Talk:List of best-selling video games/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

GTA PSP at 1.5m

According to New York Times. Unfortunately, they do not specify whether it is LCS, VC or both. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ranking order

We should decide on a ranking order for game titles and franchises that have sold the same number of copies. I propose ranking titles that are tied in copies sold:

• by alphabetical order (there are other methods of ranking the titles that I can think of, but I think alphabetically would be the easiest)
• with titles/franchises that have "shipped" 10 million copies being placed below titles/franchises that have "sold" 10 million copies

Deciding on a way to rank game titles that are tied in sales will prevent users from ranking a title or franchise to their preference (example). --Silver Edge (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the shipped/sold one. This way we can add shipping sales. The alphabetical order sounds fine, although I have always preferred the FIFO one (the game released the earliest first, because 1) between a game that has sold 10 million units as of 2004 and another which sold 10 million units as of 2007, the former has 3 years of chances of selling more than one that just reached it; 2) the title released earlier was, usually, in a smaller install base than the newer one, making it more successful at the time than the current one. However, both are pretty subjective. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Should alphabetical order be used then? If one of the two FIFO methods you mentioned were used, what would be used as a reliable source for release dates? GameSpot? And wouldn't the release dates of some older games be difficult to find? --Silver Edge (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical appears to be the most reasonable and neutral option. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary spaces and quotation marks in citations

As of this version, the article is 107,128 bytes in size, with citations contributing to a large portion of it. I propose the removal of unnecessary spaces in citations and the removal of quotation marks in <ref name="?"> tags in an attempt to lower the size of the article for users with slow Internet connections. There is really no need for a space before and after a citation parameter separator (|), perhaps only a space before it; the space between * and '' that are found prior to the game title is also unneeded. The <ref name="?"> tags can be used without quotation marks.

For example:
* ''[[The Sims]]'' (16 million shipped)<ref name="thesims" />
* ''[[The Sims 2]]'' (13 million)<ref name="sims2">{{cite web | url=http://www.info.ea.com/news/pr/pr972.pdf | format=PDF | title=Sims Fans Embark On Exotic Travels as Ea Announces The Sims 2 Bon Voyage | publisher=[[Electronic Arts]] | date=2007-07-26 | accessdate=2007-12-03}}</ref>

would be changed to:
*''[[The Sims]]'' (16 million shipped)<ref name=thesims/>
*''[[The Sims 2]]'' (13 million)<ref name=sims2>{{cite web |url=http://www.info.ea.com/news/pr/pr972.pdf |format=PDF |title=Sims Fans Embark On Exotic Travels as Ea Announces The Sims 2 Bon Voyage |publisher=[[Electronic Arts]] |date=2007-07-26 |accessdate=2007-12-03}}</ref>

--Silver Edge (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is well beyond that. Even if we do that, and remove the space between the leading * or # and the first apostrophe, we would only lower the article size 2kb. 2kb does a difference when the article is 16kb, but not when it is 102kb. We should consider, again, splitting the article, beginning with the franchise section. For this, I suggest listing the top 10 franchises in this article, with a {{main}} template pointing to List of best-selling video game franchises, with the full list (and by splitting we can also make the franchise list accept series with more than 5 million units instead of 10 million). We may be able to create a table for the franchise list, with number of games and initial release date too. Once the franchise list is consolidated, we can consider splitting the PC and top PC list in another article (since we only mix PC and console games in the franchise list). A rough test (previewing the article without the franchise list, I know this is not exact since some references may have to be copied from it to the main article) gives us an 87kb article, and without the PC sections, just 70kb.

Note that I favor keeping everything here, since it is much easier to update a single article, but since the article is over 80kb that I get an error message most times I try editing the full article. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I also occasionally get the error message when reverting and editing the entire article, and I would also rather have all the sections stay here, but if the "Franchises" section can be expanded on if it is split off into its own article then I'm not going to object to that. We can decide on splitting the "PC" section if or when the "Franchises" section is split off. --Silver Edge (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have finished for now. I have added 13 franchises with between 5m and 10m, the Harry Potter one with 20m and the Yu-Gi-Oh! one with 17.5m. Some references are terribly outdated (the Twisted Metal one dates back year 2000!). And I would like to transform the GTA one to {{cite video}} but I cannot access the video at all. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have verified the references in the "Atari 2600", "Xbox", and "Xbox 360" sections, except the source for Project Gotham Racing, which is a video, since I have no sound on this PC. Also, the source for Demon Attack (Atari 2600) calls the game "Demon Magic". I'm going to sort some of the sections then call it a night. --Silver Edge (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've completed sorting out all ties into alphabetical order. --Silver Edge (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Updating references

Here is a musing I have had for some time: should we switch to newer references, even if the sales number is the same? There is a reason and a counterpoint:

• By replacing the 2004 reference with 10 million sold for a 2007 reference with 10 million sold, we are keeping the unit sales updated.
• However, we lose the historical data that the game has already sold 10 million back in 2004.

I haven't been replacing references because, as I explained above, I have given more priority when sorting to a game that reached a milestone before another. What do you think? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer keeping the older references, so we know when a game sold x million copies; although, other users have complained that the sources used in this article are "outdated". Also, when I want to add a sales figure to a video game article, I usually check here first to see if the title is listed. Then I insert "As of [month day, year], the game sold x million copies worldwide" using the date provided from the source, since I want to indicate at what time the game sold that amount.--Silver Edge (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts II

Should Kingdom Hearts II be changed from 3.5 million shipped to 1.7 million sold in the US ? It's kind of odd that KH2 shipped over 1.7 million in North America and sold 1.7 million in the US; also note that the "sold" source was published 1 day after the "shipped" source (February 5 and 6, 2007). Coincidence?--Silver Edge (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Another option (with unspecified consequences) is to include both (1.7 million sold, 3.5 million shipped). I would agree with the "sold better than shipped" line of thinking, though. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured List?

Is this one ready? It looks it, very complete for an incomplete list :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would even become a good article, because it is simply a list with no commentary, regardless of how many press media quote it, or the number of reliable references used. The only way we can make it a featured list is by adding some critical commentary, but that would make this list extremely long (and we are trying to decrease its size to make it easier to navigate). I will try something with the franchise list, which is small enough to work with, though. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

