Yes, let's go ahead and ask that one buddy.

If marketing means nothing to sales, why did it sell less?

If word of mouth from gamers means nothing, why did it sell less? 

If reviews mean nothing, why did it sell less?

How can quality be known to be less, if people don't play it?

How then, is it possible for a sequel to a very hyped and liked game, sell less than it's predecessor?  You can't say it was reviewed less, because that doesn't matter.  You can't say that gamer's didn't enjoy it, because word of mouth doesn't matter.  You also can't say it was marketed poorly, because that doesn't matter.  And, according to you, you also can't say sales are indicative of it's quality, because how would someone know if a game is good if they havent played it without reviews, marketing, or word of mouth?  Why don't you formulate some crazy response to that one.

This is my real account.  I created one after lurking in this thread for two days, and since no one has been able to actually debate with you in a worthwhile way, I decided to do it myself.

edit: made it sound less douchy.

It’s not an excuse, it is a fact. 3D Worlds was released on an extremely small userbase and has helped contribute to over 500,000 consoles moved in two weeks (sold over 700,000 copies). It increased the user base by 12.5%. Obviously people are “buying the console” due to this.

 I’ve already explained it to you thoroughly , maybe you should bring our conversation to the remedial teacher you had in high school and maybe they will have the patience to slowly explain it to you so that it sinks into your head J As for Medal of Honor moving more copies than Bayonetta, that is where the established game/marketing comes into play as I’ve previously explained to you. Which is why I’ve stated reviews CONTRIBUTE TO SALES!!! It does not make my point null and void. The average consumer will incorporate reviews, the soccer mom phenomenon does not. Impulse shopping as previously stated which occurred throughout the Wii’s lifetime which is why shovel ware became predominant. I’ve provided you different factors for each of my points yet you still cannot comprehend.

 I’ve already explained it to you thoroughly , maybe you should bring our conversation to the remedial teacher you had in high school and maybe they will have the patience to slowly explain it to you so that it sinks into your head J As for Medal of Honor moving more copies than Bayonetta, that is where the established game/marketing comes into play as I’ve previously explained to you. Which is why I’ve stated reviews CONTRIBUTE TO SALES!!! It does not make my point null and void. The average consumer will incorporate reviews, the soccer mom phenomenon does not. Impulse shopping as previously stated which occurred throughout the Wii’s lifetime which is why shovel ware became predominant. I’ve provided you different factors for each of my points yet you still cannot comprehend.

 Medal of honour was a 74/75 on consoles ( to a lot of people still worth a purcahse), Duke Nukem was 49/51 Therefore my logic applies. Nintendogs had 70-80’s on Meta and excellent marketing, the TV ads especially in which multiple ads were released targeting different demographics. Once again you failed to understand that reviews do in fact contribute to sales, as well as marketing, how many times does this has to be beaten over your head under you finally acknowledge it. It’s not an excuse, its fact. Using games like Battlefield, COD and Assasins Creed will not help your argument. I’m not sure if you’re aware but when you release a multigeneration game, it tends to break up the sales. Also Battlefield 3’s reviews were higher than that of 4’s. You claim the market decides what is popular yet you do not explain where it comes to this idea. If it’s not reviews, the media, marketing, then what is it? Word of mouth? And where would this word of mouth come from? Opening sales would not be nearly at the level they are if it was purely word of mouth of the consumer. If that does not explain it then it's impulse. Or maybe, just maybe like I've tried to explain to you, all of these factors CONTRIBUTE  to the overall sales! See your logic is so terribly flawed that it’s hard to believe whether you are being serious, or again if you just really do not have much of a life and the purpose of your account is to live vicariously through it and troll people. I just fixed those apparent holes for you, what’s next?

Yes, let's go ahead and ask that one buddy.

If marketing means nothing to sales, why did it sell less?

If word of mouth from gamers means nothing, why did it sell less? 

If reviews mean nothing, why did it sell less?

How can quality be known to be less, if people don't play it?

How then, is it possible for a sequel to a very hyped and liked game, sell less than it's predecessor?  You can't say it was reviewed less, because that doesn't matter.  You can't say that gamer's didn't enjoy it, because word of mouth doesn't matter.  You also can't say it was marketed poorly, because that doesn't matter.  And, according to you, you also can't say sales are indicative of it's quality, because how would someone know if a game is good if they havent played it without reviews, marketing, or word of mouth?  Why don't you formulate some crazy response to that one.

Again you've made an excuse. If SM3DW was truly as good as it was then it would be worth $300. The point of the games is supposed to make you buy the console and what's even more pathetic is that mario is an established franchise. How do you know that it increassed the install base by 12.5% ? How do you know that the game sales don't come from the existing install base ? 

Yet an established franchise by such a game as SM3DW flopped, what are you gonna say about that ? (You're probably gonna sidetep this question just like you did with the rest.) If sales are only gonna CONTRIBUTE then you CAN'T claim that their is a direct relationship to game sales. It's one or the other. 

