JWeinCom said:
Not when it comes to language. To make it simple, imagine there is a rock. The rock is whatever it is, and we'll agree to that. However the label we use to describe it "rock" can be changed if we so choose. We change labels and classifications all the time, and I've given a bunch of examples of that. And I'm sure you can think of tons of examples of words that are contextual or have completely changed over time. If we want to change sales to mean sales and downloads, we can do so. I would assume you'd agree that we can change words if we have a good reason. Right?
As for why we might want to do so, that's not hidden, it's included in the question the OP asked. Even if no actual copies of Pokemon Go have been sold, there has been a ton of Pokemon Go content that has been sold, by any definition of the word sold you want to use. It seems pretty reasonable to define this content as "Pokemon Go". While we don't, and may not ever, know the exact amount of Pokemon Go content sold, there is a clear and obvious relationship between the number of copies downloaded and the amount of content. So incorporating the number of downloads might give us a better idea of how much of "Pokemon Go" is being sold.
Point is, that since distribution is changing, our terms probably should change accordingly. There is no reason that "biggest selling" necessarily has to mean "most individual copies". I'd argue that defining "best selling" simply as the number of individual copies sold is inadequte, and we could probably think of a much better way to define sales. Counting downloads as sales is one way to do so, albeit maybe not the best.
|
