By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Hyruken on 13 February 2012
Edit Thread
thismeintiel said:
Hyruken said:


I think it is best to just ignore what they are saying to be honest because it is based on assumptions and no actual facts.

To put it into some kind of perspective they think Q1 numbers should be the same as they were 12 months ago pretty much. If the numbers are less = MS stuffed channeks and lost 2011.

But yet fail to mention what had been released a few weeks prior to that Q (Kinect). So to expect Q1 numbers to be on par with the early Kinect numbers is just stupid. There is no way on earth that MS will have the same Q results as that of 12 months ago.The numbers will be down loads.

While they are quick to point out the possibility of MS over-shipping the 360 they fail to mention that by that logic the PS3 has probably been heavily over shipped too. Especially if you take into account Sony just dropped their estimates by 10% on PS3 sales.

I think as others have obviously made clear in this thread just because these guys are more active in using this site doesn't make what they say right.

Alright, this is the last time I'm derailing this thread or even mentioning this in any other thread besides mine, cause the denial is just getting sad.  Fact 1: MS usually has ~2 million in the channel at the end of the year and usually ships ~1.5 million in Q1 of any givien year.  Fact 2: MS didn't have enough stock in the channel at the end of 2010 so they had to ship ~1-1.3 million extra units in Q1 2011 (shipments were 2.7 million for that quarter), thus inflating their shipment numbers by that same number.  Without those extra units, MS would have only shipped ~13.6-13.9 million units in 2011, making it ~200K-500K behind the PS3 in shipments for the year.  Now, you can choose to ignore those simple facts if you wish, but it really will only make you look foolish.

Ok you say those numbers are facts so you should have no problem proving them with sources that are not from vgc?

After all if your right that info should be out there correct and would not need to use vgc numbers to back them up?

And this is the problem. No I don't think I am right Pesuz but I know from going to uni that when doing a report you can't use something like vgc as a source. Your arguments are built around these numbers, ones which can't be proved. You talk like they are the industry standard when in fact the industry doesn't even acknowledge them. But the funniest thing of all is when your called out on it you talk down to people with snide remarks whilst trying to ignore what they have said. 

So no I don't think I'm right but I know the difference between an official source and an unofficial one. The difference is you guys try and use vgc in an official way whilst ignoring the problems with that I.e the numbers being wrong. Again today we see more adjustments meaning the previous ones were thought of as wrong by ioi. Which means if you used those numbers in any work that is now also wrong.

 

Point being you can't use estimates as facts. That is what you do. If you did that in a job you wouldn't last long would you.

So yes your entitled to an opinion, entitled to use vgc to create an estimation of numbers for the industry. Can use them to gain insight into how something is doing. But all those views are personal opinion. It seems you two forget that.