Talk:List of best-selling video games: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 179: Line 179:

::::::I have several issues with the first part of this reply, but it’s mostly just picking at the words and splitting hairs, so I’ll just not do that.

::::::I have several issues with the first part of this reply, but it’s mostly just picking at the words and splitting hairs, so I’ll just not do that.

::::::That’s a fair perspective. However, I feel that giving equal weight (I don’t believe I’ve given it more weight than Minecraft) is warranted given the sources’ practically split division. The lead-list discrepancy concern is also a valid one.

::::::That’s a fair perspective. However, I feel that giving equal weight (I don’t believe I’ve given it more weight than Minecraft) is warranted given the sources’ practically split division. The lead-list discrepancy concern is also a valid one.

::::::This looks like a reasonable set of options. I agree that an RfC is likely to be needed. Of the options presented, I lean the most towards 2. 1 just plain doesn’t give proper weight to “disputed” figures and 3 is too maximalist would almost definitely require an uphill convincing spree that I think would likely prove ineffective. [[User:Man-Man122|Man-Man122]] ([[User talk:Man-Man122|talk]]) 15:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

::::::This looks like a reasonable set of options. I agree that an RfC is likely to be needed. Of the options presented, I lean the most towards 2. 1 just plain doesn’t give proper weight to “disputed” figures and 3 is too maximalist would almost definitely require an uphill convincing spree that I think would likely prove ineffective. [[User:Man-Man122|Man-Man122]] ([[User talk:Man-Man122|talk]]) 15:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Phasmophobia entered early access in 2020, and is still in early access, and its steam page says that the devs plan to fully release the game in 2026, which of these dates would be more fitting for now, or would it be best to wait until the game is released before giving it a date? For now I am going to set it to 2020 with a footnote stating explaining further GatlinGun511 (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previously listed as the fourth best selling game with 79,045,000 sales, but has been edited and no longer even in the top 50. Should his be fixed? MJ4336 (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion and this discussion on its removal. The short of it is that the 76 million figure was installs, not sales. Prefall 00:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ark being that high did always perplex me.
On another note, you mentioned at the WikiProject that you’d support the removal of Oregon Trail from this list should it be in the same situation as Tetris, and since that happens to be the case, should we go ahead with it’s removal? Man-Man122 (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I’m fine with removing Oregon Trail since it seems to have similar concerns as Tetris. Pinging @Kazama16: for their feedback since they added it to the list. Prefall 05:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it has similarities with Tetris. But are there any sources that disagree with calling The Oregon Trail a video game, like the case is for Tetris? Although I’m fine with the removal as well, because multiple editors seem to think so. Kazama16 (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source mentions 33.3 million units having been sold: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1886894/000110465922100894/tm2128835-10_drsa.htm Electricmastro (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s referring to their publishing catalog as a whole, not just Ark: Survival Evolved. Prefall 02:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some sources saying that Wii Sports came free with the Wii console. [1] [2] [3] Maybe they have misinterpreted it, or there is a special context involved? Kazama16 (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s how the bundles worked. You bought the Wii console, you technically got Wii Sports for “free.” Nintendo still recognizes those as sales. And technically, they did pay money for it, even if they had no interest in Wii Sports at all. Prefall 13:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should apply some clean-up to the table by removing or altering excessive stuff, including series, platforms, release years, and developers. The list’s main focus is on the “best-selling” criteria, so we should only add things that are relevant to that.

