Proof that Angry Birds is the greatest game of all time.

That's quality at a LOCAL basis, I'm talking about quality at a GLOBAL basis. 

There is no such thing as global or local. opinions is the basis of what is quality to us.

I thought our buying power was based on PPP.

On a more serious note though you can measure quality by sales. 

Ah but the counter arguement is quality can also be measured by its critical acclaims, hence opinions :)

There is no wrong view point here because everything is in the eye of th beholder, so to speak ^^

Oh I did made an edit on my last post, I did say buying power there didn't I? hahahaha my fail XD

Yes

Did you play any Games on the Dreamcast, because I feel like your missing out on a lot of great games. And a large part of the Gaming Community agrees that the Dreamcast was robbed of the glory it could have had because of the success of the PS2 (and the failed business practices of Sega).
And also Just because "you" dont see any appeal in the games does not make them have any less Quality to it and it doesnt make any of the games less memorable or Rated very highly among the gaming community.
ex: I think Call of Duty is a lame and repetative game but does that make the game have any less Quality, no there is tons of work and effort put into those games to make them as polished as possible to make a Quality game and it is enjoyed by many gamers.

But see now what your getting at is just Opinions that measure quality not the amount of sales, as we see with certain games that were remastered but did not have colossal sales, With this argument I could say only High selling games are quality ones, but there are games out there that I love and do not have huge sales and im sure you have some games that you enjoy that are not massivly popular, and it does make them any less of a quality game.
And another way to look at this Indies have had massive success, not 10 million sales kind of success (except for Minecraft), but still success in a different variety with the fact that you do not need to have a AAA budget and a veteran team to make a "Quality Game".

Just because you and a 100 people on the internetz thinks the dreamcast is badass and hundreds of millions of people think it sucks doesn't make it a high quality imo. Unless you think that your opinion trumps everyone else's on the face of the planet. If it had high quality games and people liked the system it would have sold and it didn't. This means it isn't a high quality imo. people make rational decisions and if there is a substitute that's better (in this case ps2) people will buy that instead.

Consumers don't go about buying a piece of entertainment that they HATE! Therefore we can safely define quality and sales to be one and the exact same enitity. Remastered games don't go very far because people intend to buy a new console for NEW games and not OLD ones. We all have opinions about what games we like better even with varying sales but however what about all the other peoples purchasing decisions then ? Would it be then fair to say the sales and quality are NOT the same ? The way I see it, yes a game that has higher sales than a game that I like has better quality. If a game has high sales then it is regarded by many to have a high quality. It is sales that define quality and vice versa.

Indies don't have massive success because budget really does affect the quality of a game but minecraft is an exception to this rule. It's true that you do not need a AAA studio to make a high quality game and notch has proved this.