Talk:List of best-selling computer and video games/Archive 1

message: The figures for Half-Life 2 and The Sims are inconsistant with the pages for Half-Life 2 and Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever, respectively. --Slavik81 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistant

message: The 1.7 million figure is the number of copies shipped, not sold.  Also there is no breakdown between PC and Xbox 360 or standard and collector's editions.  It's likely that no single SKU has sold in excess of a million copies to date. Radjago 02:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

message: The 5 million figure most likely includes PC sales, so can anyone fill in the information for the console sales only?
::The Halo 2 figure is 7 million in one section and then 12 in another. ???Vegasjon 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Halo: Combat Evolved

message: I know for a fact that due to overall sales of the pokemon franchise, the numbers for each individual game is entirely too low.  If anyone could round up some more accurate figures if possible.  Taladar 22:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pokemon

message: Just for reference, the top 20 list does not include any bundled sales games as they are unfairly adjusted to be higher than usual and usually come discounted or free.  Theres a top bundled sellers list right above the top 20 feel free to add bundled games in there. Taladar 15:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Top 20 list

message: Keeping the two seperate for a few reasons.  They arent in direct competition with each other.  PC list is highly incomplete and kindy shaky to use still.  User base is massive and spans many many more years.  Seperated, they provide easy to use and compare information.
===Diablo II===
Currently listed twice in the PC section, with one stating 6 millon copies and the other stating 3 millon -- Squilibob 10:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PC and Console

message: Currently listed twice in the PC section, with one stating 6 millon copies and the other stating 3 millon -- Squilibob 10:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diablo II

message: It sold 9 million as a series not as a single game.  Broodwars was just an expansion pack.  The game was released all the way back in 1998.  I promise you its not still getting millions of sales in copies.  If you look in this link http://www.starcraftghost.com/ghost/faq.shtml and this link http://www.blizzard.com/press/051805-e3ghost.shtml it clearly states that 9 million sales is the total of the whole series (Starcraft and Broodwars combined).  http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-35809.html was the only place I could find that listed the seperately but theres no way the sales stand at 9 million for the base product. Taladar
Okay I guess people are missing the clear explaination.
"Since its debut in 1998, the #1-selling StarCraft series* has won industry acclaim and has shattered sales records worldwide with over nine million copies sold**. Blizzard continued the series with the critically acclaimed StarCraft: Brood War , which won multiple "Expansion Pack of the Year" awards and is still considered by many critics to be one of the best add-on products to date."
As you can see for yourself Starcraft did not sell 9 million copies.  You cannot add expansions plus the base unit any more than you can say mario sold 150 million copies because its entire franchise did. Taladar 10:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's best to keep expansion packs separately, otherwise all the blizzard games will have much higher figures. - Squilibob 13:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Starcraft

message: This is very clearly a website outside the valid sources.  Its all blogs and message boards and nonsense.  They dont source anybody and have many numbers off from what developers said.  http://everythingandnothing.org.uk/  Blog sites are not useable as sources.  Its outlined in the Wiki rules. Taladar
You cannot use websites anyone can post unfounded information as news.  These numbers are backing by nothing at all.  These numbers directly contradict statements from Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft and developers.  Theres no reason to put all this false information in.  Just because they got a few numbers correct doesnt mean they all are. Taladar 10:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't trust the PSP numbers, they state PSP sold 5m units in Europe, but do not give sources. The japanese numbers are quite accurate, though, with some rounding errors. -- ReyBrujo 01:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be removing Everything and Nothing, as these figures provided by the owner (ioi) are estimates. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Everything and Nothing

message: I don't think it is fair for the FinalFantasy's to be compared with the huge amount of Mario and Pokemon games out there. I think it skews the results since many other games don't have countless variations. This is what happens when you make a list by sales.
If anyone is using the franchise information Im sure they are taking into account the fact theres different numbers of games available.  This doesnt make the information invalid you just have to take it in context. Taladar 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity 

message: According to the link provided (Gaming-Age Forums), Brain Training has broken 1,000,000 on its own, Gentle Brain Training has broken 1,000,000 on its own. Tamogatchi and Pokémon Mysterious Dungeon are at nearly 800,000 and nearly 600,000, respectively, so watch those two titles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To explain for my lack of sources, I cannot recall where, but Nintendo has stated that Nintendogs is at about 1.5 million in the states, 1.6 million in Europe and 1 million in Japan. As for Mario Kart DS, that is about 500,000 in Europe, 1 million in North America and 800,000 in Japan. Brain Training's about 1.3 million in Japan, and Gentle Brain Training will likely break 1 million in the next Media Create. Expect to see a million seller from Tamagotchi, Pokémon Mysterious Dungeon and Brain Training 2 soon. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nintendo DS million sellers. 

