Can people stop with that quote tree? It's impossible to read this thread with people quoting essays with more essays.

"So what you just said is that its impressive but not impressive as a whole but its impressive for the series and not for xbox but not that impressive for the series..."

Oh boy. You're going to use another argument based on wording and not sales. Ok, look. It's easy to make anything sound confusing when you make 10 replies in a row about one word someone used, and then just take all those replies and add them together. If this is for comedic humor , it's not funny , and if it's a point then it's embarrassing. I'll just put it this way, for an exclusive it' not that impressive, for the series it's somewhat impressive but not that surprising. There, those that make sense?

"I did address why the sales could be on the decline. Personally i think it's judgment, new dev's, new cast. Not sure what Halo has do with it."

Yes...which is what I was literally telling you not to do? This entire discussion has been about how Xbox games either flop, or sell mediocrely. I don't care why they don't sell well, we're not discussing that. .. you seem to think that Gears will hit 6 mil so tell me why, instead of why it's selling meh as of now. Also I was pretty skeptical about Gears 4 because of 343, I don't trust Microsoft's studios and to be honest I think Gears 4 advertising was terrible, so much of their campaign footage was uninspired enemies and scripted events.

"Its not misleading because most people that open up a game are actually going to play it and even if someone plays it for a day or two every month they are still playing the game and are an active user so its important to count these players. The thing is that we dont have access to the exact statistics of how many people are playing now or how many people are playing every motnh all we can do is go of what we know about the MAU."

Jesus christ, really? I literally said in my last response my main point had nothing to do with whether the people go past the main menu. It was just some food for thought that, you can literally start Halo 5 and be a Monthly Active User. And now you're going to respond to that every reply just like the mediocre thing right? And it is incredibly misleading - you are not an "ACTIVE USER" if you play one or two days in a 30-31 day period. That's why Monthly Active User is such a stupid measurement - it tells us nothing about engagement statistics. I can't believe you are literally pretending like it's not misleading, when 343 pulled a PR stunt, got called out for it, admitted the stats weren't comparable after community backlash, and then failed to mention Reach to try to make 5 seem impressive. Like, what? The company practically admitted it was misleading after being called out for it and you're saying it isn't? It doesn't even matter if you think it's personally misleading, because the point is Halo's popularity which is still on the decline. It is doing better than 4, but as someone who played 4 for about two years after it came out ... that's really not saying a lot.

"I went with the 5 million in a year because to be honest i dont see splatoon selling more than that during its first year. Splatoon on a 13.9 million install base only managed to sell 4.8million."

"Splatoon on a 13.9 million install base only managed to sell 4.8million"

"Splatoon on a 13.9 million install base only managed to sell 4.8million"

"Splatoon on a 13.9 million install base only managed to sell 4.8million"

Halo 5 = 6 million  / 30 million = 20%

Halo 5 = 7 million / 30 million = 23.3333%

Halo 5 = 8 million / 30 million = 26.66666666666666666666666666666666666666667%

Splatoon = 4.8 - 5 - 5.5 million / 13.9 = 34% or 35% or 39% 

Is this the real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide

No escape from re-al-ity!!!

In all seriousness, it's hard to know how well Splatoon 2 will sell. I think if it has ~average Nintendo legs~ it will outsell Halo 5's total lifetime sales(and probably in much less time). if it turns out that Splatoon 2 has even better legs than your average Nintendo franchise, then it could pass Halo 5's total lifetime sales in just 6 months. We really don't know. I don't want to assume that Splatoon 2 will expand massively as more people buy Switch's, because a lot of the times platform size is disconnected from the market share of a game, but I think it's very likely that that is true and Splatoon 2 will get amazing legs with more Switch sales. I think something that's worth mentioning is that even if Splatoon 2 doesn't hit 5 million in 3 months - it will still probably outsell Halo 5's lifetime sales much faster because Halo 5 launched around holidays. I think it's fair to say Splatoon 2 will sell like 3.5 million in it's first 3 months. Splatoon 2 released late July, Halo released in late October. How much more will it sell holiday? My guess is quite a bit. I think it will almost, or will, outsell Halo 5's lifetime sales by the end of the holiday. It's legs after that are debatable. When your sales before the holiday are this good, the ketchup game seems like it will be quite easy.

" Looking at aligned FIFA sales FIFA 15 on XBO outsold FIFA 06 on 360, FIFA 16 on XBO outsold FIFA 07 on 360, FIFA 17 outsold FIFA 08 on the 360."

