When you download a free game, you're not selling it. Sure, you're profiting from other means, but not by selling the game. So no.

No.

Completely different. Pokemon Go wouldn't even be in the headlines if it costed 20-40

At best, you could count the people that have spent a 'substantial' sum on the game. As for people that have paid either nothing or very little, counting them would be just stupid. That said, download numbers are too are an important indicator about the franchice's popularity, but in a different way compared to sales.

I think what Cosmic means is you can't logically place downloads and sales in the same category because they are different. All you seem to put forth is that you have the ability to say downloads are sales just because you can.

Yeah it's free why on earth would we count it as sales? xD

I can define something as trivial as Nintendo to mean Playstation. The NX is a Playstation console confirmed.

Heck, I can define something as trivial as "define" to mean "saying something that doesn't make sense". As an example, I'd give your definition of sales.

Exactly... especially when you take into consideration that a smartphone today is not a luxury item, but a necesity. I have several downloaded games on my LG, from large franchises that I am more than ready to delete at any moment, yet I wouldent trow out not even a mediocre title that I bough at retail

It counts on the list of most downloaded free to play games

Remember that "selling" part in your thread title? I guess you can find your answer there.

Have you ever heard of tomatoes?  They're a fruit.  Except they're legally vegetables.  Because people use them as vegetables, so it makes more practical sense to consider them as such for shipping and tax purposes.

Did you know that strawberries are not berries and bananas are?  If someone ordered a chicken berry salad and it came covered in bananas, you think they'd be happy about it?  They should be fine with it, right?  After all, we can't just define berries anyway we want.

Suppose you were going to a superbowl party.  You're on a low fat diet, so you ask your friend "are their going to be vegetables there"?  He says "sure there will be lots of vegetables".  You get there, and they have french fries, popcorn, corn fritters, and fried pickles.  Hey, they're vegetables aren't they?  Was your friend right?  Did his answer give you useful information?

Are octopi vertebrates?  Well, according to Britain's legal system,  they are.  Because there are things that you legally can do to invertebrates, that you can't do to vertebrates.  And since octopi are so smart, they don't think they should be subjected to invertabrate experimentations.  But, we should be able to do cruel experiments to them, right?  They clearly are not vertebrates.

Then there are issues like transexuality, abortion, death penalty, and so on where how things are defined are subject of great debate and have huge ramifications on our lives.

Point of these examples is we define things differently than the strict dictionary definition ALL THE TIME if there is a practical purpose to it.  I'm sure you wouldn't have to try all that hard to think of how you do this in your daily life.  If we use a strict dictionary definition of sales, we could say things like "Nikolai's pencil puzzles is a bigger selling franchise than Angry Birds".  Are we correct?  Yes, in the same sense that we're correct if we call french fries a vegetable.  Does it provide a useful or accurate picture of the relative popularity of the two franchies?  Totally not.

If our goal is to determine popularity, then it makes complete sense to consider downloads as sales.  To suggest that terms have an absolutely infallible meaning and that defying that will bring the wrath of Webster demonstrates a rudimentary understanding of language and its fluidity.  We can use words however we want as long as there is a common understanding.  Sign, signifier, signified.  Semiotics 101.  There is a whole field of philosophy and literature based on this concept, and it's not as black and white as people in this topic seem to think.  And I can absolutely guarantee that you don't use language in that black and white manner in your actual life.

And that was the OP's whole point.  That even though he is well aware that Pokemon go is not actually being sold, considering them as sales can be useful and give us a better understanding of the franchise's popularity.  And it's actually a fairly good question.  But instead of actually thinking about whether this would have a good practical purposes, people are all like "nuh uh! Dictionary says not to!"  

So, if you can think of a legitimate reason why it would be useful to consider the NX a Sony console, go for it.  I'll support you 100%.