message: Does that "Metal Gear Solid" in the "franchises" mean only the MGS games or all the Metal Gear games? igordebraga ≠ 20:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metal Gear 

message: Either "a million" or "ONE million" should be used to head off each section, but not both. I would prefer "one" but I'll let one of the regular editors make the choice. 71.116.217.242 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "One million" sounds more proper.  Dionyseus 04:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: This sentence:
* Final Fantasy VIII (8.05 million) 
I've read the linked article, but I cannot find anything in it to support the number 8.05 million. And in a different place in the article I found this:
* Final Fantasy VIII (PS1 - 7.86 million)
A different number, one that matches those on the Everything and Nothing site. Anyone maintaining this article care to look into this and sort it out? --Codemonkey 14:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FFVIII sales number oddity 

message: I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but on the PlayStation 2 article it lists the 'top selling game' as being Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, but this article lists Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec as being the top-seller. Can anyone verify which of these two sources is correct?
::This issue has now been corrected.  Grand Turismo 3 is the top seller.  Dionyseus 11:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clashing info? 

message: It seems to me that the Xbox 360 (The worst instance) has had many of it's software numbers inflated for purposes of making it seem as the games sold better than they did. Perfect Dark Zero, a game which has sold ~400K in america, ~97K in the UK, and 9K in Japan, is noted as selling 1.96 million units on the X360 chart, which is completely fabricated. The same goes for the other X360 numbers, being either combined with their PC counterparts' numbers or just completely made up. I'd like to request a reference link stating those numbers are Sold and not Shipped
*PDZ recieved abysmal scores from the gaming press, due to shoddy AI and other stuff. Game INformer even stated '...Soldiers stood around...regularly shooting at level geometry...' There is no way that it sold over a million copies. Its impossible, since the 360 only sold around 800,000 units all told. Red Z71.145.208.158 21:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  X360, psp, and other number inflating? 

message: I have tagged the article with the  tag. Someone must sit down and spend a full day reviewing every of the games that are there to see if the numbers are correct. There have been several modifications, blankings, additions and reorderings that I am not sure the numbers are as accurate as possible. -- ReyBrujo 02:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It's a bit of an intimidating article though. But I'll see how far I can get. :) --Codemonkey 19:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you look through the edits, you can see I got the numbers up until, and including, the Nintendo section checked. I don't really have the time and will to check the rest. If someone else would check everything that comes after the Nintendo section, and the edits made after my last one, I'd be grateful. --Codemonkey 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verify

message: It lists the highest selling game of all time as Super Mario Bros. 3 at around 17 million but a number of other games throughout the article clearly supass it (Pokemon anyone?). Not to mention the 360 list of million sellers which has no sources and as someone else pointed out has probably been inflated. This whole article is a mess... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.217.164.88 (talk • contribs) .
:The top 20 only has games that had not been bundled with consoles, nor multiple series of games. Super Mario Bros. 3 sold 17 million games and is the best selling. Here are the games that are over 17m, and explanation of why they aren't above SMB3:
:# Tetris (32 million) (bundled with the original Game Boy)
:# Pokémon Red / Blue (31.37 million) (series of two games, not single game)
:# Pokémon Gold & Silver (23.10 million) (series of two games, not single game)
:# Super Mario Land (18.14 million) (bundled with later releases of Game Boy)
:# Super Mario World (20.61 million) (bundled with the SNES)
:Now, if I _really_ search through old magazines, I _may_ find some Spanish one where a NES was bundled with SMB3, although I do not remember well, and truly speaking, Spain is a very small market. The Pack-in game article does not list Super Mario Land as bundled, but that article doesn't list references at all. -- ReyBrujo 04:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The top 20 list does not make any sense

message: Call of Duty 2 (1.46 million) [290] 
Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter (1.0 million) 
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (2.09 million) 
Perfect Dark Zero (1.96 million) 
Dead or Alive 4 (1.10 million) 
Condemed (1.50 million) 
Kameo (1.0 million) 
Madden 2006 (2.2 million) 
Battlefield 2: Modern Combat (1.8 million) 
How accurate is that? McDonaldsGuy 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, not very.  I can't find anything to back it up with.  I suggest that citations be added within the week or else removing them.--The Viper 05:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are you BSing me?