Yet an extablished franchise by such a game as SM3DW flopped, what are you gonna say about that ? (You're probably gonna sidetep this question just like you did with the rest.) If sales are only gonna CONTRIBUTE then you CAN'T claim that there is a DIRECT relationship to game sales. It's one or the other. You probably can't explain why other games like shenmue, okami, and others as well as psychonauts monumentally flopped hard in sales. FYI there's no difference between the average conumer and the soccer mom. Their normal people compared to us. 

Again you can't explain the little difference in scores when comparing the massive difference to game sales. Your using excuses to cover up your failed argument. Marketing makes little difference when the game is trash. BTW BF3's metascore is only 2 points higher than BF4 so how do you explain that ? (This basically makes your marketing point null and void seeing as how you can't explain why it didn't make up for the difference between BF3 and BF4 in game sales. Again another game in an established franchise is massively under performing with largely the same reception and it's much larger marketing campaign couldn't save it. ) 

I amazed how well you can keep sidestepping my real questions. You didn't fix anything, you only brought up more questions. 

I think were done here if you can't give a reasonable explanation to other phenomens. 

"The highest rated game in 2008 which was GTA 4 got beaten by mario kart WII. Can you explain the same for 2009 when uncharted 2 got shitted on by COD WAW in terms of sales ? Or how about in 2010 when super mario galaxy 2 got it's ass handed to Red Dead Redemption ? You probably couldn't do the same in 2011 for why Batman got destroyed by the likes of battlefield 3. "

Funny how almost all games the games had it's last iteration and is getting beaten by other games with last iterations too. There goes your shitty theory that an established franchise will make any difference to the situation at hand. 

Marketing actually means nothing if your product is a turd. The word of mouth can be spawned from a quality such as minecraft. Games can sell through just from exposure.  Reviews don't mean anythiing because there's a massive difference in sales. Hype to a sequel means nothing for the most part in how a game sells, all of that is in quality. 

I can say that sales are indicative of a games quality because people have to go out of their own way to give something of value in exchange for a product and the point of the game is supposed to make you enjoy it. PEOPLE BUY GAMES BECAUSE THEY SEE QUALITY IN IT.

I suspect that you've failed to notice the overarching theme of my posts - the absurdity of the console wars.

I'm not mocking the PS4, or the Xbox One. I'm not criticising their launch lineups. I'm not even suggesting that the Wii U is in any way better than the other systems.

What I'm doing is mocking the console warmongers, who will twist every situation to suit their console war rhetoric. When their system of choice had the highest-rated game of the generation, Metacritic was a holy site, which they'd go to for proof that their system was the greatest. And now, when the system they least like has the highest-rated game of the generation so far, Metacritic is absolute shit, completely meaningless in the face of sales. The same people, though, would endlessly criticise the Just Dance series of games for being "casual crap" (and they'd usually point to metacritic to back up their argument), and hold up games like Bayonetta as far better games.

Mind you, you had comparable people on the other side, too - people who would point to sales numbers as proof of the superiority of the Wii, and dismissing Metacritic as irrelevant, but now point to Metacritic as proof of quality of Wii U games while dismissing sales.

I must say, though, I find it hilarious that you start your reply to me by bashing the Wii, pretty blatantly, then at the end, you claim to agree with my suggestion that we should stop attacking each other, and other gaming systems, and instead just collectively enjoy gaming. And along the way, you claim that I'm somehow the one that is being absurd... when you're the one who calls my opinion "bullshit" for daring to observe that neither the PS4 or Xbox One have actually outsold the Wii U, yet, despite those console warmongers' claims.

The fact is, YOU are a prime example of the problem. I didn't once praise the Wii U, or dismiss anything about the PS4 or Xbox One, in my post, but you felt that you HAD to mock me, and the Wii U, in your response, and go into defense mode over the fact that the PS4 currently has the lowest tie ratio (despite it being an unimportant fact that I didn't even point out, seen only in a list that I was using to demonstrate that Wii U owners are buying games, in spite of the assertions of certain people).

You have yet to point out a single factual error in the article I posted. Instead, you have thrown all sorts of attacks at it, and ME, with words like "clickbait", "flamebait", etc, to deride and dismiss it. Why? Because it doesn't follow the standard line used by console warmongers - because it dares to suggest that the current situation isn't as dire as so many have asserted for Wii U, and that the system with the best-quality titles right now should probably be called the best system of the moment. All of which are entirely reasonable observations - none of which are meant to be conclusive, but all of which are great for reasonable, rational discussion.

So why is there no rational, reasonable discussion about them? Oh, right - because of console warmonger, who can't handle the idea of rational discussion, and instead resort to personal attacks, derision, and complete dismissal of anything that doesn't support their worldview - usually by asserting that those making the alternative arguments are fanboys, stealth advertising, or clickbaiting.

To summarise, I suggest that you have a good look at your own post, and its contents, before throwing accusations at me.