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

Forums - Sony Discussion - 600,000+ for TLoU:RM?

Tagged games:

OmegaRed421 on 27 August 2014
BMaker11 said:

What I really want to know is if it only ("only" is probably the wrong word to use) sold 600k in the first week, why is Wikipedia saying it sold 1.5M in 24 hours.


Because that key word in your question. Good for for general info but too many people can edit them for their own reasons.



Make it So.

Around the Network
BMaker11 on 27 August 2014
OmegaRed421 said:
BMaker11 said:

What I really want to know is if it only ("only" is probably the wrong word to use) sold 600k in the first week, why is Wikipedia saying it sold 1.5M in 24 hours.


Because that key word in your question. Good for for general info but too many people can edit them for their own reasons.

Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. So it's good for more than "general info". And I don't think how many units a game has sold is "specific info" that is out of the realm of Wikipedia being correct about. On the same page, it has TLOU PS3 at 7M. That's an accurate figure, right? Or is that "general info" that should be called into question because too many people can edit the page?

More importantly, when Wiki sees that people are editing in incorrect or irrelevant information, it is quickly removed. It's why, for example, when the Seahawks won the Super Bowl, it said "SUCK IT PEYTON" somewhere in there on the Super Bowl XLVIII page, and it was gone in like 2 minutes.

TLOU:R has been at 1.5M in 24 hours for nearly a month. For as quickly as Wikipedia is known for correcting information, that's a pretty pertinent piece of information that hasn't been changed back due to being wrong.



jlmurph2 on 27 August 2014
BMaker11 said:

What I really want to know is if it only ("only" is probably the wrong word to use) sold 600k in the first week, why is Wikipedia saying it sold 1.5M in 24 hours.

Wikiderpedia



Aerys on 27 August 2014

Wikipedia is not les repliable than VGC though, so there is no way to know who is right before Sony announcement



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

Captain_Tom on 27 August 2014
Hardcore_gamer said:
OmegaRed421 said:

How did The Last of us Remastered get such high numbers in one week when its numbers in the US+EU are a bit over 300,000? Which terrortories are accounting for the other 300,000???? 


10 milion install base and sold only 600000 copy hmmmmm ?????


Keep in mind that is just physical numbers and according to Sony this game is the best selling digital game yet on playstation.  I believe they said it sold over a million copies combined its first week.



Around the Network
OmegaRed421 on 28 August 2014
BMaker11 said:

Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. 


If that were true then why do professors never let you cite Wikipedia as a source? It is a good source but can be very inaccurate depending on the article.



Make it So.

drake_tolu on 28 August 2014

Good prediction.



Aerys on 28 August 2014
Ka-pi96 said:
Aerys said:
Wikipedia is not les repliable than VGC though, so there is no way to know who is right before Sony announcement

When it is using the same figures that insiderp has it can't really be considered at all reliable...


When insiderp is more reliable than VGC, if we consider VGC can be reliable even a bit, then ....



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

BMaker11 on 28 August 2014
OmegaRed421 said:
BMaker11 said:

Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. 


If that were true then why do professors never let you cite Wikipedia as a source? It is a good source but can be very inaccurate depending on the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

It is true. Professors just don't like it because it's a conglomeration of sources instead of being a primary or secondary source on it's own. But you know what you can do? Use the sources wiki uses. Professors will even tell you that



RenCutypoison on 28 August 2014
BMaker11 said:
OmegaRed421 said:
BMaker11 said:

Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. 


If that were true then why do professors never let you cite Wikipedia as a source? It is a good source but can be very inaccurate depending on the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

It is true. Professors just don't like it because it's a conglomeration of sources instead of being a primary or secondary source on it's own. But you know what you can do? Use the sources wiki uses. Professors will even tell you that

Fail on the source. Wiki source is on attackonthefanboy, wich source is insiderp. 120% hoax

Definitely not always reliable. Always check sources. And sources' sources.