It's fine if you don't believe them but why should anyone waste their time entertaining your opinion based off of scrounged together half truths as opposed to a company plainly telling us their expectations were met?
You use incomplete data to make a point but the most plain words that matter you like to ignore. It's baffling.
Rankings are made by independent institutes. We can trust them. We don't have numbers, but can use everything we have, make comparisons, etc. This is what people do in the
PAL Charts thread, for example.
We can't use because they aren't neutral. They always find a way to show how everything is awesome. If you want another example, read
this report from Kotaku about esport.
If publishers said "we expect this game to sell this numbers of copies" and then "it did better than expected", we could use that. But we don't know what they expect, so we can't know if doing better means that the game sells well or not.
And for the record just because Ubisoft stated the Division 2 was the biggest game of the year, they also said
the game underformed on consoles and met their expectations on PC. Why would you ignore this? Perhaps because it goes against your narrative? Naaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww couldn't be it.
I used the PR about latest quarter because I saw it on Twitter and it made my angry, because it was a complete bullshit. About your report, we know that The Division 2 did much less than The Division 1. At best, it did half of what The Division 1 did, maybe even more. But they only said that "The Division 2 ended up short of our ambitious expectations on console."
So it means that they expected a huge decline in sales in comparison of The Division 1. It's a normal expectation, because it was predictable that it happens: like Watch Dogs, The Division was a huge commercial success, but the majority of players were disappointed. It didn't affect sales of the first game, but it had an impact on sales of the sequel, even if it was a better game than the first one. So we could say that The Division 2 did as expected, but it doesn't mean it did "well". Even if it was "above expectations", it would have meant that it did less than the first game, which cannot be described as "well".
