Talk:VGChartz/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

We are in the process of making this an encyclopedic entry. I am alright with it being marked for moderation for now, but please do not delete the entry. We are actively editing this entry. Thank you for your cooperation. Loadedstatement (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The name of the site is VG Chartz or VGChartz. I am, however, unaware of how to alter article names. Could someone advise on this and/or make the change? Strunkenwhite (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the deletion of the site's domain history; it's hardly vital information, but then the History section is not exactly bloated. Anyway, I'm not going to put it back in if more experienced editors took it out but I thought I'd put it here where it can be easily discovered by those looking a little more deeply. It's information I'd be interested in, anyway...

"The site was launched as www.everythingandnothing.org.uk^[1], later changing to www.vgcharts.org, and finally becoming www.vgchartz.com." 24.118.231.159 (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This website is well-known within the gaming community for fabricating sales numbers. It is not known by what method the site's operators conduct their sales research, or indeed whether they even conduct any research at all. Their numbers are just as likely to be right as anyone else's guess. However, large media outlets such as the New York Times apparently have quoted their numbers in the absence of credible sources of information, leading to the impression that they are a legitimate market research organization. The fact that most video game enthusiasts do not believe their numbers carry any weight at all should be reflected in the article. Let me clarify that I believe that although the site claims to perform research such as tracking sales data at retailers, these claims are just false. Their numbers are often off by huge margins (i.e. 100% or more). Only one person is known to be responsible for the site's numbers - its owner - and he has no credentials except being a gamer who follows sales numbers. Piddle (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's use arguments instead of opinions. Here's a link to VG Chartz Methodology. You claim their numbers to be extremely wrong, yet give no examples. Since NPD has just released it's March numbers I'll use those.

Hardware

Console	NPD	VG Chartz
Wii	720,000	659,709
DS	698,000	677,229
PSP	297,000	382,141
Xbox 360	262,000	354,797
PS3	257,000	353,615
PS2	216,000	420,090

The NPD numbers don't include Canada. While there are differences they're not as bad as you say.

Software

NPD

Game Platform Publisher NPD Sales

1 Super Smash Brothers Brawl Wii Nintendo 2,700,000

2 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 Xbox 360 Ubisoft 752,300

3 Army of Two Xbox 360 EA 606,100

4 Wii Play Wii Nintendo 409,800

5 God of War: Chains of Olympus PSP Sony 340,500

6 Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII PSP Square Enix 301,600

7 Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock Wii Activision 264,100

8 Major League Baseball 2k8 Xbox 360 Take 2 237,100

9 Call of Duty 4 Xbox 360 Activision 237,000

10 Army of Two PS3 EA 224,900

VG Chartz

Game Platform Publisher VGC Sales

1 Super Smash Brothers Brawl Wii Nintendo 2,346,010

2 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 Xbox 360 Ubisoft 635,607

3 Army of Two Xbox 360 EA 426,149

4 Call of Duty 4 Xbox 360 Activision 423,142

5 Wii Play Wii Nintendo 400,822

6 God of War: Chains of Olympus PSP Sony 317,974

7 Major League Baseball 2k8 Xbox 360 Take 2 261,014

8 Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII PSP Square Enix 271,928

9 Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock Wii Activision 262,309

10 Army of Two PS3 EA 240,246

One more example: when Capcom announced that Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles shipped a million units to retailers[1], VG Chartz had it at 992,310 units sold to consumers[2]. That's pretty close for a "guess". Rhonin the wizard (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. let's use those March numbers that you just posted. what are their margins relative to NPD? Wii: 9% under, DS: 3% under, PSP: 29% over, 360: 35% over, PS3: 38% over, PS2: 94% over. it seems obvious that vgchartz numbers are, for the most part, just educated guesses, and Canada is a poor excuse. As for resident evil, if they really just shipped a million to retailers and were at 992,000 sold to consumers, that would indicate a sell-through of 99.2%, which unheard of for any game that's still selling. 70% is more likely, putting the real figure closer to 700,000 sold to consumers. Piddle (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Piddle - amongst the wider video-games community and analysts in general VG Chartz is considered unreliable and the data posted above by Rhonin - a member of the site proves this! Data tends to be altered after the fact on the site so may now be closer to the NPD data than the numbers archived here. Nli10 (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If by "wider video-games community" you mean forums, they are not a valid source. Where can I find the statements of these analysts you speak of? Because I haven't heard of any and recently Reuters has cited VG Chartz in this video. Can you prove that they altered the data because of NPD? Rhonin the wizard (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you remove references and links from the article to the site's own data that disproves your points? Why do you keep undoing the grammatically incorrect first paragraph? Please - feel free to post info about VGChartz sources. One feels that the 'original research' you speak of is done on their site and not by me.

