Signs that games pre-orders for PS4 outpacing Xbox one 4:1 in the US

Lefein

Ultimate Veteran
Jun 9, 2005
22,966
158
63
39
#2
[video=youtube_share;9EcjWd-O4jI]http://youtu.be/9EcjWd-O4jI[/video]

But it's VGChartz.
 

K2D

Forum Guru
Oct 19, 2006
3,557
18
38
#4
[QUOTE="Lefein, post: 6173611]
But it's VGChartz.[/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right. So I would take their numbers with a boat-load of salt. :snicker

Couldn't resist the chance of posting a news piece with "4:1" in the title though ;)
 
Last edited:
Dec 20, 2006
9,845
57
48
#7
I'm more impressed with the fact that a JRPG managed to crack the top 5.

I guess the drought this gen has made more people miss the genre after all this time. *shrug*
 

K2D

Forum Guru
Oct 19, 2006
3,557
18
38
#12
[QUOTE="mistercrow, post: 6173867]VG Chartz? lol[/QUOTE]
What was all the controversy over VGC again? I've been around long enough to remember there was one, but the details escape me :p
 

mistercrow

Ultimate Veteran
Nov 10, 2007
24,742
238
0
Texas
#13
[QUOTE="K2D, post: 6174151]What was all the controversy over VGC again? I've been around long enough to remember there was one, but the details escape me :p[/QUOTE] From what I've heard they just guess at their numbers. At one time they were actually banned here as a source.
 

PS4freak

Counting Mod
Staff member
May 15, 2006
17,374
127
63
Louisiana
#15
[QUOTE="mistercrow, post: 6174215]From what I've heard they just guess at their numbers. At one time they were actually banned here as a source.[/QUOTE]

Lol. Really?! That's bad. I don't remember that.
 

mistercrow

Ultimate Veteran
Nov 10, 2007
24,742
238
0
Texas
#16
[QUOTE="ps3freak18, post: 6174218]Lol. Really?! That's bad. I don't remember that.[/QUOTE] Wow, I'm surprised you dont. It was still PS3 Forums back then.
 

PS4freak

Counting Mod
Staff member
May 15, 2006
17,374
127
63
Louisiana
#19
[QUOTE="mistercrow, post: 6174224]Wow, I'm surprised you dont. It was still PS3 Forums back then.[/QUOTE]

I have the world's worst memory lol.
 

TAZ427

Elite Guru
Nov 29, 2007
5,303
51
0
Sugar Land, TX
#20
VGChartz, My Hero :snicker While everyone gives them a lot of shit, and I wouldn't quote their numbers as fact, their numbers actually tend to be not to far from the truth.
 

Brandon

Administrator
Staff member
Nov 8, 2004
15,291
127
63
#21
[QUOTE="K2D, post: 6173674]So I would take their numbers with a boat-load of salt. :snicker
[/QUOTE]
Not to be the friendly neighborhood Grammar Nazi, but this is right up there with "could care less." It's "take with a grain of salt." A boatload of salt would imply we could take them seriously. I mean ... you're free to say it that way ... just realize that somewhere in the world ... every time you say it that way ... a baby kitten dies. Please think of the kittens.

:(
 

K2D

Forum Guru
Oct 19, 2006
3,557
18
38
#24
[QUOTE="PBM, post: 6174301]Not to be the friendly neighborhood Grammar Nazi, but this is right up there with "could care less." It's "take with a grain of salt." A boatload of salt would imply we could take them seriously. I mean ... you're free to say it that way ... just realize that somewhere in the world ... every time you say it that way ... a baby kitten dies. Please think of the kittens.

:([/QUOTE]


Those two have nothing in common. There's "a grain of salt" and then there's "a pinch of salt".

Then there is "a f***ing ocean-liner of salt", or whatever you so incline. Puns intended.
 
