I love the arguments:
“Not as impressive as game X that sold half because the Switch install base is higher now.”
“Not as impressive as Game Y, which sold slightly more. And while Game Y is on a larger install base, that is not relevant.”
This confirmation bias is killing me! 😂
The sales are what they are. In most cases, the initial sales are not the greatest indicator as to what the final sales will be and there’s multiple factors that go into that. Topping the sales of Switch is an impressive number, but it’s not as impressive as past Pokemon games: yes, they did have a higher install base, that is part of their advantage. Writing off that advantage and trying to create some sort of handicap to artificially spin the numbers into something more impressive than they are (or less impressive in the case of some arguing in this thread) is a garbage argument.
Week 1 sales aren’t as relevant as total sales. Once we get into late January or February, we’ll have a better idea of how well this game is doing. Week 1 sales are irrelevant if the game sells better in the long run. So rather than arguing about hypothetical handicap adjustments, why not just compare what happened, and then later on compare what things are trending toward?
Last edited by Jumpin - on 20 November 2019I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
