You provide a lot of excellent arguments against your own point here. It's fascinating.

The reason you think this, is because you apparently weren't really following the conversation, and therefore didn't know what my argument actually was.

What's with the strawman arguments, assigning me opinions that I havwn't expressed, and the proceed to attempt to tear those projected opinions down? Can you come with arguments that don't project opinions I don't have onto me?

If it seems the argument is going against itself, perhaps you should pause for a moment, and consider the possibility that you may be misunderstanding it.  And you could even ask for clarification if something seems confusing.

I'll now respond to the things that are applicable to this, and for your sake I'll ignore all of the strawman arguments.

Oh for my sake?  Thank you for being so considerate and merciful.

The reason why we can't call free downloads "sales" is because it doesn't fit what most people mean when they use the word "sale".

Re-ead the actual conversation that you were responding to.  My point was we can change the usage of the word if we so choose.  I specifically said we can, not that we should.  I guess that's why you seem confused.

Has nothing to do with the dictionary or legal definitions (but I will admit that those are also in my favour in this specific case.)

So... you claim that I'm making a strawman argument... yet I argued in your favor of an argument you didn't make?  O_O... I'm legit confused.

This is also why your tomato, banana and vegetable arguments are especially ironic. I'm proposing that we use the definition that makes people understand what you are talking about. You are the one proposing that we use a definition that will leave most people not understanding what you actually mean when you are using the word "sales". Or maybe they will understand what you mean, and then correct you. Those arguments there could almost ad verbatim be used directly against your own point because of this.

No, because the only point I was making is that we can change words if it is practical for the context.  And those examples perfectly illustrate that point.  Please explain how these examples can be used against that O_o.

And there is a reason why I used examples that showed times when it is intuitive to change the definitions, and also times when it is counter-intuitive and done purely for the sake of practicality rather than common understanding.  Might make more sense if you considered them all instead of cherry picking.

You then go on to talk about how we define things different than a dictionairy (or the legal definition. You seem to switch between those depending on which favours your specific argument.)

No I don't just switch whenever it suits me.  If you don't understand the argument, ask, don't make assumptions.  The point of ALL the examples was that words change in different contexts.  Showing that tomatoes are fruits in scientific/dictionary context but are treated as vegetables in a commercial/legal context is a pretty perfect and clear demonstration of my point.  If it makes more sense to change the definition of something for a particular context, then we can do so.  

I wasn't using legal and dictionary definitions interchangeably.  In fact, I was specifically drawing a distinction between them.  And, while I'm not always a perfect communicator, I think that should have been abundantly clear.  If it wasn't, now it should be.

These are part of the strawman arguments, because I haven't said that we should only adhere strictly to dictionary definitions, nor legal definitions.

Uhhhhh... dude.  The point that Cosmicsex was making was specifically that we cannot change the technical definition of the word.  Before you came in, he described that as a "logical falsehood".  I'm fairly certain he was referring to the logical absolute that A cannot equal Not A, but he's ignoring the fact that the label we ascribe to A isn't the same thing as A itself.  Since he specifically adressed logical falsehoods, he was unquestionably arguing that we cannot change the meaning of the word.

And that's the conversation that you jumped into.  So, I naturally assumed that you understood the context of the conversation, and that your post was logically connected to what we were talking about. When you jump into an argument between two sides, it's natural to assume you're defending one of the sides, and not talking about something entirely different.  If you wanted to talk about a different concept entirely, then you posted in the wrong place.

 I think the inference that you were supporting his point of view is a pretty reasonable one.  But, even if we assume for a second that this misunderstanding is totally my fault, then maybe you could just clarify your point instead of accusing me of being intentionally deceptive.  Misinterpetation =/= strawman argument.

Speaking of which, I still have no idea what you're trying to argue, aside from simply arguing against my point for argument's sake.  What are you trying to prove?