So you moved your goal post from fifa has sold better on Xbox One compared to 360 to this title and this title sold better compared to the old versions on the 360? Uh .... ok? Well both Fifa and Xbox are even more established than they were in the 360 era. I dont really see your point here? All your showing me is that Fifa is becoming more popular as a series, I don't know how I should clap for Xbox in that regard, but to be fair it's a good point. Although this is all kind of pointless because I never mentioned fifa and I even said the best selling Fifa on Xbox One might have outsold Fifa on X360 anyways including digital. I'm still confused why you included Madden and Fifa, two games that reallly have very little place in this discussion, but that is a nice catch and actually is a good point. 

" was just looking at the sales objectively.. "

No you weren't. I was comparing PS4 Battlefield to Halo. Not the Xbox One titles. Maybe I should have clarified better, but it shouldn't have been hard to figure out considering I was comparing 360 BF numbers to modern Halo.

"BF1 sold so well because it came out on a bigger install base and it got $300 at launch while Halo 5 got a $500 LE bundle."

And Master Chief collection was mass bundled for about two years in a 400 bundle to 300 bundle?  I don't really see your point about the "bigger install base". It doesn't matter, because so many Halo bundles were sold to make that install base in the first place. But install base is just an overall bad argument anyways, which is why i'm trying to be fair with Splatoon 2, cause we really dont' know how that will transpire.

"I'm curious to know why you think Battlefield will have a higher digital attach rate than halo?"

I don't necessarily think it does but in my mind, if BF1 sold as much as Halo 5 physically in a year less that's much more sales in a shorter time frame. Which makes me assume that Battlefield on Xbox possibly has a bigger market on Xbox than Halo does, thus more sales. It's just a possibility though and I think it's very likely that they have a similar digital attach rate, if total sales of BF1 end up being the same as Halo 5 I wouldn't be surprised, because a Halo title lasts 3-4 years and a BF title lasts 2(or 1 if you play Battlefront like BF)again though I never really focused on the Xbox version of BF.. 

Yep! Of course there's times where the install base increases and a game gets better legs because of it , since it's rare for the entire demographic to have the machine needed to be part of the install base, but as a whole the arguments for why Xbox One games - or any games on platforms selling badly due to install bases have usually been quite poor. It seems especially weird because if the Xbox One was the "current gen" machine for as long as the 360 it would probably sell better than it(assuming it got some actual exclusives or third party deals - and assuming it sold like the 360 did after One).

"Oh boy. You're going to use another argument based on wording and not sales. Ok, look. It's easy to make anything sound confusing when you make 10 replies in a row about one word someone used, and then just take all those replies and add them together. If this is for comedic humor , it's not funny , and if it's a point then it's embarrassing. I'll just put it this way, for an exclusive it' not that impressive, for the series it's somewhat impressive but not that surprising. There, those that make sense?"

Lol i was just pointing out that that statement didnt make much sense but you just clarified it so thats good. I'll leave it at this. I think its impressive for the series and for an exclusive dead rising game. 

"Yes...which is what I was literally telling you not to do? This entire discussion has been about how Xbox games either flop, or sell mediocrely. I don't care why they don't sell well, we're not discussing that. .. you seem to think that Gears will hit 6 mil so tell me why, instead of why it's selling meh as of now. Also I was pretty skeptical about Gears 4 because of 343, I don't trust Microsoft's studios and to be honest I think Gears 4 advertising was terrible, so much of their campaign footage was uninspired enemies and scripted events."

Well your other post you posted "Personally, I think it's mostly because Judgement and the mishandling of Halo. " . I was just addressing that statement with my personal opinion. And 343 doesnt have anything to do with Gears 4 so i dont understand why thats relevant.

"Jesus christ, really? I literally said in my last response my main point had nothing to do with whether the people go past the main menu. It was just some food for thought that, you can literally start Halo 5 and be a Monthly Active User."

Okay and i was just responding saying that when you start a game youre probably going to play the game. You brought it up as one of your arguements so i wasnt going to ignore.

"And now you're going to respond to that every reply just like the mediocre thing right?

You kept up bringing up the mediocre thing so i responded to it.

"And it is incredibly misleading - you are not an "ACTIVE USER" if you play one or two days in a 30-31 day period. That's why Monthly Active User is such a stupid measurement - it tells us nothing about engagement statistics."

If you're playing every month for a few days its an important statistc because it shows that the player is still interested in playing the game even thought its for small periods at a time its a good way to know how many overall users are using the game on a monthly basis.

