(1)"Are you simply going to ignore all the good games that have been released and didn't sell well? Quality does not equal sales. This has been discussed to death."

Name them. Go on - I dare you

 "Also, in terms of qualiy, Watch_Dogs has not received amazing reviews. "

Did you see me underline good? The WHOLE point is they DON'T have to be amazing to sell well.

"How can the people who bought it have known that it would be a good game? "

Two things: 1. Anyone with a little bit of sense knew it would (at the least) be good. 2. It wasn't that incredible yet it got those sales.

"Infamous is as good of a game as Watch_Dogs according to reviewers (meta) and users (average scores). Yet it sells less"

inFamous was on ONE platform. By how much is WD outselling it on PS4?

"Watch_Dogs was hyped since it was shown"

So what? Here's my point (which you obviously seem to have lost track of): Hey Mr. Publisher, if you made a good game for mid 2014 and gave it some publicity then chances are it would have made you a little richer.

"Ask Ninty fans and Pikmin 3 or Wonderful 101. Great games, yet disappointing sales despite the long droughts. "

Ignoring the fact that I am very, very well aware of those cases which is why I said X1/PS4. Not to mention that Wii U is failing. Or that Pikmin hardly has a huge fanbase. Or that Wonderful 101 (however good it may be) launched with a small user base and was yet another (aesthetically) kiddy game on Nintendo hardware. And how much advertisement did W101 get?

Now try and twist my words any way you like, but I proclaim that every single one of your comments have been nonsensical from the outset... EDIT: Ok maybe the last bit was too much.

"I dare you"? Seriously? What is this? kindergarten? You have all my respect, so do not quote me ever again. I refuse to waste my time replying to someone who uses flamebait comments. I will not reply in kind. 

I don't want to derail this thread, so this is my last comment: well done, Ubisoft! Here's hoping Ninty is inspired and comes up with another lengedary series. 

Sold through is intentionally vague. Publishers sell things to retailers, not to you. Retailers are their consumers. Once it's shippped to a store, it's a sold copy as far as their concern (unless there is a explicit contract regarding unsold stock made beforehand, that wouldn't be the case for a huge game like watch_dogs).

I guess you chose to ignore what I wrote when responding to you some 6 hours ago, so I won't repeat it, as you obviously just feel the need to write nonsense in order to downplay this game's success.

There is nothing vague in sell through, it is the number sold to consumers, not to stores. 

But of course, you will choose not to read this, so why do I bother?

I guess you chose to ignore what I wrote when responding to you some 6 hours ago, so I won't repeat it, as you obviously just feel the need to write nonsense in order to downplay this game's success.

There is nothing vague in sell through, it is the number sold to consumers, not to stores. 

But of course, you will choose not to read this, so why do I bother?

Sold through doesn't necessarily mean that. There's no point in discussing it because it's all assumption. I believe publishers define their customers differently than what we do. It's a PR speak meant to paint the most positive light on it.

Maybe I should stop, I have been told I'm a Nintendo fanboy who likes to downplay Sony and MS.

@ Kasz

Sony shifted from shipped to warehouses to shipped to retailers a little bit into the PS3 era. The verbage never really changed.

yeah i remember that part, however, I thought that shipped to retailers was termed "Sellthrough to consumers" before it became shipped... and that shipped to consumers was termed something like "End Users Purchases" or something crazy like that.