Knack outsells Super Mario 3D World in UK

[Aielyn]

Yakuzaice said:

Aielyn said:

Indeed, you don't see any actual numbers for 3D World in my post - because we don't have actual numbers for it, yet (in the UK, that is). That was the very first thing I said about this situation, and the whole point of ALL of my posts. My talk about situations with other games weren't about "hey, this is how it did", but "hey, if it did something like , would you still call it a flop?". My entire argument in this thread is about "you can't judge it by position, let's wait for numbers so that we can get a better sense of absolute sales, rather than sales relative to other titles in that week".

Regarding 3D Land's time within its first week, there seems to have been a mistake somewhere. I'm guessing I accidentally looked at the 2013 "week" dates, rather than the 2011 ones, when checking that. My mistake, there. Sorry.

Meanwhile, I think you have lost track of what I was arguing about even more than I thought... because I was asserting that position DOESN'T matter. It was the other person that was asserting that it does. My noting of the fact that it was a system launch week was only to emphasise why Knack was able to sell more.

I suggest you actually go back and read the argument as it happened. You might get a better sense of what the argument was about, and why I said what I said, and what the point was about it. For instance, the marathon analogy was making the point about how long-term sales are different from first-week sales, and a slow first week does not equal a "flop". A more complete analogy would have involved noting that all systems see a sprint in the first few weeks after launch, but it isn't sensible to compare that to sales on a system that has been out for one year, which shouldn't then be compared to a system that has been out for 8 years. Each one is in a different situation, with different dynamics.

You had just spent a paragraph justifying a number for 3D World based on Knack and Dead Rising sales in the US, then you told me I am ignoring the actual numbers.  Since they don't exist, how then could I have been ignoring them?

I originally entered the conversation pointing out the context of the last three 3D Mario games placements in the charts.  Since you had said

"The point I'm making here is, it debuted at 14 because it was released at the same time as a new console launch, and a week after another new console launch."

Having other releases disrupting the charts isn't unique to this past week.  After that you continued to argue that a console launch had a bigger impact on the charts than a slew of new releases.

I didn't spend a paragraph justifying a number, I provided an example number for the purposes of discussion, and justified my choice of example number. And I didn't say you were ignoring the actual numbers, I said you were ignoring actual numbers - as in, the ISSUE of actual numbers.

I also never claimed that  console launches produce larger impacts than "a slew of new releases". What I said was that you can't do the comparison you did because it's a different circumstance.

It's like you extract individual sentences from my posts, and ignore the context of them. When I am talking about 3D World debuting where it did because of the console launches, I'm not saying "console launches have a bigger impact", I'm saying "this is the reason for it in this particular situation". And, from the context of THE ENTIRE DAMN ARGUMENT, it's specifically about how you can't call 3D World a flop based solely on "it debuted at number 14".

If you want another demonstration of this point, consider that Just Dance, on launch in the US, sold less than 6.5k copies (not even in the top 75). In Europe, it didn't quite make 15k (74th on the chart for the week). The game ended up selling 7 million copies. Position on the charts isn't what defines success. Neither is first week sales, although it's a little more notable than chart position. The assertion that began this argument was that 3D World was a flop - a statement that had zero justification, and the whole reason I brought up the other Mario titles was to emphasise my point about launch numbers, and the fact that games that sell 10+ million, even, can have smaller launches.

But hey, why bother trying to understand context? What matters is that you made a strong point about... uhhh... what was it again? That 3D World didn't have a massive launch? I'm not exactly clear - you seemed to jump into the argument without any actual point, except perhaps to try to demolish my argument without any attention to context.