"I can't believe you are literally pretending like it's not misleading, when 343 pulled a PR stunt, got called out for it, admitted the stats weren't comparable after community backlash, and then failed to mention Reach to try to make 5 seem impressive. Like, what? The company practically admitted it was misleading after being called out for it and you're saying it isn't? It doesn't even matter if you think it's personally misleading, because the point is Halo's popularity which is still on the decline. It is doing better than 4, but as someone who played 4 for about two years after it came out ... that's really not saying a lot."

Its not misleading because the original statement said "Halo 5 has had the highest monthly active players for a Halo title since Halo 3." . l Its not misleading because its true. And Reach is included in this i looked back at the post and theres nothing saying that theres less MAU on Halo 5 than Halo reach except from speculation from that forum users.

""I went with the 5 million in a year because to be honest i dont see splatoon selling more than that during its first year. Splatoon on a 13.9 million install base only managed to sell 4.8million."

"Splatoon on a 13.9 million install base only managed to sell 4.8million"

"Splatoon on a 13.9 million install base only managed to sell 4.8million"

"Splatoon on a 13.9 million install base only managed to sell 4.8million"

Halo 5 = 6 million  / 30 million = 20%

Halo 5 = 7 million / 30 million = 23.3333%

Halo 5 = 8 million / 30 million = 26.66666666666666666666666666666666666666667%

Splatoon = 4.8 - 5 - 5.5 million / 13.9 = 34% or 35% or 39% 

Is this the real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide

No escape from re-al-ity!!!"

Ok Splatoon has a higher attach rate. That still isnt relevant to the discussion because you said something about splatoon matching or passing Halo 5s sales which hasnt happened.

"So you moved your goal post from fifa has sold better on Xbox One compared to 360 to this title and this title sold better compared to the old versions on the 360? Uh .... ok?"

Its was comparing them to the older versions because the install base was around the same size. It wouldn't be fair to compare FIFA 17 to FIFA 13 because FIFA 13 had a way large install base.

"I'm still confused why you included Madden and Fifa, two games that reallly have very little place in this discussion, but that is a nice catch and actually is a good point. "

You compared Halos sales to Battleground and Splatoon 2 to show that Has as a series is in decline because it's getting outsold by these new IPS so i brought up other IPS that battlegrounds is outselling and the IPS like FIFA and Madden are IPS that are still selling good.

"No you weren't. I was comparing PS4 Battlefield to Halo. Not the Xbox One titles. Maybe I should have clarified better, but it shouldn't have been hard to figure out considering I was comparing 360 BF numbers to modern Halo."

Okay so were having a conversation of games selling on xbox and you bring up battlefield and expect me to know that you're talking about the PS battlefield games and not the xbox version? Some clarification would have been nice lol. Also if youre talking about how popular a series is it doesnt make sense comparing older battlefield games to modern Halo games because thats a bit misleading . its like me comparing 360 Halo games to modern BF and saying halo is way bigger.

"And Master Chief collection was mass bundled for about two years in a 400 bundle to 300 bundle?  I don't really see your point about the "bigger install base". It doesn't matter, because so many Halo bundles were sold to make that install base in the first place. But install base is just an overall bad argument anyways, which is why i'm trying to be fair with Splatoon 2, cause we really dont' know how that will transpire."

Yeah but MCC bundle came out 4 months later than its Nov 2014 release when the BF came out when Battlefield 1 launch and it was one of the main bundles for the holiday. But still The Halo games on xbox one has outsold the Battlefield games on xbox one.

"Lol i was just pointing out that that statement didnt make much sense but you just clarified it so thats good. I'll leave it at this. I think its impressive for the series and for an exclusive dead rising game. "

It made sense until you replied 50 times and then tried to put a bunch of replies together : P 

"You kept up bringing up the mediocre thing so i responded to it."

There's no point in arguing who brang up what first but just to be clear - I kept bringing it up because you kept bringing it up. This is very weird counter logic you have. 

"Ok Splatoon has a higher attach rate. That still isnt relevant to the discussion because you said something about splatoon matching or passing Halo 5s sales which hasnt happened."

I'll admit this comment got me genuinely pretty mad. When you reply to someone constantly and get off topic - or respond with a non answer practically every time, and then you say ATTACH RATE is off topic ? You just said we were comparing Splatoon and Battlegrounds so how is pointing out the attach rate off topic? You made a big error and I pointed it out(partially to be funny). That's not "off topic", you basically minimized your entire point about Halo having good sales because by your own logic it's attach rate is pitiful. You constantly talk about attach rate or how it's not far because Xbox One doesn't have the install base! But then you say a series didn't sell that impressively despite it having a much smaller install base and an impressive attach rate? You can't contradict yourself like that.

