Famitsu Sales 3/01 - 3/07

[trestres]

Zucas said:

trestres said:

Zucas said:

trestres said:

TheSource said:

These numbers were leaked as Famitsu last week and ended up being wrong. Give it another day and we'll know.

According to the guy who posted them, the leaked numbers came within 5% of the final figures for the past weeks, so they are good to work with.

According to the guy who said 2 + 2 was 5 said he was only off by 1 so that's good to work with.

 

Point being, just list it as rumor for now, and we'll just wait for the official numbers.  Whether this guy is close or not is irrelevant anyways. 

The numbers are good, they have been good for the past 8 weeks, so why would they magically be wrong this time? Besides overshooting a game by 100k (Pokemon Ranger) is quite a big discrepancy if it ends up that way, I doubt this leak will be as off as that.

If this end up being horribly wrong, I will eat crow and never post them again, but when these end up within 5% or less always, it's a much more reliable source than the Japanese preview.

So it's not irrelevant. The Japanese preview might be more irrelevant considering the big discrepancies.

No one is saying these numbers are unreliable.  All we are saying is that they are just not confirmed yet and should be treated that way.  Don't take it so personally, first part of my post was just showing how silly the original argument was. 

But yes you will eat crow if something does end up being horribly wrong, because you are being very rude to The Source who works very hard to provide the Japanese Preview every Sunday. 

Where was I ever rude? I was just telling you that the Japanese preview is as reliable or perhaps less than this. I never doubted the preview and I always look forwards to it, really you are misjudging me or something, I know it's made with a sample of 1 store so it will most probably be off most of the times. But this leak is very reliable and yet some critizice me for posting it, what's the deal?

I just compared in my first post how off was the preview this time, probably a matter of buyers preference in that particular store, but I never said the preview was unreliable. In any case what I said is that both are irrelevant at the end of the day, not unreliable.

And I think perhaps The Source felt it was an attack towards his preview and commented, but it wasn't, I was just saying that there were big discrepancies between the preview and this. I don't know what's so wrong with comparing 2 sets of data. But my response then was aimed at you not the preview. You were treating this data as just rumor and irrelevant, when in fact it has been correct for the past 8 weeks- If that's the reasoning then the preview is irrelevant as well. I will let this end here, it's a pointless discussion anyways.


EDIT: And if I sounded rude or anything, not my intention, I just wanted to share these early numbers and make some VG$, didn't want to create a fuss about it. I promise I will not post these again if they end up being really wrong.