Talk:List of best-selling video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of best-selling video games article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

This article is within the scope of the The Sega Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sega products. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within The Sega Project
Sega Project To-do List:
Consensus A consensus has been found to indicate that VGCharts is a bad source for this list, as it does not have actual sales figures or professional estimates.
News This page has been cited as a source by several media organizations. The citations are in:
Archive
Archives
  1. March 18, 2005 – September 15, 2006
  2. September 16, 2006 – December18, 2006
  3. December 19, 2006 — June 30, 2007
  4. June 31, 2007 — December 29, 2007
  5. December 30, 2007 — March 31, 2008


Contents

[edit] Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories is listed as selling 8 million copies on page 12, but it doesn't specify if the figure includes both the PSP and PS2 versions, so I didn't change the 1.95 million PSP version figure in the article. Also what game is that on page 10 between BioShock and Carnival Games in the "Consistent Launches of New 1+MM-Selling IP" section? --Silver Edge (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrectly Titled Page

I apologise if this is beyond my mandate as a viewer of Wikipedia but I believe this article and others like it to be incorrectly titled. This article is named ' Best Selling ' which I think is inaccurate. Best Selling implies a high income and a very large overall profit. WHat you have here is a list of Most Selling. I believe this list should be either renamed or re-structured as it would be easy for multiple games to gain very high on this list and misleading readers (It's worth noting here that Wikipedia, whilst open to editing by ANYONE is still a trusted source of information) by being sold extremely cheaply and selling a large number of games as opposed to making large amount of money.

Suggestion: Shound this page, instead of being renamed or restructued, simply display the gross of the video games listed as well as their total sales?

Thank you for reading. BloodBowler (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting from the end: finding grossly revenue is pretty hard, because contrary to cinema tickets, prices vary often. Besides, only European figures show gross data (contrary to Japan and North America, which use sales unit, although Microsoft likes to talk about revenue in their latest press releases).
The discussion is valid, though. As far as I know, the whole industry considers a best-selling game by units and not by revenue. When talking about books, they also talk about units and not revenue. I believe the movie industry is the only one that uses gross information (I am guessing because they supply a service). However, DVD sales are usually given in units. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Clancy Series Reaches 52 Million Units

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/30166/Clancy-brand-going-global-after-breaking-50m-sales-barrier

Nothing further to say.

MontanaHatchet (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I read that news some weeks ago while browsing old press releases. We will add it too, thanks. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wii Sports

Why is Wii Sports considered the top-selling game for the Wii? It is a bundle with EVERY Wii console, and, in some aspects, a demo of sorts. It should be removed from the list as it is mearly a promotional game that is more or less a demo of the Wii's capabilities. -- crazyconan —Preceding comment was added at 04:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wii Sports is not bundled with the Wii in Japan, where it was the best-selling video game in 2007. [1] --Silver Edge (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but still, the fact that it's bundled with every Wii in the US gives it a huge crutch over other games. Hydroshock (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Same as bundling SMB with NES gave it 40m, or Tetris and GB gave it 33m. If the Guiness recognizes Super Mario Bros. as the best selling video game ever, why we cannot do the same with Wii Sports? Huge advantage, yes, nobody discusses that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Tetris was bundled with the original gameboy to my recollection. Being bundled shouldn't count as being purchased. However, if, like Wii Sports, it is only bundled in the U.S., the purchased copies in Japan should count. Should we revise the numbers? Ravewolf (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it should only count for the Japan version, seeing as that is was purchased separately for them, rather than in a bundle for free. - Crazyconan (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It should stay as is. The numbers are there to show how many copies are out there. In the Top 20 best-selling games (where rank actually matters), we exclude bundled games specifically for the reasons mentioned above. -Zomic13 (talk)

[edit] Sims total franchise at 100 million

I guess it's a misunderstanding of the quote in Eurogamer, link 157, but according to IGN : The Sims Sells 100 Million Units It just happened, and for the whole franchise, not only The sims 2, as stated in wikipedia. 67.212.25.132 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I am guessing he wanted to say 100m including all Sims and Sims 2 units. However, if the 70m for The Sims is right, it would mean The Sims 2 sold around 15m expansions only... -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Up-to-Date?

