I understand that there is lack of data, but that doesn't change the fact that removal of only one outlier is just manipulation of data to suit your argument. Lack of data doesn't allow you to subjectively remove one particular data point. Any arguments based on that statistic is completely invalid.
Aspecially when you consider the fact that the distrubution of sales is probably very assymetrical in distrubution. Where most titles sell extremely low numbers, while a few blockbusters make up for the majority of the sales. That is how the entertainment industry is distrubuted in terms of revenues.
Which again, is why I have the problem with this chart as a whole, since it talks about an 'average' sale for games. We're probably looking at a lopsided distribution that doesn't bunch up around the average at all, so describing it just by the average doesn't really add any useful information.
Tbh, i haven't read through these thread at all. What are you actually trying to prove? That big titles that sell alot will remove sales from other games?
Nope, in fact the opposite; the original argument (not mine) was that the chart was absolutely bogus because removing MW2 doesn't exist in a vacuum, that the data isn't independent. If MW2 didn't exist, all other third-party games would sell differently. Which may be true (as you said, it's nearly impossible to prove, but 'sounds' reasonable). I happen to think this is a self-serving argument, though; we don't apply it evenly. Nintendo first-party software shapes its software landscape to a much greater degree than MW2 (to those who might dispute this claim, remember that Nintendo is carrying the top-selling console this generation pretty much on its own). But no one questions the validity of '3rd party sales' charts when they pop up.
I'm not even saying they should: it's likely (read: certain) that the intent of the chart (or of '3rd party sales charts' in general) isn't to offer an alternate history, some world in which MW2 (or Nintendo) never existed, but rather to try describe some situation in which MW2 (or Nintendo) sales warp the data and make it less useful. A sample criteria of 'all 3rd party games except for Modern Warfare 2' describes exactly that, as does '3rd party sales'.
For this chart in particular, though, well, at best what we get is 'MW2 sold a lot, Nintendo sells a lot'. Which we didn't really need Nintendo to tell us.
Also, to be perfectly clear, I'm not a Nintendo fan. I own a DS and a Wii, but I don't care much for their games (as a Sega kid, I don't even have the nostalgia link towards Mario). As a market-leader I think they do a particularly poor job and in fact last month argued for a long time with Teasy and others on this. But I think we're altogether too dismissive when it comes to Nintendo, we behave as if their success isn't real, or a fluke. When talking about games that's even reasonable, as they took a path that isn't compatible with this forum's preferences. In a sales thread, though, I find it intellectually dishonest.
