Jump to content

Talk:List of best-selling Eastern role-playing game franchises

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Japanese role-playing game franchises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on List of Japanese role-playing game franchises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entries with no sales

[edit]

Why do the bottom 40 or so entries have no sales figures at all? If we don't have any figures, they need to be removed. Sergecross73 msg me 05:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears this article isn't tracking sales, just franchises. Which then leads to the question of, "Why is it sorted by best-selling?", which is the reason I mistook this for a sales list in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 05:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, it really should be moved to List of best-selling Japanese role-playing game franchises with at least a million sold to be included. Most of the games under a million are just single titles with a mobile adaptation or a spinoff at most, not true a franchise in line of Final Fantasy or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm stuck on mobile for a couple more days, but eventually I was going to clean this up a bit. It either needs to be renamed, or re-organized by alphabetical order. And either approach requires some trimming as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just in alphabetical order with no mention of sales data, I'd argue that a category would be better suited for this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sales info should be removed in either scenario if its reliably sourced, I just don't think it should be the default sorting method if we keep it at the current article name.
Based on similar situations in the past, I'm not crazy about deleting the article. I think it'll be quite the debate to get rid of it. We'll get all sorts of "But its an invaluable source of wisdom!" and "Stop it you dirty deletionists!" nonsense, which, I'm fine weathering when its non-notable mobile games or promotional bio garbage, but less motivated for something like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I agree, which is why I prefer the first suggestion I made. Having a "franchise" of two games with no known/included sales data is what should be removed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Im fine with either, so if you prefer that approach, we can go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started the cleanup of the article, but kept the inclusion qualification to 100,000 for now. Another thing that should be removed is the "content" field, which includes the number of animes and mangas a franchise got. It's a bloated, mostly unsourced field that goes off-topic now that the list focuses on how many games were sold in the franchise, not everything else. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I had wanted to keep it around in order to identify items that aren't even real "franchises/series" (like Skies of Arcadia), but it seems like the trimming of all of the entries without any sales info at all got rid of most of those entries as it is. Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now in a much better shape, but do we really need the subgenre field? It's mostly redundant, as a JRPG is a JRPG no matter if it's in real time (Kingdom Hearts) or turn-based (Dragon Quest). And didn't somebody at WP:VG say there were scripts for mass removing a field from a table? Going through this list manually takes a bit of time. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with removal of that too - it'll likely just lead to petty arguments and unsourced entries. And I think someone said that if you enable the visual editor, you can remove entire columns. I haven't tested it personally though. Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow OK, the last time I used VE was when it was forced on everybody, which left me with a bad taste in my mouth. But yeah, it worked perfectly for what I was going to do manually. I ended up also removing the developer field, as the publisher is more important for the overall franchise (helps cut down on larger franchise that might have numerous developers). But that being said, it can go back if it was too much. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear it works. I actually did try to do it once myself, to remove the list of physical media column from the List of Vita games articles, after the discussions we had at the List of Switch games articles, but the lists are so massive, it crashed on me every time before the changes were saved. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Going off topic now, but if that's the case, I could remove all of the physical media columns from the other lists, provided that there is some permanent shorthand link that links back to the discussions we had on the Switch page. Or would just stating "Per discussions on the Nintendo Switch games talk page" in the edit summaries be enough? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you could, I'd appreciate it. List of Vita games (there's 2) is the only one that comes to mind, but there may be more. I'll jump in and discuss if there are localized objections at least. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Taking further discussion there. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persona & Megami Tensei

[edit]

Shouldn´t the Persona series be included in the Megami Tensei franchise, rather than being located in a separate line? Persona is actually a sub-series of the Megami Tensei franchise, but the way it is presented in the chart some people may think it is a completely different RPG franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.187.158.131 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • While true, Sega has decided to have them separated in their financial releases. I don't see how combining them would be of help either, you could always just add them up on your own if needed, and the articles of both series mention they are connected. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, basically this. It started as a subseries, but it's really evolved into its own thing. (Like with Persona 5 dropping the whole SMT naming convention, and being the best selling iteration of any of the games.) Honestly, given Persona's increases in popularity, it'd probably confuse more readers not to list Persona, as the new fanbase probably wouldn't realize its falls under the SMT umbrella franchise. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While Sega lists them as separate series/IPs, that doesn't necessarily mean they should be listed as separate franchises. Sega also lists Hokuto no Ken and its prequel Souten no Ken as separate series/IPs despite both falling under the Hokuto no Ken franchise. A franchise can have multiple series within it. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they are officially tracked separately, then why group them together? Nobody is arguing that they aren't connected, but for readability on this list, I don't think they should be grouped. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Including free download numbers