Is this article somewhat up-to-date? LethalReflex (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We try to keep it as up to date as possible, but we always focus on verifiability rather than up-to-date, so some numbers are obviously outdated (but with a reliable reference) and never up-to-date (but with a unreliable reference). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, great. LethalReflex (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GTA san Andreas

I'd just like to point out that according to San Andreas's own wikipedia it is the best selling game of all time, with 21.5 million units sold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.131.146 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The 21.5 million units sold includes the PC and Xbox versions. --Silver Edge (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GTA 4 PS3 - 35 million

Hmm, that can't be right...

MontanaHatchet (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Wii and DS million sellers

We are missing 5 Wii million sellers and over 20 Nintendo DS million sellers. Anyone can guess which ones so that we can begin searching for references? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be tough to find those. They are almost certainly mostly 3rd party titles as Nintendo always notes when one of their games passed the million mark. Perhaps we will learn what a few of those are if Nintendo releases a million-sellers list as they have done in the past. -Zomic13 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

According to vgchartz Mysims 1.02 million Rayman Raving Rabids 2 1.05 million Lego Star Wars - the complete Saga 1.12 million Mario Kart Wii 1.71 million

I'm not suggesting vgchartz as a source, but it seems that these 4 games need some looking in to.

As for the 5th game, I haven't a clue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.36.2 (talk)

[edit] Gran Turismo 5 Prologue

I read on the Wikipedia and some other sites, that there were more than 1 million pre-orders from the PAL-region only. I think this would make the game a million-seller, as it´s out now.--84.146.73.194 (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We didn't include Halo 3 with their millions of preorders, neither we won't include GT5. Remember that preorder doesn't mean sale, you can preorder games without paying, and therefore is not a sale. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The sales by Genre should be removed or improved

Just a thought, But the highest sellers by genre section should be either improved or gotten rid of.

I think we need to add Real Time Strategy, on rails shooter, Turn Based Strategy, MMORPG, Flight Simulator, Point and Click/Adventure in order to make it acceptable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.36.2 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The genres you mentioned really either aren't prominent (for example: MMORPGs with consoles) or have very few titles in the genre (such as Flight Simulators). -Zomic13 (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The only modification that I would do is removing the MMORPG genre. The only game with sales is Guild Wars (5 million), which goes in the franchise. WoW reports subscribers and Lineage customers, and we have an edit war about that at least once per month. Just check above in the section about Lineage, it appears that removing it would make sense (best-selling game does not imply subscribers or customers, just as we don't take into account downloads). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is that there's a certain level of inconsistency in how units are tabulated. If you consider that Pokemon Blue is merely an upgrade of Green and Red, then the question is whether or not it counts as a separate game. If it does, then the sales of Blue and Green/Red have to be separated, which may free up the spot. Also, if R/G/B can be counted together, then the Street Fighter II series between original and ' should be counted together (Super Street Fighter II warrants separate tabulation), which would knock Smash Bros. Melee off of the top spot for fighting game. As is, I feel that it is tabulated in a way that favors console exclusives. -- User:Mega Lan 2:27, 11 May 2008 (EST)

That is the problems with SKUs. These games are considered one because they were released for the same platform and with very little modifications. Street Fighter II was released for several consoles. Nintendogs and Pokémon are largely the same game for the same platform but with minimum differences. For instance, Nintendogs is counted as a single SKU by Nintendo, and they have demonstrated they treat Pokémon in the same way. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Not weighing in on either side here. Just wanted to point out that what I think Mega Lan was talking about in terms of Street Fighter II is the incredibly slight differences between the original game and Street Fighter II Turbo that one could argue (and which I am not personally arguing here) are not much different than the small differences between the various Pokemon titles released for a single system. Indrian (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. The graphical upgrades from Red and Green to Blue are as big as the upgrades from SFII to SFII Turbo. My main issue is that Melee's status as a fighting game is questionable as is (some call it party, others call it fighting), and if you look at the SFIIs as a whole, they handily beat out Melee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mega Lan (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Command & Conquer: Red Alert

