Talk:VGChartz

This page is being discussed on an external forum http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=23950

Official Source?

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)

My improvements to this page

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)

Persistant Removal of Critical Information

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 [[1]] and in an article by Gamasutra[[2]]. 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 [3] 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)