"I'm certainly more inclined to believe solid figures over a colorful little graph though. That's just me."

I don't get it, what's the problem with the "colorful little graph?"  Is the way the data is presented not hardcore enough?  So even Nintendo's PR is going casual too now?

"No matter how you slice it, the Wii third party game story is not a pretty one."  Microsoft wants people to keep believing the myth that Wii 3rd parties don't sell, not a surprise.  And as pointed out already, they even try to make the PS3 look better, since they share games with the HD twin.  And once again, people believe the spin... nothing new here.

The only ones who actually believe this kind of crap is the 5% of all gamers(hardcore fanboys) that surf the internet.

Both are spin in their own ways... Microsoft is using their time on the market to their advantage, and Nintendo is using their sales leaps to their advantage... both are sorta relevant though.  Microsoft's is more currently relevant, and Nintendo's is more relevant to both the past and future trends. Nintendo's data implies that the Wii will eventually track above the 360 in weekly/monthly third party sales in North America.

Keep in mind folks this is NPD data only. Until recently the X360 was still ahead in installed base. We're only a few weeks past the changeover so the fact that the Wii hasn't past its raw software numbers is understandable.

The point of the Nintendo graph is that they are outpacing the 360's software sales in the US from launch, it's a valid point because if MS thinks the Wii is doing poorly with 3rd parties right now then they also think they were doing absolutely terrible at the same point in the 360's life cycle.

@Erik Aston,

It isn't completely invalid but its not really useful the way they try to frame it either. The Wii will almost certainly outpace the raw sales numbers for the simple reason that its install base will very quickly overtake any sort of attach ratio advantage the 360 has.

There's only two objective ways to look at the sales, which are sales in the first X amount of months since launch and sales after the latter got released. Both are just as correct ways to look at it.
And these numbers, what we've seen, are only for NA of course.

The spin that somebody posted was pretty good. Haha.

Well, that was an interesting set of statistical gyrations and spin. Ultimately, however, Microsoft's numbers are meaningless. From the perspective of a game developer, raw unit sales are all that matter, and you'll notice that Microsoft did not dispute that figure.

5.21 Million... though, we're talking first 19 months. I can't think of any 360 game that reached near that.

The only third party games near that in general are GTA 4 and COD4, which both came out fairly recently. Was COD4 during 360s first 19?

I think the only numbers that matter in the present are the monthly figures... while Nintendo's numbers are more important for the future.

Microsofts numbers really aren't useful for anything since they are taking account their time advantage when any new games won't have a time advantage.

Edit: I could have sworn they found it difficult to actually hit the fish though killing them was easy they couldn't literally shoot the fish.

it's threads like this one that make me soo happy to be on vgchartz. there are just soo many intelligent people on this forum that can look past the PR BS and get the the facts behind the spin.

*hugs all*

Exactly when did Nintendo say they were dominating third party sales. They said they were doing well and better than their competitors. But I don't recall them saying they dominated.

It's bad enough with just the MS spin. But do these game sites have to pile spin on top of spin as well?