Neos said:
Hapimeses said:
Neos said:
yea it's shipped, and this seems in line with our figures |
I've got to call you out on this and ask why you concluded this. Read the following again:
The publisher says that the title has sold a million copies in Europe since its release on June 12th, and has shipped many more SKUs to its retail partners.
So, the game has sold 1 million copies across Europe, and more are being shipped to plug that gap. Not: 1 million shipped and more to be shipped because there is already a ton shipped.
Konami also confirmed that 25,000 copies of the the Limited Edition were made available across Europe, but “were snapped up almost immediately.”
Next: talking directly about more copies of the game sold, not shipped.
“The Metal Gear Solid series has again proved its huge potential, and we are delighted with the fantastic response the game has enjoyed at retail,”
Finally, for a game to have a response at retail, nor from retailers, they pretty much have to be talking about sales of the game at retail, not the take up of the game from retailers in regards copies shipped.
Now, I'm not saying the article is correct; however, I am saying that it's a bit of a stretch to claim the article talking about shipped numbers when the sentences don't appear to say that, especially when taken as a whole.
Can you explain why you concluded what you did?
|
Because there is no company in the world that knows its sold to consumers figures, only to retailers...
|
So, you choose to go against what the words of the article say because you don't believe Konami can have access to a 1,000,000 sold number. I can understand that, even though I'm sure there are many ways Konami can get a pretty good estimate of how many of their copies have sold judging by the demand for more copies and what their retail partners communicate back to them. A clear example of this is the 25,000 limited editions sold (not shipped). Konami knows this. I know this. I presume, if you've been following the news, you know this. Thus, your blanket statement isn't 100% true.
As I said, I don't know what to believe. Conventional wisdom certainly supports your interpretation; however, the source does not, which was why I queried you.
Just to make sure I'm correct: you're saying the article is misleading, yes?