Series can be removed as it is not necessary, while platforms are necessary; we can explain in the article that almost all games are multi-platform, except for some Nintendo titles, or the list encompasses multiple platforms. Release years can be placed next to titles, so we can avoid a column for that. Lastly, developers place little importance on this criterion as they make games but do not usually distribute, so retaining publishers, for that matter. Kazama16 (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made these changes in my sandbox for demonstration. Feel free to look into it and edit out any mistakes. Kazama16 (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1 @PresN @Prefall any objections or suggestions regarding this? Kazama16 (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no benefits to removing the information or making it unsortable (years), and find the idea that the developers of a game have nothing to do with the game’s sales a bizarre idea. I don’t see much point with endlessly fiddling with this list, but I do think this change would be a bad one. —PresN 16:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don’t think removing any columns is necessary at the moment. Developer and Platforms are integral to this list, and Years are much better suited in their own column for sortability. If we had to remove a column, I’d say it should be Series, but I think it’s fine in its current state, unless we want to add a new column in the future and need to create space. Prefall 03:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the other editors. The current list provides a great amount of information about the game in a very concise manner. I feel that such an edit would do more harm than good. Man-Man122 (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo recently announced the original Red Dead Redemption has now sold 25 million copies. It’s listed on regular Yahoo as opposed to “Yahoo News”, which I’m informed is the reliable source. So I’m unsure what to make of the report: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/movies/articles/rockstar-huge-news-red-dead-213453983.html Electricmastro (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article originates from Men’s Journal, whose reliability I’m unsure of. I’m also not sure where exactly they’re getting this 25 million figure from. My best guess is that they’re deducting RDR2‘s newest 79 million sales figure from the previous-quarter overall Red Dead franchise sales figure of 104 million. If so, that wouldn’t fully work because of Red Dead Revolver. Prefall 07:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an assumption from them. Its like how some people assume Astro’s Playroom sold over 80 million copies due to its similarity with Wii Sports. [4] Kazama16 (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source used for the sales of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. [5] Mentions on page no. 10 that Grand Theft Auto III has sold 25 million units and on page no. 12 that Grand Theft Auto: Vice City has sold “approximately” 25 million units. Also this same figure is presented for Grand Theft Auto IV as well. What a coincidence, though I think they are just presuming at this point not giving true figures. Kazama16 (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to today’s tweet from cdproject
https://x.com/CDPROJEKTRED_IR/status/1993715326782251511 ~2025-36145-20 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added with different source. Prefall 22:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunk 2077 has sold 35 million copies
(as of 26 November 2025
https://www.cdprojekt.com/en/wp-content/uploads-en/2025/11/cd-projekt-group-presentation-q3-2025.pdf) MrJackinto (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This claim needs support from an independent reliable source. Day Creature (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added with different source. Prefall 22:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the changes that have been made to the article since this was last brought up. However, I still feel that Tetris’ aggregated numbers should be represented in the list to some degree. As the article itself now notes, there is a significant confliction among reliable sources as to whether Tetris is the best-selling game or Minecraft. Per DUE and BALANCE, the article has to adequately represent these views equally and, seeing that the article is primarily a list, that would require them to be in the list, in some fashion. Maybe with the sales figures present but the title isn’t numerated, maybe with a big asterisk, or maybe both. I just feel that Tetris’ case unique among sales disputes, in the sense that it has a hefty amount of wind behind its wings, in terms of reliable sources. I also think the article should be tweaked a little and go a bit further out of the way to point out that the view expressed is an opinion, rather than a fact, per WIKIVOICE (specifically, “Avoid stating seriously contested assertations as fact”). Man-Man122 (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus has not changed since our last discussion, so we’re all just going to be reiterating the same points over again. As I said before: either it’s reliable enough to be on the list or it’s not. And the consensus thus far is that it is not reliable enough to include. The dispute being acknowledged in the lead is more than adequate. Prefall 23:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least in theory, I wouldn’t know that for certain unless I made another one of these. I feel that there is room for new points to be made, such as the issue of representation that I don’t recall being brought up last time round. Also, who or what makes a title “reliable enough” to be on the list? Beckoning unanimity among sources? That’s never been the case on Wikipedia. It doesn’t help that, despite Todd Howard’s history, most sources do still tend to give Skyrim that 60 million figure, but it’s disallowed on this chart. At this point, it feels like editor’s discretion, which ignores one of the central tenets of Wikipedia, that being, prevalence of a view among sources trumps prevalence of a view among editors. Also, I’m sorry, but I disagree. I don’t think one sentence in the second paragraph and one sentence in a side screen photo box constitutes adequate representation in a nearly 500-word body article with a list of 50 games, especially when this particular issue is central to the whole premise to the article.
I would fully understand not wanting to have this discussion and I would completely respect that decision (And if that’s the case, I wish you a good day/night), but hey, I’m just using the talk page for what it’s for. Man-Man122 (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you can improve this matter by rewriting it, then be WP:BOLD and go ahead, although make sure the information is supported or implied by the sources. Kazama16 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.
I need to know this before I start: Would it be acceptable for me to alter the list in any way? Man-Man122 (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s up to you, but don’t go against the consensus that would cause edit warring. Kazama16 (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll do my best. Thanks. Man-Man122 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I’ve edited it in an attempt to better express the division in the sources, without moving either in the chart, and to better adhere to WP:VOICE’s: “Avoid stating opinions as facts” and WP:BALANCE’s: “When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance.”
There’s still more I want to address further, but is this so far okay? Man-Man122 (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just feeling neutral on this, neither positive nor negative. But at least take time to edit and check properly if things look alright. Your edits created errors in references. I hope you will improve and prevent doing that in the future. Kazama16 (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imported an older copy of the list because the page got rv’d while I was doing the edit, must’ve missed them. Man-Man122 (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus among editors does determine what is included on this list, because it is a random collection of individual sales figures compiled together to make this list. As the article itself makes clear, there is no centralized source to pull this best-selling list from, so we have to form our own criteria. Sources are split on Tetris, so a determination had to be made here, and the consensus up to this point is that Tetris‘s 520 million figure is not for a single version of the game, which does not fit our criteria.
I believe old versions of this article presented itself more clearly. The first paragraph introduced the article and stated that Minecraft was the best-selling game according to this list’s criteria. The second paragraph acknowledged notable disputed figures and explained why they were not included on the list. The third paragraph went into more detail about the general criteria. The fourth paragraph clarified formatting details, and included a final disclaimer that a reliable, centralized source for game sales does not exist.
The current version of the article feels very much at odds with this consensus. Too much weight is being given to a game that is not included on this list. Tetris is now acknowledged first in the opening paragraph and it’s side-by-side with Minecraft in the sidebar image, yet when you scroll down, Tetris is not listed beside Minecraft at all. That must be very confusing for readers. Unlike before, it feels like the article has an identity crisis and does not know what it wants to be. We really need to sort this out, one way or another. Prefall 11:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a single version isn’t even listed as a disqualifier in the criteria. Sources aren’t just split on Tetris; they’re split on what the best-selling game is altogether. That should obviously be mentioned out the gate.
You argue that Tetris is given too much weight for a title that is not listed. For the first part of that statement, I’d repeat the last two sentences. A good amount of weight would be needed for a situation like this. For the second part, if I could put on the list in way without stirring a significant amount of controversy, I would. I’ve previously proposed ways that Tetris’ aggregated figure could be incorporated into the list without usurping Minecraft’s position, in alignment with sources. But I don’t think anyone else would really be amenable to that, so that creates a situation where a large chunk of sources are saying something, but it’s not mentioned in the list for other reasons.
I’m all ears to any suggestions that you may have in sorting this out Man-Man122 (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a single version isn’t even listed as a disqualifier in the criteria. Because it has never been deemed an unclear issue, such as to require an explanation. If it’s not a single game, then it’s a franchise. Sources are split on the best-selling game directly because they are split on how to classify Tetris, either as a single game or a franchise. The consensus here is that the latter is more accurate.
We can increase Tetris‘s weight without giving it equal or more weight than Minecraft. Since the consensus is not to include disputed figures on the list, I don’t think such a major discrepancy between the lead and the list should be present.
We seem to have the following options:

