Is asking for better evidence moving the goalposts?

I've gotten into arguments with friends about whether or not certain opinions are popular. (For example, whether or not anime is popular in the US, whether or not certain video games are popular, or whether or not people think suicide is funny.) I've asked for evidence, and they'd present evidence that is, in my opinion, very weak. I'll go into a little bit further detail:

Some of my friends said that Call of Duty is a popular and beloved franchise. To prove this, they showed that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2019 sold 30,000,000 copies and had an average monthly player base of 2,500,000 players. (Or somewhere around there.)

In my opinion, this proves nothing. The PS4 has sold about 116.9 units as of 2022, and I think the amount of active gamers there are is at least double that. Assuming this is true, that means only about 12 percent of gamers purchased a copy of the 2019 Modern Warfare, and only about 0.01 percent of gamers actively play it, which, in my opinion, means that Call of Duty is not a well liked franchise or popular. Not to mention the trailers for Call of Duty games are typically among the most disliked videos on YouTube and Call of Duty games typically have low user scores on Metacritic. 

I would give more examples, but it would take too long and a lot of the same principles apply to this example. I dunno, am I moving the goalposts?

The problem is ambiguous terms. What does "popular and beloved" mean? How can you operationalize them? For example,

Would you agree that a game with an average monthly player base of 2,500,000 is "popular and beloved"?

If yes, then Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2019 is popular and beloved.

If no, then the debate can shift to what criteria justify something being "popular and beloved."

I would think this is pretty good justification for "popular and beloved" (not so sure about "beloved" but certainly popular). Asking for more justification may not be all that reasonable as selling that many units and having that many players seems to me as sufficient justification for the claim. But I don't think it is moving the goalposts.

Dr Bo's answer is good, but just to answer more generally:

Is asking for better evidence moving the goalposts?
 

Not necessarily. Sometimes the evidence provided isn't good enough, for many reasons:

• it's outdated
• it's irrelevant
• it's flat-out wrong

In case, the 'evidence' is insufficient to prove the point, thus asking for better evidence would be needed. It's only moving the goalposts if the initial point was satisfied, but the person, refusing to give up their position, asks you to prove/disprove something beyond the scope of the original discussion.

(Btw Dr Bo, it says 'refusing to conceded' in the description for the above fallacy, rather than 'refusing to concede'.)