https://twitter.com/matpiscatella/status/1747983570222875017
Does this stat take release date into account? Otherwise it seems like a pretty meaningless metric. An AAA game that releases in January is going to have better sales for the year compared to one that releases in October.
It doesn't, but most game sales are front loaded at release. Having 8 months on the shelf still makes a difference, for sure, but it's still notable that it was number 1.
What's crazy to me is that after the first week or two, I didn't see anyone talking about it. I kind of assumed it either flopped or was mediocre but I guess people just silently played it?
It has that mainstream appeal as in being a brand parents know (Harry Potter) and being pretty inoffensive (i.e. no guns and blood or sex and partying) so I imagine just about every kid with a system it runs on and in the age bracket of 6-16 got it for Christmas or their Birthday despite not being on the wishlist.
Something something Streisand effect.
But probably not, I'm guessing most people weren't aware there was a boycott.
If assholes wanna play a boring game to own the libs, then that's on them, lmao. Similar to them buying barbie and bud light shit just to set it on fire when they are mad
Own the trans-commubity you mean. And people played it because bassically nobody could give a rats ass about the boycott..
Looks like the original tweet ended as (Rock Band) to indicate the game that took #1 back in 2008, and either OP or the auto-titler missed the parentheses?
TBF the graphics, setup and intro were pretty good (esp if you're a fan of the series). The problem was that it went absolutely nowhere after that, beyond "you're at Hogwarts and it looks pretty". I guess that was good enough for enough people to put it over the top.