Talk:List of best-selling video game franchises

Can we start gathering data for a 'Sims' series.

Not THE Sims, just the subseries, but like Mario, a broader Sims as a whole series by Maxis. Including Sim City(all games), The Sims(all games) and the misc Sim games by Maxis and EA(SimAnt,SimWorld,SimFarm, SimCopter) 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:996D:B20A:B4D5:86D9 (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should definitely be one GesundemBrot (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed before and I was told ‘’Sims" as in every game that ever bore the name "Sim XYZ" is less a discreet franchise and more a brand label. SimTower, for example, has no real relation to Sim City, or to SimAnt. Nor do either of them have much if anything in common with "The Sims". (See talk page archive) Fanoflionking3 (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims was originally a Sim City spinoff and there was some crossover early on.
SimHelicopter and Streets of Sim City also both could cross-play stuff with Simcity, and several of the other Simgames like SimRefinery or SimEarth used Simcity's basecode.
The Maxis-EA Sims Franchise is a thing 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:3CB6:DFFB:2F11:D5D0 (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Donkey Kong part of the Mario franchise?

Hi everyone, I've just noticed that Donkey Kong (sales 65M+) is counted as part of the Mario franchise which seems very strange to me, in addition reading the older threads I saw that also in February 2024 there were already some talks about this. If you agree how about separating it and make it its own entry in the ranking? Mg250 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It really has enough to be its own entry. GesundemBrot (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The connection between Mario and Donkey Kong franchises is a long-time disputed problem I'm afraid. Especially the blurred definition by Nintendo themselves. Yeah, this problem become way more significant, when recent medias are trying to merge the universe settings between these two – which don't have such strong relation previously. Awdqmb (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to update all the Mario franchise sales (and doubt about Donkey Kong)

Hi everybody, after the recent financial report with sales update by Nintendo I updated all the various games and franchises, of which some in the ranking like for example Splatoon, Super Smash Bros, Animal Crossing, The Legend of Zelda and partly also Mario.

For Mario in particular I've updated Mario Kart and Mario Party, while for the Super Mario series I've seen there is a source with an estimate instead of the usual calculations so I didn't touch it. However I'm not sure that I haven't missed anything among the various Sports, RPG and Other games, can someone check and confirm that everything is updated?

I also wanted to add the Donkey Kong series would probably be better as a separated franchise, and also in this case it would need a check because in its page it shows sales for over 80 million instead of the 65 million of the source Mg250 (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is thing that we debated countless times and will be discussed countless more if we do include it we have to take the numbers away for mario (as we do not have sub series) the donkey kong page has says the following “ Nintendo placed the franchise on a hiatus as it shifted focus to the spin-off Mario franchise”. I would keep it as it. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a count and got 83.96 million copies of donkey Kong series sold (i added it to the page).

We should definitely look into it and see what we can findFanoflionking3 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, sorry if I'm a bit late but now I've updated its sales and in addition I put it as one of the main sub-franchises of Mario instead of it just being hidden in "other games" Mg250 (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order of series with the same number

So there's a few cases where multiple series have the same claimed number. Looking at 200mil for instance, there doesn't seem to be any reason for the specific order (I assume it happened based on previous rank). Perhaps they should be put into alphabetical order when it happens? Or maybe from most recent release date down (making it in order of average sales over time). Just a thought. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros Wonder

We need to add the sales figures for Super Mario Bros Wonder. The source for the Super Mario series sales was posted before the game's release. GuyUser81 (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative franchises to add

These are franchises Google tells me have sold at least 15-20 million units, but need more research to verify if the numbers are actually higher or lower:

MLB: The Show - 24 million

Mass Effect - 20 million

Fire Emblem - 20 million

Doom - 20 million

Life is Strange - 20 million

Fable - 18-22 million

Dragon Age - Over 18.2 million

Rock Band - Over 18 million

StarCraft - 17.6 million

Divinity - Over 17.5 million

Soulcalibur - Over 17 million

Max Payne - Over 16 million

Burnout - 16 million

Forza - 16 million

Myst - Over 15 million

Alan Wake - Over 15 million

Unreal - Over 15 million

Crazy Chicken - Over 15 million

Electricmastro (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

list is purposely trimmed to 20m or higher otherwise becomes umweildy. I will not for overwatch as it's now free to play that 70m does not reflect paid copies.Masem (t) 23:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was just listing them anyway in case someone wants to corroborate with a solid source confirming that a series is 20 instead of 15 million for example.
Electricmastro (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of a new layout and more strict sourcing

After some time cleaning up this article, as well as this brief discussion at WT:VG, I've created a draft to visualize some rather significant proposed changes to this article.

