It's not uncontroversial to say almost anybody who has giant mainstream appeal isn't talented. 

The almost famous quote above explains it fairly enough.  It's mostly just a biproduct of people being jealous that so many people like something.

SOME later famous pieces are considered classics now... but not many... and the reasons almost universally are that they did something fairly unique that later caught on big.

Once again, news stories and daily conversations only come from 2 things.  Quality and being what people want... and you need both to get said hype.

I have never said that "almost anybody who has giant mainstream appeal" is untalented.

Almost famous quotes are pretty ridiculous to use as an absolute truth. Defending your (or anyone's) work by saying "you're just jealous" wouldn't be taken seriously anywhere.

Your third point in that post? What on earth are you basing that on?

Your fourth? No. That's just plain wrong. News stories come from being able to sell papers/advertising spots. The quality of whatever is being written about has nothing to do with it. Daily conversations? The come from the media and whatever is exciting to talk about. Again: not related to quality. They might be, but that's not the point.

(embarrasing edit)

It's not defending work.  It's just the case.  People are largely jealous about the mainstream.  Partly for their success... and partly because most people who is part of a niche hates it when the general public invades in their domain.

As for the classics thing?  In general knowledge of what's popular and knowing a lot about literature and art and the like.  It simply becomes more mainstream later.

And, i'm not wrong.  You are. 

For something to be talked about... it has to be worthy of being talked about.  To be worthy to talked about it has to be quality or at the very least seem like it is quality. (Since not all products can be sampled before you write a story about them.) 

What you don't understand is that making something worthy of being talked about IS quality.  You can sell papers and ads because of the quality of the thing being written about.  Your too caught up in one specific definition of paint by the numbers quality.

1: That "it's the case" that people or niches are jealous is an assumption, not, I believe, fact. Even if it were, it wouldn't change that you can't defend a work by saying that any critisism of it is merely jealousy.

2: Why, I also know a bit about literature, art and music. So either we know different stuff, or we have different ideas about their development in terms of mindshare.

3: "seem like it is quality" is not the same as quality. Moreover, plenty of discussions and conversations are had more for the sake of the discussion than the subject matter. The one we're having is probably even an example of that.

4: But then, or at least it seems that way, you're making your definiton of "quality" so broad that it can mean almost anything. X sells because it is quality, and it is quality because it sells.

Valid point, but no amount of marketing saved Vista and Zune.

A minimum success has got to be atleast 5 - 8 million (they are lowballing it simply because they just haven't targeted the wider market like Nintendo have this gen. BK3 and RC suggest this number is their starting figure).

What they want, Wii Fit numbers but its not likely to happen.

If they don't achieve more than 10 M bundling the Natal and PSmote with their next systems is realistically going to be less likely. They will stick with what they know.

While I know people will disagree, for these devices to be considered successful they probably have to sell to a level where it is clear that these devices have a wide appeal; and that their sales are not driven by a single popular game. After all, just because Guitar Hero 3 sold 15 Million units doesn't mean that people see a plastic guitar as a viable alternative for a controller outside of music games.

With that said, I think that anything less than being bought by 10 Million console owners would be a clear failure (with less than 5 Million being an epic failure) and anything more than 20 Million console owners buying into these devices would be a clear success. The middle-ground (10 to 20 Million) is an area where the case could be made either way, and it really depends on what games are created for the device and how well they’re received and how well they sell.

Unless something is quality as defined by art.  There is only one quality way to judge it.  Quality as a product.  How much the average consumer values it.

Things of quality sell well... because they are a good product, and are what people want.

It's not a "broad" definition of quality.  It's a definition of quality that doesn't take in artistic merit.  Which is the kind of definition needed when talking about mass consumer items, and videogames.

There is pretty much no large "bought it once never use it again, and are mad at it" segments in any such population... and people only buy stuff they want.

Hype is the byproduct of consumer quality, not the creator of consumer quality.

this thread went south real fast

1: "Value" and "quality" aren't the same thing. Besides, you're now starting to change you definitions by every post.

2: You're still doing a circular argument; "X is quality because it sells well and it sells well because it is quality".

3: I'm having difficulty understanding you. Are you unable to judge entertainement as entertainment?

4: "...people only buy stuff they want." ... Really? As for the rest, you're right, there are no fanboys in the mainstream, but there are plenty of "Meh, ok"-reactions.

5: Have you though about hype being part of what you call "consumer quality"?

(edit: @Megaman79 Yeah, it's awesome, isn't it?)