PS3 exclusives vs. 360 exclusives (1m+ sellers)

Turkish

Currently Offline

124,463

11601 posts since 13/01/11

Recent Badges:

A Free Man Managed to avoid being banned for 2 years.
3 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 3 years.
Pata 100 wall post comments made on gamrConnect.
Escape Artist Managed to avoid being banned for 1 month.
Making Friends 10 friends on gamrConnect.
A Badge Within A Badge Earned 20 badges.

Turkish on 16 November 2012

ZaneWane said:

now this is just sore loser talk

Why would you say that.

Dodece

Currently Offline

18,382

3363 posts since 31/07/07

Recent Badges:

Open For Business Earned 10 badges.
Social Butterfly 50 friends on gamrConnect.
The Nuts & Bolts Add a total of 25 games to your collection.
Quite a Comeback Enter your first Prediction League event.
17 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 17 years.
3 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 3 years.

Dodece on 16 November 2012

pezus said:

Dodece said:
@pezus

1. You seem to answer your own question. If the games eventually disappear from the shelves completely then logic tells us that the game has sold through at least its first production run. So if this site is telling us it sold closer to a million relatively soon after its launch. Then that should mean that the initial production run was a million units, and if it did well enough early on then a second smaller production run probably happened. It is simply a matter of basic deductive logic.

We all know how the game is played. Games rarely get destroyed. They just get discounted until they all get sold. The only exceptions being faulty games, or games that just can't be sold. Any game that sells over half a million is without question good enough to not fall in the latter category. So like it or not even if this site doesn't say so. It is highly likely that those games sold a million or more copies.

2. On the subject of this sites tracking. I assume that the majority of what we see are generic extrapolations, and you can probably safely assume that they will never admit to that. After a game leaves the ranks of the top sellers they just take the previous weeks figures, and plug them into a standardized mathematical progression. Which will carry the sales down to a point where they don't even bother to pretend that they are actively tracking the sales at all. It really is like clockwork.

When this site provided weekly figures on the games profile page you could do the math, and see that almost every single game followed the same predictable progression, and that is purely nonsense right there. Buying patterns are a product of human behavior, and there is nothing less predictable in nature. Even games three or four months out from their launch should have detectable spikes, or even inexplicable dead patches. They shouldn't fit perfectly into any kind of curve.

Really a lot of it isn't even educated guess work. It is just the same rule of thumb applied to all. Unless what is being tracked has what we all used to call legs. Anyway what this site provides is decent short term tracking based upon a limited data set and secondary sources. It isn't a question of accuracy so much as it is a question of respectable data not being present. You shouldn't be drawing grand conclusions at all. Nobody should for that matter.

P.S.S

3. Actually it isn't better then nothing. Bad data can lead you to draw the wrong conclusions. If you want to use the data then limit yourself to the most reliable part of the data sets. Namely what the market is doing in the here and now. Not sales where this site could be off by hundreds of thousands of units.

1. No, that's a pretty big leap of faith. What do you even base this on? Do you know how much they shipped of the games you mentioned? I don't see why games that reach 500k+ must also reach 1m. Again, based on what?

2. You can already read about what they base their tracking on, right here on the site. And no, that's not exactly how it works, because if it was you'd see ALL games following a similar pattern and that is clearly not the case.

3. There is no hard conclusion here anyway. Draw the conclusions you want, but I'm sure most people are aware of inaccuracies here.

1. You know it isn't. Gradeschool arithmatic really. Reality. I do know that production runs aren't random numbers, and even if they were a random number, and those sales were somehow just shy of that production run. Given that it sold so many in just a couple months. It stands to reason that another run would have been pressed. It is up to you to tell me where they are going if they weren't sold. I didn't mention a particular game, and I didn't say half a million in sales must equate to a million. I was talking about games that had sold close to a million, and probably ticked over the mark in the many years that have passed since they launched.

2. Please point me to where they disclosed their sources. To my knowledge they have never published the names of their sources. They have conceded that they will modify the information they initially presented when a reputable source contradicts their own figures, but that isn't the same as saying they get their sales figures for North America from a district manager of Gamestop. I mentioned games with legs in my previous post. We aren't talking about games with legs. We are talking about games that drop out relatively soon after they launched. The rational stands there isn't any good reason why at some point after the tracking has stopped on this site that there wouldn't be weeks where the sales spike, or weeks where the sales plummet to next to nothing.

3. There is a hard conclusion to be had here. You are playing the game with a rigged deck, and that is fundamentally dishonest. How can you have a valid point if the data you are using could be wildly incorrect. If you were arguing a correlation between sales of consoles at the time of the release of certain exclusives. You might have some kind of point.

http://live.xbox.com/member/Dodece