Aaron Greenburg "LOL's" at VGChartz KINECT Sales Report on his Twitter!!!

[binary solo]

Hyruken said:

binary solo said:

Hyruken said:

There is no way he would comment if the numbers were lower. ...

Actually that's not true. If the actual sales numbers are considerably lower then over time VGC will become significantly over tracked and once data other data does come out (shipments at least) if people have been following VGC data up until then it's gonna diminish the PR potentialities if reactions are..."Oh so they're lower than what VGC was reporting". Hence discredit overestmate data so that people forget about it and are suitably impressed when the hard data is reported.

Not saying that's the case here, I'm just saying you can't be absolutely certain that VGC is severely under-tracked, just because Greenberg, a spinmeister, lol'd on twitter.

Sorry but i disagree. The guy to me seems like a raging egotistical douche. A bigtime Microsoft fanboy. I do not think he would talk about it at all if sales were not as good as reported. The way he words his comment is to look down upon vgc's numbers, laughing at them. It is very doubtful he would laugh about it if the numbers were over-tracked and the true numbers were actually lower. Add to that he is Mr MS PR man, how would that make him look by bringing attention to lower then expected sales of the new product they spent $500m advertising? Not good at all.

It seems to me his comments by some have been taken to imply that maybe sales of Kinect have not been so well. Which is actually the opposite to what most stores,analysts are saying. Most are saying it has done better then they expected. Some going so far as to say it is now the xmas must have thing. Best Buy today said they doubt they will have stock for xmas etc. The vibe of the whole thing to me does not suggest low sales. And in my opinion that is what his comments were really about.  As others have pointed out we will know the sales of the product at somepoint. If it has done bad they won't be able to hide the numbers forever.  But personally i don't think that is the case. I think he missed the bit where it said the numbers were for only 2-3 days of sales. Obviously there has been a whole week or so of sales since that period and naturally sales would have increased in that time. So the numbers could be right for the period they were taken from.

Vindication for me I think