message: Shouldn't the Pokemon games be seperated? Their numbers get artifically inflated as there were many people that bought both version, thus giving themselves a double bump. Yellow is seperate, shouldn't  Red and Blue be seperate as well? Not to mention how (or if) Pokemon Blue (the Japanese version, our Blue is their Green) is being counted. This also applies to a couple of other games, such as the Zelda Oracle games. --SeizureDog 01:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pokemon games and similar

message: ...is listed twice, as having sold both 3 million and 1 million copies.  Can anyone verify a correct statistic?  Is one of those actually for WarCraft II's expansion, "Beyond the Dark Portal"?
--24.14.144.170 20:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WarCraft II 

message: I find it hard to believe C&C is not on this list, as the article lists the series as selling over 35 million copies. Surely one of the C&C games must be selling well enough to get on the list, and I've heard the original Command & Conquer (Tiberian Dawn) sold 10 million copies!
: There are a lot of games not on the list that should be.  If you see a hole, go google up a source and please add it!  -Quasipalm 13:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command & Conquer series 

message: Under Best-selling franchises, I notice that Donkey Kong and Mario are listed as separate franchises. Wouldn't it make more sense to combine them, as they both originated from the same game? I know an argument could be made for excluding strictly Donkey Kong titles such as Donkey Kong Country, but couldn't the same be said of some of the Wario titles? Anyone know if they are included in the Mario franchise sales figures?  -Enigmatick 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franchise List: Mario & Donkey Kong 

message: Wasn't this bundled? McDonaldsGuy 22:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gran Turismo 3

message: Shouldn't the games be numbered 1), 2), 3), etc. in each category? That way people could see both the position of the game and comparisons between consoles of how many games sold more than one million. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.80.141.199 (talk • contribs) .
:The current format looks fine to me.  I mean without numbering we can still easily see that the PS2 has more million-sellers than any other console in history Xbox is off to a good start.  If you want you can number each game in each category, and if it's decided that the current format looks better we can always revert back.  Dionyseus 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons I avoided numbers originally is because we have no guarantees of completness.  So, while we can all probably agree what the 1st 2nd or 3rd best selling game is for the PS2, there's no way this list would be accurate down to number 30, 40, or 50.  I think it might be best to leave it a bit ambiguous since we know that there's no way we're capturing everything -Quasipalm 02:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: I think it would be a good idea if we could get rid of all the games without sources for the information. It would greatly increase the quality of the article. --DChiuch 03:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: Should we not have a list of the largest franchise sales on the PC. Also shouldn't the C&C franchise be removed from the console section of the article since it's primarily a PC franchise?--nutcrackr 01:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the real solution here is to move the "franchise" section to the same level as PC and console games.  The video game space is really changing, and you're seeing a lot of cross-over games that are released on several different platforms -- and often their numbers aren't released by platform but as a total, so we may have more and more issues that we have to deal with.  -Quasipalm 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a better idea, I'll start moving them into a different section and adding PC franchise titles. --nutcrackr 01:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC Franchise Sales 