See User:Prefall/sandbox for the draft. Changes include:

  • A single, sortable table, with a layout that is more standard, akin to that of List of best-selling video games and other similar lists. This includes removing the existing summaries for each franchise entry, which take up considerable space.
  • A limit of top 50 entries, as opposed to a threshold of 20 million copies. This resulted in the list being shrunk down from the existing 129 entries.
  • Restriction to sourcing that explicitly states "X franchise sold X units" (or similar). No more WP:OR or WP:SYNTH of our own bundled calculations.

The main issue is that a number of franchises will be missing from this list, most notably the all-encompassing Mario franchise, unless someone is aware of a reliable figure for that. But I think this is still a worthy trade-off.

Other issues that need to be resolved:

  • There are generally too many developers to list, so I have excluded that column from the table. Publisher remains, however, there are instances where a franchise switched publishers over time. I added a note to only include the most recent publisher. Is this okay or should this be handled differently?
  • In instances where a number for the franchise is not available but one for a single game within the franchise is, should we include it in the list or not? E.g., Minecraft has sold 350 million copies on its own, but a figure for its overall franchise is not known.
  • Expansion packs are excluded from regular best-selling video games list. Should they be excluded here as well, or are they okay since this list is for the franchise as a whole?

Let me know what you think about these changes and the remaining issues, and any other feedback you may have. Pinging @Kazama16, Masem, and Electricmastro: who participated in the previous discussion or in editing this article. Prefall 04:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft looks good, but feels short textually. For publishers, I would suggest including only the original publisher of each franchise (developers can be included the same way). For cases like Minecraft as a single game representing the franchise, it would be okay since it is still part of the franchise. Expansion packs should be excluded per this discussion. Additionally, the sales figures for the whole Mario franchise are reported by Guinness World Records. [1] Don't know if there can be more up-to-date sources able to be found for this matter. Kazama16 (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazama16:
  1. Yeah, I didn't include much text, but would like to see it expanded. I just don't consider myself a very good writer, so I usually leave that part up to others.
  2. I completely understand listing the original developer and publisher for single game releases, but not so much for franchises. For single games, the original work is what is most notable, even if alterations are made later by a different team. For franchises, they are generally considered "ongoing" works, giving more weight to the most recent releases. I think a lot of readers would be confused that we're listing "outdated" information for developer and publisher. And speaking for myself, I like knowing the current publisher for these franchises. It's also interesting to compare how many current publishers have multiple entries on the list.
  3. Besides Minecraft, this would add Wii or Wii Sports to the list (via Wii Sports), Mario Kart (via Mario Kart 8 + Deluxe), Overwatch (via Overwatch), and Animal Crossing (via Animal Crossing: New Horizons). On one hand, it does feel strange to exclude these titles that we know have sold enough to be listed here, on the other, I think we're going to get a lot of people saying, "If you can list sales for one game in the franchise, why can't you just add up the others to get the full number?" Which is the exact problem we're having now, and trying to avoid. I'm leaning towards not including single games for this reason, but I guess we're going to upset people regardless.
  4. I'm fine with expansion packs being included here as well.
  5. Thanks for the Mario citation. That should be fine to use. Though, I'm a little distrusting of Guinness World Records as they have a history of citing VGChartz for their sales figures. If we're listing this, I suppose we should remove the Super Mario Bros. and Mario Kart sub-series from the list?
Prefall 08:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-series like Super Mario Bros. and Mario Kart should be removed from the list and reserved in a note attached to their main franchise, such as Mario. Despite that, I'm still 50/50 on the expansion packs here, as they tend to inflate sales. It would be much better to add notes to those franchises, where expansion packs are largely involved, like The Sims. Kazama16 (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expansions are just harder to police when dealing with franchise sales. Almost every franchise has had an expansion release at one point. We have no way of knowing if they're included in the figures unless the publisher specifies, which they typically don't.
I'm fine with notes being included when expansions are notable to a franchise's success like The Sims, or episodic series like The Walking Dead. Prefall 11:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazama16: I updated the draft with some of the things we discussed. I also lifted some of the lead text from List of best-selling video games that you wrote. It should be more presentable now. Prefall 23:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. Looks far better now. I'll approve it. Kazama16 (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat a comment I made at the WT:VG page, that there far too much uncomfortae original research here. Sure, simple addition falls under allowed SYNTH but how this list groups games into a series particularly around the Mario games is highly questionable. We as editors can't decide if a game belongs in a series or not absent sources to affirm that. Masem (t) 00:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Sorry, just to clarify, does your comment also apply to my draft, or only the current article? Prefall 00:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example what is the "Mario" franchise. Yes, there's things like Super Mario games, Mario Kart, etc. but do we have a single source that says all these belong to a single franchise. Similarly the "Wii" frachnise, how is that defined? Masem (t) 01:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really looked into how some of these franchises are defined (or even if they technically exist at all), but I think that issue is bigger than this specific article. If we can't define the Mario or Wii franchises, for example, then the Mario (franchise) and Wii (video game series) articles should be deleted. Prefall 01:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would solve the problem I guess [2] [3] Kazama16 (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI but that IGN source should not be used considered it just copied the information from the highest grossing media franchise page and the this page during that year. Case of WP:CITOGENESIS. Timur9008 (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've made a couple dozen changes to the page over the course of the year I'll offer my opinion too on a couple of points. All considered I agree with the removal of the various descriptions, although the new page's appearance is perhaps a bit too "bare," as also with the 50-title cutoff given that the current ranking is definitely too long.
I'm not convinced however about having only official reports for a franchise's total which in my opinion is a very optimistic dream, and the best option would probably still be adding up all the official numbers of the various games (including the huge Super Mario franchise as a whole, but maybe without Donkey Kong this time).
In the end I'll just add that single games obviously shouldn't be included in the ranking, and I don't know who added it but the Portal series definitely didn't sell 30 million copies Mg250 (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
although the new page's appearance is perhaps a bit too "bare," I agree to an extent, but I'm not sure what more we could add.
I'm not convinced however about having only official reports for a franchise's total which in my opinion is a very optimistic dream I don't think it's that much of a dream. We already know what this approach looks like and it loses a minimal number of entries compared to the current list.
the best option would probably still be adding up all the official numbers of the various games (including the huge Super Mario franchise as a whole, but maybe without Donkey Kong this time). That OR/SYNTH is what we want to avoid though. Prefall 17:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over two weeks and the key points to this proposal seem to have support (the more compact format, requiring sources that explicitly refer to the franchise to significantly reduce WP:OR / WP:SYNTH), so I've gone ahead and implemented these changes. We can continue this discussion and make further adjustments to the list, if need be. Prefall 09:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
are we sure the ranking is correct also mario and donkey kong are the same franchise also you can not rank as there not ranking like box office mojo and it is all estimated number so we can rank

