Mate this is something you can not argue as Capcom's own official report has SFV at 2.1m in total at the end of March the is no two ways about this you've been shot down hard here, Ono is known to talk a lot of crap when he is interviewed you don't even understand what you even replied to, someone asked what Arms' total sales are and I pointed its total sales are more than SFV's retail sales which this site tracks.

1. Yeah because VGC has the retails sales which we can compare to Arms' total sales not rocket science, subtract VGC's numbers from totals reported at quarter reports for both Tekken and SFV.

2. You are it's the reason you tried to reply and now you've found yourself in a hole.

3. I have proof on the numbers on this very site you have to prove the retail numbers are higher than 2m with out digital.

4. AE is not a new version of SFV it's a large patch for SFV in order to get AE you need to buy SFV and let the game update the fact you don't know this and have tried to push it as a factor is comical.

5. Again Capcom's fiscal year report end March 2018, this is a legal report to investors on business performance so Ono was talking nonsense as clearly it's there for all to see SFV's total was at 2.1m back at the end of March this is something you can not argue and ironically even backs my point the Arms' total sales are higher than SFV's retail sales because around a decent amount of SFV's sales would be on Steam.

Ofcourse you now fail to see how Arms exceeded expectations you've realised your attempt at debunking has fallen flat and have now changed your tune to "SFV was a flop" had someone before Arms' release said it was going to keep up with SFV's sales numbers few people would believe it hence why bold prediction threads are popular for people to go back to, even with the PC version at a total of 2.1m it's likely the digital on PS4 alone puts the retail sales lower than 2m.

Could be. Or that the model of opportunity costs only works on paper while the real world is different.

Well, at the time they were just coming off the breakout success of Splatoon which managed to launch a new A-tier franchise despite being on the dead Wii U. It stands to reason that gave them increased faith in pushing for new IPs, and games like 1-2 Switch and LABO also suggest they were expecting Wii-type experiences to be big on Switch, so they figured pairing a Splatoon-esque new IP with a Wii-style gameplay experience would be another breakout success.

That's not how product approval at Nintendo works. ARMS came about because Yabuki and the team wanted to experiment with a third person fighting game based around shooting mechanics, which they felt were a natural fit for the Joy-Con motion controls. Nintendo saw potential in the project and gave them the green-light. It's not like Nintendo told the team to make another Splatoon like mega-hit, ARMS was made because the developers wanted to make it. 

That is not how product approval works, Nintendo don't greenlight projects just cos some guy wanted to do it, like every company in their position they estimate sales potential and allocate resources accordingly, that's how businesses work.

It's just that some guy wanted to do it though. Nintendo starts off by gathering a small team led by a front-man to brainstorm new ideas, be it a new concept or new take on established IP. ARMS came out of one of these Brainstorming sessions, and Nintendo felt the idea was something that player would really enjoy. Sometimes multiple groups come up with ideas for a single game. They do see sales potential in this stuff, but they also measure based on idea strength and predicted player interest. Nintendo's not your typical AAA developer, they have a very freeform creative culture. Shinya Takahashi described it like this. 

“In many cases, we begin by assigning a small group to a project; not necessarily senior staff, but developers, to try and come up with ideas. Those lead to the end product. Super Mario Odyssey is a good example to explain this: we actually had several small groups and as a result we had many different ideas, which we then put together to make a single product. Naturally during the course of early development, we find the right mission for each project. I believe every game has a different mission. With [Nintendo Switch launch game] 1-2 Switch, for example, the mission was to make a party game where players would not have to look at the screen – where people would face each other.”

Brainstorming and developers wanting to try things does play a role, yes, but it's not like Yabuki or Miyamoto just goes "I wanna make a game where giraffes swordfight with toothpicks" and Nintendo go "cool, here's a blank cheque, take any EPD team you want for the next 3 years." Before they'll commit those kind of resources, Nintendo will need to be convinced that they will get a strong Return On Investment, that the end product will be successful enough to have justified tying down one of their flagship teams for three years at a time when they need all the heavy hitters they can get to drive hardware adoption.

1. You said that "ARMS has outsold Tekken 7 and SFV retail sales so it's safe to say it exceeded expectations by miles". No need to lie about what you said just because you know that your claim is probably wrong.

2. I've literally just posted: "I'll give you that ARMS could very well have outsold SFV at retail." I wonder why you won't talk about Tekken 7. Could it be because its retail sales are probably above ARMS'? 

1. What lie can you not read you asked why VG numbers were used and its explained to you if you can't even read replies properly in accordance to what they're responding to that's your own issue you have not provided anything to debunk what I've put forward.

2. You're reaching because I've pointed out VG's numbers earlier which are retail estimates and are below total numbers given for Arms you have to prove the retail sales are above Arms' sales I've told you this already, as it goes everything on my end is accounted for, you've dug yourself in a hole you can't climb out of hence why you're trying to deflect attention from your side of the argument you started. I told you not to start what you don't want to finish.

VGC numbers:
Tekken 7: 1.78 mill
ARMS: 1.72 mill

Official numbers:
Tekken 7: 2.8 mill (4+ months ago)
ARMS: 2.01 mill

Why in the world do you insist on comparing Tekken 7's VGC number to ARMS' official number?

Please tell me. You keep acting like there's something I'm missing.

I'm saying that:
1. ARMS' retail sales could very well be above SFV's retail sales (SFV retail+digital is most likely higher than ARMS retail+digital though due to Steam and PS Store).
2. Tekken 7's retail sales could very well be above ARMS' retail sales (VGC has Tekken 7 retail above ARMS and 4 months ago Tekken 7 had sold 2.8 mill in total).
3. Therefore your claim that "ARMS has outsold Tekken 7 retail sales so it's safe to say it exceeded expectations by miles" is probably false.