This is a little lesson for those of you who want to do analysis on sales numbers.

 What is the best-selling Atari 2600 game ever?  Pac-Man, weighing in at a very impressive 7 million copies sold (unprecedented for the time; the attach rate of Pac-Man was well over 50% during its peak).  It also moved an impressive number of systems, resulting in one of the best years for the Atari 2600 in 1982.  At a glance, this game is the very image of a killer app.  And it was, in a more literal sense than we usually intend with that term: Pac-Man for the Atari 2600 helped set off the collapse of the video game industry.

 Pac-Man is a prime example of a game falling victim to what we so lovingly know as "backlash".  The game was a huge seller when it came out, and everyone wanted a copy.  Then word got around that the port was of very poor quality, and sales numbers dropped through the floor.  Worse still for Atari and their merchants, copies were being returned like crazy, especially to Sears (collectors have noticed that Sears-branded copies of Pac-Man 2600 are the rarest type, yet Sears was the most popular Atari 2600 reseller at the time).  The game was so over-produced as well that 5 million unsold copies were left over when Atari finally pulled the plug on the 2600 (and that doesn't even account for returned copies, either).

 This is why you should never rejoice when a game sells millions of copies right out the door, yet vanishes from the charts within a few months of release.  As Pac-Man 2600 demonstrated so long ago, this can prove to be a very bad sign.  And since there is no way to track copies that are returned, resold or destroyed, we have even less ability to make an effective measure of how well games really do.

 If you haven't sussed it out yet, the lesson here is this: never trust sales numbers to give you the whole picture.  There is a lot more going on than raw numbers, and even what looks to be a record-setting blockbuster on paper can turn out to be a massive failure or system killer in reality.

Nice read but that was back in the early 80's. I doubt such a thing would happen today with a crapton of magazines and the internet being a fast way to get access to information and game reviews - that's a reason they exist, after all.

Maybe some casual buyer could have been fooled into thinking Call of Juarez was a part of the CoD series or fell prey to some Wii third party games like Carnival Games or The Conduit, but that would be irrelevant to the total numbers and overall profits. 

I think the whole point here is that just because something sells well doesn't mean that everything is rosey when considering the big picture.  This principle I agree with, but using such an antiquated example from the early eighties doesn't apply today since the infrastructure  of the console industry has changed.  Specifically for me, I'd say just because a game such as COD:W@W sold well and received high praises doesn't mean that game is for everyone.  I played a few stages, and I recognized its quaity and appeal.  But most FPS's are not my cup of tea and I prefer to be playing other genres.  A positive note is that Heavy Rain selling over 1 million.  Yes, this is good, but someone might compare its sales to COD:W@W and think it's not too impressive.  But it was enough to earn Quantum Dream for their efforts which leads them to take more chances in the future.  This is good for the console industry.  I think when we look at numbers, there is a greater context that should be considered.

The situation is rather unique. Pacman was a highly successful arcade game. People expected the same experience as the arcade version and the home version didn't stack up. What I'm trying to say is that people loved the game Pacman. They just hated THIS version of Pacman.

The only analog today I can think of is mobile games. Let's say they make a shoddy port of MW2 for the iPhone and it sold a lot. That would be similar to this Pacman release.

 Even if the original context has changed, the behaviors of humans have not.  You are all correct in stating that there is a lot more information out there, but the majority of consumers are doing the same thing they've done for years: ignore that information and buy on impulse, past experience, or word-of-mouth.  Why?  Because it's easier and less time-consuming.  More sales are made through "connecting" than through "proving".  It's much easier to persuade (or dissuade) someone to buy something if they've heard good (or bad) things about it, or see something about it that they like (or dislike).  Trying to get Average Joe to buy something based on a logical argument is about as smooth and painless as pulling teeth without anasthetic, by comparison.

 We are the rare exceptions.  We post on the internet about video games.  We are "in touch with gaming", as it were.  We number fewer than a hundred thousand, and many games sell millions of copies.  Were a proper tally done, it would likely be found that any given game has fewer than 5% of its owners posting about it online even once, and that includes sites like GameFAQs.  So just because you have "wised up", don't assume that the rest of the buying public has.

Your wrong

- I know other stores let you return new games but Game Stop doesn't unless it isn't open and gamestop is one of the most popular or most popular place to buy games. Both New or Used... doesn't matter because if they buy it used guess what? That lost new sale just got rebought. 

- Demos, reviews, word of mouth on internet, you can see for yourself if a game is that bad.

- Gamers from those times are gamers now and probably have been through a few "Oh cool Im buying this game and opening it up and playing it and oh I dont like this game, returns" and know better. When that Pac-man thing happened... those were like baby gamers that didn't know as much as they do now... and Im sure they have influenced (gamers) gaming culture into being more careful to avoid such bad things happening to them. Think that's where renting games were born from. That's another thing ..

- Renting games, game-fly anyone? Blockbuster? Mom and Pop video store anyone?

I mean for something like that to happen is very unlikely .... and if it does happen and I'm sure it has a few times, it was a few times at best.

Seriously look at my above points... for the most part the sales are very relevant.

Edit ^^^

Well, it's not like the current industry is entirely resistant to smoke and mirrors when it comes to the consumer... the tight relationship between the industry press and PR has led to some mini-blowback this gen, like with the GTA4 'reviews'.

Let's say World of Warcraft was released for consoles and it was completely awful. Millions of people would buy it because they would expect it to be like World of Warcraft for the PC. 

A lousy game can sell because of the brand name. However that seems more of the exception than the rule because IP owners see the value in brand names and don't want to piss it away.

Yeah, but if you look at the overall picture, that would be just a minor setback. At least, as far as I remember, it happened only with huge blockbusters that could be considered good games and had already a pretty good userbase. It was not like the press tried to deceive with positive reviews gamers into buying a title like Daikatana.