[edit]
  • So an anon user thinks that because mobile downloads are now included in the overall sales numbers for Megami Tensei, that we should totally disregard it and keep with last year's numbers (which only included retail). There a few issues with this; the primary one being that if Sega Sammy continues to include these figures in future sales reports, then we will pretty much be stuck with just the 2017 numbers forever until they stop/clarify which of it were retail sales. I don't see why the user has an issue with simply noting this like we've done for other games in other similar lists. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in your way the world best-selling game series is 800M soinc Including free games (https://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/ir/library/pdf/printing_annual/2018/ssh_ar18e_web.pdf), not mariao. do you think it's absolutely correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises2001:19C0:1:801:162:0:0:50 (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not see Persona separated from Megami Tensei. It is like putting the Nier games apart from the Drakengard series. Or Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi as different franchises. HÊÚL. (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HÊÚL.: I'm talking purely from a standpoint of sales and its inclusion on this list, which are officially tracked separately now. In addition, the series has gotten popular enough on its own (predates Persona 5) that the SMT branding has been dropped from it worldwide. Using that logic, I'd also say that Nier's sales should be tracked separately from Drakengard (despite only having two games), and I don't think that Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi is not a good comparison at all as they are both Mario spin-offs. (you wouldn't add a child series to a child series). You really can't even see the argument for this? Anyway, I pinged you about including (or not) the 2018 sales numbers for Megami Tensei, which includes free-to-play download numbers along with retail sales, making no split between the two. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. In fact I do not see free-to-play download numbers along with retail sales as a good thing. But if this could include the non-free in-app purchases of these free-to-play games I am all about a no split. HÊÚL. (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HÊÚL.: The problem is that they aren't being separated. Without relying on previous sales figures that did not do this, there is no way to tell how many were retail and how many were free downloads of some mobile game in the series. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the best thing is to not list downloads here and create another featured list to do so. HÊÚL. (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HÊÚL.: See my response below, if it was that easy, this wouldn't have become an issue. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the IPs concerns to a certain capacity about how Sega is tracking things. They are doing some weird tracking with some of their properties - of taken at face value, then Sonic had increased its numbers by 10s or 100s of millions in the last year alone, which is insane considering their releases in the last year. I’ve been short on time lately, but I’ll try to explain or link to some explaining on it. Short version is that I see both sides - it is what Sega is reporting, but what they’re reporting lacks the proper context too. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: While I also see the other editor's viewpoint, I think that we will eventually have to accept the fact that mobile/download numbers are going to be included in more future sales reports from these big companies over time (that's just the way gaming is now). Yes, they really should make a clear difference between the two (retail/download), but just refusing to include these numbers at all does not seem ideal, because by doing so we're stuck with clearly outdated sales figures that may remain that way for years if they continue to include them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No no, it’s more than just that. Read through this thread sometime. I’m not proposing it be used as a reliable source or anything, I’m just saying it’s being explained better there than I have time to at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: While this may work for the Sonic series, not every one will have this level of research put into it. And it still changes nothing about having to add up multiple other sources (of which that may be out of date) to omit download numbers. If we are just forced to just use older sales reports before they started adding them (as is the case with Megami Tensei here), then I disagree with this approach. There has to be a more ideal solution at hand. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have a proposed solution, I’m merely letting you know the IP’s criticisms of the numbers are warranted and legit. Outside of polling WP:VG, I’m not sure how to handle it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware and have stated as such, however us not having an ideal solution is the problem here. I'll probably make a post on WT:VG and just settle on the more common solution. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the key is not to make DL games out. almost all series had DL games in the 2018 report (even 2017 report), but not all DL games had free-to-play note and increased a high number.2001:19C0:1:801:162:0:0:50 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Every game that has download numbers should be noted in some way. Either we change the full scope to include this naturally, or we add a EFN note explaining that it's not all retail sales. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One compromise I might suggest is to have two lists, one list for premium sales only (physical and digital sales) and another list including free-to-play downloads. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally yes, but in practice I don't see how this would work due to them not being separated in most cases. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could work similarly to, say, the best-selling game and player-count articles. Sales-only numbers for the first list, while the second list combines sales and F2P downloads. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which would work if we had up-to-date figures for both. I'm not sure how well this would work if we had pure sales for a series from 2013 on one list, and then the combined sales/download numbers from 2018 on another. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we could just make a separate section for Sega games, since they appear to be the only company here combining software sales and F2P downloads. Or add an EFN note for their games which include F2P downloads. I can't really think of any better ideas at the moment. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Late but I disagree with this approach as a note for Sega games could work instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon

[edit]

