Firstly, your scenario is quite flawed. A person who goes to the store to buy Zelda will obviously buy Zelda. In order for someone to go to the store to buy Zelda, though, they have to have already made the decision to buy a Zelda game. Now, what makes a person want to buy a Zelda game? Firstly, he has to be interested in buying a game. Secondly, he has to choose to buy Zelda instead of all the other available games. The amount of people interested in buying a game isn't increasing (see how there is no increase in software sales), but the amount of games that the person could potentially buy is increasing. Linking what I said to Zelda really isn't rocket science. Saying that overall sales trends don't tell us anything about the sales potential of an individual game is foolish, to say the least. Sure, it doesn't give us an accurate number, but it tells you roughly how much it's going to sell. It gives a far better view of the situation than anything else we can do. Using overall sales trends is the most accurate thing we can do to estimate it at this point, even though it's quite inaccurate. |
Again, you're using weird logic.
You're reversing cause and effect. You're saying the effect of games not selling well is caused by overall software sales being low, when really it's the effect of overall software sales being low that is caused by games not selling.
Overall software sales tell us what has happened, not what will happen. For instance, when I look at 2009 software sales, I don't say "because of this people will buy less games in 2010". I say "there was not enough software released in 2009 that people wanted".
That's true. Aside from the big three releases (Mario, Wii Sports, and Wii Fit), and 2008's evergreen titles, there was a drought of quality releases in 2009 for the Wii.
In any case, you're hypothesis is backwards logic. A person decides they are going to buy a game, not on the current state of software sales, but on whether the game will be good or not.