VGChartz looks like a site that knows it's stuff, thats why many non-gaming sites post their figures, it's why i first went there for data. As a professional analyst it takes minutes to find data that does not match to accepted public sources and so is discredited and rendered useless. The very fact that this is possible using data you yourself posted on the talk page shows how easy it is. Why do you find this hard to believe? I know that you are a member of the site's forum and have posted in a thread talking about the creation of this very article (which is indeed linked from this talk page) and would thank you not to add bias to one of the articles that might stop the press from using such inaccurate data! I have no interest in the site succeeding or failing, and yes I post on forums where the data is banned (NeoGAF for one) but if the data is accurate I would not care what a forum would say. The data is never within acceptable tolerances and this needs to be pointed out in the article. It's kind of the point of Wikipedia don't you think? If you want to use your energy to make the site more popular then stop defending it and help them to improve their data collection and forecasting. Nli10 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nli10, the version you just reverted to is no better. In fact, this version is much farther from meeting Wikipedia's

policy. I'll go through a few points with you just to make it clear.

• VG Chartz is a video game sales tracking website that provides unsourced weekly sales figures of console software and hardware by region.

First point, they do have sources and data samples. Second point, you have provided no source that contradicts the fact that they do have sources/data for their numbers, which constitutes original research. Third point, you inserted a

to give the sentence a negative tone, when the previous version was neutral as it merely stated they provide sales data, whether or not this data is sourced or unsourced.

• They state that "Because the number of retailers selling videogames is quite large, it is possible to attain statistically valid results from a small sample." but offer no details into the stratified sampling or statistical methodology that enables this

For the bold part to stay in the article, you would need to find at least one

, and is only there to discredit the website. It should either be well sourced and written in a neutral manner, or it should be removed completely.

• This statement has been proven by members of the site's own investigations into the validity of the data, which found that the data was proven to be 14% different for hardware data on average in the month preceding this statement as compared to NPD

Again, unsourced original research. And given that the actual statement says that before adjustment they are "within 10 - 15%", it seems foolish to be complaining about this 14% "inaccuracy".

• March 2008 had discrepancies varying from 9% under to 94% over compared to NPD data - an average of a 34.6% difference - showing an increase in the discrepancies between the published data and that produced by the sites methods.
• April 2008 had a 51.35% average difference to the published NPD numbers, the highest being the PS3 which was 96% higher than the NPD data. This directly contradicts the stated aim of the site to gradually refine the methodology and to reduce the percentage difference to the published data.

For both these statements to stay, you must provide reliable sources. Otherwise, yet again, you have inserted

. You used vgchartz as a source for this information - and you cannot use the webiste from the article's subject as a source in this regard, because you are not merely stating the information provided in it, but instead you are interpreting it yourself and writing up your own commentary on it, which is original research.

• Wikipedia's policy on
  criticism
  is quite clear. Summarised, it means that criticism/controversy sections are not permitted in articles, as they are a POV troll magnet, and encourage bias and/or original research. Any legitimate criticism should be integrated into the article itself in the appropriate section. Therefore, this section should be removed. And when you find reliable sources to back up you statements, then you must integrate it into the article, rather than create a criticism section.

Overall, the article has a very negative tone, does not meet Wikipedia's

) 04:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My most recent edit only fixes the grammatical error in the first sentence that I have fixed twice previously already. Please don't revert this.

I have followed VGC since the days that all their data ended in multiples of '250' up to the present state which is much better but still inaccurate.

Would pointing out the massive differences between the game sales on VGC and Capcom's recent shipped figures (VGC has games that have sold more than have been shipped to date...) with links to the official sources be classed as original research? Do you find the NPD public data not a reliable source - or do you just mean that I didn't link to a news site with the official comparator data, only the thread with the VGC data?

Why is it OK to source VGC's forum in the existing links but not the ones I added. I fail to see how linking to discussions on said forum that point out the inaccuracies dated way before I saw the wiki page are original research, but I agree I should have sourced the comparator data.

I haven't used any forum other than VGCs own forum as a source. I mentioned NeoGAF in the interests of disclosure. VGC own forum has posts questioning the accuracy of the data, but my scepticism is based on my own experience of comparing published data against there own. Does having two sets of directly comparable data and noting the difference count as original research? I will have to read those links and check.

I hope a few of the high profile non-games sites that use the data off whichever site their Google search hits first check the talk page to understand that corroboration before publication is a wise idea. Nli10 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If you, yourself, "point out the massive differences" then that is not acceptable because yet again, it is original research. As for using VG Chartz as a source in this article, it is acceptable for areas such as this - "VG Chartz earns money from advertising banners and programs" - as that information is explicitly stated on the website and is stated as such here. However, when you start to interpret the data yourself, and cross reference it with other data, and then write up a commentary on it, that is original research, and cannot be done. If you can find a third party website that can be considered reliable, and it does explicitly state these "discrepancy's" that you so eagerly want to include, then yes you can include it. But until you do, anything you add about it is original research - and not just original research, but you write in in a

negative

tone.