StarCraft includes Brood War

I believe StarCraft should stay in this list as well. While it is true the 9.5m given in the reference is for the franchise, which includes Brood War, it is also true that Brood War is an expansion pack (you cannot play Brood War alone, you need to have StarCraft installed). At this moment, the 9.5m is valid for both the single game and the franchise, since there is only one main StarCraft game released. It is a similar situation with Guild Wars. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would just like to add that the Vivendi document is ambiguous as to whether Brood War is counted or not, as no definition is given for "franchise" so expansions as opposed to distinct games in a series may not be included. Both USA Today[1] and the NY Times[2] have Blizzard giving the 9.5 million number as the sales of the original game itself, not the original game plus the expansion. Indrian (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you look on page 19 of the Vivendi document [3] it shows a breakdown of what games are considered part of the Warcraft, Diablo, and StarCraft franchises, and StarCraft and Brood War are listed in the StarCraft franchise column, so the StarCraft franchise in that document includes Brood War. An MSNBC article states: "'StarCraft,' and the expansion 'Brood Wars,' have sold nearly 10 million units." [4]--Silver Edge (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did indeed miss that. Blizzard still appears to be bandying about that 9.5 million number for the original game alone, however. Could be puffery, but seeing as most of the numbers used here are drawn from numbres released by a company to toot its own horn, this whole list probably has more than its fair share of puffery, so I do not see a reason not to take Blizzard at its word as reported by the papers. Indrian (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't we need to use the same reference for this list and the franchise one? I don't like having 9.5m here and 10m there... :-/ -- ReyBrujo (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem kind of silly as you say, but we definately have two newspaper articles claiming a 9.5 million figure number for Starcraft alone as well as an article from an equally reputable source that says 10 million for the franchise. In such a situation, we may just have to give every side of the story and let the reader sort it out. Such is the inexact science of video game sales. Indrian (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Blizzard press release, released a few days prior to the three news articles, it states: "To date, the series has sold more than 9.5 million copies worldwide." The USA Today and NY Times articles probably used that franchise sales figure as the sales figure for StarCraft. So based on the official press release, shouldn't the StarCraft entry be changed to specify that the figure includes the Brood War expansion? --Silver Edge (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at this press release from Blizzard [5] which states that the original game sans expansion has sold 9.5 million. There are just way to many contradictions to decide this one way or the other, so i came going to change it to say that it may include Brood War. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Halo Franchise

Okay, I know that I will get a lot of hate for saying this, but I honestly believe that Marathon is a part of the Halo series and that Marathon's sales should be included with the Halo franchise. Maybe I am insane and no one will agree with me, but I have to try. I don't know if Marathon has significant sales, I think it has about 35,000 for Xbox 360 alone, and who knows how much for Windows pc, Mac and Pippin. You don't have to agree with me, but come on, consider it? 142.165.59.39 (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We let the game developers decide what is included into each franchise. So, it is up to Microsoft. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, someone taking me seriously! Thanks, someone should talk to Microsoft...

142.165.59.39 (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Colin McRae: DiRT

According to this,

On its release in June 2007, Colin McRae: DiRT topped the US best-seller charts for titles on the Xbox 360® video game and entertainment system from Microsoft®, and has sold more than one million copies to date.

Can this be interpreted as "Xbox 360 version sold 1m copies"? It is ambiguous, I know. The PC version could have helped, and maybe the Australian(?) release of the game for PS3. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in numbers

In case of Super Mario World, the number of copies sold is 20 million on the list for SNES, while it is 17 million under the summarized list of Top 20 console games of all time in the Bundled games part. The sources for these figures state different values, also. If someone has more accurate information, please, correct the numbers for consistency. Csdani84 (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. We will use the 20m one because it is a newer reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on sales numbers

Just curious, why isn't vgchartz a good source? All the numbers etc are calculated from real sales data (NPD etc)? How is it any different from a half the sites sourced that also use the same numbers? Also that many wiki game pages etc source vgcharts too :S Mjohnnyg (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed a lot of times. I made a briefing of the discussion here. Basically, VGChartz is not a real representative of sales information since they modify data based on untrusted algorithms. Whenever the media begins using their data regularly (just like the media uses NPD data regularly) they may be considered reliable. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Winning Eleven 6

According to this (the reference I am using for Yu-Gi-Oh! Forbidden Memories, The Computer & Video Games segment, taking advantage of the soccer boom in Japan, marked a new record with combined sales of over 1.8 million copies of WORLD SOCCER WINNING ELEVEN 6 and WORLD SOCCER WINNING ELEVEN 6: Final Evolution for the PlayStation 2. We currently have a reference that states it sold 1m only. However, it is not clear here whether both titles are only for PlayStation 2, or if World Soccer Winning Eleven 6 is only for PlayStation, while Final Evolution is for PS2. Thoughts? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Sims

While our current reference says 16 million, Eurogamer just stated that the original game plus addons sold 29 million. Should we keep the current one, replace it with this one, or mix both (like 16 million, 29 million counting addons). Mostly because for Guild Wars we have the numbers for the game and extensions, which seems usual for computer games. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest using both. Maybe Guild Wars should be removed from the "PC" section since the sales figure consists of three stand alone games and one expansion pack with the reference itself stating "The Guild Wars franchise has sold more than 4.5 million units..." --Silver Edge (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Weren't those one game plus three extensions? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(indent) The Guild Wars series consists of three standalone games (the original Guild Wars, Guild Wars Factions, Guild Wars Nightfall) and one expansion pack (Guild Wars: Eye of the North). All the games released after the original Guild Wars have additional skills, items, and campaigns/missions, etc. Factions and Nightfall have additional professions/classes and doesn't require having the original Guild Wars to play. To better explain Guild Wars, I'll quote from the official Guild Wars website:

http://www.guildwars.com/products/guildwars/features/default.php#release

• Am I required to buy the new chapters in order to continue to play Guild Wars?

No. Every purchase you make in the continuation of the Guild Wars saga will be your choice. If you purchase new chapters, you will gain access to new regions of the world, new skills and abilities, new items, new professions, and much more. And of course such a purchase will support the continued development of the game. However, if you choose not to purchase a chapter, you will still be able to play the chapters of Guild Wars that you own, and you will have common areas in which you will be able to play with and against your friends who have purchased the other chapter(s).

http://www.guildwars.com/products/nightfall/features/nightfall-faq.php#release

• Is Nightfall an expansion pack or a stand-alone game?

Nightfall is a stand-alone product. Those who own Prophecies and/or Factions are not required to purchase Nightfall in order to continue playing on their game account, and those who purchase Nightfall may play it without purchasing Prophecies and/or Factions. However, there is a high level of interconnection between the three games that makes having all of them an exceptional experience.

http://www.guildwars.com/products/eyeofthenorth/features/eyeofthenorth-faq.php

• Do I need to own a copy of one of the previous Guild Wars campaigns in order to play Guild Wars: Eye of the North?

Yes, because Eye of the North is an expansion rather than a new campaign—and because it is intended for your high-level characters—you need to own at least one of the Guild Wars campaigns—Guild Wars (the original campaign), Guild Wars Factions, or Guild Wars Nightfall—in order to play Guild Wars: Eye of the North. However, you do not need to complete any of the previous campaigns to play GW:EN.

