I applaud you for doing this as the other thread just smelt of fanboyish,where about this one really shows that when you compare two series and ask which is bigger you must include every console, handheld or not its apart of the series and must be added.

Jay520 said: Silly comparison. The answer is obvious so there's nothing to discuss. The same can't be said for consoles since its pretty debatable which is bigger on that front - the best selling Mario game outsold the best selling CoD. So at least people can discuss which is bigger between having the best selling installment or the most big selling installments. So if the console comparison was bad for benefiting the CoD, then this is ten times worse since CoD really isn't relevant on these platforms. If you had a problem with the comparison then you should have made what you think is a legitimate thread (including consoles and handhelds) rather than deliberately creating a worse thread.

This is not a worse thread, it is a parallel thread. It is exactly as bad as the other one.

The problem is that limiting the discussion to home consoles is arbitrary. There is nothing to be learned from ignoring half the market. As I said in the other thread, why not just ask which IP is bigger on Xbox 360 and be done with it?

If he had even done only Mario platformers across Wii and DS versus COD, it would have made more sense. Kind of. But the fact is that the thread title and OP both imply that what is being discussed is not "which series sells more" on consoles, because that's not a discussion. The numbers are in the OP. What is actually being discussed is "which is the stronger IP" on consoles, which is a nonsensical limitation to the discussion. You cannot discuss the strength of an IP and ignore half its market under the guise that you're only focusing on the other half... and for what reason? Obviously only to give COD an edge in the numbers. There's no other reason to dismiss the handheld market.

the_dengle said: Jay520 said: Silly comparison. The answer is obvious so there's nothing to discuss. The same can't be said for consoles since its pretty debatable which is bigger on that front - the best selling Mario game outsold the best selling CoD. So at least people can discuss which is bigger between having the best selling installment or the most big selling installments. So if the console comparison was bad for benefiting the CoD, then this is ten times worse since CoD really isn't relevant on these platforms. If you had a problem with the comparison then you should have made what you think is a legitimate thread (including consoles and handhelds) rather than deliberately creating a worse thread. This is not a worse thread, it is a parallel thread. It is exactly as bad as the other one. The problem is that limiting the discussion to home consoles is arbitrary. There is nothing to be learned from ignoring half the market. As I said in the other thread, why not just ask which IP is bigger on Xbox 360 and be done with it? If he had even done only Mario platformers across Wii and DS versus COD, it would have made more sense. Kind of. But the fact is that the thread title and OP both imply that what is being discussed is not "which series sells more" on consoles, because that's not a discussion. The numbers are in the OP. What is actually being discussed is "which is the stronger IP" on consoles, which is a nonsensical limitation to the discussion. You cannot discuss the strength of an IP and ignore half its market under the guise that you're only focusing on the other half... and for what reason? Obviously only to give COD an edge in the numbers. There's no other reason to dismiss the handheld market.

Yeah, its worse.

Arbitrary comparisons are made all the time. For example, comparing Uncharted's PSV sales to CoD PSV sales. Of course no one believes the Uncharted IP is even remotely close to the Call of Duty IP. But the comparisons are interesting because people are interested in the bigger game on the system. Or maybe people are interested in the biggest IPs on the DS...they might compare the sales of Pokemon and Mario on handhelds only, ignoring consoles. You could say this is arbitrary, but people are naturally interested in the biggest games on handhelds so the comparison makes sense.

More common "arbitrary" comparisons are those comparisons which compare the Wii's lifetime sales to the PS3's and 360's lifetime sales in certain regions (America for Wii vs 360, and Europe for Wii vs PS3). I suppose you could argue that limiting the discussion to one region is "arbitrary" and is only to give the other consoles an advantage. While that may be true, it doesn't change the fact that people are interested in market presence in certain regions. And the fact that the PS3 or 360 may one day pass the Wii in that region raises people's interest even more. Furhermore, it allows for actual discussion since its a close race.

Similarly, people may be interested in which IP is bigger on consoles. Mario and CoD are the biggest IPs on console, so it makes sense that people would be interested in who's ultimately the biggest. Sure, you could argue that "its arbitrary because we should compare their presence on every console." And I guess you would be right. But then again, people don't care about CoD on handhelds since its really not a competitor. That's what's wrong with this comparison: its arbitrary and no one's interested in CoD on handhelds because its not really a competitor; so a discussion would be impossible. Just like you would never hear someone shouting "you need to include consoles!" in a Pokemon vs Mario handhelds sales discussion.

I agree the topic was misleading but you should have been pretty sure of the content considering such a comparison would only make sense if referring exclusively to consoles. Since that's the only domain where the two can be considered rivals, and it also decides which IP is the biggest on consoles.