Please read up on Wikipedia's core policies before blindly reverting again. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Because of the recent vandalism, I have requested semi-protection of the article. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The "NeoGAF thing" is a matter of historic record (I didn't bother sourcing it because NeoGAF archives are only available to members), possibly relevant to VG Chartz today, and people occasionally ask about it, not slander/opinion/vandalism. You're going to have to deal with it someday. I tried to present the situation clearly and objectively. Randomgaffer (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, thanks for your wonderful contributions to the article. Frankly, we have no need of your help. So please, leave this article. MontanaHatchet (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you made the edits in good faith. However, there were no sources and it was original research, and the opinion of forum posters is not noteworthy. Also, there were other edits as well. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not even when the forum poster is the site founder and he's openly explaining his own methodology? Also, bad data being added to the (foundation of the) site and later being removed under threats of legal action seems like a noteworthy controversy to me, particularly since Ioi doesn't draw a distinct line between those past practices and current ones, but you obviously have more time to spend shaping this article than I do, so knock yourselves out.Randomgaffer (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just leave.

MontanaHatchet (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally, a well-written article, written by an established game industry analyst (he works for two major industry websites) that confirms what nearly everybody who follows this stuff already knew: VGChartz numbers are guesses, are not based on real data, are frequently changed retroactively after the 'real' data has been made publicly available, and although we can expect them to be close in certain situations, in many cases there is no reason to believe that they are at all accurate. Here is the link. Piddle (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also another alternative link containing the same article from gamasutra. I'll assume the the author, Simon Carless, writes for both gamesetwatch and gamasutra. www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18919 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.52.59 (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This site fails to mention that it uses estimates based on shipped figures. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you be a little more specific. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