So you can either play Factions or Nightfall without the requirement of the original Guild Wars, while the expansion pack Eye of the North, requires one of the three standalone games. --Silver Edge (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo new numbers

As always, Nintendo released their new millions sellers list http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2008/080125e.pdf (189.26.138.209 (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, we have updated the numbers with the new reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4

The Halo 3 number is wrong, Microsoft lists a sold to retail number. A shipment number. This is proven by Activisions financial statement that Call of Duty 4 was the number #1 selling game of 2007 at 7 million. (http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=289631) They have the GFK and NPD data, and they claimed so in an official document so they can't lie about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.205.229 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The seven million figure for Call of Duty 4 includes the Xbox360, PS3, and Windows versions - not just the Xbox360 version. -Zomic13 (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Microsoft article says "The Xbox 360's biggest game to date also received a sales update, as Microsoft revealed that it had sold 8.1 million copies of Halo 3 since its September release. Combined with the hardware base, this suggests that nearly 46 percent of Xbox 360 owners have purchased a copy of the Bungie-developed shooter." Where does it say it is sold to retailers? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do realise the Call of Duty 4 number is spread over 3 consoles, but it also proves the Halo 3 number is too high. I'm not trying to add CoD4, I'm trying to get the Halo 3 number correct. It is lower than And we know the 8.1 million from Microsoft is a shipped number because they work with shipped numbers. Here is the prove they use shipment numbers for the 360 when they announced it is at 17.7 million, so I highly doubt they use sold numbers for Halo 3. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17106 81.240.181.162 (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One - they said for 2007, and Microsoft's date includes some of 2008. Two - Excess of 7 million. Could be 200 million. Three - "According to" and not factual. Four - Halo 3 is better than COD4 will ever be. 142.165.59.39 (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One - This is no place for your absurd Halo fanboyism and I don't give a damn about the Halo franchise. Two - This is no place for opinions but rather facts that you have to contribute, which you apparently have none. Three - Go back to school or go take your childishness somewhere else. Four - Microsoft is no more a reliable source than Activision is, this isn't a place to choose sides. Ciao. 74.215.100.143 (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) J

I have no facts? My first point is very factual. It is like saying that HD DVD outsold Blu-ray in 2005 so it is impossible for Blu-ray to have higher sales as of now. You are the fanboy saying that I have no facts. My first point is a fact. It says CoD4 was the best selling game of 2007, but even if this is true, Halo 3 can have greater sales as of any 2008 date and have the CoD4 statement be true. And I am still in school, so how can I go back to it? I did not choose sides, I only pointed out how both can be true. I am in an oven. I am cold. One would say that both statements can't be correct. I just came along and pointed out that the oven may be outside and not turned on. You need to be less childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.59.39 (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Halo fanboy in denial. How cute. You still present no facts whatsoever. It doesn't matter whether you THINK Halo 3 sold more in 2008 or not. 2008 is far from over and the point is, rather, the FACT of the matter is, COD4 beat Halo 3 bar none last year. Choke on that instead of Microsoft's cock all the time like you usually do. Microsoft isn't the best and neither is Halo. Ciao. 74.215.100.143 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Josh

PSP games

An anonymous added three games to the PSP section using this as reference. The article is from apparently a reliable source by itself. However, the numbers come from Wikipedia, which in time picked them from the old VGChartz site. I found this comment at Joystiq which shows that the Ridge Racer number of Wikipedia at that time was the same as the one in the article. And when checking the April 21, 2006 version of this page, the source is www.everythingandnothing.org.uk/vg/worldtotals.php, which is nowadays offline. However, a quick check at the web archive shows that its last version was a redirect to VGCharts, the previous site for VGChartz. What others think about using that GWN article with numbers from VGChartz at the time for references here? I still find incredible that no site has ever released their own data stating any of those three games sold over a million copies, especially considering the limited number of PSP titles breaking that mark. Personally, I would not have objection, because if a reliable site (as I think GWN is) picked the information and considered it reliable, it could be used. However, I know many object those numbers on sight, that is why I would like to hear feedback about this matter first. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Guitar Hero III has sold 1.2 million on the Wii!

http://www.gamespot.com/news/rumorcontrol.html?tag=subnav;rumors&sid=6185228&action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1

Check it out. O ya the rumor is on the second article about the PS3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguy681 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the find! It has been updated. -Zomic13 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, but I had found it in a GameSpot blog, with direct link. Maybe we should point there instead of the Rumor Control (since the story there is likely to scroll as more rumors are put there)? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I had already thought of that. When I updated the listing, I used the direct link in the reference. -Zomic13 (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Morrowind?

Morrowind is on the Xbox 360 list? ??? ??? What? 142.165.59.39 (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting. As soon as the reference comes back (it is right now linkdead) I will check that out. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason The Magic Box has Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind listed as a Xbox 360 game. --Silver Edge (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suggest keeping it out of the list. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Halo 3 sales

I noticed that the Halo 3 sales was updated just recently. I was going to update the sales under the "By Genre" section when I noticed the current citation says Halo 3 has sold 8.1 million but the article on here claims 9.6. Which of these is right? --Xander756 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That edit has been reverted. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. sales 1.65 millions copies. I have proofs: http://gameplay.com.ua/node/1003763. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akim RU (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Halo 3 has been changed to The Orange Box in Xbox 360 games. What is this other than vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.144.181 (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

I think that this game should be temporarily removed from the list until its sales begin to stabilize. That way, we won't have to update every day when a new sales figure appears. --haha169 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually the sales information is brought once per week. The problem in keeping it out is that fans will come and add it themselves without references or referencing questionable sites. Personally, if we have a reference, we should include it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably. In my view, I've seen the sales number change from 500,000 in its first day to 800,000 a few days later, and 1.08 million just today. Thats one new change every 1 1/2 days...But I understand your viewpoint.--haha169 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Update: I meant every 4 days. (mistaken Japanese release date with old North American release date. --haha169 (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the 500k number was first day sales, with the 800k first week. The Smash Bros article may have passed through both numbers, but we actually included the third reported number, 1.08m since it went over a million. On this Thursday we will get a new number from Media Create which is likely to be higher than Famitsu, so we will use it instead, and from there we will just be updating it every Thursday (other than when the US launch date is done, or if there is a press release with a new round sales number). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of updating, but hey! I'm not doing it. I can't wait to see Brawl quickly inch up that list, until it surpasses Wii Sports and (obviously) Melee. --24.6.103.162 (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC) (Above)That was me. I keep on getting automatically logged out for some reason...--haha169 (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(Yes, I'm a little late to the discussion, but...) Smash Bros should stay. First day sales are released for a lot of games, but they never top 1 million (so they don't affect us here). Smash Bros. has had more sales numbers released than most games simply because of the magnitude of the game. Sales figures will change a lot over the next few weeks as the game continues to sell millions in Japan and then the US release on March 9. No worries though, many of us (notably myself, ReyBrujo, and Silver Edge) enjoy regularly updating the sales numbers, as frequently as they are released. We'll take care of it! :) -Zomic13 (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Have fun! :) I'm still excited about seeing Brawl surpass Wii Sports. --haha169 (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's Friday...what happened to the Thursday update? --haha169 (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Teasing us? :-P Media Create has now Brawl at 1,071,000, which is slightly lower than the Famitsu 1.08m number. At least in this page we usually keep the highest reference when we have conflicting ones (since both Famitsu and Media Create are considered reliable). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

stalker non english sales?