On the Wikipedia page for Command & Conquer: Red Alert, it says Red Alert sold 12 million. I think we should make some changes to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jutjutjut321 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • On the Wikipedia page for Command & Conquer: Red Alert, it says that the Red Alert subseries of several distinct games has sold 12 million copies. I think we should learn how to read. Indrian (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If the 3 million number for Red Alert 1 is correct, then Red Alert 2 should have 9 million, but I don't see it on the top-selling PC list at all. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jutjutjut321 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If that 12 million number is correct (and right now the statement is unsourced), it most likely also includes the expansions for both games as well, so a 9-3 split is not likely. Without further concrete sourcing, we should leave this well enough alone. If you find something, however, feel free to bring it to our attention. Indrian (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the text: "The Red Alert sub-series is certified by the Guinness Book of Records as the best selling real-time strategy game in the world, with over 12 million units sold" from the Command & Conquer: Red Alert article as it had been unsourced since since July 2007. [2] --Silver Edge (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Sims

From the available evidence, I find it highly doubtful that The Sims has sold 50 million copies. First, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I am aware that the franchise as a whole has sold a staggering 100 million units, a mind-boggling feat. However, while it is easy to find references online for this milestone, the only source that I find for this 50 million for the original game does not come from NPD data or an official press release, but some profile in an online magazine, where the author could have quite simply made a mistake. If one examines the source that we used to have for The Sims, [[3]], it is an actual news release based on info from the company. In that release, The Sims is said to have sold 16 million units by 2005 with the franchise total at the time being 54 million. Note that this press release came soon after The Sims 2 hit the market. I find it quite simply impossible to believe that the original game sole 34 million copies AFTER Sims 2 was released. Based on this info, it seems to me that The Sims AND its expansions were probably responsible for sales of around 50 million units with sales of Sims 2 and its expansions making up the other fifty million or so. As for the 70 million number with expansions bandied about in the Eurogamer article, it really appears in context that the author made that figure up as his own guess as to how many expansion products were sold. Note that this same Eurogamer article also claims that The Sims 2 and its expansion have topped the 100 million mark which is patently false since EA has clearly stated that it is the entire Sims franchise that met that milestone. The Eurogamer article author appears to have gotten his numbers mixed up. Indrian (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that as well, unless there are expansions that can be used in both The Sims and The Sims II. We can try to find updated sales and see how they compare. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Bard's Tale