VGChartz does not use actual estimates based on sales, but rather, estimates based on what a game ships. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume that you are right and VGchartz doesn't make estimates based on data from retailers. Explain how they get the numbers much earlier, and what source do you have. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Because they look at the numbers companies provide for game shipments and then estimate how much it sold based on the logic provided by the owner that of what is shipped, most is sold out, especially in Japan? (which is patently untrue) And just curious, is there a source even suggesting that VG Chartz uses actual sales as opposed to shipments? But to humor you, from VG Chartz itself - "VG Chartz is the only tracking service in the world dedicated to providing point-of-sale retail estimates of worldwide videogame buying trends to the public for free." Notice how he cleverly words it to avoid the true meaning of the statement. And even if you argued that point of sale can mean anything, take note that he still refers to the figures within as estimates, and to my knowledge, there's no evidence that this user has the knowledge or experience to professionally estimate - and being used as a source shows the ignorance of the people using it, not the professionalism of the site itself. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Because they look at the numbers companies provide for game shipments and then estimate how much it sold based on the logic provided by the owner that of what is shipped, most is sold out, especially in Japan? I don't know where you get this from, the very next line says: VG Chartz estimated sell-through figures are arrived at by tracking sample data from an ever-expanding panel of retail partners and benchmarking the sample data against known reference points (manufacturer shipment figures for example). They compare the numbers to shipments to see if there are mistakes, if the numbers are higher than there is a problem. Shipments are used for games that are no longer being manufactured, more specifically games that were being sold before VG Chartz existed, because stores have no desire to keep old products and they will try to get rid of them through different means. And just curious, is there a source even suggesting that VG Chartz uses actual sales as opposed to shipments? I have two responses to this: And just curious, is there a source even suggesting that VG Chartz uses shipments as opposed to actual sales?, the second one is to give sources: Gamesdog, Gamepro, The Inquirer, and Forbes referred to it in a video as a "sales tracking firm", can't find it now and I'm not looking forward to scouring the Internet for it. Point of sale means(according to the English Wiktionary): In an establishment that sells goods or services, the location at which payment for the goods is made., with this in mind I understand by point-of-sale retail estimates sold to consumer estimates. If you want to know if the VG Chartz owner has the required education ask him yourself. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I already have spoken to him. He went around NeoGAF spamming his web site. I've spoken to him extensively. At no point has he ever defended himself with "I have the training or education to be a reliable source on video game sales". - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And to add, I doubt the validity of a person as a good source if they make such a cryptic statement as "we have point of sale retail estimates". There's no reason AT all to assume that he's a reliable source, especially not because he's been cited as a source. If his numbers were completely made up, would that not matter because Forbes cited it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I keep wondering what any of this has to do with the article. And you haven't given a source that states that the numbers are made up. And one more thing Robert Passarella has said that VG Chartz "uses a similar methodology as NPD, in trending and forecasting game sales through representative samples". Rhonin the wizard (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So, he gets these samples for Japanese sales? He lives in the UK, and the fact that the only person to have said his formula ISN'T the man himself doesn't help this so-called "confirmation" ring as true. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're making less and less sense. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's my fault that you don't see what "the webmaster has never stated his formula at any given time in history". And on top of that, how in the world would he GET representative sales from Japan? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's explained on the site: " VG Chartz estimated sell-through figures are arrived at by tracking sample data from an ever-expanding panel of retail partners and benchmarking the sample data against known reference points (manufacturer shipment figures for example).", "In order to achieve this, VG Chartz collects and makes projections of sell-through data from retailers for a variety of different markets - Japan, US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and many other smaller world markets. VG Charts has one primary concern with regard to data collection in this way and that is ensuring that the sample sizes used are significant enough to accurately represent the entire markets in which the samples are based. VG Chartz verifies the accuracy of sell-through data by comparing with manufacturer production and shipment data and also by comparing with competing sell-through services, if available. By constantly adjusting sell-through data and adopting a multifaceted approach, we can present information that is as unbiased, accurate and as complete as possible.". If you want the actual calculations, first I'd like to know the ones NPD use. how in the world would he GET representative sales from Japan? From Japanese retailers. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess, you think that Sony's numbers are sell-through too, huh? This person does not have connections in Japan. And simply put, he does estimates. He defends using shipment numbers to estimate his sell-through numbers based on "once a game is discontinued, most copies of the game are sold, and the number of games shipped is almost equal to the number of games sold to customers." This has been proven wrong left and right by people who actually live in Japan, and can personally debunk his theory by going to the stores and observing that there are many games still on the shelves, and in spite of this, he still uses these shipment figures for Japan sales. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And may I add that VG Chartz's validity has been discussed for a very long time across many pages? In the end, VG Chartz was listed as a questionable source with questionable practices, as stated here. The site has no editorial oversight, and I see no reason to assume that VG Chartz was listed as a questionable source over many months for no good reason. In fact, the article is definitely biased towards VG Chartz - the wording is constantly defending it and trying to prove its validity (like, for instance, it doesn't use shipment figures, which is patently untrue). - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see what this has to do with the article. You have not given a source that states that they estimate shipments and not sold to consumers. All sales tracking firms do estimates, none of them are 100% correct. Find me an unused copy of the Legend of Zelda in a store. So what if something has been discused for a long time? Look at the Methodology section. Not once in the article is it stated is VG Chartz is accurate or not, let the readers decide this. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to address the quality of his numbers. His number have been proven faulty, inconsistent, flighty, and the source that VG Chartz does not use shipments is DEFENDING the estimation of shipments. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Find sources, anything else is original research. And I'll explain one more time VG Chartz tracks sold to consumers, if the numbers are higher than shipments mistakes were made. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I guess he was defending using shipment numbers in a source RIGHT in the article for fun? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Which one? Rhonin the wizard (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The one which I said in my edit summary on the article when you reverted my removal of the statement that they don't use shipments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to this one. Nowhere was it defending the numbers with shipments. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad - I forgot the oh-so logical reason of "for no good reason". So, just curious, why in the world does the methodology page mention shipments in six out of 14 of the points? And why would he mention that retail sales are close to shipments if he doesn't use them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're just making assumptions without anything to back them up. Simple answer I don't know, maybe he got tired of people confusing shipped with sold. The site tracks sold to consumers not sold to retailers, shipment data is used in this, as explained in the methodology page, for example a game can't sell more than units shipped. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That assessment does not at any point explain why he would defend the methodology of "games sell most of their shipment" if he doesn't make estimates based on what the companies shipped? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I give up. If you want something added to the article find a source. If you still have questions about VG Chartz I suggest either asking Brett Walton or going to the forums, I hope they will be of much more help to you than I was. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The methodology page wouldn't make mention of "sales usually reflect the shipments" if it wasn't a part of the methodology of the page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a website that essentially fabricates its numbers. They are do not conduct any retailer sampling or other market research. When a number doesn't come from publicly available secondary sources, it's pure guesswork. As far as I know no one really disputes this. This fact should be reflected in the article. Piddle (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a source, that would be original research and I or another editor would have to remove it. And I know plenty of people that would dispute it. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See circulus in demonstrando

The methodology page on VGChartz defends the use of estimating # shipped. It's like if there was a file on a future strike on Iran, and it defended its right to use nuclear action, never specifically mentioning in Iran. Common sense dictates that they must be talking about Iran, because if they aren't, the whole string is out of the scope of the file and should not have been there. So without any explanation why something not involved in his methodology is defended ON the methodology page, it is not assuming what he said. It's common sense to assume that the statement is relevant to the page it's on unless otherwise noted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious, I can't believe how many people have been fooled. VGChartz has absolutely NO real stats to work from, it's just a trickery by some teenagers. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18919 Kenimaru (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, that has being discussed a thousand times here, either we like it or not the article is there, and is stayin, the source you refer is nothing new, is in fact referred in the article, so please next time care to read the article, and edit it if you think some data may be wrong. Personal opinions are no place for wikpedia, for that you are free to go to any of the widely availabe forums. Leonoel (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...and where is this in factreferred in the article link that you were talking about? Kenimaru (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just see reference 14 at the end of the article, and the entry about Simon Carlesse in the history content, (please read the entire thing carefully). My point is, do not come and discuss what has already have been discussed, it is clear it has had no clear results. Leonoel (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, and I suppose you have no problem with omitting the other important information from the source except the part about the supposely educated guesses? Last time I checked, this entry is tagged for further editing. Kenimaru (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to edit as much as you think, as long it is objective and unbiased, if you are going to state it creates its own numbers, please refer a different article than the one Carlesse wrote. If you cannot provide these references, restrain from writing personal opinions.Leonoel (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