Not sure about this, but this Ukraine site has stalker sales numbers. From a translator (online) it seems to indicate 950k in the CIS, and 700k in the rest of the world = ~1.6 million. But can this be used? And of course it might not be an accurate ttanslation. http://gameplay.com.ua/node/1003763 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutcrackr (talk • contribs) 06:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We can use references in other languages, sure. We used to have French and German ones, and we currently use a Spanish as well. All that counts is if the site is reliable or not. Does it say where the numbers come from (from the developer, the publisher, a site like VGChartz, etc?) Can anyone submit news there without a fact-checking editor (like Digg or Reddit?). Is the site part of a reliable network (for example, a TV channel from Ukraine is the owner of the site, or the site is backed by an important magazine publisher there, etc?). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure myself, which is why I haven't posted it yet. It could be user submitted, but the source appears from somebody who talked to the developers. I don't speak the language and don't know the site well enough to know who or what. So I won't submit it, however maybe if similar numbers for Stalker come up we could use this.nutcrackr (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

An English site picked up the news, here. ActionTrip picked it as well. We also have the source and who said it. It appears to be credible. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lineage 2 does not have 14 million customers

There is clearly a mistake on their website.
14 million is a ridiculous number, that should be obvious.
http://www.mmogchart.com/charts/ which is a respectable source suggests they have about 1 million active subscriptions. 86.134.42.136 (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Klive5ive

There seems to be an error in the source. Although from lineage 2's officail website, all other sources claim otherwise, and that infact it is around 1 million sales not 14million. Also other sources state the sales as 1 million before this post and imply an increase, if true, of about 13million customers in the space of 4 months. http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html is the main source, this uses many references for its data. It is likely that the "4" is a misstype in the article which states it at 14million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.164.54 (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The game was first released in Korea and Asia in 2003 in general, and just recently everywhere else. Remember that Asia is the most important market for MMOs (over half World of Warcraft install base is situated in Asia, for example). Second, there is a difference between current players and customers. The game could only have a million gamers right now, but it could have very well sold 14 millions. We won't begin decreasing World of Warcraft units once the game begins to decline, since the important thing is the peak (much like we won't remove a game that sold a million copies from the list if all copies are recalled by any reason). Finally, it is kind of a very, very awful typo, 14 million instead of 1 million, to go unnoticed in the official site of the game during over a year. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!I think you'll find that the numbers quoted for wow is active players not total individual game box slaes and i also think that mmos should be done on active players as companies like blizzard only release these figures not game sales. Another thing is that it seems very very unlikely that lineage 2 has these sales figures as it contradicts the NPD reports for sales of PC games. I'm not 100% that NPD covers asia but even so this 14 million has come out of no-where and would make it the second best selling game of all time yet ther has been no news coverage and no other indication of this. Also it is unlikely that 13 million people bought the game and never subscribed, or it implies that people play the game for a very short amount of time but at the same time the game recives a constant stream of costumers, which again is unlikely. Either way u put it, for a game to have between 2 and 1 million active gamer subscribers over a few years its highly unlikely to have sold 14million boxes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.164.54 (talk) 14:33 (gmt), 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that NCSoft knows what it is talking about with that 14 million figure, but I agree with the anon that it is not apppropriate to put it in our list. That number does not indicate sales of a game product. Instead, it represents how many people signed up for a subscription for at least a month. In Korea and other Asian markets, consumers are not buying a tangible product: They are largely going to internet cafes and paying a subscription. All sources indicate that Lineage II has never had more than one or two million subscribers at any one time and it has certainly never moved fourteen million boxes/CDs/digital downloads/etc. Thus, there is no way to put Lineage II in the best-selling games list. What is needed is a separate MMORPG section that records peak and overall subscriber counts. To display the data in the way it is on the list now distorts the truth and makes Lineage II appear to be doing better than WOW, which has captured over 50% of the MMORPG market. Indrian (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that the game has a number that is higher than World of Warcraft ^_^ And I predicted that ^_^ As for the model, we should remove all the MMO for that matter. However, they are important because they have a new business model, and removing them from this list would, as you say, distort the truth. This is a broader topic, though, and should be discussed at WikiProject Video Games and not here, because we need feedback from many more users and not just a few editors. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think this has anything to do with World of Warcraft anyway? To take a series of logical arguments and respond, "well the only reason people are complaining is because they like World of Warcraft and don't like seeing another game outdo it" is simply insulting. The facts are that WOW is the dominate MMORPG today and has garnered over a 50% market share through ten million ACTIVE accounts. Lineage II may have had 14 million customers, but never more that one or two million at a time. On the list we have now, Lineage II is shown as the best-selling MMORPG of all time, leading to an impression that it has outperformed WOW, but how has it? First, we have no idea how many accounts WOW has had since it came online in 2004 because Blizzard has only released figures based on active accounts. Second, total accounts is not even a good way to measure MMORPG success because their ultimate success is measured in terms of subscription revenue and market share. We do not know how much revenue Lineage II or World of Warcraft have generated, but we do have empirical data on market share. There is nothing wrong with keeping that 14 million number around, but it needs to be placed in proper perspective or this article is guilty of POV, which is a violation of wikipedia policy. Furthermore, you have yet to provide a compelling reason for why games that sell in discrete units like The Sims as opposed to subscription based games played in PC Bangs like WOW and Lineage should be put on the same list. Finally, if you want to tell a few people at the wikiproject what is going on, that is obviouslyfine, but this discussion only impacts this article and should stay right here. Save the project page for topics that discuss the project as a whole. Indrian (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of MMOs, we report the customers (Lineage), sales (Guild Wars), active players (World of Warcraft) or whatever number they give us. If we were strict, we would remove Lineage and World of Warcraft since they aren't reporting sales but instead customers, however since both games must be bought, we broadly assume every customer or active accounts needs to have bought the game. NPD only covers US, which as I said, is a very small market for MMOs still. As for coming out of nowhere, that is what happens with games that are not from US. Down there, nobody thinks SingStar is a big deal, but it sold quite a lot in Europe. I lost the count of times I have been surprised when updating these lists.

If the official site says they have 14 million customers, why would we think they are lying? We don't judge, just report data. As I said, Asia is a huge market that eclipses US' one, especially Korea where there are professional competitions. In fact, Blizzard is launching StarCraft 2 in Korea, not US or Europe or Japan. I think the problem comes that Lineage II has sold 14 million since 2003, but currently only 1.5 million players are still playing. So, we should dismiss the 14 million and report only active users? Why? They have already sold those copies, and this is the list of best-selling video games, not the list of most-actively played video games or the list of video games with the most customers. We report the peak. If World of Warcraft loses its traction and begins losing customers, we won't subtract them from here.

And considering NCSoft reports they have sold 43 million units of Lineage games overall, I would say Lineage II already surpassed the 14m mark. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are responding to two different people at once here. I never stated NCSoft was lying; I know exactly what the NPD covers, and you have failed to respond to most of my points despite responding right below my comment. MMORPGs have a completely different sales model than any other type of game. This is even more true in Asia where the games are not sold to the consumer in the way you indicate. 14 million accounts have existed since 2003; 14 million copies of the game have not been sold. Internet cafes purchase the actual games and then let people play their subscriptions. This model exists in Korea because of rampant software piracy and for several economic factors. I am sure the actual number of consumers who have bought the game is quite a bit lower than 14 million. This also goes for Asian sales of WOW, of course, and every other game of this type. To put these games on the same list as The Sims and Starcraft creates a distortion through attempting to compare two different distribution models. This is why, once again, MMORPG subscriber counts should be taken off the main lists. For games that we have a proven number of units sold, we can keep them on. Otherwise, they should go in their own section where peak and cumulative subscriber bases can be tracked. To do it any other way creates a distorted look at game sales. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was not replying to you, just the anonymous above :) I haven't considered your reply yet, since I am a little bit busy right now. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"If the official site says they have 14 million customers, why would we think they are lying?" I didn't say that i said i expect its a misstype as other sources, such as gamecharts, which include Asia, have shown that the game has never peaked in active subscribers above 2 million, therefore the satement of 14 million can't be true. But if u think its accounts created since 2003, well thats even more reason not to put that data there!. For a fair representation MMO should use units sold, as other games such as unreal tournement and counter strike are bought by internet cafes too, i dont think thats a reason to exlude them. Active subscribers on the other hand is not related to game sales, this is only an indication to who plays the game at a moment in time. I'm sure 40million peopel dont still play mario, that doesnt mean it should be removed. it should be purely on unit sales not subscribers, like the other games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.164.54 (talk) 18:07 (gmt), 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"It could have very well sold 14 millions." Are you stupid or something? There's no way it has sold this much if it never had over 2million subscribers. The whole article is very misleading and needs to be fixed. World of Warcraft is BY FAR the biggest selling MMORPG of all time. Lineage2 is not in the same league and should not be misrepresented thus. In fact Runescape has more subscribers. I suggest if you can't find good evidence of actual box sales for the MMOGs you should remove them from the list. Then you could add a section for most subscribed online games and use MMOGcharts (which is the best source for subscription information available right now) to fill it correctly. 86.134.42.136 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Klive5ive