  1. Adhere to status quo. Give more weight to Minecraft, but acknowledge the Tetris dispute later in the lead. Do not include Tetris (or other disputed figures) on the list.
  2. Change consensus on the inclusion of disputed figures on the list. This would allow Tetris and Minecraft to have equal weight in the lead. Tetris (and others) would be present on the list, but with some sort of marked format to highlight their disputed figures.
  3. Change consensus on Tetris. If it’s deemed a single game, then it could be given more weight than Minecraft and included on the list. The dispute among sources would still need to be mentioned in the lead, just in a different manner.
Maybe there are other paths that I can’t think of at the moment, but I much prefer #1 out of those options. Regardless, I think we’re going to need an RfC for outside opinions. Prefall 13:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have several issues with the first part of this reply, but it’s mostly just picking at the words and splitting hairs, so I’ll just not do that.
That’s a fair perspective. However, I feel that giving equal weight (I don’t believe I’ve given it more weight than Minecraft) is warranted given the sources’ practically split division. The lead-list discrepancy concern is also a valid one.
This looks like a reasonable set of options. I agree that an RfC is likely to be needed. Of the options presented, I lean the most towards 2. 1 just plain doesn’t give proper weight to the “disputed” figures, and 3 is too maximalist and would almost definitely require an uphill convincing spree that I think would likely prove ineffective. Man-Man122 (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top