VGChartz is credible because major news outlets uses it as a source, and because major news outlets uses VGChartz and therefore it must be credible. Kenimaru (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

God exists because it is in the Bible, the Bible is true because God wrote it, that is the world for you my pal. Leonoel (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we don't care if they are credible or not. Care about the article, not the subject. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't VGChartz count as an official source for sales? The numbers are reasonably accurate, and it's a lot simpler than going by shipment numbers (which are not sales numbers and are rarely updated), or NPD (which is US only). For example, Gran Turismo 5 Prologue is, according to Wikipedia, the best selling PS3 game with 3.67 million units sold, when this is clearly not the case- according to VGC numbers, Grand Theft Auto IV is at 5.78 million sold on PS3. GT5P outselling GTA IV would require a 36% discrepancy on the part of VGChartz. Harsalan (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just let me remind you, VGA adjusts their numbers according NPD for North American Market (NPD is all North America, not just US), and that its stated in the Carlesse Article, even the page founder admits that. And NPD does updates its numbers once a week, so it is not rarely, please do more research before posting. In Gamasutra they disclose the NPD numbers once they are released. --Leonoel (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said NPD updated rarely. They update often. Shipment numbers for most companies, however, are rarely updated. NPD's problem is that, while it is more accurate than VG Chartz, only a small part of the world (North America) is tracked. So while VGC isn't perfect, it's the best source we have for worldwide sales. And if the sales numbers are adjusted to be closer to NPD, then that's even better, because that surely makes the sales more accurate, right? Harsalan (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You just said the very same reason Wikipedia do not take it as an official source, why taking them if we can quote NPD or Famitsu for Japan, and if you read the Carlesse article you may be able to see that more than once their numbers for europe are a wild guess. So, lets stick with professional sources that can held accountability for their numbers. --Leonoel (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with NPD data or data from any other source is that it is not revealed to the public outside of a top ten each month. VGChartz states that they use the public data to check their own figures but the fact remains that they produce weekly lists of the top 4000+ selling games worldwide - there is no other public source for this data. Shipment figures are released quarterly but only for the top few games per publisher and data from "official trackers" is either not released at all or the best available is a top ten monthly - it is virtually impossible to publish up to date and regular sales for games using just "official information". Time and time again, VGChartz data has been shown to fall within 10% of these official sources (which themselves have margins of error - often as large as +/-10%) so I don't see why it wouldn't count as an official source, especially in cases where better data is not available (i.e 99% of games). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.58.137 (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually sales date, like cars, electronic entertainment and such, costs money, believe me, it is not free, and it is because it really is a intense work to get all that data together. You mention that they fall within 10%, yes that is in the best of cases, they have been shown by NPD itself to fall even as far as 40% in some games and sales data, believe me, I have tracked since some time the data in the site. Brenn has never stated where does he get his data and when asked, has stated repeatedly that is some kind of confidential information. It is a good place for fans that want to now the trends, but for tracking up to date data is not reliable, and Wikipedia cannot afford to state something that is not accurate. --Leonoel (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

VG Chartz is not an official source for a very simple reason: All their sales numbers are merely guesses. Unlike NPD, GfK, etc. they use absolutely no hard data. For instance NPD samples 60% of the market. VG Chartz samples 0%. Especially for software, VG Charz numbers are wild guesses and in the case of smaller titles, are often off by more than 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.190.120 (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Correction* The statement in the paragraph above me is completely incorrect. VGChartz gets their data (At least for all statistically significant countries) from retailer sampling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.131.170.126 (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so. What was written above is quite right; there is no proof to the contrary. Vgchartz refuse to publish any sources and methodology. For instance, they admittedly have absolutely NO hard data for Europe and Japan; all those numbers are pure guesses. Calling all European countries and Japan "insignificant" is a little presumptuous, don't you think? Furthermore, they only have a tiny sample of the US-market (if at all; again, they don't disclose their source(s)). Their numbers are guesstimates, not facts. Sometimes they are very good, sometimes they are way off. As stated above, Vgchartz' weekly numbers for software sales are completely unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts Are Neutral (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is my belief that the only reliable numbers are those given by the companies themselves from financial reports of shipped units. NPD, Famitsu, Media Create, and GFK are simply tracking firms that only deal with a small sample size. As stated earlier NPD deals with 60% sample. They have not released to the general public their margin of error nor their methods for approximation. These tracking sources simply cannot be used because they are at best approximations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts Are Neutral (talk • 9:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalmonstar (talk • contribs)

