that the Smash Bros. series is an Action/Fighting game, as listed on its page here. A fighting game need not be a "traditional" fighting game to qualify as a fighting game, just as a racing game need not be simply racing around a track as in real life. - C.Olimar788 (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, here's several sources calling it a fight game: Allgame (Fighting, and 3D Fighting), GameSpot 3D Fighting), GameSpy (Fighting), G4TV (Fighting), Nintendo.com (Fighting). I'm sure that's enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha since whenn Allgame is reliable? They list Zelda games as role-playing games. It's not a matter of sources, it's a matter of what consists a fighting game, if there are sources listing the sun is pink doesn't it make any less yellow. It's well agreed among hardcore and reliable fighting game community this is not a fighting game. Chigurgh (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's also point out that in their music guide, they list Rammstein as Progressive Metal, Rammstein is nowehre anything like that.; Gamespot is not reliable because if you change the game's genre at GameFAQs they change to what GameFAQs lists, so it's like IMDb in this aspect. The rest of the sources are ill-informed, they list anything as fighting that looks like a fighter. Just like in films, just because Fight Club has guys fighting violently doesn't mean it is an action movie. Actually Retorn of the King is more of an action film than Brawl is a fighting game. Allmovie site is not reliable, they "guess" the genres of movies which they never watched, List Cohen & Tate as Action, Heat as thriller. I will use the same argument of andrzejbanas used against me when I wanted to put action in the LOTR:ROTK If every game that has fights were fighting games, there would be no difference between Super Mario 64 and Street Fighter IV. Chigurgh (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Chigurgh, don't go criticising Andrzejbanas for the reliability of their sources when you cited the Japanese Wikipedia, an inherently unreliable source, as evidence that it is an "action" game - it is at best hypocritical.

Regardless though, I think the whole argument is pointless since the whole section is likely invalid under Wikipedia's policies anyway. Whether or not Brawl is a fighting game, do we know it is the top seller (i.e. do we know that no game fighting game has sold more)? The answer to that is no, so the whole section, along with some others, will likely be removed once a new format is decided on. As such, it is probably more productive to discuss that first (see Table format (again) below). If it is decided that it stays, the brawl issue can be discussed further, but if it isn't then this whole thing is pointless. Alphathon™ (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that Japanese wikipedia differs action from fight as they list Street Fighter IV as Fighting (tatakai) as opposed to Brawl's action (akushon). 23:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chigurgh (talk • contribs)

*Facepalm*. The point of my post was the reliability of the source, not the content. Wikis of any kind are inherently unreliable sources as they can be edited by anyone. If someone really wanted to, they could change the Japanese Wikipedia page for Brawl so it was listed as a Racing game, or a Romantic Comedy film, or a Shakespearean play. Wikis are useful if the data can be verified (i.e. through citations), but should never be used as a primary source for anything. You replied to Andrzejbanas saying pretty much the exact same thing about Gamespot/GameFAQs - that they were user editable etc and therefore unreliable. Exactly the same is true of the Japanese (or any other language) Wikipedia to at least the same degree, if not even greater. Alphathon™ (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what Chigurgh is saying about any other wiki, and one one of the sources I cited, I believe the other sources I've noted are more than satisfactory. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Reading his reviews some do appears to be coming from gamefaqs. But either way, Nintendo.com says fighting and outside "forgetting" to log in, you have not really convinced anyone with your reasoning. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)