If your goal is to talk about popularity, then we already have a word that fits perfectly for the job. It's called... *drumroll* .... popularity. If you want to talk about the most popular gaming franchise, then you say just that, "most popular gaming franchise". I mean, if that was your goal, why try to go to all the trouble of redefining a word (not in the dictionary, but in the consensus of people)? There is also a lot more leeway in the word "popularity", so you are a lot better off using a flexible and vague word like that (prefferably clarifying further on what you mean by it in your specific post/thread) instead of using a word that has a very specific meaning to people, like sales. Or table. Or... you get the point.

Which is a perfectly fair point.  But, sales is generally a metric used to determine popularity or success.  Even if we're talking about most popular game franchise, we're probably going to go right to sales to support our position.  Calling it popularity just pushes the issue back a step, and we're still going to have to address it.

By collapsing downloads into the sales metric, then we only have to use the one metric, instead of having to consider two or more metrics. Bundling them into one category may just make things simpler, and ensure that the amount of content Pokemon actually sold is better represented.  

Besides, the term sales is already vague and includes many things that may not be sales and don't include things that are sales.  Pack in titles are already an issue of contention when comparing games, a huge part of sales (digital sales) are often completely disregarded.  How about Wii Fit U?  If someone bought the pedometer that unlocks the full version of the game, is that a sale?  What about the copy of Kid Icarus I got for free with Uprising?  Ocarina of Time Master Quest and other preorder bonuses?  How should we count episodic games for a franchise? Five sales for the franchise or one?  Collections?  Should we count the Orange Box as a sale for the Portal Franchise, or Half-life, or Team Fortress?  When Capcom bundled DMC4, Dead Rising, and Lost Planet, how do we count that in terms of franchise sales?  What about when Nintendo put their VC games on sale for 30 cents?  Is 30 cents really that much different than giving it away?  What about the NES Mini?  What if there is a buy one get one free sale?  What if I bought Fire Emblem Birthright, and then downloaded Conquest?  However we choose to define sales, we are going to need some degree of clarification anyway, so adding an one additional point to that doesn't make it all that different.  

But I'm not going to talk anymore about that (you can discuss it if you want, but I'm going to ignore it), because that was never my point, and I don't really care to defend it.  Again, for the sake of clarity, my point was not that we should do this.  My point was that we can, and there is an argument to be made for it.  Just not one that I'm going to make.

Finally, I want to thank you for providing another excellent argument against your point (I alluded to it earlier in the post, but the way you summed it up in one sentence was great). We can use words however we want as long as there is a common understanding. By saying sales, but meaning "free downloads" you don't get a common understanding, unless you clarify each time that "By sales I don't actually mean sales, I mean free downloads", and at that point you are, once again better off just saying "free downloads" to begin with. Just like how you were better off using the word "popularity" if you are going to talk about popularity.

Which was THE WHOLE POINT OF THE OP.  The point of the OP was to discuss whether or not we should try to change the common understanding (which we do all the time cause that's how language changes).  That our current understanding of franchise sales ignores the fact that Pokemon Go is selling a huge amount of content that is completely unrepresented, and that in a system where both titles and contents are sold.  Even if you want to argue it didn't sell any copies, it is still definitely selling a large amount of content, and it would probably be good to find a way to incorporate that into our definition of sales, even if counting downloads as the same as sales may not be the best way to do it. 

You provide a lot of excellent arguments against your own point here. It's fascinating.

The reason you think this, is because you apparently weren't really following the conversation, and therefore didn't know what my argument actually was.

What's with the strawman arguments, assigning me opinions that I havwn't expressed, and the proceed to attempt to tear those projected opinions down? Can you come with arguments that don't project opinions I don't have onto me?

If it seems the argument is going against itself, perhaps you should pause for a moment, and consider the possibility that you may be misunderstanding it.  And you could even ask for clarification if something seems confusing.

I'll now respond to the things that are applicable to this, and for your sake I'll ignore all of the strawman arguments.

