Kotaku73%

A Wild Stat About PlayStation Physical Game Sales In The U.S. Shows Why The ‘No Disc, No Buy’ Backlash Faces Such An Uphill Battle 73%

By Ethan Gach65%

7/21/2026, 1:01:38 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 30.4% saturation with 186 hits. Analysis detected 1,400 faulty-reasoning hits from 612 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65% and a BS Rank of 73% (5,870 of 21,197 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.30% of the article peer group.

Everyone knows physical game sales have become and increasingly slender slice of the market. 
With each passing year, more players opt for the convenience of digital downloads. 
But seeing real numbers can put that decline in stark contrast. 
A new data point shared by the Circana Retail Tracking Service shows just how marginalized physical game sales have become in the U.S., and what kind of challenge fans who are urging Sony to preserve PlayStation discs are up against. 
“Two PlayStation video games sold more than 10k physical units in the US during week ending July 11, 2026,” Circana director of game research, Mat Piscatella, shared on Bluesky yesterday. 
“Seven have sold more than 100k physical units year-to-date.” 
These are two very interesting, if slightly vague, statistics. 
That’s not Circana's fault, the group is not supposed to disclose specific sales figures for individual games. 
But let's break down what these new data points do suggest. 
The list of best-selling games year-to-date in the U.S. is led by Resident Evil Requiem, followed by Crimson Desert, MLB: The Show 26, 007 First Light, Forza Horizon 6, Pokemon: Pokopia, Lego Batman: Legacy of the Dark Knight, Tomodachi Life: Living the Dream, WWE 2K26, and Call of Duty: Black Ops 7. 
We also know that Resident Evil Requiem sold over 7 million copies, Crimson Desert sold over 6 million copies, and 007: First Light has sold over 3 million copies. 
Now lets make some assumptions. 
First, let's assume the top seven best-selling games year-to-date are also the seven that sold over 100,000 PlayStation disc copies in the U.S. 
Second, let's assume a roughly 90 percent split in favor of digital sales. 
That would suggest the total physical sales of Resident Evil Requiem, for example, would be 700,000 for the whole world. 
Only part of that is PlayStation discs vs. 
Xbox, and only part of that is discs sold in the U.S. 
What this thought experiment hits home pretty quickly is that even the top-selling games of the year probably haven’t sold much more than 100,000 PlayStation disc units. 
It seems very unlikely that any of these games broke 300,000 PlayStation disc sales, let alone half a million. 
Even if those numbers double by the end of the year, it seems unlikely that any of those games crack 1 million physical sales in the U.S. alone. 
In a way, this also reinforces the larger point about physical games that analysts have been making for years. 
Even as most consumers opt for digital downloads, the total sale of physical games each year still isn't nothing. 
According to Daniel Ahmad, director of research and insights at Niko Partners, Sony sold roughly 70 million physical PlayStation games in 2025. 
That is still a lot of revenue each year, but it's also an extremely small number for any particular new game in any particular territory. 
A further wrinkle is that first-party releases tend to have a higher ratio of physical sales as hardcore fans opt for a permanent copy they can add to their collection. 
The math is not in the pro-disc crowd's corner, even if sentiment, nostalgia, and the broader vibes around gaming culture are. 
Piscatella's argument is that it will take more than tens of thousands of angry comments on PlayStation's YouTube channel to get the platform holder to change course. 
It will take a real boycott movement and the mass cancelation of PS Plus subscriptions. 
In the meantime, a petition demanding Sony reverse course appears to run out of gas at less than 400,000 signatures. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.8%Ethan Gach: 3.9%Kotaku: 4.0%Confirmation Bias17.8%This article: 6.9%Ethan Gach: 2.4%Kotaku: 1.6%Anchoring Bias6.9%This article: 2.3%Ethan Gach: 3.0%Kotaku: 3.9%Availability Heuristic2.3%This article: 13.4%Ethan Gach: 1.4%Kotaku: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic13.4%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 1.6%Kotaku: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Ethan Gach: 2.1%Kotaku: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias4.7%This article: 6.2%Ethan Gach: 7.3%Kotaku: 5.8%Framing Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 1.6%Kotaku: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 1.4%Kotaku: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.1%Kotaku: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 4.4%Kotaku: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Ethan Gach: 4.1%Kotaku: 3.4%Pessimism Bias11.4%This article: 22.5%Ethan Gach: 12.4%Kotaku: 13.6%Negativity Bias22.5%This article: 2.8%Ethan Gach: 1.8%Kotaku: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 1.6%Kotaku: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.1%Kotaku: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 2.0%Kotaku: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.3%Kotaku: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Ethan Gach: 5.2%Kotaku: 3.6%Halo Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.1%Kotaku: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.3%Kotaku: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.3%Ethan Gach: 2.3%Kotaku: 2.4%Recency Bias10.3%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.8%Kotaku: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.1%Kotaku: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 1.7%Kotaku: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.4%Kotaku: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.2%Ethan Gach: 3.3%Kotaku: 2.6%Appeal to Authority13.2%This article: 3.4%Ethan Gach: 2.3%Kotaku: 2.3%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 9.2%Ethan Gach: 1.0%Kotaku: 0.9%Slippery Slope9.2%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.4%Kotaku: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.8%Ethan Gach: 6.9%Kotaku: 9.1%Hasty Generalization20.8%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.4%Kotaku: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.8%Kotaku: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.4%Ethan Gach: 6.8%Kotaku: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion4.4%This article: 3.9%Ethan Gach: 0.7%Kotaku: 0.8%Begging the Question3.9%This article: 3.3%Ethan Gach: 2.8%Kotaku: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.3%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.1%Kotaku: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.5%Kotaku: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.3%Kotaku: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 8.0%Ethan Gach: 1.0%Kotaku: 0.5%Composition/Division8.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 2.1%Kotaku: 4.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.0%Ethan Gach: 2.3%Kotaku: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.1%Ethan Gach: 0.2%Kotaku: 0.1%Middle Ground3.1%This article: 3.1%Ethan Gach: 0.3%Kotaku: 0.5%Personal Incredulity3.1%This article: 2.8%Ethan Gach: 0.2%Kotaku: 0.2%Special Pleading2.8%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Ethan Gach: 5.0%Kotaku: 2.7%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 4.9%Ethan Gach: 2.1%Kotaku: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 30.4%Ethan Gach: 13.2%Kotaku: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice30.4%This article: 3.4%Ethan Gach: 1.9%Kotaku: 2.4%Indoctrination3.4%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ethan Gach: 2.5%Kotaku: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

612 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers17%attributed speech509writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageMat Piscatella • 30 words • 100.0% coverageMat Piscatella • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageDaniel Ahmad • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageMat Piscatella • 27 words • 0.0% coverageMat Piscatella • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mat Piscatella

100%flagged-word coverage
81 attributed words79% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Quote-first Misdirection+37.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mat Piscatella: 37.0%37.0%Biased Writer Voice-36.5 ptsWriter: 36.5%Mat Piscatella: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+7.4 ptsWriter: 3.7%Mat Piscatella: 11.1%11.1%Indoctrination-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Mat Piscatella: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.