VGChartz: 2.2 Million Wii U Units Sold So Far

#121zender1999Posted 1/6/2013 9:12:24 AM
not counting money but system sold, installed base, the bigger the better and the wiiu is way ahead already compared to sony or ms new consoles, nintendo has won this new gen already, it will be impossible to catch them
#122HomerSimpson89Posted 1/6/2013 9:13:56 AM
A lot old games are undertracked
Sonic 1 for example
#123ElGadoPosted 1/6/2013 10:12:18 AM
darkjedilink posted...
ElGado posted...
darkjedilink posted...
ElGado posted...
tizzywilkillyou posted...
I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. No, those 1-6% inaccuracies aren't significant enough to preclude using their numbers as a rough approximation. As for the "adjustments", how drastic are these? Do you know/ Has anybody compiled any evidence? Based on how many people seem to be out to discredit them, SOMEBODY has to have done this. Because if they're NOT wildly inaccurate in general it hardly matters how they arrive at their numbers. And nobody has presented proof yet.


I just did. NPD pretty much stopped giving their numbers for free because VGChartz was stealing them.


That would suggest that either VGChartz's numbers are pretty close or that NPD's are wildly accurate. That does not in any way support the argument that VGChartz's numbers are off at all, much less so far off that they can't be used as a rough estimate as is being asserted.


When you copy something and claim it as your own, how is that being credible? You missed the whole point.


No, YOU missed the point. You were told to prove that the numbers weren't credible. If anything, you proved they were.


Wrong. VGChartz is not credible. Prove to me that VGChartz is credible. NPD already said VGChartz is not credible on countless occasions, and NOBODY, I repeat NOBODY uses VGChartz in the industry. I have never heard an investor meeting where they said "The latest VGChartz numbers came in and they look exceptional!" It just doesn't happen nor will it ever.

Their methodology doesn't check out either and they have a disclaimer on their website.

"VGChartz holds no responsibility for the use of our data any business decisions made are made at your own risk."

They don't even take responsibility for their own data for GOD'S SAKE!

Get your head out of your @##!

You are 100% wrong on this; my made up numbers are more accurate than VGChartz numbers. Get this 1-6% inaccuracy out of here, you just made that percentage up from thin air.
#124ElGadoPosted 1/6/2013 10:25:33 AM
darkjedilink posted...
ElGado posted...
tizzywilkillyou posted...
I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. No, those 1-6% inaccuracies aren't significant enough to preclude using their numbers as a rough approximation. As for the "adjustments", how drastic are these? Do you know/ Has anybody compiled any evidence? Based on how many people seem to be out to discredit them, SOMEBODY has to have done this. Because if they're NOT wildly inaccurate in general it hardly matters how they arrive at their numbers. And nobody has presented proof yet.


I just did. NPD pretty much stopped giving their numbers for free because VGChartz was stealing them.


That would suggest that either VGChartz's numbers are pretty close or that NPD's are wildly accurate. That does not in any way support the argument that VGChartz's numbers are off at all, much less so far off that they can't be used as a rough estimate as is being asserted.


No it would not imply that. When you make up numbers, wait for the real ones to come out, and then correct them, that does not support the argument that "numbers are correct."

It would be like getting an F on a test, getting your test back, erasing the wrong answers, correcting them, and turning it back in and claiming that you got an A.