It seems really stupid to me to only count Digimon World games for this list. The recent games have all been Story games, and there has been only two World games since 2003.Muur (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100,000 copies

[edit]

In my opinion, one hundred thousand copies is a very low number for one to consider a series as one of the best-selling series in a given genre. I propose raising this number to 1 million copies at the very least. My suggestion is 2 million or more. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of sales data

[edit]

Over the last few days I tried to find more reliable sales data for RPG titles in different franchises. However, there are still two problems that worry me:

1) Some franchises (Pokémon, Final Fantasy, Persona, for example) boast big numbers, but sales refer to the total number of games in these franchises, many of which are not RPGs. This begs the question: is this list supposed to cover only RPG releases or any release in a JRPG series? Furthermore, depending on the answer, another question may arise: if we are to consider any game released in a given franchise should count towards the total sales listed here, then this list should only cover franchises that started life as JRPG franchises, right? As it is, we have games from the Mario RPG franchise, but not from other genres. Same thing for Mega Man Battle Network; the WonderSwan Color release, which is not a RPG, was not counted for the list. Neither was Shining Wisdom, an action-adventure game, for the Shining series. So, we must keep consistency: either we count only RPG titles or we count games from any genre.

2) Currently, sales data for Persona and Megami Tensei are separated, but sales data for Dragon Slayer and The Legend of Heroes overlap. Once again, I believe we must keep consistency and choose the same format for all series and sub-series listed here.

ThiagoSimoes (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is one of the problems with the industry - they’re not very transparent with sales figures. All we can do is report on what is disclosed, and that’s often patchy and incomplete. I don’t like it either...but it can’t be helped. Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For your second point, I don't think we need to force consistency when the sales (and the general opinion) of the series are separated. If sources and the company themselves report them separately, then we should follow that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I strongly believe it can be remedied. I thought about some possibilities:
1) We could add up the number of sales of RPG titles in the series and add these sales as a note, like it was done with many titles on this list. Of course this means that a much lower number would be informed, but at least those would be verified sales of RPG titles instead of a broader number of sales from titles that do not even belong to the RPG genre (what defeats the purpose of this list, I suppose).
2) We could inform two sales figures, one for the franchise and another one for RPG titles in this specific franchise. For example, currently, the total sales of mainline Pokémon titles is around 226 million, while the list informs 340 million. The difference is colossal: 140 million. We could create something like this to try to inform the most reliable sales figures of RPG titles:
Franchise Publisher Total sales
(all titles) 		Total sales
(RPG titles) 		Platform and
year of origin 		Most recent release
Pokémon Nintendo 340,000,000 226,000,000 1996, Game Boy 2019, Pokémon Sword & Shield
The Pokémon Company
3) The list could be pre-sorted alphabetically. Since it was established that a best-selling franchise starts at 1 million, then it is more important to inform the franchises than the sales figures (though I would not quite prefer this method).
4) We could eliminate the sales figures entirely. It would be necessary only to cite a source that confirms that the series has sold over 1 million copies, and that would be it (again, I would not quite like this method).
5) Of course there's always the option of leaving things as they are. It might not be perfect, but it could be the best way to sort the list if there is consensus about it.
ThiagoSimoes (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This list was only saved because we added sales figures, it used to just be a listdump for every JRPG franchise. Honestly, I'm not sure if this should really exist anymore. Do we have any other genre-specific sales lists? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can do whatever you want (as long as it’s in line with policy) as far as I go. I just happened to pass by here again after participating in discussions a while back, and just wanted to make sure you understood how the industry worked in regards to sales. Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yakuza

[edit]

It seems people can't make their mind up on if Yakuza should be included here or not. I think there should be a talk about it. They're outright making a turn based RPG, but even before that it's already an RPG series, just action RPG. Yakuza (series) also includes sources that say its a action rpgMuur (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like a Dragon is 100% a JRPG, and I think I read somewhere that future games in the series will now be turn-based. I'm not an avid player of the series though, so that could be wrong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added more detailed and reliable information about sales of Digimon titles. The previous source listed also fighting games

[edit]

I mean... the persona series includes the sales of the dancing games and fighting games... also the new source list doesnt include the 800,000 worldwide cyber sleuth sales stated by the producer in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmyiPVOih8g Muur (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Heroes/Trails

[edit]