Last edited:

TAZ427

Elite Guru
Nov 29, 2007
5,303
51
0
Sugar Land, TX
#25
[QUOTE="PBM, post: 6174301]Not to be the friendly neighborhood Grammar Nazi, but this is right up there with "could care less." It's "take with a grain of salt." A boatload of salt would imply we could take them seriously. I mean ... you're free to say it that way ... just realize that somewhere in the world ... every time you say it that way ... a baby kitten dies. Please think of the kittens.

:([/QUOTE]

Not that it actually has anything to do with Grammar, but you're wrong.

The term take with a grain of salt was implied that you consume a bit of salt before hand to make something easier to swallow. So taking it with with a boatload of salt would imply it's total BS. So please stop killing kittens with your incorrect attempts at corrections. ;)
 
Likes: K2D

Georges

Apprentice
Jan 8, 2012
189
3
0
22
Lebanon
#27
[QUOTE="PBM, post: 6174301]Not to be the friendly neighborhood Grammar Nazi, but this is right up there with "could care less." It's "take with a grain of salt." A boatload of salt would imply we could take them seriously. I mean ... you're free to say it that way ... just realize that somewhere in the world ... every time you say it that way ... a baby kitten dies. Please think of the kittens.

:([/QUOTE]
Although it's a hyperbole... Unless you're not serious, something tells me you're not.

Not to be a Vocabulary Nazi, but you're not a Grammar Nazi, as "a boatload of salt" is grammatically correct. :D
__
Anyway, I don't trust VGChartz and it cannot be that bad honestly, it's probably 2-3:1
 

TAZ427

Elite Guru
Nov 29, 2007
5,303
51
0
Sugar Land, TX
#28
[QUOTE="Georges, post: 6175156]Aren't VGChartz (such a professional name) banned like everywhere?[/QUOTE]

The only one I really know of that has banned use of VGChartz numbers is NeoGAF - which I can't stand the site anyway. That said, there's tons of postings and claims that it's banned from a lot more sites, but I've not actually seen anything that proves this and I've seen numbers posted from VGChartz on those sites that some have claimed have banned it's use. Personally I believe those claims to be from over-zealous anti-VGChartz posters trying to make a point.

That said, it's widely accepted as not having the most accurate numbers and more importantly questionable reporting (and suggestions made that reporting is based on proprietary information that has been tweaked to avoid proof of wrong doing.)

That said, I don't know or care where the get their numbers. I'll use them when I'm wanting some quick ballpark numbers for myself as the numbers are usually pretty good and it's free and accessible which show me another source that has this amount of information. That said, I won't quote them as fact.
 

Georges

Apprentice
Jan 8, 2012
189
3
0
22
Lebanon
#29
[QUOTE="TAZ427, post: 6175167]The only one I really know of that has banned use of VGChartz numbers is NeoGAF - which I can't stand the site anyway. That said, there's tons of postings and claims that it's banned from a lot more sites, but I've not actually seen anything that proves this and I've seen numbers posted from VGChartz on those sites that some have claimed have banned it's use. Personally I believe those claims to be from over-zealous anti-VGChartz posters trying to make a point.

That said, it's widely accepted as not having the most accurate numbers and more importantly questionable reporting (and suggestions made that reporting is based on proprietary information that has been tweaked to avoid proof of wrong doing.)

That said, I don't know or care where the get their numbers. I'll use them when I'm wanting some quick ballpark numbers for myself as the numbers are usually pretty good and it's free and accessible which show me another source that has this amount of information. That said, I won't quote them as fact.[/QUOTE]

I think Gamefaqs banned it too didn't it?

Anyway, I don't think people care wether it's VGChartz or not, as inaccurate as it may be. They only denounce it as not legit when the other team is winning.
 

Varsh

Editor /Tech Adviser
Staff member
Jan 5, 2006
7,172
40
48
38
UK
#30
[QUOTE="PBM, post: 6174301]Not to be the friendly neighborhood Grammar Nazi, but this is right up there with "could care less.".[/QUOTE]

Not to be the friendly neighbourhood grammar Nazi but it's "couldn't care less". :p

Sorry I had to roll with the others on that one. :D