Kaz says Little Big Planet sold 1.3 million-- oh noes! Did I win my bet?

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:
Well actually if you had actually gone and listened to the source material it should have been obvious that he was talking about online play.  For one thing, this is immediately following a bunch of PSN usage statistics -- 17 million so far, 2.1 in the most recent month, etc. etc.  For another, here's a word-for-word transcript:

LittleBigPlanet here on the back here -- so LittleBigPlanet actually allows you to channel your inner video game designer.  What does that mean?  It gives you the ability to imagine and create level after level; and then, it allows you to share your masterpiece by easily uploading it, all right, onto the network.  So today, there are over 1.3 million unique users [who] are playing this title.

So when we first launched LittleBigPlanet, we launched with about 50 levels on the disc itself -- that's 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 can be playing 24/7 and you could be playing this game for two straight years.

So this is really the first time that user generated content, as well as social networking -- and gaming -- have really come together under one title.  And this is something that you can sit down and play with your ten-year-old daughter, or really with your hardcore gaming friends as well.  And it's another gaming experience that's just -- not just unique to the PlayStation 3, it's possible only on the PlayStation 3.

So:  no, he doesn't actually say "playing this title online", but it's clear that his entire focus is on online play.  Also, it's completely nonsensical to speak of "unique users" when referring to retail sales.

Except sony has jumped from one statistic to another MANY times before in press releases and other statements.

Hence why context never seems to really work, remember back when they were talking about US sales then switched to worldwide without mentioning it... and everyone tried to jump on the site saying they undertracked?

Actually I don't clearly remember that incident -- could you link so I can see how comparable the situations are?

And "also, it's completely nonsensical to speak of "unique users" when referring to retail sales" still seems like a valid point in any case.

Except that wasn't the info given at the time.

All that was reported was "Units sold" and "People played".

15 sites had sold.  1 had played.

That was all the info we had at the time.  There was no mention of unique users in regards to LBP.

Still... i'll find it.... if i can find the right serach paramaters.

I mean, "PS3 undertracked" is all i can think of right now.. and well...

Actually, starcraft's objection was made specifically in response to a response that quoted that information.

Speaking to the more general argument, how many of those 15 were just using each other as sources?  We only saw two or three other blogs in this thread IIRC, and IGN (the dissenter) had more detail than the other two put together, so I think it's completely reasonable to think that they had the better chance of correctly reporting such a detail.  Also IIRC, there was at least one other dissenter. 

P.S.  I realize I've been overusing the word "actually" but, well, I'm too lazy to actually do anything about it right now. 

There wasn't another dissenter.

Someone suggested endgadget did... however they never even mentioned it.

As for who used what has sources, who knows half of them didn't quote it.

Just because you weren't live blogging doesn't mean you didn't have someoen there.

No other dissenters?  Godot disagrees. In fact, YOU QUOTED IT! 

Kasz216 said:
Thank you.  An actual second credible source.

As for who used sources, it's pretty clear that in fact it was played online and not sold; so obviously they either got it from Gamespot or made the same misinterpretation independently.  I admit that both probably happened -- which brings me to my next (or previous) point, that of the people whose notes we got to look at, IGN's [edit:  and Venture Beat's were] FAR more detailed and therefore more likely right (and Gamespot just glossed over an important detail by mistake).