By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Oneeee-Chan!!! said:
Machina said:

1) Bit rich of you to accuse me of ignoring something - all you've done is cherry pick throughout to try and make us look bad. And each time we answer you, you go off on some other tangent.

Yes, we consider NPD more accurate than our own initial estimates and we always adjust if needed whenever NPD figures (or a range) leak. 

Go get the data yourself, it's publicly available on the site.

2) At the moment we're sceptical of the Ampere estimates. They could be right be we need more points of reference/corroboration before we'll change anything. Why?

Firstly, their figure for Switch is extraordinarily low (would you like us to lower our Switch estimate up to October by 1.8 million too?), even if taking into account stock build up for the OLED launch, and that calls into question all of their figures.

Secondly, according to Zhuge they're essentially using the same tracker data we eventually get and then projecting it worldwide to get overall totals. They don't have more data than we have, but their model for extrapolating it is producing some much lower global estimates. 

Thirdly, their figures for XS (and NS) are significantly lower than other analysts and reports have indicated, including the Zhuge and Welfare ones I linked you to earlier in the thread, as well as other news articles. We treat all of these with some scepticism, but at the moment they all point to our XS figure being more accurate than Ampere's.

Ampere's estimates could be better than ours, and if this proves to be the case then we will gladly adjust, as we always have done since Trunks took over producing our figures.

1) I can't reply to all of them at once.

2) I'll reply here as well. But from the question in 1), I don't want Machina and trunkswd to run away from question 1). The criticism of cherry picking to make Vgc look bad is a word that came from you. You have to take responsibility for that.

It is interesting that VGC says that NPD is a more accurate number. Not the right number, but more accurate than VGC. In other words, it sounds like an excuse for VGC to have its own numbers. First, about the discrepancy between VGC and NPD. I am not cherry picking. I could do my own comparisons, but since the weeks are out of sync, I can't do an accurate comparison. If you have the past USA monthly figures, you can compare them to the npd estimates.

This is a comparison of NPD and vgc for September. Left: npd, right: vgc.

PS5: 404k - 425k : 421k (4.2%↑- 0.95%↓)

NS : 355k - 387k : 410k (15%↑- 5.9%↑)

XBS : 226k - 258k : 311k ( 37.6%↑- 20.5%↑)

Yes, only the Xbox numbers are very large, as was the case in October. If this is just a coincidence and I'm wrong, I'd like to compare with other months.

I said to try and make us look bad. Again, cherry picking.

NPD's figures are estimates. More accurate than ours because they get a lot more raw data than me do, especially nowadays, which is why we adjust whenever figures/ranges are revealed or looked. But estimates nonetheless. Everyone knows this.


September (was 4 weeks for us, so I've added the first week of October to make the comparison work). USA. VGChartz. Post-adjustments:

PS5 - 421,285

NS - 386,657

XS - 257,866

NS and XS were lowered to bring them within the NPD ranges that were revealed. PS5 was unchanged as our initial estimate was already within the range.

If you're aware of ranges for months that weren't adjusted, as you claim in your follow up post, then link Trunks to the source; he will adjust the old figures if they genuinely don't line up.