Ah, insulting now? Ok. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(this is the previously anaom user posting here) BTW I've just found out that the NPD is infcat GLOBAL research and not just europe/USA/AU. On thier website they claim to do global reasearch using global statstics from global companies. And looking at NPD published reports lineage 2 certainly can't of sold that many units meaning it must be online accounts created since 2003, in which case has no right to put on the website as it is very miss informed as it doesn't show sales or currrent users!Abyys (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. NPD does not report data from other countries, only from US. The NPD Group, founded in 1967, is the leading global provider of consumer and retail market research information for a wide range of industries. They are the leading global provider because they are bigger than Enterbrain, GFK, etc, but they never report information about other countries, only North America. Also, please don't revert. If you make an edit and someone else contests it (like it happened), you need to discuss until everything is solved. Changing the article again and again only damages the article. Please don't do that. The edit has been there for months, another week won't change the world, would it? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thing is stop changing the MMO, lineage 2 is accounts created not game units bought, for all you know they could all be illegal CD keys. While with wow its active subscribers, so wether they purchised the game legaly or not they are at least paying so in theorey have purchased. Lineage 2 could in theorey of made no money from sales at all for all we know, while wow we actually have an officail figure for MONEY TRANSFERED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abyys (talk • contribs) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We work based on facts. The fact is that they claim they have 14 million customers. Assumptions that all could be illegal copies, that they could have earned nitch since the game release, etc, are considered original research which should not interfere with the article itself. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, as a side note, I am not against WOW or in favour of Lineage II. However, since you need to subscribe in order to play the game, and the fact that even if you pay once is enough to consider it a sale, I think it is suitable to have it there (it is not different from buying a copy of a game like Halo 3, playing it once, and then not playing it again, ever, because you got bored, or trading it in for another game). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But the FACT is that this is a list of best-selling computer games, the facts that are referenced for lineage 2, and world of warcraft as well, are not related to sales directly in any way. They are an indiation but not a direct figure of sales, therefore it should be withdrawn from this page untill you have facts on sales figures. Thats like posting how many characters have been created in world of warcraft, well there can be multiple charcaters to one account. In the same way there could be multiple accounts to a unit sales, therefore you can't use these figures. If you insist on keeping it there is should be made clear it is acounts created since 2003 not customers, although this is the officail wording, this implies peak subscribes which it isnt. Also NPD states "Our data tells them who is buying, what, where, and why in local, national, and international markets." and i can't find anywhere that claims its only national data and not international, please tell me where you get this from.Abyys (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's do it this way: show me a game report from NPD that includes international sales. You won't find any. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You know I agree with you on most of your points, but you really need to just drop this one because you are wrong. Remember, NPD is a general market research group that tracks a large number of commodities. Some of these commodities may be tracked in international markets, but video games are not one of them. If you want proof, go to any video game news site that reports NPD data and see what markets that data covers. Indrian (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe, well, I have been updating the best-selling lists since two years ago, and have never seen NPD cover anything other than North America (US and Canada). For example, June 2006 is only for US, October 2007 is only for US, November 2007 is only for US, December 2007 is only for US, January 2008 is only for US, etc. In fact, if you go to their site and check the Retail Tracking Service For PC Games And Video Games, you will notice they only offer this service for US and Canada. That is why I am using the reductio ad absurdum: I suppose you are right and that they cover gaming data globally, and demonstrate they have never released a report from any country other than Canada and US. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they are two very different things. I do not think you are aware of how the Korean market works. PC Bang's, or internet cafes, buy up games and then charge an hourly or flat rate for gamers to come play the games. A Korean may decide to try the game one day for a small fee and then never play it again. Different from making a $50 or $60 investment you are stuck with forever. The Korean model of software distribution is simply too different from the model in the U.S., Japan, and Europe for a number like 14 million subscribers to make sense without context. That is why the number needs to be properly explained and not just dropped into the list randomly. I have yet to hear a rebuttal as to how these two models can be reconciled. This applies to both WOW and Lineage, which is why we need a new subsection dealing with MMORPGs on a more sophisticated level. Indrian (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Very possible. However, as long as Lineage has that "14 million customer" line, even though it is referenced, people will complain. At least until WOW reaches 15 million and tops it ;-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"At least until WOW reaches 15 million and tops it" I'm a little confused here, it's almost like your trying to claim that lineage 2 is bigger because of the asain market than wow and wow players dont want to admit it and some how i favour wow over lineage 2? For a start i don't play wow anymore and i havent for about half a year, and i left with quite a sour attitude to the game and i favour it in no way. Also if world of warcraft has currently 10 million people subscribed, that probally implies that since 2003, I estimate that blizzard have about, 140 million customers. I estimate this from the fact that lineage 2 has 1 million active subscibers and 14 million customers sicne 2003 so world of warcarft having 10x the number of active subscribers probally has 10x the number of customers. Now although because of the korean market the ratio will probally not relate at all and the figure will be more like 1:6 lineage : wow customers it would be a much larger figure if you think about it. Another thing is that customers involves the korean model, which is not actual sales but more like "free trails". This means the customer figure is definatly not an accurate number to represent sales at all! And saying "thats the only facts we are given" well thats just a stupid argument, if they gave you facts on how many WoW players had season 3 arena gear you wouldn't say "oh well thats the only info we have", well so its got nothing to do with sales, and neither has "customers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abyys (talk • contribs) 10:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, we report the numbers we obtain. World of Warcraft reports subscribers, not sales, so it should not even be included here. However, we are open minded and accept it since it is known as a milestone. In the same way, we should consider Guild Wars (who report sales and not subscribers) and Lineage (who reports customers and not sales). Why should we accept one but not the other? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is way off the point, and is ridiculous. I try to be helpful by pointing out an obvious mistake in a press release and I just get ignored.
WoW has more box sales, more subscribers, more total subscribers, more everything. Any numerical standpoint you want to use, WoW tops lineage 2.
WoW has a 67% MARKET SHARE, it's just way ahead of anything else; anyone in the business knows this.
The problem here is people who have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE WRITING ABOUT taking control.
Take Lineage out until the facts are clear and stop misleading people. 86.134.42.136 (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Klive5ive