I utterly fail to see any information in the old version of the article that was not included in the new that is worth keeping. The old version was a biased, critical mishmash of miscellaneous information that was poorly organized and with no continuity or flow whatsoever. If you do not like the changes I made, do not just blanketly revert it. Even if you don't like the fact that I removed enough of the criticism to make the article something approaching neutral, there is no way in hell you can possible argue that the old version was better. If you want to add more criticism to the article, please explain why it is important and how it improves the article in your edit summary. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place to attack website you don't like. There are many websites I strongly dislike for various reasons, but I do not go around adding criticism of them to their articles without a good reason for doing so. Imho, the article as it stands does an adequate job of covering the criticism of this website. Thingg^⊕⊗ 16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I really do not see that much difference among versions, it looks to me you more or less just rearranged the data. Just remember this is not a forum, you just do your edit and put your reasons in the Edit summary, you do not have to state a rant here in the discussion before anyone every did anything to your Edits. Leonoel (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"I utterly fail to see any information in the old version of the article that was not included in the new that is worth keeping." I utterly fail to see any information in the new version of the article that was not included in the old that is worth keeping. Additionally, you removed all critical sources. Therefore, reverted. PS. This is Wikipedia, not a promotional page of vgchartz. Here (as opposed to vgchartz) FACTS are stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts Are Neutral (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's getting a bit annoying that obvious VG Chartz supporters keep removing the FACT that vgchartz.com doesn't reveal any sources or methodology from the Wikipedia article. There are several links _within_ the article that confirm that there is no actual market research being conducted by VG Chartz and even Walton himself confirmed that European and Japanese numbers are based on guesses and estimates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts Are Neutral (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• • It's simple, they have no source. As Aaron Greenberg pointed out in [[3]] and in an article by Gamasutra[[4]]. Let's see how long my feedback would remain on this page. Kenimaru (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the methodology page - the sources are clearly listed. It is factually incorrect to say that VGChartz.com does not reveal any sources when it clearly does. TadjHolmes (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I see this: All sales estimates on VGChartz are arrived at via a number of proprietrary and ever-developing methods: (list omitted), and not a single name of any source. (There are sources for where VGC is mentioned, but we're talking about what sources VGC uses). Unless there's a different page from [5] there are no sources. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Polling end users to find out what games they are currently purchasing and playing", "Polling retail partners to find out what games and hardware they are selling" etc. Saying "VGChartz does not reveal the sources of data" is factually inaccurate JadamHosey (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not revealing sources. Which end users? How are they selected? Is it a unbiased poll? Which retail partners? etc. etc. All that is methodology, which is fine to outline on the WP page, but the methodology claims does not counter the question from secondary sources of "where are the sources that VGC uses?". --MASEM (t) 16:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is revealing sources and methodology. They have to personally name every user who participates in a poll (which is likely anonymous) and how they take the data from the poll? They may not reveal their exact detailed methodology (any why should they - does any financial organisation?) but to say they don't say where the data comes from is wrong. JadamHosey (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, its not exactly who they poll, but the methods of the poll. Take any random news article that polls the public [6] for example, and you'll see metrics of the poll - #s of users, selection, and the percentage of error. Just saying one polls users is not sufficient to assure that it is a reliable poll. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

But back to the point, the line "VGChartz does not reveal any of its sources" isn't correct. Whether you can verify for yourself whether they are accurate or not is your choice, but they do reveal the sources and how they put their data together. The current edit is a reasonable middle ground. JadamHosey (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that's only methodology. *I* could do the same methods, by asking 2 people that walk out of a Gamestop and talking with the clerk, and come up with my own sales figures for national and international releases based on extrapolation. I'd still face the problem if I don't say the sample size or which vendors I'm talking to. The methodology accuracy is disputed by the secondary sources because they don't give any indication of the sources of their polling or questioning. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me the sources and methodolgy used to produce this chart? [7] JadamHosey (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

[8] yes. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just being difficult. The NPD list of "sources" is even more vague than the one on VGChartz! Which stores do they track? How do they account for stores they don't track directly? How big is their marketshare? 92.28.197.234 (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Assuredly much larger than VGC. Specific reports that I've seen in the past from NPD do outline this information - they just charge a fee to see the details.