"If you're playing every month for a few days its an important statistc because it shows that the player is still interested in playing the game even thought its for small periods at a time its a good way to know how many overall users are using the game on a monthly basis."

It's fine if you believe it's an important statistic, but to use it in a round-about way when doing a PR stunt for your game it's very bad to use. Also, I would argue MAU is very rarely important since even Twitter bashed the system(which they used to use), but if yoou think it's important than fine. 

"Its not misleading because the original statement said "Halo 5 has had the highest monthly active players for a Halo title since Halo 3." . l Its not misleading because its true. And Reach is included in this i looked back at the post and theres nothing saying that theres less MAU on Halo 5 than Halo reach except from speculation from that forum users."

Lol this is just ... so lol. 343 Literaly got called and then said "you're right, they're not comparable!" Just because something is technically true doesn't mean it can't be said in a misleading way. It's so  frustrating when someone has such an attachement to a company or publisher that they'd rather defend the company than admit something. In hindsight it's easy to look at that quote and say that it doesn't sound misleading, but I was actually there when it happened and I remember the halo community freaking out thinking that Halo 5 was somehow one of the most popular Halo's. Of course it wasn't, and in reality they compared a system of measurement that was incomparable to another, and then admitted to it. But I guess nothing is misleading to you even if it's said in a roundabout way.  Also when I said they didn't mention Reach, I meant that in their original statement they did, but when they clarified that Halo 5 was nowhere near Halo 3 in popularity they never mentioned Reach. To be fair they coulld have just forgot it or something, I just think if they were including Reach or 2 in the second statement it would have shown that Halo 5 really is a dip off(not including 4...oh god)

"Its was comparing them to the older versions because the install base was around the same size. It wouldn't be fair to compare FIFA 17 to FIFA 13 because FIFA 13 had a way large install base."

Ok but ... I don't really care about Fifa? Fifa is a very Europe oriented game anyways so of course playstation will hold the most dominance. You're not wrong I just don't get why you're so focused on games I don't care to discuss.

"You compared Halos sales to Battleground and Splatoon 2 to show that Has as a series is in decline because it's getting outsold by these new IPS so i brought up other IPS that battlegrounds is outselling and the IPS like FIFA and Madden are IPS that are still selling good."

....I guess? I mean you didn't really make very many good points with them, all you've shown me is that Fifa and Madden 3rd party sales are up.Madden isn't up that much though and Fifa is much more playstation oriented. I don't think that "look! This other franchise that's sold well isn't selling as well as Splatoon 2o r Battlegrounds" is a good argument because it's off topic and you could probably say that about a lot of franchises. What's good for a Sports game on a console is not the same as the fucking symbol of the xbox brand.

" Also if youre talking about how popular a series is it doesnt make sense comparing older battlefield games to modern Halo games because thats a bit misleading . "

Except that's not what I'm doing at all, I'm comparing their market share? Look, old Halo used to sell better than the best selling version of old Battlefield did. Now? Halo sells worse than the best selling version of Battlefield does. Does that process to you? Battlefield's market share has gotten a little bigger of course, I don't really expect Halo to outsell Battlefield nowadays. But the fact that it's so far behind really says a lot. A xbox 360 Halo game used to sell 10-15 million units, now Halo has around 6 million, maybe around 6.5. Battlefield's market share has gotten from around 8 mil to probably around 10 per it's most popular platform. Battlefield has rised a bit so I dont really think Halo needs to outperform it, but it should be close to meeting it or meeting it and instead it's getting trounced. Halo is actually one of few series that sold exceptionally well after it's hay day. I don't expect another Halo 3 because that game was the peak of a series, and that's fine, every series will have it's peak, but Halo has fallen at a rapid and honestly unnatural rate, especially when yoou consider Reach and 4 probably sold around 10-11 million with digital.

"Yeah but MCC bundle came out 4 months later than its Nov 2014 release when the BF came out when Battlefield 1 launch and it was one of the main bundles for the holiday. But still The Halo games on xbox one has outsold the Battlefield games on xbox one."

