But I'm just really curious to what extent because sometimes the aim could be low just so companies can fluff the numbers. I'm not saying for Sea of Thieves but in general for all games etc.

Let's use Sea of Thieves for an example but I actually mean for all games in general when it comes to these 'being played' statistics.  Say Rare/MS used the same amount of time like Netflix does with 2 minutes into the game counts as play,  what if the introduction video of the game itself is over 2 min long so MS/Rare counts it, but do you yourself actually count that as being played when all you've done was watched the intro? (Obviously if you're watching the intro you'll likely be playing a bit afterwards too).

I've seen trophies where say a game sold, lets say 5M copies, but only say that only 80% of gamers achieved the first trophy of completing the very first chapter.  That means only 4M gamers have played it enough to finish the first chapter, which I would considered that as being played, while 1M gamers havent really played it.  I even think there was an Uncharted or Tomb Raider game trophy for getting the first treasure and that's like automatically at the very beginning that can't be missed and the trophy percentage wasn't even 100% for that.  So like there was quite a few people that didnt even actually try it at all but bought the game.

Sale numbers means the most since that's money earned and that's the best way to define it's success since people actually bought it.   But when i hear about a certain game was played this amount, or this game was downloaded this amount, I get a bit weary about that and feel they could be fluffing the numbers just to please the big heads.  'Downloading numbers' are also funny, cause like some games boast that it's been downloaded 'X' million times, but of course it has since it was free.  I've also downloaded a bunch of games cause it was either free to play or free on PS Plus but sometimes I just never even tried it and i delete it right after cause I realize i wasn't really interested and wanted to save storage space, so I personally dont think that should count for anything. 

Bottomline, I feel like there needs to be a clear standard that defines what is 'being played' is all.   

In my opinion, it should be like when you at least finished the first chapter or something along that line. 

Site note: My brother said he played the first The Last of Us for just 15min and he also said it sucked. 1) To me, 15 min isn't enough to say you played it.  2) He's also a complete idiot for judging a game when you've only played for 15min.

If someone goes through the effort to download 50+gigs of a game, it shows interest.

Whats the difference if i go into a store, buy a game, play it for 1 day, than return it the next day.. that purchase still counts as a sale. The exact same issue happens with actual purchases for decades.

Phyiscal sales arent entirely accurate either.

If people download a 50gb game yes it shows interest, but if its free, is that really something big to boast about?  That's why its bigger news when you hear how much money these free-to-play games make rather than the amount of downloads.  If you think about all the free-to-play games, games like Fortnite tells you how much money they make yoy because that's something to boast about, while other free-to-play games just mention how many times its been installed just to sound good.  

Bolded: The difference is as I mentioned earlier if you bought a game that counts as a sales number and that is the most accurate in terms of throwing numbers around.  And with money involved it's about as accurate as it gets whether you bought it then return it because money is at play and you can't lie about that.

You can get an accurate amount of how much money a game has made, how many it sold (or returned), how many times it's downloaded, as that's all recorded via transaction of sorts, but how do you measure the term 'being played'? For the example of Sea of Thieves, for all we know Rare/MS would consider the moment you starting the game once they already counted as 'being played'.  Who knows but that's all I'm curious about and would like to know what's the standard to be considered as 'being played'.  

If people download a 50gb game yes it shows interest, but if its free, is that really something big to boast about?  That's why its bigger news when you hear how much money these free-to-play games make rather than the amount of downloads.  If you think about all the free-to-play games, games like Fortnite tells you how much money they make yoy because that's something to boast about, while other free-to-play games just mention how many times its been installed just to sound good.  

Bolded: The difference is as I mentioned earlier if you bought a game that counts as a sales number and that is the most accurate in terms of throwing numbers around.  And with money involved it's about as accurate as it gets whether you bought it then return it because money is at play and you can't lie about that.

You can get an accurate amount of how much money a game has made, how many it sold (or returned), how many times it's downloaded, as that's all recorded via transaction of sorts, but how do you measure the term 'being played'? For the example of Sea of Thieves, for all we know Rare/MS would consider the moment you starting the game once they already counted as 'being played'.  Who knows but that's all I'm curious about and would like to know what's the standard to be considered as 'being played'.  

Well, I don't think you will ever get the answer to that question.

But try to look at it this way: In the last month, more than one million people decided to purchase the game, after it being two years in the market. Now, I think it is safe to assume that if a person decides to spend $40 on a game after two years of it being available is because he/she has heard good things about it. I just cannot fathom that someone would go ahead and make that purchase today without receiving a recommendation from someone else.

If you really look at it closely, its all the same thing. 

Example:

GAMEPASS - 1m people downloaded the game

RETAIL - 1m people brought the game 

GAMEPASS - 200k people uninstalled the game 

RETAIL - 200k people returned thier game

Same results.

If someone is willing to download a big game like SoTs, it shows interests, no different if someone went to the store to buy a game, it shows interests. 

Weather the player decides to uninstall the game after playing 5mins of SoTs is no different to if someone asked for a full refund at a store, thier is no profit with refunds except with GamePass, MS still make money off the subscription model.

Different story if you could play SoTs instantly without downloading it but that's not the case here, effort must be made to play it, until Azure Streaming becomes a thing.

It's not the same thing at all.

Gamepass = Your subscription pays for access to play X amount of games so gamers have many options to choose from with no other drawback.  

Retail = You pay money to play that 1 specific game, that's it.

Uninstalling the game does not equivalent to people returning the game because nobody loses money since it's all already paid for in your subscription while returning your game to a retail results in the Publisher/Dev/Retailer losing that money LOLLLL

You might as well say watching the same movie on Netflix and going to pay for a ticket at the Movie theatres to watch that same movie are the exact same thing lol but it clearly isn't.