By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
RJ_Sizzle on 28 October 2017
Edit Thread
jlauro said:
RJ_Sizzle said:

NPD is using more empirical data, which VGChartz just plain doesn't have access to. The difference is damn near science vs. magic. Did we ever get an official formula on how Chartz gets their numbers, or is it still pretty much an old woman using tea leaves? You don't ever NPD having to go back and adjust figures based on VGChartz numbers, no? One of these sources is more reliable than the other.

Back when NPD used to release some of their numbers there were a few instances where they were proven to be way off from official numbers.  NPD numbers looked real bad as the adjustments for the following quarters tried to "correct" their problem instead of going back and fix the quaters that were way off...  So, yes, vgchartz is more reliable when looking at historical data as it has been corrected instead of adjusting data of the quaters after to cover up their mistakes of previously published data.

No way. This site isn't very transparent about how they get their numbers and barely update the current ones they have. You don't have such an issue with NPD which runs like clockwork, and now has access to digital revenue provided by publishers. I don't see anyone doing that for Chartz anytime soon... or ever. NPD is direct access mostly, while Chartz will always be the outside man. Literally no different from us. Are any of the software numbers ever close to right? If the site directive is to go back and change figures when they get hard data if NPD or publishers choose to share them, then maybe it's not wise to quote the site. I'm fine with Chartz acting as a tracker, but I'm not bringing up the numbers as gospel anywhere, ever.