I am going to remove the game from the PC list but wanted to explain why here. I have seen reputable sources give the total sales of the first game as 300,000 (print sources, not web unfortuneately) , which makes much more sense in the context of 1980s computer gaming where around 300,000 copies sold signified a major hit. Most likely, the press release was tallying the sales of both The Bard's Tale and its two sequels. Note that a different press release available here [4] does, in fact, state that one million in sales was for all three games combined. Indrian (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, here we have a problem then. The October 2003 release says The original game and two sequels sold more than one million units worldwide combined and later spawned a series of books. But the November 2003 says "After selling more than one million units worldwide, The Bard's Tale became a #1 best-seller and later spawned two sequels and a series of books." (first sold a million, then came the sequels). So, which one we believe? I am always one to pick the later reference, which supposedly fixes inaccuracies in previous statements, so we need more comments about this. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I have a print source (the book High Score) that gives sales of 300,000 units, which makes a lot more sense. I don't know how much you know about 1980s computer game sales, but this would put it in the realm of big hits of the period like Pinball Construction Set (300,000), Skyfox (320,000), and Starflight (250,000, the first game released originally on the IBM PC to sell that many copies). The 1984 EA game Seven Cities of Gold was considered a hit selling only 150,000 copies, as was the 1984 Epyx game Summer Games, which only managed around 100,000 in sales. LucasArts did not even have a game reach 100,000 in sales until PHM Pegasus in 1987. Sierra was one of the most important computer game companies of the decade, but not one King's Quest, Space Quest, or Leisure Suit Larry game hit one million in sales, as 1995's Phantasmagoria was the first release from the company to reach that mark. We therefore have two sources that refute a one million unit claim versus one that claims that many sales and a logical explanation both in terms of how the one million number even entered the picture at all and how computer games sold generally circa 1985. Just because the one press release comes later than the other is no guarantee that it is more accurate, and you should also note that different companies released each press release since U.S. and European distribution were handled by two different companies (Vivendi and Acclaim). With a little source critique, there is no reason to believe Bard's Tale sold one million copies. Update: As I was writing this, I saw that google books has a High Score preview with the page that gives the sales figure [5]. Indrian (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This was you, right? I usually revert changes done by IPs to talks from others, but I guess it is you who forgot to sign. If the book was published in 2003 it means it was written before the press release, so the press release is actually newer. I won't reply from the second sentence onwards, because it is plain original research. We should not judge what is a "hit selling" in "1980s computer game sales". We only report data, analysis is left to researchers. I still stand by my original comment: others should discuss as well here. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be forgetting that wikipedia is an encyclopedia that needs to strive for accuracy in its reporting. A source can only be used in such a setting if it has proven to be reliable. The one million claim in the press release cannot be considered reliable because it is contradicted by two other reputable sources, a second press release and a video game history book released by a mainstream publisher. To say that one source is more accurate than the other two because it is newer has no grounding in good research as accuracy has nothing to do with the date something is released (or are you implying that between 2003 and 2006 a game released in 1985 sold another 700,000 copies?). Wikipedia can only use sources that are beyond repute, and I have illustrated that this press release is not. How many copies the game actually sold is irrelevent compared to maintaning the scholastic integrity of wikipedia. To report a number brought into dispute without providing additional indicia of its reliablility would be irresponsible. Indrian (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I work based on Wikipedia's very simple concept: Verifiability, not truth. We don't care if it is true or not, we only care about whether it can be verified or not. We have two contradicting information, and per undue weight both points of view should be included. However, I also work according to consensus, that is why I am hoping others will come and comment. I don't care if I am right or wrong, I just supply a reliable source, make an argument, counter your argument, and wait to see what others think. Most of the times I remain neutral. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The verifiability requirement is based on reliable sources. A twice contradicted source is not reliable. Indrian (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because 2 > 1? I could counter that by saying the press release is newer than the book and the press release you pointed, and I can say they have fixed the amounts after a misunderstanding. Our Street Fighter franchise shows 25m instead of 27m just because newer references say 25m instead of the old 27m. Gran Turismo franchise said 50m at one point, but now we are using 48m (IIRC) because it is what was stated in the latest press release. Again, due undue weight, all points should be shown. However, I am not one to cling to something unnecessarily. I made my point clear: others should opine too. If they agree with you, it is fine. If they agree with me, it is fine. I don't really care. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Date and accuracy have absolutely no correlation with the exception of a newer edition of the exact same source or a printed retraction of some kind. Lets say that tomorrow the greatest, most in depth book on World War II ever created by one of the leading experts in the field hits store shelves. This book is accurate on nearly all points and easily passes the reliability threshold required by wikipedia, but states that the bombing of Pearl Harbor took place on November, 7 1941 due to an oversight. According to your logic, due to the verifiability and undue weight policies we would have to put this alternate point of view into wikipedia because we only care about verifiability and not truth. In fact, it would be the most reliable source for the date of the bombing because it is the newest source written on the topic. Sure, every other reliable source says it happened on December 7, but they are older and 100,000 > 1 is not important to the evaluation. Care to explain how this fits in your logic? Indrian (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Show me first your 100,000 references that state TBT sold a million combined and then I will reply ;-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't back up your postition when presented with the extreme end result of your logic eh. 2>1 does not equal strong reliability, but neither does one having a later date than the others. The point is that none of the sources can be used in this article because the one million number cannot be verified due to contradictions among the few available sources. In fact, crediting the later press release as being correct just because it was released a little later would be giving that source undue weight, which you claim to believe is a bad idea above. Indrian (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't fight straw men. Comparing our case where we have two old references saying something and a newer one saying something else with a fictional case where there is one reference against a hundred thousand and the applying the solution to our case is a fallacy. My position is to give others the chance to give an opinion. Yours is, apparently, settle this once and don't allow further discussion. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been going on since yesterday, does it look like anyone else cares? Where exactly have I said "no one else may comment here"? Also, your definition of straw man is very interesting. Please explain how your comment "I work based on Wikipedia's very simple concept: Verifiability, not truth. We don't care if it is true or not, we only care about whether it can be verified or not" works with my above example. If a source that meets wikipedia's standards of reliability gives a fact that is known to be in error it would still be included according to your philosophy that I have actually quoted above. It is this philosophy that I am attacking, which means there is no straw man since I am responding to an actual position that you have articulated. If I have misunderstood your position, then please feel free to correct me. You have yet to say how you would handle that situation in a way that would not contradict said philosophy. I don't really expect you to be able to come up with such a solution, because this is an example on how every situation must be handled on a case-by-case basis rather than through some univeral platitude. The accuracy of the press release cannot be verified due to contradiction from other reliable sources, which is why even under a broad reading of the verifiability requirement the source cannot stand and the number cannot be quoted on this page. Indrian (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
So you want to solve everything in a single day? Give it a week at least. I presented my side, and you keep refuting it. It gives the impression you are fixed in your position and will not turn back from it. If I were pushing my side, I would have restored the edit (which I would have been able according to the edit-revert-discuss and the one-revert rules), but I didn't.
In your fictional example, I would have brought the point and let others discuss it, staying neutral (or clarifying my position if necessary). It is just what I did some time ago when I found another reference for the amount of James Bond films.
I find it interesting that, at one side, you say the accuracy of one press release cannot verified because you have a contradicting one. Wouldn't that mean, as well, that the other's accuracy cannot be verified for the same reason? So, we have a position where we can either keep the game adding that the accuracy of the source can be disputed, or remove it until clarified. I haven't objected the removal "per se", I am just stating we need more opinions about the matter.
I am getting tired of all this. I understand your main points: you got more references, and there is no way to verify the accuracy of the press release used as reference. I hope you understand mine: in the same way, you cannot verify the accuracy of the contradicting references, and that we need someone else to weight in here. I don't care if that "someone else" comes tomorrow or in a year, or never. Since you like these fictional arguments, maybe you can answer one: if ten people come and say the reference is newer and cannot be misunderstood, and that the previous ones wrong, would you accept consensus? The way you are reacting leads me to think no.
I think I am done with this discussion. Both sides presented their point of view, and I am happy with that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Just two things to quickly state here. One, just to clarify my position is exactly that none of the sources should be used on this page due to verifiability issues, as I have stated once or twice above. I agree that the older sources are not necessarily more accurate than the newer and believe the game should just be left off period at this point. Second, to answer your question I believe that consensus has to be the governing priciple of wikipedia or the system does not work. If ten people were to disagree with me I think it unlikely that they would provide arguments I found convincing so in that sense I would not be swayed. On the other hand, I would not try to assert my viewpoint on the page against the wishes of ten other people. Indrian (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
One vote for Indrian's opinion. The quality of a source is the most important factor. I also agree on the argument "Date and accuracy have absolutely no correlation with the exception of a newer edition of the exact same source or a printed retraction of some kind.". I greatly admire ReyBrujo's effort to keep this page as good as he can, but I beg you not to be too hasty. What you wrote, "I work based on Wikipedia's very simple concept: Verifiability, not truth. We don't care if it is true or not, we only care about whether it can be verified or not.", is very bad. I must strongly disagree. We should struggle for accuracy, since, at least for me, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia meant to collect the knowledge of humankind, and as such, should always be correct. Indrians arguments are well said. I know it's not an easy job to decide which source is more reliable than the other, but I have a good basic method.