Yes, the company issued a press released with a 13m offset two years ago and nobody, not even then, realized. Sure. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone else has anything to say here, I think it is time to bring the discussion to a close and make a few changes. It has already been established that the Korean model is unique and does not correspond to sales. To summarize, this is because internet cafes buy time on a whole slew of games and then charge customers an hourly or flat rate to come and sample any of the games available at the cafe. This means there is no relation to customers and actual product sales in the Korean market. Even in the United States, accounts are not an accurate way to measure sales of an MMORPG because a person can buy one copy of a game like WOW and create multiple accounts. Therefore, it is necessary to take all MMORPGs out of the main sales list and create a separate section that tracks MMORPG data, which is too different from sales data to make sense in a sales context. This, of course, does not apply to any MMORPG for which we have sales as oppossed to account or customer data. If I see no objections that are not backed up by data proving that customers/accounts relates to actual sales of a product, I will make the change this weekend. Indrian (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Impose changes by unilaterally ending the discussion? Why don't you go to WP:CVG and ask there instead? That is what I am saying we should do. It is a nice theory the one you have there, but which cannot be used to justify modifications without a broad discussion. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Then post a notice there of the discussion going on here and give them a chance to come here and join. The project page is for matters that affect multiple pages across wikipedia. THIS is the discussion page for matters that effect this article. If no one cares enough but you to keep track of this page and take part in discussions about its future, that is not my fault. I think the three of us have said all that is needed on the matter, so the discussion is, in fact, over unless someone else decides to take part. I posted a notice giving people until Sunday to raise new objections and back them up with proof. If they do great; if not I am making the change backed up by evidence. Please read this article [6] and this release from Blizzard[7] if you still fail to grasp how different the Korean market is from the U.S., Japan, and Europe. Indrian (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, since you seem unwilling to post a notice at the project page, I went ahead and did so. I am a bit surprised you did not do so already since you seem to care so much. Indrian (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone else to do it. I am rather tired of people saying I am biased, and I was kind of sure any opinion that would eventually support mine would just be as "biased" as me. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I say we just put the box and digital purchise sales of MMO's, if we know them, on the list, and make a seperate section for active subscribers, that way its an accurate representattion. If u want another part on the korean model, fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abyys (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I favour creating new sections to make sales information even more exact. I would also suggest, since I already mentioned there are three different ways of counting MMORPG numbers that are not compatible between each other, to list them all (customers, subscribers, sales). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I have been proposing all along. I am curious now where all the argument is coming from. Also, I have never accused you of bias. In fact you accused me of bias, basically stating that the only reason I was complaining was because I was upset WOW had been dethroned; something that never had anything to do with my position I might add. Indrian (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I mentioned in my edit summary that WOW fans would eat me ^_^ Never said that you were biased, just that I think all this is done because it is World of Warcraft... if it were Nintendogs vs Brain Age, nobody would care at all. Anyways, how would we add such section here? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since we have made some progress, I avoided making changes this weekend so we could talk a little more. First, I do not think anyone at the CVG project cares, as the notice has been up since late Friday and no one has responded there or here. As for how to make the change, my main beef is that the MMORPGs are listed in the best-sellers lists along with games that measure success by individual purchases of product. I do not propose losing any numbers, including that somewhat misleading 14 million number. Instead, I think that we should remove all the MMORPGs that we do not have sales data for (in other words Guild Wars can stay) and place them in a new section. I believe since each MMORPG is reporting different figures that this list should be alphabetical rather than by sales rank because it is impossible to rank by order of success games in which the data is not alike. In this new list, we can post all data we have on MMORPGs including box sales, customers, total accounts, active accounts, peak subscriber count, market share, and any other number we have a source for. The information is not lost this way, but we do not have the current situation where the list distorts the numbers by including them in a somewhat misleading manner. Indrian (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one has responded here in two days. If no one responds today, I will make my proposed changes tomorrow. Indrian (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have had problems with my internet access in the last days. I think you are right that MMORPGs are different in nature, and so should be treated differently. We can create a table with fields like customers, active subscriptions and sales. How many MMORPGs are that we can add? If there are few, we could create a prose section (like "World of Warcraft currently has the most active subscriptions with 10 million...."). If there are many MMORPGs, we can implement a list or table directly. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe there are many MMORPGs that have to be covered. WOW, Lineage, Lineage II and Guild Wars for certain. I believe Star Wars Galaxy also sold over one million copies, though it never had nearly that many active subscribers at once. Other MMORPGs popular in their day such as Ultima Online and Everquest never got to one million active subscribers, though it is remotely possible that they garnered box sales or total subscribers over 1 million. A table is probably the best way to handle this information, with maybe a prose introduction. I think the important facts to track would be current market share, current, peak, and total subscribers, and box sales. Once again, I believe organization should be alphabetical since we cannot make a meaningful ranking without having all the information for each game. Another option could be a more complex sortable table that would allow the user to sort by any category he wanted on the list. Let me know what you think. Indrian (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(←) Ok, then we need a disclaimer ("Due the difficulty of comparing customers, subscribers and sales, MMORPGs are listed in alphabetical order" or something like that). The problem with the table is that it will look rather empty... like:

Name	Active subscribers	Customers	Sales
Guild Wars	?	?	5 million
Lineage 2	1.5 million	14 million	?
World of Warcraft	10 million	?	?

As you can see, most fields are empty. I suggested it, but it may not be a good option. Maybe a list alphabetically listed with all the data would be better, but may be complex to read. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Final Fantasy XI has 500k active subscribers and also report 1.5 million characters. Should it be included? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I don't know about that one. If we were putting together just a strict sales/popularity ranking list for MMORPGs I would say definately not. Since we are incluing a lot of different criteria and not making any value judgments based on that criteria, there may be no harm in putting it in. On our original discussion, I agree that table is a little sparse, but the rest of this list is not in prose and I think it would be awkward to have just this one section prose. The table is not perfect, but I cannot think of a better way right now. Have you come up with anything else? Indrian (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As if Gamasutra were checking this discussion: How To Compare Online Gaming Businesses. Very interesting read. Now, if we go with tables, do you agree with the previous one, or would you modify it in some way? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lineage 2 does not, nor has ever had 17 million players. The only official reference to this figure is here [8], in which they reference that 17 million people have TRIED the FREE trial of the game. Now look at the other stat "Number of characters created since launch: 3,821,773" So, in April 2007, only 3m characters existed. Each account must have one character. That's a minimum of less than 3 million accounts in Apr 2007 because a lot of players have more than one character. So for this "17 million players" statistic to be correct, Lineage would have had to have increased by a massive amount of players over the last year (or up until when that statistic was (dare I say it) invented. Then look at the numerous sources that say WoW is the MMO with the most players: [9] [10] [11] to name a few. The 17m stat counts every account ever made, including the ones in Korea where the game can be played in Internet Cafes etc. And then from Blizzard themselves [12] claiming "World of Warcraft has become the most popular MMORPG around the world", now I don't see Blizzard up on any charges of misrepresentation. Article changed per WP:BOLD. 125.238.96.171 (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no real measure for MMORPGs (so sometimes we report sales, sometimes subscribers and sometimes customers). This is a list of best-selling games, so ideally we should only report sales (in this case we would only keep Guild Wars since WoW and Lineage don't report sales). However, removing them all would only hide information we already have. Maybe we can list whatever number they report, and remove the MMORPG from the list of best-selling genres? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think removing MMORPGs altogther would be an effective compromise. The title of the section is "Top PC sellers", which in theory should discount MMORPG subscriptions anyway, and as MMORPG publishers typically don't release box sales the category can not be accurately defined. The "best selling" (or most popular) MMO information is duplicate anyway, available at Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. 125.238.96.171 (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The orange box sale

