Many of you are huge PS3 fans. You insist that because the PS3 has such a great library, and a great value, it will eventually outsell or at least keep pace with its main competition the Xbox 360.
You see the fallacy there? You imply that quality determines sales, absolutely, in that equation, but you are wrong. It's hypocrisy,.
I think a lot of you are seeing the question as black and white.
Sales are not an indicator of quality directly. I don't think anyone will imply that.
Quality is an opinion. There are no indicators of quality except random personal preference and comparisons to control games.
Like with consoles, consumers vote with their dollars, BUT sales are never a complete indicator of quality, they are but one of hundreds of factors.
Some might take offense because a lot of great PS3 games didn't sell as well as similar games on other consoles.
...guys, that's why you have to use the sales factor "relatively." You can't compare sales between consoles to help you determine quality. Like with real estate, your control number needs to be in the same neighborhood(on the same platforms), about the same quality, with the same marketing, and with the same hype.
If you compare two very similar games released at the same time, with the same hype and the same marketing, the in theory, sales could be a valid FACTOR(of many) when opinionating quality of quality.
If MW2 sucked, and didn't sell as well on PC, then in that instance, sales could be a factor in determining quality.
Or do MW2's sales on PC mean nothing one way or another?
Ask yourself this. Sometimes...and only sometimes, in rare instances.....do certain games sell less because they suck, or sell more because they're great?
If quality does affect sales, then by inference, sales effect quality, and I'm done.
Sales aren't an absolute indicator, but they can be a great tool, we use them all the time, ESPECIALLY in post mortem or theoretical discussions.
What say you?