When something strongly contradicts the majority of data I saw and my personal knowledge about the given field, I tend to query that new piece of data, and will only accept it as true after some research. In this case, my general idea is that the article about 1 million copies sold can't be considered being in the same league as a printed book. I'm a regular visitor of this page, and usually stay as a silent spectator, but now I felt it necessary to state my opinion. Thank you for the chance. --Csdani84 (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GTA 4

I removed GTA 4 from the list as the source provided didn't explicitly state that 1 million had been sold - it just said that 1 million people had played the game on LIVE - which could mean that two or more people were playing the same copy of the game.

However, there's not a doubt in my mind that the game has already sold well over a million copies, but I feel we should wait at least a few weeks to try and get some solid numbers. Any thoughts? 124.186.60.227 (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with the general idea. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
GTAIV does not have split-screen gameplay or anything (no "guest" support), therefore every user playing that game on XBL is a unique one - same goes for CoD4 which this game surpassed. Fine with me though, I'm sure there'll be something more concrete in a few days. SeanMooney (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The number of people on Live could be augmented with used (resold) or shared disks. And with people playing pirated versions of the game. Live numbers should not be used to establish sales numbers.APL (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As of today, someone listed 6 million sales for the PS3 version of GTA4, the problem with that being that there was no source given and the subtext along the lines of "Xbox 360 sales included." I just removed it from the PS3 list entirely: If it's on there, it needs a source of some sort, and I see no good reason to include the numbers for the 360 version sales in the PS3 section. Vyran (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed GTA4 from the Xbox 360 section as well. Like in the PS3 section, there is no source to validate the number of sales, so there's no way to see where on the list it should actually be. Vyran (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List

This list is sorta incomplete. It does not mention copies of games sold in Europe, Australasia, and other regions. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 05:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is why it has {{dynamic list}} at the top. Numbers for those regions are harder to come by than numbers for America or Japan. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection

Just so the editors here know, I've requested that this page be semi'd due to constant IP vandalism at least within the past 24 hours. Thought I'd help make Silver Edge's work load a bit lighter. --haha169 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it was declined. However...the history page is loaded with junk it is quite impossible to locate anything. I'll try again some time later if the amount of disruption increases. --haha169 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for trying though. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. The issue does seem to have died down a bit, though. These guys are becoming uncreative. Playstation 3 -> Playstation 2... --haha169 (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous column

I suggest creating a "Miscellaneous" list with the sales of games we cannot split, like Oblivion for Xbox 360 and PC, GTA4 for PS3 and Xbox 360, etc, etc. This is something we should have created some time ago, but pops up again everytime a multiplatform game is launched (and people want to put it their favorite console list). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is already listed in the "Xbox 360" section, it's just missing a PC version sales figure. Perhaps you meant The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, which used to be on the list. Depending on how the "Miscellaneous" section works, other candidates for the section might be Fable, BioShock, Grand Theft Auto III, GTA: Vice City, GTA: Vice City Stories, and Guild Wars. As for Grand Theft Auto IV, all we have to do is wait for NPD to release their April sales figures and we'll know exactly how many copies of GTA4 were sold for each platform in the US and possibly Canada, which should be over a million for each platform, but we can add it to the proposed "Miscellaneous" section until then. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with a "Miscellaneous" section is that it can become very long, very quickly just by adding in all the sports games over the years. -Zomic13 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is the main objection. However, multiplatform games that hit a million belong to this list (otherwise it would be "list of best-selling single-platform video games". -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
A game that needs six platforms to cross a million is not as notable as one that does it on a single platform. -Zomic13 (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That is true. But we don't measure "who is more notable", we just report all the notable ones. If a best-selling game is defined as one that sells a million units. A best-selling album doesn't mean it has been sold only as cassette, it could have been sold in many different media formats. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I am all for creating such a list, but I feel that there are a few issues with this idea that we need to discuss first before implementing. See section below for discussion. -08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-platform Section Issues