Is this a good source? (interview with a dev) http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/21/gdc_will_steam_add_movies_music/ --Elronir (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

While the website itself doesn't seem very reliable, it's pretty difficult to simply fabricate an interview with a developer without anybody else realizing that it was faked so I would say it is an okay source to cite. --Xander756 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom's Games is part of Tom's Hardware network, which in itself is pretty reliable. As said, it is difficult to fake an interview, however if a better reference is found, we can replace it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The new page/selection could describe the korean model and also the other model which is being sued. The "other model" is the reference to some MMORPGs that are initaily free but you pay for items, this could also be contained in the section, perhaps have gross earnings or something along those lines for these types of MMO's if we can get hold of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abyys (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this go in another section? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

TMNT "4 Million"

Hey guys, does anyone really believe that TMNT for the NES sold 4 million copies worldwide?

The reference (#35 at the time of this post) given on the page leads us to a book.

Since we cannot check the book without having it in front of us and since TMNT (NES) is the only game using this reference, I suggest that someone who is better capable of editing this page than I am remove TMNT from the NES section and remove the #35 reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhyancraig (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because we cannot check the book doesn't mean it is fake NES games used to sell very well (for example, Top Gun is said to have sold over 3m). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not read Sheff's supposedly excellent book, but can confirm that Steven Kent's The Ultimate Histroy of Video Games also gives the 4 million number for TMNT. Indrian (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a little weird when your first look at it and see that it is the best-selling game on the NES that wasn't one of Nintendo's core franchises. However, you have to remember that TMNT was very, very popular back in the day (much more so than it is today). -Zomic13 (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, do you have it near to give information enough to add a citation to that book as well? One should remember movie tie-ins like Top Gun and TMNT, were pretty famous back then (I used to own TMNT 1 and 2!). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can cite it. Indrian (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars

How comes that GW is treated differently than any other game, especially like anyone with expansions? 5 million across 4 games: That is 1.25 million per game. That is how it should be listed, the same goes for Starcraft. Or else Diablo2 should be listed as 5 million, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.218.84 (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See #StarCraft includes Brood War. --Silver Edge (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster of this topic, Guild Wars games, with the exception of Eye of the North do no require Guild Wars, they should be treated as separate games. At best if we get numbers for individual games we can use them. Otherwise we could just group together other games (Like BF2 and BF2142 = 4 million). Guild Wars is most certainly the exception in this list and should be removed or altered.nutcrackr (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I already put them in the franchise list. If we can find a press release with the sales of the first title at least (before they began combining them), we could use that one at least. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a website that states: 1 million users on 23 Sept 2005 (http://games.kikizo.com/news/200509/095.asp?f=095.asp). 2 million with Factions on 19 June 2006 (http://games.kikizo.com/news/200606/108.asp). I doubt there are more infos about sales figures than those annual ones. I would personally go with an average sales figure: GW Prophecies 1.25 million (5 million with Prophecies, Factions, Nightfalls and GWEN) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.250.36 (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest sales

I found this PDF which has a graphic with sales from all Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games since the very first until March 31, 2004, including NES games. It may not be very useful, especially since they combine remakes, but it is nice to have for future reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Duh, just noticed a better one is being used :-P -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Stronghold

According to this interview, two Stronghold games have sold more than a million copies. Unfortunately he doesn't specify which ones. Anyone can guess to which games he is referring (by considering his participation and/or developing company)? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the Gamasutra interview:

"It's not just that we eke out a few pennies with GodGames; we ended up with eight million-unit sellers on the PC in less than three years. Railroad Tycoon 2 was the first, Tropico, two Stronghold games that sold over a million..."

GodGames (also known as "Gathering of Developers" and "Gathering") published two Stronghold games: Stronghold (2001 game)[13] and Stronghold: Crusader.[14] --Silver Edge (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Neat, I was thinking about the 1993 game and could not match the numbers. So, if those are the games mentioned, we can add them to the article (we will have to add a short explanation to prevent someone adding a "Not in citation" template). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Or you can include a hidden comment with a wiki link to this section of the talk page. --Silver Edge (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent sourcing

Wow, this has got to be an article with one of the most references that I've seen. Good job to everyone involved! Now, if only this list could be organized well enough to be nominated for a WP:FL! Gary King (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We are happy the list is well referenced. And we maintain and expand it, but are not really into "making it a featured list" (that was my original attempt when splitting the franchise list from this one, but it is hard to get feedback from editors, even those focused on video gaming). So, we limit ourselves to keep the lists as accurate as possible. It is good to see others appreciate it :-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Strategy games

I see in this list genre entries for strategy games for PC's, but not other consoles/systems. Is getting info on them not easy, or too few sales or the like? Just wondering. Kresock (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to get references for games, especially the old ones. I am sure there are a few that sold millions, but we just haven't been able to find references to back that up. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune at 1.25m

VGChartz claims it to have sold enough copies to warrant it's introduction to this page. --MechPlasma (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

VGChartz is not considered a reliable source for the WikiProject Video Games, and cannot be used. If the game indeed sold a million (becoming one of the very few that did so), don't you think Sony would indicate so? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mario & Sonic: 5 million sold

Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games has sold over 5 million copies. Unfortunately the article does not specify how many were sold on the DS and how many on the Wii. We already have the Wii version listed at just under 1.5 million (and the DS version isn't even listed), so clearly we are missing data. I'll try to look further and see if I can find specifics, but I wanted to give everyone a heads up on the milestone.[15] -Zomic13 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has added the 5 million sales under the Wii listing. Should we remove this until we can distinguish between how many of this 5 million were on the DS? --Xander756 (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Already done so. It would be much better to have two references instead of just one. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Resistance Numbers

Just recently someone cited a movie from Gametrailers.com as a reference for updated Resistance numbers. I am just curious if such a thing were a good idea or if we should cite things in print, rather than in a movie. --Xander756 (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Any source that is reliable (not fan made, for example, but instead an official movie from the site or a movie backed by the publisher, developer, etc) can be accepted. Just use the {{cite video}} template for that. It is important, though, that it is not a fan made video. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross-platform games