The end of the day, we're talking a staff of 10 verses a a staff of thousands with a long-established history. The latter, we can easily establish their reliability, the former needs to prove it. The potential POV that is going on over this article is not helping that cause. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hang on. You claim that VGChartz is unreliable as it does not reveal its sources to the public. Neither does NPD. For paid clients, VGChartz also gives a full disclosure of methodology and sources just like NPD. VGChartz has been cited in numerous formal publications and news articles just like NPD. So what exactly is the difference other than your personal bias? 92.28.197.234 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they reveal their sources to the public - you just have to pay for it (WP does not consider pay sites as unreliable, just more difficult to get). The citing of NPD is not just a name drop but use the data extensively to determine the trends for the vg market. All I've seen VGC nameddropped for is to put a figure in place but there's no larger analysis of that figure. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What? They do not reveal sources to the public - show me an example? Paying for something means you are not "the public", you are a client. I cannot find a list anywhere of which retailers NPD polls, what sample sizes they use or any other way in which they produce their data - exactly the same argument you are aiming at VGChartz. NPD and VGChartz both reveal their sources to paying clients but for some reason you are ok with that for NPD but are demanding that VGChartz should make their sources public to be taken seriously! You can't bend and change your own rules to suit yourself. 92.28.197.234 (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the Wired article merely links to and re-asserts what the Gamasutra article states. Secondly, both Kohler[9][10][11] (Kobun Heat) and Carless[12] (h0l211) are regulars on the NeoGAF forum[13] - a site that the VGChartz creator (ioi) used to frequent before starting VGChartz and a site that has a notorious history of bad feeling with VGChartz - actually calling for the site to be banned from all discussion. Just because Carless and Kohler hide behind the credibility of their respective websites, doesn't make their articles or opinions objective or credible in any way. Thirdly, both Wired[14] and Gamasutra[15] - "many thanks to the NPD Group for its monthly release of the video game industry data, with a special thanks to David Riley for his assistance" have close links to NPD and David Riley - a direct competitor to VGChartz and Riley has publicly criticised[16] and threatened[17] VGChartz in the past so it would make sense for both sites to side with NPD and publicly criticize VGChartz. Surely making them invalid as a reliable source.92.28.197.234 (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You attempt to demonize the act of being on NeoGAF. Hell, in the link you provide "outing" Carless, he gives a very elabourate explanation as to why he does not like VGChartz. It's almost mind boggling how you can take criticisms he posted on NeoGAF toward VGChartz and use it to say that the owner of Gamasutra is not credible as a source for... criticisms on VG Chartz. In the very link that you provide, he cites developers who criticize VGChartz, arguing that their sales were lower than what VGChartz had listed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 13:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably not worth having this same debate on two pages but I am certainly not demonizing the act of being on NeoGAF. I am highlighting (for those unaware) that there is a strong history of personal disgreement between the senior members of NeoGAF and the owner of VGChartz (with both sides claiming they are right) which is partly what lead to the creation of VGChartz in the first place. Figures like Carless are strongly affiliated with NeoGAF and NPD (who also have a clear personal issue with VGChartz) so his opinions are based on his only personal prejudices and not on a neutral and balanced evaulation of the situation. He also has a personal history with Walton, and at one point tried to strike a deal to sell data with Walton which broke down. Walton clearly defends his side in numerous articles[18][19] but they are looked over for being primary source even though there is as much COI with VGChartz in what Carless writes given his background. Him "not liking" VGChartz (and as proven, largely for personal reasons) is not a basis for using his article in an attempt to present VGChartz as unreliable. Surely the point of Wikipedia is to present a neutral and fair account of something, not focus on the personal views of writers who have a COI and write what they do as a "credible" piece, hiding behind the credibility of the organisation they work for. 92.28.197.234 (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed one sentence from the article "Notable websites such as NeoGAF and Wikipedia have decided not to use VGChartz as a source for sales data based on the Simon Carless article." -- this effectively leaves a point, counterpoint for people to make their own judgments on without defacing VG Chartz. Does that help alt all? --Teancum (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Instead of making a long post, I will reiterate that no one will agree to remove him as a credible source from VG's Sources page on the basis of a post that shows him citing several reasons why VGChartz is a bad web site. Do not reply if you do not have anything that you haven't posted yet - because in the two posts you've made in this discussion, you've mentioned nothing to argue that his points are wrong. Until you do provide such an argument, I find it hard to believe that this stance has any more basis than his NeoGAF account. Make sure your evidence doesn't make him look completely credible, also. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 13:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the two articles I have linked above - he explains it in a far more eloquent and complete way than I ever could and directly addresses your points. 92.28.197.234 (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of the article which is simply just articles from other reliable sources that simply namedrop VCG for sourcing a sales figure or two. The inclusion of a couple of these is ok, but the implication in how they were included is that VCG was a regular source of data for these publications, which seems a far exaggeration. And while it is probably necessary to identify a few major outlets that have sourced VCG (like the BBC ,for one), the lists were formed in a peaccok-y manner that clearly violated

to give an implied bias to the article.