message: Most of the sales figures are ioi's (the owner of vgcharts') estimates. It's been established that vgcharts is not a reliable source for this article, and these numbers should not be here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, most of the existing items no longer have citations which make them pointless. Rather than recreating I think it would be easier if people steadily went through each game updating or removing it as necessary --nutcrackr 13:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Next Generation compiled a list with the 50 best selling portable games in the US. Since a game needs to get 1m worldwide to figure in this list, any portable game that is over 1m in US can be included here. However, I don't like their disclaimer This list's order and content is copyright to Next Generation and must not be reproduced or copied without the permission of the publisher. There are 15 games (they left some other games from some franchises outside, though) there with over 1m copies sold in US. You can check the list at http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3557&Itemid=2 -- ReyBrujo 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And a Top 100 list by Next Generation with the same similarities at http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3537&Itemid=34 Since it is hard to get amounts for worldwide sales (other than press releases), I suggest concentrating on finding those games that have sold over 1m copies in an area, to justify the inclusion of the game in this article, and later caring about order. -- ReyBrujo 01:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NextGen estimated those numbers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on NPD, publisher and retail sources. They are verifiable, coming from a reliable source. I guess that fits Wikipedia. Remember, verifiability, not truth. -- ReyBrujo 11:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They show "estimated numbers" for the games, not NPD. I checked, and the NPD figures for, say, Nintendogs, and Next-Gen is 300k off. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plainly, we shouldn't care. That is something some editors in Wikipedia have a hard time understanding. -- ReyBrujo 12:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And respectfully, if you make me choose between Next Generation and NeoGAF... -- ReyBrujo 12:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've no reason to not use NeoGAF. NextGen does not subscribe to NPD, while several people at NeoGAF do - namely bunkum, crazy buttocks on a train and (I believe) Fuzzy, who have often been the ones giving the sales figures. NextGen doesn't warrant usage. - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Post in boards are not reliable sources. Even though they may be the founders of NPD, the ones compiling data for NPD to present to others, or they are the ones taking the letters with the information to the publishers, Wikipedia is clear: post in boards should not be used as primary or secondary sources, while posts in reliable sites, not mattering how wild, can be used. It is strange, I admit that. But unless you can establish the notability of those forum members (aka, give first and lastname, where they work and how they get their information, and have their "real" persons and not alter egos inform that they are those posters), they are a unreliable source for Wikipedia. And if IGN states that GTA will be exclusive for Wii, we can put that information, no matter how strange, because IGN is a reliable source and it can be verified with a link to their story. Strange, but that is how Wikipedia works. -- ReyBrujo 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the monthly sales data each month since January - tell me, is there a single instance where their numbers are ever incorrect? Has there ever been an instance where IGN had sales before NeoGAF for NPD? No, never. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are accurate. No, we can't use them. NeoGAF is one of the first places where I check for that kind of information. But even though I know they are correct, Wikipedia can't accept it. We can ask in any of those talk pages to see what they think. However, unless the notability of the individuals posting information is clarified, we can't ask "John Common Smith" to trust the information posted in a forum where over 99% of the members just speculate. -- ReyBrujo 01:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be recreated. 

message: Look at how it is listed, it goes PC, then Atari, Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft. Obviously, this is biased against consoles and against Microsoft. This should be in a logical order such as alphabetical instead of the current setup. Similar things have been done for other pages with hidden biases, such as the page on God which had an entry that did Christianity first, then Judaism, then Islam-- clearly biased against Muslims and Jews —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.109.194.57 (talk • contribs) .
:I guess the consoles are sorted in "chronologic" order, from the very first to appear to the last one. Since PC isn't a console, it can go at the top or the bottom of the list, and since the article is named "computers and video games", they put PC at the beginning. -- ReyBrujo 04:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page is not NPOV

message: *Split I prefer this method and perhaps one page dedicated to just the handhelds.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Viper (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 August 2006  (UTC)
* I would also prefer this method of splitting nutcrackr 04:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split Page between console maker

message: *Split We can have different pages for different criteria. We can have pages for million sellers, top-selling RPGs, top Virtual boy games, etc. It seems much more manageable. Dancter 17:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transition to [[Help:Category|Category]] system

message: PC, Console, Handheld. Since these are only for games released since 2000, I'm not sure if they are relevant as a source for this article, but since it seems to be so hard to find reliable sources for this it might be useful to include them. Ajaxfan 14:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have pointed out those articles, but they have a disclaimer stating that information cannot be used. Also, some editors don't like it as source. -- ReyBrujo 21:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next Generation ranks 21st century titles 

message: I tend to cite this page a lot in discussions, but there are barely any sources cited. Where did these numbers come from? They seem legitimate yet there are no sources proving them correct. 75.32.93.214 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the article uses incorrect information. It needs to be recreated. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are all the sources?