So according to the latest IR data by Falcom, the Trails series has sold over 5 million copies. However, it only includes the Trails games and not any other parent/related Legend of Heroes games as it clearly states that it begun in 2004, which is obviously Trails in the Sky. The problem here is how do we handle the Dragon Slayer and Legend of Heroes entries here, seeing as though their sales data was mostly sourced from Trails. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Trails entry to The Legend of Heroes, and included several earlier games in the series. The Trails series isn't really a spin-off series (like what Legend of Heroes is to Dragon Slayer), but is just an expansive part of The Legend of Heroes series. The Trails series could be seen as a portion of the series, like the earlier Garghav Trilogy. It just so happens that Trails has outsold all the other Legend of Heroes and Dragon Slayer games combined, and they're no longer relevant from a sales standpoint, hence why Falcom just tracks Trails separately nowadays. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added The Legend of Heroes separately, but still kept Trails. So the list now has Dragon Slayer, Legend of Heroes and Trails. If that's too complex, I guess we could just remove Dragon Slayer (which has a more loose connection). But I think Legend of Heroes definitely needs to stay, since Falcom explicitly categorizes Trails as a sub-series of LOH. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maestro2016, the problem is the old numbers for the LOH were apparently just Trails figures without them specifically mentioning that until just recently. It is definitively an odd case but I also agree we should remove Dragon Slayer as it just includes the LOH series which is already represented on this list twice. And if we want to be consistent here we should separate the non-Trails games from LOH like we do for Persona and Megami Tensei. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Sega list Persona and Megami Tensei as separate franchises, whereas Falcom lists Trails as a sub-series of Legend of Heroes. Even in the cited source reporting the sales, it's called "The Legend of Heroes: Trails" series. It would be like listing FF Tactics separately from FF, or DQ Monsters separately from DQ. Except in this case, the Trails games just so happen to have vastly outsold all the other LOH games combined. But it's still a sub-series either way. Maestro2016 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maestro2016, I am not arguing that, only putting Trails as a footnote when it constitutes 90% or more of its parent's franchise sales. And if FF Tactics or DQ Monsters also sold enough copies to be considered a valid sub-series, they'd belong with their own entries as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that Trails should be removed, but that all of its sales should count towards LOH, since Trails is clearly a sub-series of it. But looking back, I may have misunderstood your comment. I thought you meant separating the sales, but that's clearly not the case. My bad. Maestro2016 (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maestro2016, I would suggest doing that if Trails didn't consist of the majority of it's sales, like with Megami Tensei and Persona. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakuza note

[edit]

we do not need this note. an action rpg is still an rpg. gasp. if we had to do this, then we gotta do it on all series, eg for digimon "most games are turned based but world 1, world 4, redigtiize, next order etc are action rpgs". the neptunia games, half of them are turn based and half of them are action based.Muur (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rounding/formatting

[edit]

I assume nobody would be upset if I changed the formatting from 380,000,000 to 380 million and rounded everything to nearest million (or possibly with one or two decimals)? It makes the table more readable, and it's not as if Megami Tensei has sold exactly 22,875,236 copies anyway.--AlexandraIDV 00:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Soul Hackers 2 for Shin Megami Tensei

[edit]

Is the Shin Megami Tensei spin-off "Devil Summoner: Soul Hackers" included in SMT's sales? If this is the case, can Soul Hackers 2 be Shin Megami Tensei's latest release of 2022? 70.55.34.74 (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Momotaro Dentetsu included in Momotaro?

[edit]

Momotaro Dentetsu is a board game series, why is it being combined into anything on this list of best selling JRPGs? Even if it does have some connections to the original Momotaro Densetsu it's clearly become much larger than the original series. It does not belong on this list. JapaneseGameNerd (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Granblue Fantasy, Fate Series and other Eastern RPG Games

[edit]

Granblue Fantasy is part of JRPG Series, is it acceptable to include it for this list? I have found that the the latest one, which was Relink, reached 1 million copies worldwide in both Physical and Digital. Note: It does not include original one, since it was gacha; and Versus, since it was different genre (Fighting games red.)

Here is the references: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2024-02-13/granblue-fantasy-relink-game-sells-over-1-million-copies/.207556

Also is it acceptable to include Fate franchise for this list, as well? (Since it has some RPG elements on consoles like Fate/Extra and Fate/Samurai Remnant, but I am still searching the copies sales of it, and does not include FGO, because it was purely gacha)

And since this list contains Eastern RPG that outside Japan, is it acceptable to include this list for game like Arknights, Honkai, Azur Lane (since it has console as well, called Crosswave), Xuan Yuan Sword, Blade and Soul, Magna Carta and Ragnarok (these last three games is Korean) games? Kurogaga (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Xeno"

[edit]

Should "Xeno" be on this list? Xenogears, Xenosaga and Xenoblade are different properties owned by different companies (and only two of the three were made by Monolith Soft) with no continuity between them. 90.194.29.218 (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_Eastern_role-playing_game_franchises&oldid=1255936159"