Given the number of possible meatpuppets seeking to expand this article and/or dismiss the claims against it, we can only go as far as secondary sources go with how much detail there is. Secondary sources mean they talk about VGC is detail, not just namedrop. As best as I can tell with a quick glance from google news, we've basically covered all there is in a neutral light (including the controversy over its methods). There's really nothign else to expand on. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In order to present a balanced piece for the reader, there needs to be a fair reflection of the number of mostly positive and mostly negative references and citations to VGChartz in the media. Directly using and analysing data from VGChartz in research reports is significant as it demonstrates the trust placed in the data and acts as a counterpoint to the criticisms made in the Carless and Kohler articles. You can't have one without the other. 92.28.197.234 (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A few yes, but not as many as were being used. We're looking to expand the article that talk about VGC, not just that namedrop it as a source. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources are important when the credibility is questioned. If you want to offer one stance which states that the data is unreliable and support it with sources, you have to allow examples of where the data is quoted as reliable with sources so the reader can make up their own mind. As I said, the fact that the number of positive references outweight the number of negative by about 50:1 means that this should really be reflected in some way in the article. Key references by the BBC, Forbes, Fortune, NY Times have been in the entry for about 2 years now and are part of the story of the initial formation and media recognition is mentioned in articles like the Carless one - I don't see why you would suddenly want to remove them now? 92.28.197.234 (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The WP article is not (and cannot) question and/or support the credibility of the site. We as editors can discuss that all we want on this page or VG sources, or wherever, but the main article itself needs to stay factual and unbiased. That's why it is important how the criticism of VGC's methods by Gamasutra/etc. are presented as "A said this. B said this about C. C countered by saying this" The article makes no attempt to disprove VGC as a bad source, but at the same time, we cannot make it overly praised. That's why mention of a few namedrops are ok, but nowhere near as many as provided, as that simply establishes a fact that other sources have used VGC's numbers. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your general point but the opinion of "overly praised" is entirely subjective. Factually listing a number of organisations who have cited data from VGChartz isn't something I would describe as overly praising but something that is totally unbiased. If the references exist (and somebody has taken the time to compile and list them all) then why would you want to remove them? 92.28.197.234 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not taking a particular side on this one, but there definitely is a difference between making the point and overstating it. A few citations in the lead as well as a few sprinkled in the body would be more than enough to establish the point, but we have to be careful about getting carried away. The point I see trying to be made is that the site has been used by news outlets. That's fine, a handful certainly brings the point across, while more are overbearing and unbalanced. --Teancum (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Edited but I don't see how it is any different really to listing both the Wired and Gamasutra link. The Wired article is just a summary of the Carless article and actually links back to it with nothing added aside from some personal opinion. The Wired link is added to make the "against VGChartz" case stronger by inclusion of a credible website but doesn't actually add anything that isn't in the original Gamasutra article. 92.28.197.234 (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If the negative articles such as those from Wired and Carless are to stay (the only two that actually exist anywhere) then so should the numerous positive articles from professional bodies who source VGChartz data in various publications and articles to present a neutral point of view rather than reflect certain editor's personal bias.92.28.197.234 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do the six sources in the second lead paragraph and the four in the Expansion section pointing to VG Chartz's use in the industry not help to do that? Additionally the first source in the second Expansion paragraph is a "pro" (Robert Pasarella), while the second point is a "con" (Simon Carless), followed by a counterpoint on that "con" by Brett Walton himself. I don't understand how that forces a POV. The sourcing on the "pro" side heavily outweighs the "con" side. I understand the frustration in having a negative comment in the article, but the other side is presented quite clearly, and only one sentence in the second lead paragraph and part of the second paragraph of the Expansion section present negative comments, while all other references and text uphold it, either actively or passively. Criticism of a site/company/person is just a part of presenting the facts. Take Kotaku's article - they have the rather embarrassing Sony Blackballing incident, but that was something notable in regards to the article, as it made several headlines, so it's there. Electronic Arts also has a rather lengthy criticism section, as that's what's notable. --Teancum (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, but they keep getting deleted. Your original edits were fine, but other editors seem to insist on removing all positive sources for some reason. 92.28.197.234 (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, admittedly the lead is still a little heavy on the number of references used. It becomes more of a laundry list rather than a simple statement to reaffirm the site's notability. A few in the lead and a few in the body would do it. --Teancum (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed a few more from the lead. 92.28.197.234 (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've now protected the article whilst this discussion goes on, as it's right on the verge of a full edit-war with different parties saying they're restoring pending discussion. Inevitably I will have protected on

15:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment – I do not care about this subject enough to jump directly into any of the already existing threads, so I'll say it here: this is ridiculous. Starting around this edit, the users of VGChartz have treated this article like their personal sandbox; what supposed authority does the forum for an article's subject have on Wikipedia? Now, that was two years ago and that specific editor is no longer involved, but the point remains that either the site's proprietors or its users (or both) are actively trying to whitewash this article. Simply appending a list of sources who've cited VCG's numbers adds nothing of value to the article and is completely

) 03:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've unprotected the article. Please stop edit warring everybody and observe the

WP:BRD recommendations - other forms of edit warring may result in blocks. Magog the Ogre (talk

) 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2