If we do make a "Miscellaneous" section (which should really be called a "Multi-platform" section) we need to discuss a few issues first. Please provide your thoughts on the following and add any issues you think are worthy of discussion. -Zomic13 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • If a sales figure is available for the combined total of all games, yet we already have the individual platform sales numbers listed, do we feature it? What if the combined total is more recent or adds up to a different amount from the individual platforms?
    • I think that the combined sales total should be listed, regardless of whether individual sales totals are also listed. Otherwise the list would seem skewed in favor of some games simply because individual sales numbers are not available. -Zomic13 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, people put it in the console they support ;-) Right now, we are listing sales information, and shipped if found and smaller than the sold numbers available. Adding multiplatform titles will make the list unreadable. Is that a useful number there? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Should this section be featured in this article or in its own, new article? This page is already very long and large in size (~125k). A multiplatform list will very likely also be large in size, adding significantly to its length.
    • Having the list in its own article could also solve the other issue I brought up (about having both multi-platform and individual system sales numbers). That way it wouldn't seem like we are featuring a lot of duplicate data. -Zomic13 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A game that sells a million copies, no matter the media, should fit the "best-selling" definition. It is not different from games for different countries, or books in different languages, or with different covers, etc. But I agree, this list is too long. Maybe we should create a draft of multiplatform games, and see how it looks like? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What do we do about the list of Top 20 best-selling games? Do we add in multi-platform games? Do we create a new separate list for these games?
    • This is a special case, though. Would that be a useful list? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] By Generation

What do you think about creating a new section (maybe after By genre) for the best selling games by generation? SOAD KoRn (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I think those would be better in the articles about the generations, because "generations" are not clear (Where are Dreamcast? In the same generation as the Saturn? In the same generation as the N64?). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top 20 console games of all time

Should the No1 spot be held by "Pokémon Red, Blue, and Green"? They're seperate games really, might be exactly the same, but I don't feel that they should be counted as one game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.129.8 (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just like Nintendogs, they are apparently considered a single game for the developer. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World Million Sellers games in VG Chartz

Visiting the website http://vgchartz.com/, you can take a look at the world wide videogame and console sales. The site is refreshed every week and is reliable. But, i.e., today I changed the total sales for the Wii games with reference to vgchartz.com, but someone deleted the changes i made...

Anyway, please just stop changing it to incorrect total sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono kazumi (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently, WP:VG does not consider VG Chartz a reliable source, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 38#Old Game Boy game sales, and VG Chartz and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 38#VGChartz re-visited. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
We aren't a mirror of VGChartz. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Vgchartz isn't 100% reliable, the site creator even admits it. While no sales data is completely reliable, we're best off sticking with press releases and the like. If the article took all its data from Vgchartz.com, you might as well not have the article. You might as well remove all the games and just link to the site.

MontanaHatchet (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic Mobile

According to this article, Sonic Mobile got over 8 million downloads. In these cases, downloads are sales (because there are not trials, just the game which you download after you pay). However, I want to see if someone objects adding it to the list of mobile games with over a million sales. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Got another source that states sales and not downloads, so I will be using that one for the time being. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Madden NFL 06

The Magic Box has Madden NFL 06 for the PS2 listed twice on their US Platinum chart. It's listed here as 3.71 million, but on The Magic Box it's listed as "Madden NFL 06" with 3.71 and "Madden NFL 2006" with 3.77. Should the list use the 3.77 million figure as it is the larger figure of the two? --Silver Edge (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crysis at 3m?

Apparently the July 2008 PC Gamer UK issue has such statement. If anyone can supply the missing information (article title, author and page at least), we will be able to finish fulfilling the reference. Otherwise, we will have to go back to the old 1 million reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems 96.250.14.125 (talk · contribs), who changed Crysis' sales figure to 3 million in this article, also made a similar change to the Crysis article [6]; however, after Radare (talk · contribs) removed the IP's changes to the sales figure in the Crysis article, the IP went and readded the previous 1 million figure to that article. [7] So I've readded Crysis with the previous 1 million figure and source. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I am guessing we will get the citation on July, but for now it is the best step without having the exact information. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Outdated Statistics

Almost all of the statistics are out of date. I know where to find recent ones, but I do not know how to make refrences to it. The site is vgchartz.com. Can anyone help me with this? 67.173.143.88 (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the #World Million Sellers games in VG Chartz section. --Silver Edge (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You know the article policy. It's better having horribly outdated data than data that can be inaccurate but has also proven to have been correct on several occasions.