Oh for my sake?  Thank you for being so considerate and merciful.

The reason why we can't call free downloads "sales" is because it doesn't fit what most people mean when they use the word "sale".

Re-ead the actual conversation that you were responding to.  My point was we can change the usage of the word if we so choose.  I specifically said we can, not that we should.  I guess that's why you seem confused.

Has nothing to do with the dictionary or legal definitions (but I will admit that those are also in my favour in this specific case.)

So... you claim that I'm making a strawman argument... yet I argued in your favor of an argument you didn't make?  O_O... I'm legit confused.

This is also why your tomato, banana and vegetable arguments are especially ironic. I'm proposing that we use the definition that makes people understand what you are talking about. You are the one proposing that we use a definition that will leave most people not understanding what you actually mean when you are using the word "sales". Or maybe they will understand what you mean, and then correct you. Those arguments there could almost ad verbatim be used directly against your own point because of this.

No, because the only point I was making is that we can change words if it is practical for the context.  And those examples perfectly illustrate that point.  Please explain how these examples can be used against that O_o.

And there is a reason why I used examples that showed times when it is intuitive to change the definitions, and also times when it is counter-intuitive and done purely for the sake of practicality rather than common understanding.  Might make more sense if you considered them all instead of cherry picking.

You then go on to talk about how we define things different than a dictionairy (or the legal definition. You seem to switch between those depending on which favours your specific argument.)

No I don't just switch whenever it suits me.  If you don't understand the argument, ask, don't make assumptions.  The point of ALL the examples was that words change in different contexts.  Showing that tomatoes are fruits in scientific/dictionary context but are treated as vegetables in a commercial/legal context is a pretty perfect and clear demonstration of my point.  If it makes more sense to change the definition of something for a particular context, then we can do so.  

I wasn't using legal and dictionary definitions interchangeably.  In fact, I was specifically drawing a distinction between them.  And, while I'm not always a perfect communicator, I think that should have been abundantly clear.  If it wasn't, now it should be.

These are part of the strawman arguments, because I haven't said that we should only adhere strictly to dictionary definitions, nor legal definitions.

Uhhhhh... dude.  The point that Cosmicsex was making was specifically that we cannot change the technical definition of the word.  Before you came in, he described that as a "logical falsehood".  I'm fairly certain he was referring to the logical absolute that A cannot equal Not A, but he's ignoring the fact that the label we ascribe to A isn't the same thing as A itself.  Since he specifically adressed logical falsehoods, he was unquestionably arguing that we cannot change the meaning of the word.

And that's the conversation that you jumped into.  So, I naturally assumed that you understood the context of the conversation, and that your post was logically connected to what we were talking about. When you jump into an argument between two sides, it's natural to assume you're defending one of the sides, and not talking about something entirely different.  If you wanted to talk about a different concept entirely, then you posted in the wrong place.

 I think the inference that you were supporting his point of view is a pretty reasonable one.  But, even if we assume for a second that this misunderstanding is totally my fault, then maybe you could just clarify your point instead of accusing me of being intentionally deceptive.  Misinterpetation =/= strawman argument.

Speaking of which, I still have no idea what you're trying to argue, aside from simply arguing against my point for argument's sake.  What are you trying to prove?

If your goal is to talk about popularity, then we already have a word that fits perfectly for the job. It's called... *drumroll* .... popularity. If you want to talk about the most popular gaming franchise, then you say just that, "most popular gaming franchise". I mean, if that was your goal, why try to go to all the trouble of redefining a word (not in the dictionary, but in the consensus of people)? There is also a lot more leeway in the word "popularity", so you are a lot better off using a flexible and vague word like that (prefferably clarifying further on what you mean by it in your specific post/thread) instead of using a word that has a very specific meaning to people, like sales. Or table. Or... you get the point.

Which is a perfectly fair point.  But, sales is generally a metric used to determine popularity or success.  Even if we're talking about most popular game franchise, we're probably going to go right to sales to support our position.  Calling it popularity just pushes the issue back a step, and we're still going to have to address it.