I done some work and came up with this here

Probably needs a bit of work (i.e uper the limted):Fanoflionking3 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're working with the information we have been provided. I'm sure many franchises are missing or have outdated numbers, but that's the nature of these lists. As far as I know, it's as "correct" as it can be.
Donkey Kong being apart of the Mario franchise seems to be a divided issue. It isn't included in the Mario (franchise) article, and the Guinness World Records source we have does not mention Donkey Kong, so we cannot assume it is being included, or include it ourselves.
The lead states that the rankings are purely for visual identification. I'm not opposed to removing them, but this list simply lifts that design from List of best-selling video games. Prefall 09:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done some digging and found this[1] with the following quote “He holds many records himself, including the unique accolade of being the star of the best-selling videogame series, with games in the Mario franchise having sold over 890 million copies so far – not even including titles for the newly released Switch 2 console” this has applies that dk games are included. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the preceding paragraph (Speaking of which, Donkey Kong also marks the first appearance of Mario, Nintendo’s long-standing mascot and platforming plumber extraordinaire, though back then he was known as Jumpman.), "he" appears to be referring to Mario, rather than Donkey Kong. It mentions that the Mario character debuted in Donkey Kong, but doesn't explicitly say the DK games are included in Mario's sales figures. Prefall 00:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overly restricted criteria?

