i think the main factor when it comes to a game selling is advertising. good advertising will give you good sales. even some generic games sell really well if they good advertising. proper advertsing can add like 2-3 million more total sales to a game. if only sony learnt how to advertise.

one of the few topics I 100% agree with vlad.

i agree with vlad and d21lewis and strongly disagree with the OP... in a perfect world it would be possible... but in this flawed world and with human nature in the main role... everything is, but perfect...

In the perfect world everyone would be equally smart with equal intellect and equal omniscient knowledge and equal amount of money. Then yes, sales would be equivalent to quality.

very well put, i 100% agree.

wow well by that reasoning of these two cars 

the camry must be better and wii fit is one of the best games this gen

First off, I didn’t say they had broad appeal; in fact I said the opposite. Twilight only really appeals to a very small portion of the population but it does it so well that it has almost ubiquitous appeal within this group. Twilight targeted teenaged white middle-class girls, and because it was so successful at doing this it couuld sell tens of millions of copies around the world ... If Twilight had broad appeal it would be successful across mutliple demographic barriers, but it really doesn't

Harry Potter certainly has a broader appeal but only because it is significantly better than the Twilight series. While I'm certain you won't see the challenge, to write something that is accessable to children with limited reading skills and not too simplistic for experienced adult readers is not easy; and is made remarkably more complicated by trying to make a story and characters that appeal to both groups. I challenge you to read any series of books at a similar reading-level to Harry Potter and then question the quality of the Harry Potter books ...

For people like Michael Bay who is (rightfully) hated for producing movies with terrible writing and acting the quality of their work that leads to their success is easy to explain. If I'm going to be convinced to pay $10 to $15 per movie ticket, and another $10 to $20 for snacks per person, to see a movie in the theater I want the movie to provide an experience that can only truly be appreciated in the theater; and with 40+ inch HD televisions and surround sound systems this is becoming a harder thing to achieve.  In this environment, in a competition between a well written and acted drama and a movie where two robots beat each-other up while tearing up the city the robot movie wins.

Michael Bay makes movies that are high quality spectacles and gets rewarded for that. Movies that combine better writing and acting while creating high quality spectacles (The Dark Knight, Avatar, etc) are also rewarded very well.

@0_0.Q:  If you had bothered to read the OP you would have noticed that the formula applies only to entertainment; this isn't the first time I had to correct a person about introducing examples outside that realm, nor are you the first to use cars as an example.  Someone else used a house.  A car's attributes are not subjective, they are measurable in terms of performance and reliability.  Science can prove which is better.  With entertainment, personal taste is the only deciding factor, and sales the only unbiased way to measure a population's preference.  I have yet to hear anyone who has disagreed with me propose a better system using an objective measuring stick.

@Vlad: I know very well that Buffy is not Twilight.  I was a huge fan of that series well before Twilight had been conceived, but I've heard enough about Twilight to know that there are a number of parallels and Whedonites are understandably pissed about that.  I have a couple cousins who were Twilight fangirls until I introduced them to Buffy; they went out and bought all seven seasons, then the Season 8 comics, a Buffy calandar and I'm not sure what else.  They were more willing to spend money on Buffy because they believed it to be better quality. Whovians, I imagine, would perhaps be inclined to purchase replicas of the Sonic Screwdriver, or a TARDIS cookie jar.  I'm not sure how many followers of Jersey Shore are willing to invest in Snooki action figures, so there's that angle as well.  And though I have not looked into it, I don't think that boxsets of Survivor do especially well against, say, Dexter.  A larger audience doesn't mean a more appreciative one.

Because Twilight was successful it indicated a need for more of the Vampire/Human romance, and so then True Blood rose to success, yet it was hardly alone in modern literature feature vampire/human romance, it was just better so others remain in obscurity.  For all this talk about intelligence, I expect you to exercise critical thinking.  Because so far all you've done is demonstrate an intolerance to people who enjoy things that you do not, accusing them of being unintelligent because they have different tastes.  If you are to continue to do so and expect to be taken seriously, you will be expected to demonstrate intelligence superior to their own or explain how one's tastes is a reflection of their intellect without having to rely solely on your opinion.  You must be objective when making such extraordinary claims.

@Everyone who disagrees with my claim: If not sales/profit, what would you consider to be the best objective measuring stick for quality?  I have yet to hear a single proposal.  Most people are just disagreeing outright, using their own opinions as evidence enough.  How should I be able to tell the difference which opinion is correct?  I get the feeling that people are disagreeing simply because they believe something to be high-quality but it's financially less successful than things that the same people consider low quality.  I urge you to explore beyond the limits of your own personal preferences and explain how one can recognize quality in something that you detest, or at least admit that you could be absolutely wrong when you believe that something is very good. 

@People who appreciate my grammar: thank you.  If I must sound insane, at least I appear lucid.

Well i was refering to broad appeal of Harry Potter, not Twilight. But yes, at least I know we're on the same page there. As I outlined in another post, the reason Harry Potter worked, or Twilight for its demographics, is because it appealed to the basest parts of people. A boy and a fight of good vs evil, a la Potter, is some of the most basic motif in any book. Meanwhile if you take Heart of Darkness(man do I hate it, or Catch-22(to be more modern), most people won't read it either due to the writing or they just don't get the ideas behind it or the humor.

I am glad you brought in movies as well because I was just about to do the same myself. The simple fact is, Transformers made more money than it had ANY right to do. Yes you can't get the same experience on your TV, but that doesn't mean it's any form of quality. If anythign that's just shallow and artificial.