By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - WiiU down YOY in every region, weekly sales are off

Seece on 14 February 2014
DolPhanTendo said:
Lol you guys are sad very sad. Nintendo has never been number one since PlayStation or Xbox came into the picture and yet here they are still doing it the RIGHT way to make profits. They dont bow down to developers like EA or Ubisoft. They have more individual first party franchises then Xbox or PS combined. So when they have down years they survive and keep innovating.

You realise they're making losses right now right? And the division Xbox is in hasn't made any losses recently.



 

Around the Network
zorg1000 on 14 February 2014
DolPhanTendo said:
Lol you guys are sad very sad. Nintendo has never been number one since PlayStation or Xbox came into the picture and yet here they are still doing it the RIGHT way to make profits. They dont bow down to developers like EA or Ubisoft. They have more individual first party franchises then Xbox or PS combined. So when they have down years they survive and keep innovating.


Not sure if u know this but Nintendo posted a loss 2 years ago and is expecting to again this year.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Aielyn on 14 February 2014
DerNebel said:
NPD has just proven that those charts are wrong.

NPD isn't official, nor is it 100% accurate. What you can say is that NPD disagrees with those numbers.

But then, there's a few issues people aren't accounting for:

1. VGChartz's 4 week number is 62k, which isn't dramatically higher than 49k (less than 27% higher). VGChartz has the weekly average at 15.5k, NPD has it at 12.25k... that's undoubtedly well within the margin of error of the two tracking systems.

2. 49k is not an official number. It's a claimed number according to one person on NeoGAF, which doesn't make it confirmed. Looking at all of the numbers claimed, and comparing them with VGChartz numbers, it's rather suspicious - basically, "Aquamarine's" numbers have PS3 and PS4 significantly undertracked on VGChartz, and every other system except PS Vita being significantly overtracked (Vita just says "<17k", which, since Vita is at 17k after 5 weeks according to VGChartz, means either "significantly undertracked" or "about right"). Also curious is that PS3, X360, and 3DS numbers have a "~" attached, implying that the numbers provided are... approximate? This couldn't possibly make sense given that the other numbers do not have such a symbol attached - either the numbers provided are guesses, or they're very incomplete.

3. Even if it were true, as Seece had to admit, the Wii U isn't actually down YOY, as you have to factor in number of weeks - for the four week numbers, 2014 comes out ahead.



Seece on 14 February 2014
Aielyn said:
DerNebel said:
NPD has just proven that those charts are wrong.

NPD isn't official, nor is it 100% accurate. What you can say is that NPD disagrees with those numbers.

But then, there's a few issues people aren't accounting for:

1. VGChartz's 4 week number is 62k, which isn't dramatically higher than 49k (less than 27% higher). VGChartz has the weekly average at 15.5k, NPD has it at 12.25k... that's undoubtedly well within the margin of error of the two tracking systems.

 

Unless it's been adjusted, it was 85k before.

2. 49k is not an official number. It's a claimed number according to one person on NeoGAF, which doesn't make it confirmed. Looking at all of the numbers claimed, and comparing them with VGChartz numbers, it's rather suspicious - basically, "Aquamarine's" numbers have PS3 and PS4 significantly undertracked on VGChartz, and every other system except PS Vita being significantly overtracked (Vita just says "<17k", which, since Vita is at 17k after 5 weeks according to VGChartz, means either "significantly undertracked" or "about right"). Also curious is that PS3, X360, and 3DS numbers have a "~" attached, implying that the numbers provided are... approximate? This couldn't possibly make sense given that the other numbers do not have such a symbol attached - either the numbers provided are guesses, or they're very incomplete.

Creamsugar is pretty damn reliable, has been for a couple of years now. This is a case of burying your head in the sand, all his leaks have been confirmed by Nintendo's own sales charts they release.

3. Even if it were true, as Seece had to admit, the Wii U isn't actually down YOY, as you have to factor in number of weeks - for the four week numbers, 2014 comes out ahead.

That has nothing to do with the charts being wrong. Look on the front page, VGC has NA average at 25k not 12k.





 

DolPhanTendo on 14 February 2014

Lol just because you expect to sell 9 million and only sell 3 doesn't mean you lose profits SMH. The red number that comes up under Nintendos yearly numbers is expected sells. They profited 87 million in 2013 meaning they made money. Go back to school



Around the Network
Aielyn on 14 February 2014
Seece said:
1. Unless it's been adjusted, it was 85k before.

2. Creamsugar is pretty damn reliable, has been for a couple of years now. This is a case of burying your head in the sand, all his leaks have been confirmed by Nintendo's own sales charts they release.

3. That has nothing to do with the charts being wrong. Look on the front page, VGC has NA average at 25k not 12k.

1. It seems I was thrown off by eyeofcore's thread's numbering. I assumed that we had 5 weeks so far, with NPD covering the first four. It looks like I may have been mistaken on that front. When I was working out the current number, I subtracted off the most recent week, which I guess means it was three weeks, not four.