Can I get a link to the original Thread.
I just want to see what it says

Mario would always be bigger, even if the COD's from home consoles were included.

Jay520 said: Similarly, people may be interested in which IP is bigger on consoles. Mario and CoD are the biggest IPs on console, so it makes sense that people would be interested in who's ultimately the biggest. Sure, you could argue that "its arbitrary because we should compare their presence on every console." And I guess you would be right. But then again, people don't care about CoD on handhelds since its really not a competitor. That's what's wrong with this comparison: its arbitrary and no one's interested in CoD on handhelds because its not really a competitor; so a discussion would be impossible. Just like you would never hear someone shouting "you need to include consoles!" in a Pokemon vs Mario handhelds sales discussion.

Focusing on this because that's what the issue boils down to. You would absoluteley hear that if people started saying that Pokémon as an IP is bigger or more popular or more profitable than Mario, and bringing merchandising and everything into the conversation... but still not console sales. But that's what the other thread has become, and what it was intended to become, because the title and OP lead it there. And that's why it makes no sense; people are discussing the presence of the larger IP in popular culture and in gaming in general, and they are barred from bringing up half the market.

Why do you think Jaywood essentially showed two numbers and asked, "which is larger, in your opinion?" One number is bigger than the other. That's not an opinion, which means there's nothing to discuss. But by using the word "bigger" and asking for opinions, he is turning the discussion to something other than sales, to presence, to popularity -- things you can't compare while ignoring half the market. It's a slanted comparison. I can't say that Mario is obviously more popular and point to the numbers that clearly demonstrate this without basically having my mouth covered and being told those number don't count because... because I said so. "We're only looking at these numbers I have sectioned off from the others over here."

KHlover said: Pwned. Maybe that's why JayWood left handhelds out? There's no point in comparing franchises if you leave half of the games out...

I left them out because two different markets.  But yeah if this makes you all happy then more power to you :)

JayWood2010 said: KHlover said: Pwned. Maybe that's why JayWood left handhelds out? There's no point in comparing franchises if you leave half of the games out... I left them out because two different markets.  But yeah if this makes you all happy then more power to you :)

Not really.  In context of the question, it's all the same market.  In terms of how games sell on each you can call them different markets, but ignoring them completely when trying to compare their "sizes" is just... not correct.

MDMAlliance said: JayWood2010 said: KHlover said: Pwned. Maybe that's why JayWood left handhelds out? There's no point in comparing franchises if you leave half of the games out... I left them out because two different markets.  But yeah if this makes you all happy then more power to you :) Not really.  In context of the question, it's all the same market.  In terms of how games sell on each you can call them different markets, but ignoring them completely when trying to compare their "sizes" is just... not correct.

No.  What is popular on handhelds is not popular on consoles and vice versa.  JRPG games are more popular on handhelds and FPS's are more popular on consoles.  Same goes to all shooters an western rpgs.  They are two different markets and trends show that.  cinematic stories are for consoles and dialogue stories are for handhels.  Im sure you have heard things such as this would have been better on a console or this would have been better on a handheld./  That is because yes they are different.

JayWood2010 said: MDMAlliance said: JayWood2010 said: KHlover said: Pwned. Maybe that's why JayWood left handhelds out? There's no point in comparing franchises if you leave half of the games out... I left them out because two different markets.  But yeah if this makes you all happy then more power to you :) Not really.  In context of the question, it's all the same market.  In terms of how games sell on each you can call them different markets, but ignoring them completely when trying to compare their "sizes" is just... not correct. No.  What is popular on handhelds is not popular on consoles and vice versa.  JRPG games are more popular on handhelds and FPS's are more popular on consoles.  Same goes to all shooters an western rpgs.  They are two different markets and trends show that.  cinematic stories are for consoles and dialogue stories are for handhels.  Im sure you have heard things such as this would have been better on a console or this would have been better on a handheld./  That is because yes they are different.

You really don't seem to understand this issue.  Let's disect the issue so you can understand it.  Why do you think that certain games are more popular on a mobile device than one you have to keep in one room?  Why do you think some games are preferred to stay in one room rather than taken on the go?  The reason does have to do with the hardware and the nature of how they work, but the market in general doesn't change when you want to talk about those genres specifically in terms of the whole population.  Also if your point was to only compare how much people would play a 2D/3D Mario game to who would play an FPS Call of Duty game on something that stays in one room and connects to your TV, you would need to set fair boundaries on both.  You're letting the same game count more than once when counting CoD.  PS3/360/PC versions are all counting.  If you want to count all of them, you have to count the handheld versions of the Mario games because you're giving an unfair advantage to the CoD series.