MontanaHatchet (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diablo 2

The figures for Diablo 2 do not match what the article on Diablo 2 says. The source is obviously outdated (2001). The source quoted in the article is newer (2006) but the figures quoted are a sum of Diablo + Diablo 2 sale. The article says 17 million and if both numbers are true that would mean 11 million copies for Diablo and 5 million for Diablo 2 which is obviously untrue. Please fix it with some better source or at least make the numbers match up.

Stilgar (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Look Stilgar, this page will never be 100% accurate because it can only be updated when a new reliable figure appears and companies in the video game industry guard sales figures zealously, generally only releasing numbers when they can put a positive spin on the information to generate increased consumer and investor interest. As far as we know (not that I have personally done a comprehensive search or anything) there is no more recent figure for Diablo II sales. We cannot make the numbers match in the manner you suggest because it would be irresponsible to extrapolate sales of one game based on the criteria you set forth. Also, no one has a responsibility to fix this article. If YOU would like to search the web and print sources for an updated Diablo II sales figure, don't let us stop you. Otherwise, please refrain from making ridiculous demands. Indrian (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Suppose you have two games, Diablo and Diablo II. Now, suppose we also have a reference for the sales of Diablo, 11 million, and the total sales, 17 million. Now, anyone would say "If Diablo and Diablo II sold 17 million, and Diablo sold 11 million alone, we can say Diablo II sold 6 million". However, according to Wikipedia policies, that is original research. We cannot make assumptions like that because we report plain data, we don't study it. So, obviously either Diablo sold 12 million or Diablo II sold 6 million, but since we don't have references for those numbers, we can only hope to find one. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General reference

Looking at reference 19, I think it would be better to have "General References" instead of having 182 citations for a single reference -- Coasttocoast (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But a general reference "invites" other general references like VGChartz which we don't want here. Also, having numbers without pointing to a singular reference may be misunderstood (and as time passes, harder to verify). Ideally, we would never use a single reference more than a few times, because we prefer diversity of sources. Unfortunately, it is pretty hard to find good references for old numbers like the ones given by The Magic Box. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the introducing text

There should be a clear text, explaining exactly what this list tells the reader. That text should also make it clear to the reader that there are several numbers which have only been counted in US/AS, EU/US, and so on. I don't want to wright one myself, because i suck at writing those kinds of texts. 81.227.177.252 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I think this is a good idea. The article as it exists is not an accurate reflection of game sales, but rather as accurate a picture as can be put together based on available data. I think an intro that explains where the numbers come from and the difficulties involved in obtaining accurate numbers should be addressed in the intro. Indrian (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
We don't need a disclaimer about accuracy, though, because that is included in our general disclaimer. We could explain that we are not using combined platform sales, and that for mobile games "downloaded" usually mean "sales", just as "units sold" for PC games usually count expansions as well. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure which disclaimer you are referring to. If it is the general disclaimer about the list being incomplete, I do not think that relates to what I am getting at. I think a perception problem that could develop with this list is that since every figure is sourced, a reader coming in here will believe that every number quoted is the accurate gospel truth of where that game stands in total sales. Indeed, every so often we get someone posting to this talk apge about how this or that needs to be updated or contradicts another article on the site. A general introduction stating that not all figures may be accurate and explaining why accurate sales figures are difficult to obtain would alleviate this issue. Its a minor point and not one that makes or breaks the list, but I feel it may be more academically honest than sourcing all these figures and leaving it to the reader to figure out how accurate we are. Indrian (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May GTA4 sales (U.S.A)

360 = 871 300, PS3 = 442 900

Should be added to the stats dawgzzzzzzzzzzzz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.163.170 (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)