2. It wasn't Creamsugar, it was Aquamarine.

3. Erm... "average"? NA? You know that NPD doesn't track NA, right? It tracks USA. And VGChartz has 86k, which makes it an average of about 21k, not 25k. But anyway, your response doesn't address either my point about uncertainty in both numbers nor the fact that NPD isn't 100% accurate. People like to claim "oh, it's practically 100% accurate", but there's no solid evidence to support the claim. We don't know NPD's methodology, and so we cannot know its actual accuracy.



DerNebel on 14 February 2014
Aielyn said:
DerNebel said:
NPD has just proven that those charts are wrong.

NPD isn't official, nor is it 100% accurate. What you can say is that NPD disagrees with those numbers.

But then, there's a few issues people aren't accounting for:

1. VGChartz's 4 week number is 62k, which isn't dramatically higher than 49k (less than 27% higher). VGChartz has the weekly average at 15.5k, NPD has it at 12.25k... that's undoubtedly well within the margin of error of the two tracking systems.

2. 49k is not an official number. It's a claimed number according to one person on NeoGAF, which doesn't make it confirmed. Looking at all of the numbers claimed, and comparing them with VGChartz numbers, it's rather suspicious - basically, "Aquamarine's" numbers have PS3 and PS4 significantly undertracked on VGChartz, and every other system except PS Vita being significantly overtracked (Vita just says "<17k", which, since Vita is at 17k after 5 weeks according to VGChartz, means either "significantly undertracked" or "about right"). Also curious is that PS3, X360, and 3DS numbers have a "~" attached, implying that the numbers provided are... approximate? This couldn't possibly make sense given that the other numbers do not have such a symbol attached - either the numbers provided are guesses, or they're very incomplete.

3. Even if it were true, as Seece had to admit, the Wii U isn't actually down YOY, as you have to factor in number of weeks - for the four week numbers, 2014 comes out ahead.

...really? This is what we're doing now? Just act like even NPD numbers are just vague estimates?



zorg1000 on 14 February 2014
DolPhanTendo said:
Lol just because you expect to sell 9 million and only sell 3 doesn't mean you lose profits SMH. The red number that comes up under Nintendos yearly numbers is expected sells. They profited 87 million in 2013 meaning they made money. Go back to school


Ya u obviously have no clue what ur talking about. The fiscal year ends March 31 and Nintendo themselves have stated they expect to post a loss. Go back to school.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Seece on 14 February 2014
Aielyn said:
Seece said:
1. Unless it's been adjusted, it was 85k before.

2. Creamsugar is pretty damn reliable, has been for a couple of years now. This is a case of burying your head in the sand, all his leaks have been confirmed by Nintendo's own sales charts they release.

3. That has nothing to do with the charts being wrong. Look on the front page, VGC has NA average at 25k not 12k.

1. It seems I was thrown off by eyeofcore's thread's numbering. I assumed that we had 5 weeks so far, with NPD covering the first four. It looks like I may have been mistaken on that front. When I was working out the current number, I subtracted off the most recent week, which I guess means it was three weeks, not four.

2. It wasn't Creamsugar, it was Aquamarine.

3. Erm... "average"? NA? You know that NPD doesn't track NA, right? It tracks USA. And VGChartz has 86k, which makes it an average of about 21k, not 25k. But anyway, your response doesn't address either my point about uncertainty in both numbers nor the fact that NPD isn't 100% accurate. People like to claim "oh, it's practically 100% accurate", but there's no solid evidence to support the claim. We don't know NPD's methodology, and so we cannot know its actual accuracy.

2. Aqua seems pretty reliable too, enough for Cream to agree with her.

3. US is 90% of NA market, we're talking neglible numbers here, it doesn't really matter. (http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/41672/USA/) 24k.

The fact NPD never adjusts, the big 3 use the numbers (and likely communicate shipments with them) and that they're a multimillion dollar company that track a lot of things at retailer should tell you it's the more reliable tracker, by far. I don't care to argue this though, the industry and majority accept NPD numbers, if you wanna hang on to VGC's because they paint a better picture, have at it.



 

DevilRising on 14 February 2014
Seece said:
DolPhanTendo said:
NPD I just looked into NPD and its basically surveyed based site. So those numbers are predictions not sales. Why would VGchartz be off by twice as much

Oh my word. No it isn't ... NPD has been around for years and is what the industry uses.

Is this what it has come to, after decades, because WiiU isn't doing well people are trying to discredit NPD now? Embarrasing.

And VGC is off by twice as much because it uses very limited data and is estimates.


That's funny, because according to Nintendo's own sales figures announcements, Wii U was actually undertracked. But hey.