So bundles only matter when you want them to? Ah, okay. Look i'm not going to argue about Battlefield's entire sales on the xbox vs Halo's entire sales because again you're getting this entire discussion off topic. I never even said anything about them. On Vgchartz yes, Halo has outsold Battlefield. I just don't see how that's impressive when games like Hardline weren't big and 4 was a bit bigger on last gen consoles. Battlefield 1 is like the "real" rise to acclaim on next gen consoles, if you will. So if you want to compare games, why not compare the most recent Halo to the most recent Battlefield. Oh right, because it doesn't fit your narrative! I'll admit I should have been more clear in addressing that I was originally talking about Battlefield's ps4 sales, but at this point I've already clarified that once. Ultimately what's important is the discussions you keep steering away from. It's worth noting that Battlefield 1 vs Halo 5 on Xbox One ... Battlefield 1 is still selling much faster. Like, on the 10th week of BF1's sales, it had 700,000 more physical copies sold than Halo 5. And Halo 5 is the "face of Xbox". Keep in mind BF probably has a similar digital attach rate anywas, maybe a bigger one, who knows. 

I know I've already said this but I think it needs clarificaton : You keep steering away discussion from what we were actually talking about. The worst was when you did it based on nothing but semantic wording, but now you're steering off into topics that are irrelevant. When I brought up Battlefield, Splatoon, and Battlegrounds and 343 being misleading, it wasn't so we could have some quality time, sit by the fire, cuddle and talk about third party sales or 343's advertisement. It was a point about Halo's sales,  and I thought that (besides the fucking BF clarification) I tied them together to my main point quite nicely. Yet you care more about stuff like "WHAT SPECIFIC VERSION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT" or "did you use extremely or not!" or "343 isn't misleading!" like it's your lifeblood or something. I respect that you're atleast not a shitposer or disrespectful, but at this point I'm starting to think you'll just steer discussion again or I'll make logical consistent points that you'll just dodge with a non answer. I told you to stop talking about why Gears failed, and rather talk about how you think it will get on track, because like you yourself said you think it will sell really well. I didn't get an answer to that. My main point has been this entire time that the biggest xbox games have either flopped, or have sold in a mediocre fashion. But now we're barely talking about that. When I originally expanded this topic it was to go more in-depth and not to talk about random stuff. I've been fair and said that games like Ori and Dead rising 3 were somewhat impressive - I even went out of my way to find(what I can only assume to be) the most accurate and positive sales data for Dead rising 3, which was a bit hard to find. 

Personally there's a few Xbox games I wanted to do really well and just frankily didn't.   I appreciate and thank you for at least being civil(more so than me hahaa). But in this entire discussion I don't think anything has changed really, Gears 4 and Halo 5 are still unimpressive, and the most impressive sales I can think of are Horizon 3 and maybe DR3. I don't see what that changes about drop off franchises or Dead Rising 4, Halo Wars 2, Quantum Break, Recore, etc. I'm sure if i wanted to be an ass I could make a case for Rise of the Tomb Raider being unimpressive, but I slightly disagree with some of those arguments people made a lot. I'm trying to be unbiased(I will admit I get a bit too heated at times) but this discussion isn't going to go anywhere at the rate it's at. I think what it comes down to is that sales data are in the end of the day just numbers - and no matter how much you like 343, or think Gears can be a success, these sales just aren't impressive, and in a lot of cases are weak. I'm not over the moon about it, I used to love the Xbox, I just like taking the piss sometimes. But besides maybe DR3, Forza Horizon 3, I don't think there's that big xbox game that has blew us away. I'm actually hoping to buy Forza Horizon 3. Let's hope that Sea of Thieves, or CrackDown 3, or State of Decay 2 becomes the next big hit.

Except when compared to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, which has almost matched the Xone's sales of Forza Horizon 3 in far less time on a much smaller install base.
Oh, and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is a remaster.

I just showed you how small of an impact the size of the userbase made for Halo 1 to 4 and you answer just reistating the same?

Sure considering MK on Wii sold like 25M it would be impossible to do the same on WiiU less than 15M userbase. But for most cases stablished IPs even more when they are the hallmark of the console manufacturer are much less dependent. Perhaps it would sell 25-40% more on 3x userbase (we can't be sure) but nowhere 3x... and as I showed Halo 3 sold more than 4 or 5 on a smaller userbase than both.

MAU isn't an important metric for a MP game as the ones used before.

It's beter that a game had 4M people accessing it in a month but the peak is 200k and played time 100M hours or that 2M people accessed in the month having 500k peak and 200M played hours?

I would say the second one would be a healthier environment for the game. But perhaps the first would bring more money (neither metrics can show which earned more cash).

The only meaning of mediocre is average. Anyone using it as bad is using it wrong. And to be fair I didn't saw anyone saying Halo or GoW sold bad, just that thet were subpar, a little disapoiting, meaning average, mediocre, less than the expected standard.

When did Capcom ignored Nintendo? 

By not releasing games WiiU wasn't capable of running.