By collapsing downloads into the sales metric, then we only have to use the one metric, instead of having to consider two or more metrics. Bundling them into one category may just make things simpler, and ensure that the amount of content Pokemon actually sold is better represented.  

Besides, the term sales is already vague and includes many things that may not be sales and don't include things that are sales.  Pack in titles are already an issue of contention when comparing games, a huge part of sales (digital sales) are often completely disregarded.  How about Wii Fit U?  If someone bought the pedometer that unlocks the full version of the game, is that a sale?  What about the copy of Kid Icarus I got for free with Uprising?  Ocarina of Time Master Quest and other preorder bonuses?  How should we count episodic games for a franchise? Five sales for the franchise or one?  Collections?  Should we count the Orange Box as a sale for the Portal Franchise, or Half-life, or Team Fortress?  When Capcom bundled DMC4, Dead Rising, and Lost Planet, how do we count that in terms of franchise sales?  What about when Nintendo put their VC games on sale for 30 cents?  Is 30 cents really that much different than giving it away?  What about the NES Mini?  What if there is a buy one get one free sale?  What if I bought Fire Emblem Birthright, and then downloaded Conquest?  However we choose to define sales, we are going to need some degree of clarification anyway, so adding an one additional point to that doesn't make it all that different.  

But I'm not going to talk anymore about that (you can discuss it if you want, but I'm going to ignore it), because that was never my point, and I don't really care to defend it.  Again, for the sake of clarity, my point was not that we should do this.  My point was that we can, and there is an argument to be made for it.  Just not one that I'm going to make.

Finally, I want to thank you for providing another excellent argument against your point (I alluded to it earlier in the post, but the way you summed it up in one sentence was great). We can use words however we want as long as there is a common understanding. By saying sales, but meaning "free downloads" you don't get a common understanding, unless you clarify each time that "By sales I don't actually mean sales, I mean free downloads", and at that point you are, once again better off just saying "free downloads" to begin with. Just like how you were better off using the word "popularity" if you are going to talk about popularity.

Which was THE WHOLE POINT OF THE OP.  The point of the OP was to discuss whether or not we should try to change the common understanding (which we do all the time cause that's how language changes).  That our current understanding of franchise sales ignores the fact that Pokemon Go is selling a huge amount of content that is completely unrepresented, and that in a system where both titles and contents are sold.  Even if you want to argue it didn't sell any copies, it is still definitely selling a large amount of content, and it would probably be good to find a way to incorporate that into our definition of sales, even if counting downloads as the same as sales may not be the best way to do it. 

No we should not - as there is no good reason to unless you are trying to support a n agenda that facts don t support -  look into occams razor ( sp) perhaps 

Someone at Nintendo "projected" the wii u would sell 100 million   So if we changed the meaning of the word "projection" to "sell" then wouldn t that make The Wii U the best selling console this generation?   

Occam's razor really doesn't have much to do with this.  One way may be simpler, but that doesn't necessarily mean more accurate.  Occam's razor is like Murphy's Law.  It's a good rule of thumb, but it's not an absolute. 

As for the reason, let's take this example.

For argument's sake, let's say Pokemon Go is the only game in the Pokemon franchise.  Ten year's from now, it has sold one trillion dollars worth of content through microtransactions off of 100 billion downloads.

Meanwhile, there is a game called "Ducky ducky quack quack 5000" that I made in my basement.  I sold 3 copies at ten cents each.

Which is the better selling franchise?

No it doesn't if you are asking a question does Pokemon Go download number count as sales.  That is what the OP is asking.  We can't redfine the world download to mean a sales.  The aren't the same thing.  (I'm a programmer by nature and trade and I have a real problem with blatent logical falsehoods)

Of course we can.  We can consider whatever we want as sales.  With something so trivial and vague, we can define it however we like.  I'd like to see you stop us.