So, what should we do with them (Oblivion, Unreal III, etc)? I don't like having them here because then we should add Madden XX which sold 4 millions in 12 platforms. I suggest moving all PC-console cross-platform games to the PC section, to keep them all in a single section (as much we would need to create a PC-console subsection in the PC section). However, I must point out having these games in a specific section is misleading. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreal Tournament 3 shouldn't be listed here, since it sold a combined 1 million copies on 2 platforms. At the very least a title needs to have sold a combined 2 million copies on 2 platforms (e.g. BioShock) before being considered listed here, since all the other titles listed here sold at least a million on one platform. Oblivion is already listed in the "Xbox 360" section, so all that is missing is a PC figure. I agree that "having these games in a specific section is misleading", which is why I previously suggested a separate section for those games. Removal is also an option. --Silver Edge (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The main problem of having a section for these games making the list insanely big: EA produces 24-27 million sellers per year since 7 or 8 years ago. Therefore, we would have a list of, at least, 150 EA games alone removing the ones that are already listed in specific sections. On the other side, this is the list of best-selling video games, and million sellers, even if cross-platforms, should be allowed... but, between both alternatives, right now, I think I prefer removal to keep the page manageable. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify myself, if a multi-platform section is created, it would only list the titles where the only source available provides a figure for 2 or more platforms (BioShock, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, and perhaps the titles currently listed with "may include"), so a multi-platform game like The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion wouldn't be listed in the multi-platform section, even though there's a source that indicates the sales figure of the Xbox 360 and PC copies combined, since it already has a source for sales on one platform (Xbox 360). I'm undecided on whether these titles should be removed or having a section created for them; however, Unreal Tournament 3 should probably be removed as per my previous comment above. --Silver Edge (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ThreeSpeech blog

Someone added several games to the list of best-selling games of PS3 based on this blog entry at Three Speech. How reliable is the site? I have heard about it but never really checked it out. It says it is "semi official", is that enough for us? They say there are 10 million sellers for PS3, and we would really need a reference for the others (at least they don't appear to be picking their information from VGChartz, unless you count DMC as million seller there). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ThreeSpeech is not reliable IMO, they have referenced VGChartz for sales less than two months ago (here). They also falsely said BioShock was coming to PS3[16] (which 2K Games denied) and posted an incorrect PS3 game release schedule that Sony themselves later denied/corrected[17]. But most importantly, the blog post listing those 10 "million-sellers" does not reference any official tracking source (NPD/Media Create etc) so there's no way to know where they got those numbers from. SeanMooney (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That blog entry is not that accurate though, it doesn't list Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction as a million seller for the PS3, even though we've had that game listed with 1 million sold in this article since March 5, while the blog entry was published on March 14. --Silver Edge (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Atari 2600

The VCS had more 1 million selling games according to it's coders. Parker Bros Frogger (Ed English stated in The 2600 Connection that Frogger was indeed a million seller), Parker Bros Star Wars: The Empire strikes back, to name two more which can be added. tomtom 20 3 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtomtomabc123 (talk • contribs)

Are there any reliable sources that state those games sold at least one million copies? --Silver Edge (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a 'reliable source', not even as an official press release (or whatever) from a company like Nintendo or Sega. Their hardware and software sales were (are) always greatly exaggerated (source Game Over). So if you want to rely on a reliable source, none of the 'best selling games' figures are correct. tomtom 20 03 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtomtomabc123 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Without a book, magazine or at least a web site reference, we cannot assume that. Remember our basic rule: verifiability, not truth. We don't care about truth, only about what we can verify. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here are the scans from the USA 'The 2600 Connection' fanzine: Issue 41, Interview with Howard Scott-Warshaw, about his games E.T., Raiders of the lost Ark, Yar's Revenge. E.T. sold 1 1/2 million, Raiders and Yar's also sold over 1 million http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c173/thomasholzer/stuff/?action=view&current=issue41.jpg

Here's the interview with Ed English, Issue 36: Frogger sold over 4 million for the VCS alone, generating $80 million for Parker Bros. http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c173/thomasholzer/stuff/?action=view&current=issue36.jpg

I guess you better include those games for the Atari best selling titles. Tomtomtomabc123 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken references?

It appears as some references are not being correctly generated. For example, some of the games in the mobile section don't go to their references, while the references of the mobile games below don't go to the games. In fact, clicking some random references after the #150 usually point to somewhere else. Anyone else having that problem? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... the Coleco DK reference did not work, but once I put a name to the reference, it started to work. I checked a few more (Saints Row reference takes you to Fable one, neither Nintendo Bomberman nor Metal Gear take you anywhere, Kobe Bryant in NBA Courtside to Xbox 360 Call of Duty 2, etc). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is now fixed. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That Videogame Blog's List of "3rd party Wii games that sold a million"

I just updated several Wii games based on sales data from this list [18]. However, now I am wondering if I should've gone ahead an updated since I'm not sure if the site is reliable and I don't know where they got their sales data from. Please share your thoughts and opinions on whether you think the site is ok or if we should revert the changes I made. -Zomic13 (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that I compared their numbers and the numbers on VGChartz. I found that they were close, but were, in fact, different, indicating that the sales numbers are not from VGChartz. Some of the figures provided in the article were also close to (or the same as) numbers we already had featured in the list. -Zomic13 (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the article earlier, and also compared their numbers with VGChartz. But then I noticed they have Umbrella Chronicles at 900k, while we already had it at 1m shipped, and somehow Take-Two sold 200k units more than what they informed when EA posted their offer to buy them less than a month ago. They don't name their source, and the site has an Alexa ranking of 125,739, much lower than the old 10k limit that external links used to impose. Personally, I would not have added them unless they quoted their source. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

ColecoVision: Donkey Kong (6 million) Skepticism

I have to question whether or not Donkey Kong really sold 6 million on the ColecoVision. My reason for this doubt is because on the ColecoVision page it states that "Sales quickly passed one million in early 1983, before the video game crash of 1983. The ColecoVision was discontinued in the spring of 1984. Even with its late difficulties, the ColecoVision still sold more than six million units." If true, it would mean that nearly every single system owner also bought Donkey Kong, which is probably unlikely. -Zomic13 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon further research, it appears that Donkey Kong was bundled with the ColecoVision, so 6 million is entirely possible and probably correct. -Zomic13 (talk)02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Sounds odd indeed. However, we have the verifiability on our side: as soon as someone can confirm the information is not there, we can remove it. 91.36.234.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) didn't have any edit before these, so we cannot say he was just adding misinformation. Per Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Verifiability, we should not remove his contributions just because we think it sounds odd until we can check the book (or have someone check it for us). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I posted this as I own the book 'Game Over'. But as I said before it also states in the book that all Nintendo sales claims are exaggerated (maybe they also exaggerated when quoting sales for other systems, especially as a court case was involved (Nintendo/Coleco vs MCA)), so it's probably not quite true, but at least it's verifiable. Tomtomtomabc123 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hobbit

According to the last feature of Next Generation, The Hobbit sold a million copies. They name several platforms, but from what I see we could add it to the PC section. What people think about it? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I read in UKs Retro Gamer magazine that the Spectrum computer had quite a few million selling titles, but I'm not so sure, as the Spectrum was a UK-only success story, and to sell one million titles for one computer platform is far more difficult than for consoles. I doubt that the Spectrum had a million selling title at all.

As for the above mentioned Edge/Next Generation website, be very careful of anything Future Publishing or related: Quote from Amiga Format Special 1992: The C64 had been designed to load games from disk, tape or carts, though cartridges had never been released for it. I guess that says it all. Tomtomtomabc123 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that you can indent talks prefixing them with : to make conversations easier to read. As for Future Publishing, GameSpot fired people for harsh reviews, yet we will use them for reviews since that is what makes a reliable source: their mistakes are the exception, not the rule. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding pack-in titles, eg Super Mario Bros, Tetris, DK

Should the Demo Disk for PlayStation be mentioned? That would top 100 Million. Tomtomtomabc123 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)