While the old version of the page was too bloated, I think this page could include way more entries while still being neat. In general hard-capping the number seems pointless, as this page has already removed 80% of the prior bloat by just taking out the series descriptions and in-line breakdowns anyway (and without those even 129 really isn't that many entries, especially less those without RSes). 50 is a really restrictive figure too. Also, I understand wanting to stem OR, but there are genuine cases where an RS has given sales figures for individual games, and it seems dishonest to exclude all of those just because an edit might require basic arithmetic on the part of an editor. For example, The Elder Scrolls is not on this page. Yet, taking the officially-published sales numbers on its own page for three games alone (Skyrim 60 million, Online 15 million, Oblivion 10 million) would already comfortably put it in the top 30.--Nihlus1 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have to draw the line somewhere, and 50 is the limit we use for List of best-selling video games, which I based the redesign on. Most publications limit their best-sellers lists to top 10 or 20, so we're already comfortably beyond those. The absolute maximum I think these lists should reach is 100, but 50 seems like a fine number—not too much and not too little.
I'm not overly opposed to combining certain games for franchise figures, but not in support of it either, because the previous list was a mess primarily for that reason. Before the redesign, I spent a week trying to cleanup and untangle those combined figures, but barely made a dent. It isn't so much an issue of basic arithmetic, but rather sourcing. We would have to find reliable sources that list the sales figures for the individual games AND reliable sources that tie those games together into a singular franchise. For The Elder Scrolls specifically, that may not be necessary since the franchise is in the title, but for other franchises that do not follow that pattern, it is an issue. And frankly, I think this should be the responsibility of the publisher to be transparent with their overall franchise figures, not on us to jump through hoops on their behalf. Prefall 01:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would support 100 entries as a compromise but believe we shouldn't feel restricted by any specific number. Even 128 isn't that much for a page like this, especially with the new formatting cutting down so much bloat. You mention other websites only have top 10-20 lists, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to have more detail and act as an easy reference for things like this. Today it's most people's first. Maybe cut the minimum inclusion criteria to over 30 million or so? That cuts out the bottom 40 from the old list.
It should be the responsibility of the publisher, but we work with what open source info we have. I think for most it's fairly simple - we already define on the pages themselves which games are part of which franchise. I can see being skeptical of OR that fuses a bunch of different estimates possibly using different criteria from different sources... but in the case of something like TES, we have direct statements from an RS (the publisher) stating the numbers. All we have to do for the page is cite that and then say "60 + 10 + 15 = 85." That's less calculation than takes place on essentially every single history article. I notice a few franchises in that situation, like Fallout, TES, Dragon Ball, Diablo, and Warcraft.--Nihlus1 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We still have to draw the line somewhere. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For these best-seller lists especially, it's good to strike a balance between being as informative as we can, and keeping the number of entries relatively low to maintain a sense of accomplishment simply by being included. I'm also opposed to thresholds (such as 30 million copies sold) because the list will inevitably bloat and a new consensus will have to be reached among editors to raise the threshold, which is not easy. It's just an unnecessary headache, while a specific limit will remain evergreen.
The list, in its current form, is very simple and easy to maintain. That is by design. Re-introducing arithmetic would change that completely. Just my opinion, but I don't think slightly more updated/accurate figures is a worthy trade-off for this level of tangled mess. We may need to seek more input from WT:VG. Prefall 00:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Top 100 seems like a logical line then, while capturing all the actually RS-sourced information on the prior page, not leaving valuable info off and lost in the archives. That's not at all an unreasonable number of entries for a page like this and the amount of actual information in each entry in the new format is very concise. Just the name, genre, and sales numbers, nothing else. A single line per entry.
I don't think it's a "slight" difference at all. The current version of the page by disallowing basic arithmetic is flat-out inaccurate and thus misinforming readers. Pac-Man isn't the 50th best selling game series - it's probably a dozen plus places below due to franchises with sales figures above 50 million like TES, Fallout, and Dragon Ball being left off the list. Again, the standard of evidence "you need a source that directly says X=2, Y=2, and 2+2=4, you can't just have a source that gives X as 2 and Y as 2 and then say that equals 4" is completely arbitrary and is not followed by the vast majority of pages on this wiki. If I'm editing a page about a war and have a book reference that says "this country had 10,000 troops on X front and 20,000 troops on Y front", it'd be considered ridiculous to demand another source to put in the line "the country had 30,000 troops."--Nihlus1 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This list shouldn't deviate too far from List of best-selling video games. A change in the number of entries should be handled in a wider-reaching discussion, perhaps even an RfC, since it would affect both.
There are already multiple disclaimers within the article, one stating that the list is incomplete (in the hatnote), and another stating that the numbered rankings are purely to improve readability and don't actually correlate to a genuine rank (in the third paragraph). Even if we allow arithmetic, the list will still be incomplete and inaccurate. The video game industry as a whole is not transparent with sales figures, so all information we work with is either outdated, more recently-updated than others, or not available at all. This will always be a hodgepodge article, no matter how we slice it. It's just a question of how far we want to push it.
I noticed there's currently ongoing discussions here and here about the proposed usage of arithmetic in the List of best-selling game consoles article. That'll be worth keeping an eye on, and may influence this article/proposal. Prefall 23:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see any good reason why we would limit it to such a tiny number of entries. Even 200 entries would look very concise with the current format, much less 100. In an argument of more data vs less data, particularly on a page like this which presents things in such an abridged fashion and has basically no room for bloat, an encyclopedia to me should always come down on the side of more. Particularly if said data can't easily be referenced at a glance with a non-encyclopedia source, leaving this page as essentially the main reference point when any given person on the internet wants to look up the subject.--Nihlus1 (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to the list needed

Firstly it's not clear whether spinoffs are counted. A sentence is needed to clarify that.

Secondly, it would be good to add columns "No. of games" (Decide wheter to incude free-to-play games (don't earn money but cost money to develop) and compilations ("don't" cost but earn money) in that number.), "Average of games" as in Film_series#Box_office list, and maybe "No. of hanheld + mobile games" for the purpose of showing what kind of series that actually is. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we cannot include these because we don't always know what games are being factored into the calculation. "X franchise has sold X units" is usually the most we're given due to the general lack of transparency within the video game industry, unlike box office where specific breakdowns for each film within a franchise are generally well covered. Prefall 04:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2025/7/donkey-kongs-first-game-in-18-years-could-add-to-nintendos-record-collection
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises