Nielsen now measuring game console usage. Wii in third place...PS3 in fifth.
- Thread starter Gothic Walrus
- Start date
k[/quote]
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Quillion']If I can't at least get you fellas the contact information of the group that does this research.[/QUOTE]
Please please please (and thank you)!
At the very least, it will help make sense of the % of time used metric. As others point out, it's a strange measure since we aren't given an understanding of how to interpret it. Owning all 3 consoles (5 if you count my boxed up Xbox and PS2), I have the *opportunity* to divide my time between the consoles. Were I to only own, say, a Wii, it would be 100% of my gaming time, whether a minute a week or 30 hours.
And maybe I can see if they're hiring, since the academic market is ten kinds of
ed. 
Please please please (and thank you)!
At the very least, it will help make sense of the % of time used metric. As others point out, it's a strange measure since we aren't given an understanding of how to interpret it. Owning all 3 consoles (5 if you count my boxed up Xbox and PS2), I have the *opportunity* to divide my time between the consoles. Were I to only own, say, a Wii, it would be 100% of my gaming time, whether a minute a week or 30 hours.
And maybe I can see if they're hiring, since the academic market is ten kinds of
ed. [quote name='dmaul1114']Could be the methodology. i.e. maybe they are measuring this through the Nielson boxes hooked up to TVs if they've been changed to detect when a console is on. Thus portables and PC gaming couldn't be measured.
But who knows if that's how they do it since there's apparently nothing out their on their methodology.[/quote]
The boxes detect watermarks in the signal sent to the TV, so that they can properly account for time-shifted viewing. It is conceivable that games could be watermarked as well, however it's unlikely.
This data is probably coming from our panel services. We have 125,000 households in the US who track purchases at all retailers, and they track other behaviors as well. Those households are selected at random, from specific needs in our sample (lacking this-or that particular demographic) and aren't allowed to serve for more than two years. Also, any data they provide is factored and considered against the other data sources to ensure accuracy.
But who knows if that's how they do it since there's apparently nothing out their on their methodology.[/quote]
The boxes detect watermarks in the signal sent to the TV, so that they can properly account for time-shifted viewing. It is conceivable that games could be watermarked as well, however it's unlikely.
This data is probably coming from our panel services. We have 125,000 households in the US who track purchases at all retailers, and they track other behaviors as well. Those households are selected at random, from specific needs in our sample (lacking this-or that particular demographic) and aren't allowed to serve for more than two years. Also, any data they provide is factored and considered against the other data sources to ensure accuracy.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Could be the methodology. i.e. maybe they are measuring this through the Nielson boxes hooked up to TVs if they've been changed to detect when a console is on. Thus portables and PC gaming couldn't be measured.
But who knows if that's how they do it since there's apparently nothing out their on their methodology.[/QUOTE]
My guess is this is survey or journal based. IIRC, Nielsen uses three measures to gather TV ratings - the boxes is one (but they don't account for folks who leave their sets on and don't actively watch, like myself), and viewership journals is another. I can't remember the third - phone surveys? Beats me.
But who knows if that's how they do it since there's apparently nothing out their on their methodology.[/QUOTE]
My guess is this is survey or journal based. IIRC, Nielsen uses three measures to gather TV ratings - the boxes is one (but they don't account for folks who leave their sets on and don't actively watch, like myself), and viewership journals is another. I can't remember the third - phone surveys? Beats me.
I'm sure this isn't it, but an interesting metric would be % of time the TV was on used for different things--TV, 360, PS3, DVD player etc. Doubt the technology is there to measure those yet, but it would be interesting to see how the average person was using the TV.
TV watching would be on top for me, with DVD/Blu Ray and 360 flip flopping for 2nd from week to week.
[quote name='mykevermin']My guess is this is survey or journal based. IIRC, Nielsen uses three measures to gather TV ratings - the boxes is one (but they don't account for folks who leave their sets on and don't actively watch, like myself), and viewership journals is another. I can't remember the third - phone surveys? Beats me.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm better about not leaving the TV on when not watching as I don't want to waste hours on the bulb since getting and LCD RPTV, but still there's a lot of days like today where I have it on while doing work on the couch on my laptop and only kind of watching something (football in today's case).
TV watching would be on top for me, with DVD/Blu Ray and 360 flip flopping for 2nd from week to week.
[quote name='mykevermin']My guess is this is survey or journal based. IIRC, Nielsen uses three measures to gather TV ratings - the boxes is one (but they don't account for folks who leave their sets on and don't actively watch, like myself), and viewership journals is another. I can't remember the third - phone surveys? Beats me.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm better about not leaving the TV on when not watching as I don't want to waste hours on the bulb since getting and LCD RPTV, but still there's a lot of days like today where I have it on while doing work on the couch on my laptop and only kind of watching something (football in today's case).
[quote name='mykevermin']Please please please (and thank you)!
At the very least, it will help make sense of the % of time used metric. As others point out, it's a strange measure since we aren't given an understanding of how to interpret it. Owning all 3 consoles (5 if you count my boxed up Xbox and PS2), I have the *opportunity* to divide my time between the consoles. Were I to only own, say, a Wii, it would be 100% of my gaming time, whether a minute a week or 30 hours.
And maybe I can see if they're hiring, since the academic market is ten kinds ofed. [/quote]
Heh, we were just informed of a company-wide hiring freeze. We're still recruiting some, and really aren't that hard hit by the economy, so we don't expect layoffs, but no hires for the next six months at least.
At the very least, it will help make sense of the % of time used metric. As others point out, it's a strange measure since we aren't given an understanding of how to interpret it. Owning all 3 consoles (5 if you count my boxed up Xbox and PS2), I have the *opportunity* to divide my time between the consoles. Were I to only own, say, a Wii, it would be 100% of my gaming time, whether a minute a week or 30 hours.
And maybe I can see if they're hiring, since the academic market is ten kinds of
ed. [/quote]Heh, we were just informed of a company-wide hiring freeze. We're still recruiting some, and really aren't that hard hit by the economy, so we don't expect layoffs, but no hires for the next six months at least.
Bloodbooger
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 50 (100%)
It's all relative, they're measuring console usage. If I'm using my 360 to watch DVDs, or play OG xbox games, I'm still using my 360.
Hell, if my 360 is overheating and I want to cook some eggs on the beast, then I'm still using my 360.
If anything, Wii's lack of being a DVD player should hurt it's placement, and playing a Gamecube title only hurts the Gamecube's usage.
Hell, if my 360 is overheating and I want to cook some eggs on the beast, then I'm still using my 360.
If anything, Wii's lack of being a DVD player should hurt it's placement, and playing a Gamecube title only hurts the Gamecube's usage.
[quote name='Quillion']The boxes detect watermarks in the signal sent to the TV, so that they can properly account for time-shifted viewing. It is conceivable that games could be watermarked as well, however it's unlikely.
This data is probably coming from our panel services. We have 125,000 households in the US who track purchases at all retailers, and they track other behaviors as well. Those households are selected at random, from specific needs in our sample (lacking this-or that particular demographic) and aren't allowed to serve for more than two years. Also, any data they provide is factored and considered against the other data sources to ensure accuracy.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. I heard about the boxes but thought I remembered hearing that they were ditched. Why? Because the ratings numbers weren't to the tv companies likings. In other words, the ratings weren't high enough so they could get the desired rate from advertisers.
Any word on when the head will be pulled out of the ass and we'll get 25 minute shows on a 30 minute show and 50 minutes per hour show instead of this quarter hour of advertising nonsense?
Next thing you know half hour shows will only be 15 minutes with the other 15 being ad's. Same with hour shows.
This data is probably coming from our panel services. We have 125,000 households in the US who track purchases at all retailers, and they track other behaviors as well. Those households are selected at random, from specific needs in our sample (lacking this-or that particular demographic) and aren't allowed to serve for more than two years. Also, any data they provide is factored and considered against the other data sources to ensure accuracy.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. I heard about the boxes but thought I remembered hearing that they were ditched. Why? Because the ratings numbers weren't to the tv companies likings. In other words, the ratings weren't high enough so they could get the desired rate from advertisers.
Any word on when the head will be pulled out of the ass and we'll get 25 minute shows on a 30 minute show and 50 minutes per hour show instead of this quarter hour of advertising nonsense?
Next thing you know half hour shows will only be 15 minutes with the other 15 being ad's. Same with hour shows.
[quote name='Sarang01']
Any word on when the head will be pulled out of the ass and we'll get 25 minute shows on a 30 minute show and 50 minutes per hour show instead of this quarter hour of advertising nonsense?
Next thing you know half hour shows will only be 15 minutes with the other 15 being ad's. Same with hour shows.[/quote]
Have you watched any of the Viacom channels lately? MTV, Comedy Central, etc? They've cut what used to be 22 minute shows down to 19-20 minutes. It wouldn't suprise me at all if, in a few years, shows were cut to 15 minutes.
Any word on when the head will be pulled out of the ass and we'll get 25 minute shows on a 30 minute show and 50 minutes per hour show instead of this quarter hour of advertising nonsense?
Next thing you know half hour shows will only be 15 minutes with the other 15 being ad's. Same with hour shows.[/quote]
Have you watched any of the Viacom channels lately? MTV, Comedy Central, etc? They've cut what used to be 22 minute shows down to 19-20 minutes. It wouldn't suprise me at all if, in a few years, shows were cut to 15 minutes.
[quote name='Gothic Walrus']
I'm curious as to what you mean be Nielsen being "wrong." Regardless of whether or not you agree with them, you don't get to be the largest media research group in the world without doing something right. Take TV for an example - their data is used to make decisions on which shows survive or are canceled, with millions of dollars hanging in the balance. If Nielsen was consistently wrong, don't you think another polling group would have sprung up by now to take their place?
No poll is ever perfect. I'm not saying that they're right, mind you (and won't until I can find information on their methodology for this data set), but saying they're wrong because they don't match your personal usage habits is a pretty bold assertion. I'd put more faith in Nielsen than in...say, posts like this:[/quote]
My house was participating in these ratings years ago this was in the early 80's, this was mostly an honor system then. Meaning that you had to log what and when you watched a show and mail it in. I am sure they still do this today to a certain extent and anytime you have human input there is room for error.
I also know a person that participated about 2 years ago and he would log in and could could count for several people if he had "viewers" at his house. So if each person counts as 20k people imagine what one fan boy with 5 or six votes could do? As someone else pointed out they really dont cover all demographics well at all, considering they would pay us about $5 a month for our input I am sure most people dont take it to seriously.
I'm curious as to what you mean be Nielsen being "wrong." Regardless of whether or not you agree with them, you don't get to be the largest media research group in the world without doing something right. Take TV for an example - their data is used to make decisions on which shows survive or are canceled, with millions of dollars hanging in the balance. If Nielsen was consistently wrong, don't you think another polling group would have sprung up by now to take their place?
No poll is ever perfect. I'm not saying that they're right, mind you (and won't until I can find information on their methodology for this data set), but saying they're wrong because they don't match your personal usage habits is a pretty bold assertion. I'd put more faith in Nielsen than in...say, posts like this:[/quote]
My house was participating in these ratings years ago this was in the early 80's, this was mostly an honor system then. Meaning that you had to log what and when you watched a show and mail it in. I am sure they still do this today to a certain extent and anytime you have human input there is room for error.
I also know a person that participated about 2 years ago and he would log in and could could count for several people if he had "viewers" at his house. So if each person counts as 20k people imagine what one fan boy with 5 or six votes could do? As someone else pointed out they really dont cover all demographics well at all, considering they would pay us about $5 a month for our input I am sure most people dont take it to seriously.
[quote name='Sarang01']Interesting. I heard about the boxes but thought I remembered hearing that they were ditched. Why? Because the ratings numbers weren't to the tv companies likings. In other words, the ratings weren't high enough so they could get the desired rate from advertisers.
Any word on when the head will be pulled out of the ass and we'll get 25 minute shows on a 30 minute show and 50 minutes per hour show instead of this quarter hour of advertising nonsense?
Next thing you know half hour shows will only be 15 minutes with the other 15 being ad's. Same with hour shows.[/quote]
Fat chance of this. In general, I believe, that we as consumers don't react negatively enough to the level of advertising crammed in our faces constantly. I send out disgruntled emails/letters to brands I enjoy when I notice an exteme level of pop-ins, a press release regarding future advertising plans, ect... but I'm sure they're chuckled at and tossed aside. Nothing was worse than the Bill Engvall campaign on TBS leading up to the second season. We actually enjoyed that show, but I refused to watch it since the advertising invaded my TV screen once every 5 minutes as it was... it was as if I was already watching it anyway.
Any word on when the head will be pulled out of the ass and we'll get 25 minute shows on a 30 minute show and 50 minutes per hour show instead of this quarter hour of advertising nonsense?
Next thing you know half hour shows will only be 15 minutes with the other 15 being ad's. Same with hour shows.[/quote]
Fat chance of this. In general, I believe, that we as consumers don't react negatively enough to the level of advertising crammed in our faces constantly. I send out disgruntled emails/letters to brands I enjoy when I notice an exteme level of pop-ins, a press release regarding future advertising plans, ect... but I'm sure they're chuckled at and tossed aside. Nothing was worse than the Bill Engvall campaign on TBS leading up to the second season. We actually enjoyed that show, but I refused to watch it since the advertising invaded my TV screen once every 5 minutes as it was... it was as if I was already watching it anyway.
S
strongpimphand
Guest
seem plausable to me....
at work people talk about games and its either ps2 or 360. when it comes to the ps3....eh...
and when it comes to the wii....that's for the bitches
it's just the way it is. ps2 is great graphics wise and good for regular tvs (everyone doesn't have high def!) and 360 is good for that online play.
at work people talk about games and its either ps2 or 360. when it comes to the ps3....eh...
and when it comes to the wii....that's for the bitches
it's just the way it is. ps2 is great graphics wise and good for regular tvs (everyone doesn't have high def!) and 360 is good for that online play.
odintal
CAGiversary!
[quote name='gindias']My house was participating in these ratings years ago this was in the early 80's, this was mostly an honor system then. Meaning that you had to log what and when you watched a show and mail it in. I am sure they still do this today to a certain extent and anytime you have human input there is room for error.
I also know a person that participated about 2 years ago and he would log in and could could count for several people if he had "viewers" at his house. So if each person counts as 20k people imagine what one fan boy with 5 or six votes could do? As someone else pointed out they really dont cover all demographics well at all, considering they would pay us about $5 a month for our input I am sure most people dont take it to seriously.[/quote]
doubt the fanboy thing works. we'd still be watching new episodes of firefly and alias if it did.
I also know a person that participated about 2 years ago and he would log in and could could count for several people if he had "viewers" at his house. So if each person counts as 20k people imagine what one fan boy with 5 or six votes could do? As someone else pointed out they really dont cover all demographics well at all, considering they would pay us about $5 a month for our input I am sure most people dont take it to seriously.[/quote]
doubt the fanboy thing works. we'd still be watching new episodes of firefly and alias if it did.
[quote name='QiG']Fat chance of this. In general, I believe, that we as consumers don't react negatively enough to the level of advertising crammed in our faces constantly. I send out disgruntled emails/letters to brands I enjoy when I notice an exteme level of pop-ins, a press release regarding future advertising plans, ect... but I'm sure they're chuckled at and tossed aside. Nothing was worse than the Bill Engvall campaign on TBS leading up to the second season. We actually enjoyed that show, but I refused to watch it since the advertising invaded my TV screen once every 5 minutes as it was... it was as if I was already watching it anyway.[/QUOTE]
It's annoying, but there's not much of a way to complain, beyond writing/e-mailing, and that doesn't outweight the advertising money.
Stopping watching does nothing unless you're a Nielsen household.
Best we can do is put up with it, or watch on DVR and skip commercials or just wait to buy or rent the DVDs.
I used to have a Tivo when I had DirecTV a few years ago, it sucked moving and only having Comcast as their DVR was too expensive and pretty crappy compared to the Tivo so it took a while to readjust to commercials. Now I just don't watch a lot live and just keep the laptop around and check e-mail etc. during commercials.
It's annoying, but there's not much of a way to complain, beyond writing/e-mailing, and that doesn't outweight the advertising money.
Stopping watching does nothing unless you're a Nielsen household.
Best we can do is put up with it, or watch on DVR and skip commercials or just wait to buy or rent the DVDs.
I used to have a Tivo when I had DirecTV a few years ago, it sucked moving and only having Comcast as their DVR was too expensive and pretty crappy compared to the Tivo so it took a while to readjust to commercials. Now I just don't watch a lot live and just keep the laptop around and check e-mail etc. during commercials.
My concern QiG is how you have a cohesive show getting down to 15 minutes. With John Stewart all that is is the opening jokes and such and ONE interview period. Wait n/m. He usually only has one guest to begin with I think. Well the guests bit might get cut quite a bit.
But with comedy's it's no content at all comparatively.
But with comedy's it's no content at all comparatively.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I'm still really confused on the metric, and it seems to me that it's going to be weighted based on sales. The usage minutes percentage, it appears, seems to be a metric measuring, say, the share of time used by each console relative to each other.
Which is inherently weighted in favor of consoles people actually own.
Which means it's misleading and the selection is biased based on the dependent variable (indirectly).
I like the fact that Nielsen is considering this, but I also think that they should either (1) explain, far better, their research numbers and methodology, or (2) go back to the drawing board and search for a better way of understanding/presenting these data.
Which is inherently weighted in favor of consoles people actually own.
Which means it's misleading and the selection is biased based on the dependent variable (indirectly).
I like the fact that Nielsen is considering this, but I also think that they should either (1) explain, far better, their research numbers and methodology, or (2) go back to the drawing board and search for a better way of understanding/presenting these data.
[quote name='Thomas96']How does Nielsen actually measure console usage? I pretty sure they aren't relying on self report.[/quote]
Again, I honestly don't know how we arrive at this particular metric.
But I will say that a great deal of information is arrived on by self-report. Besides the box program for TV ratings that takes a pretty thorough sample, we send out nearly five times that many "Viewership Journals", where people simply indicate what they watched and how long and mail it back in. We check this data against the automated data to weed out outliers and erroneous information.
The same thing with our Consumer Panel, where we have 125,000 families reporting what they buy, for what price, from where. That data is cross referenced against scanning data that is sent automatically from nearly every retail store.
Nearly every piece of information we collect and collate is verified against something else to ensure accuracy. After all, all our company sells is information. It has to be good, because if it weren't we'd go out of business pretty quickly.
Again, I honestly don't know how we arrive at this particular metric.
But I will say that a great deal of information is arrived on by self-report. Besides the box program for TV ratings that takes a pretty thorough sample, we send out nearly five times that many "Viewership Journals", where people simply indicate what they watched and how long and mail it back in. We check this data against the automated data to weed out outliers and erroneous information.
The same thing with our Consumer Panel, where we have 125,000 families reporting what they buy, for what price, from where. That data is cross referenced against scanning data that is sent automatically from nearly every retail store.
Nearly every piece of information we collect and collate is verified against something else to ensure accuracy. After all, all our company sells is information. It has to be good, because if it weren't we'd go out of business pretty quickly.
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm still really confused on the metric, and it seems to me that it's going to be weighted based on sales. The usage minutes percentage, it appears, seems to be a metric measuring, say, the share of time used by each console relative to each other.
Which is inherently weighted in favor of consoles people actually own.
Which means it's misleading and the selection is biased based on the dependent variable (indirectly).
I like the fact that Nielsen is considering this, but I also think that they should either (1) explain, far better, their research numbers and methodology, or (2) go back to the drawing board and search for a better way of understanding/presenting these data.[/quote]
We do supply that stuff to our clients, the briefs that we release to the media are kind of a "hey, we're tracking this now too". But you've raised a valid point in that no report was made of console ownership. Though to some degree I think that's moot. Does it matter to a company deciding which console to develop for whether or not you own a wii, for example, if it's only collecting dust and you're playing that 360?
Buying decisions by consumers are made either by "I only have a 360", or "I mostly play that 360".
Which is inherently weighted in favor of consoles people actually own.
Which means it's misleading and the selection is biased based on the dependent variable (indirectly).
I like the fact that Nielsen is considering this, but I also think that they should either (1) explain, far better, their research numbers and methodology, or (2) go back to the drawing board and search for a better way of understanding/presenting these data.[/quote]
We do supply that stuff to our clients, the briefs that we release to the media are kind of a "hey, we're tracking this now too". But you've raised a valid point in that no report was made of console ownership. Though to some degree I think that's moot. Does it matter to a company deciding which console to develop for whether or not you own a wii, for example, if it's only collecting dust and you're playing that 360?
Buying decisions by consumers are made either by "I only have a 360", or "I mostly play that 360".
Why is the PS2 so high? Thats easy. People on CAG are all gamers and most have already moved to the next Gen. Most other people are lower income, Moms, cheapskates....etc. The PS2 is cost effective and has a ton of games so it appeals to many more people that the Next Gen systems.
As for everyone that is up in arms over how they came to these numbers.......Neilson does not make shit up as they obviously have to maintain their credibility to function. I am sure that these are fairly accurate and can be trusted. I would like to know how they did this ratings system as well, but I trust it.
If anyone gets angry over this or feels like tearing this apart.....please look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if it is worth the emotional drama.
As for everyone that is up in arms over how they came to these numbers.......Neilson does not make shit up as they obviously have to maintain their credibility to function. I am sure that these are fairly accurate and can be trusted. I would like to know how they did this ratings system as well, but I trust it.
If anyone gets angry over this or feels like tearing this apart.....please look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if it is worth the emotional drama.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Quillion']We do supply that stuff to our clients, the briefs that we release to the media are kind of a "hey, we're tracking this now too". But you've raised a valid point in that no report was made of console ownership. Though to some degree I think that's moot. Does it matter to a company deciding which console to develop for whether or not you own a wii, for example, if it's only collecting dust and you're playing that 360?
Buying decisions by consumers are made either by "I only have a 360", or "I mostly play that 360".[/QUOTE]
I'm more or less just data hungry, y'know. The all-too-brief summary is an indicator that this is a tricky thing to measure, and not something that can be summarized as succinctly as tv ratings info is.
And I don't see how this becomes useful information for developers. With TV, ratings are currency, as it sets the standards for ad rates. With consoles, penetration is very important, and previous sales numbers are important - but is "time used" important for me, the hypothetical developer? I'd think sales numbers matter to me. If I'm interested in the bottom line, I don't care if you shove the software up your ass, eat it with a bowl of honey nut cheerios, or put a trillion hours into it - I've made the same $30-60 no matter the case. Perhaps, once these data are better prepared, refined, and made more accessible and/or intuitive (I've more faith in the former than the latter, but that's just the nature of what you're trying to measure), time usage can be an important way of determining if a company should go ahead with DLC development. But, for now, the data don't seem to bear out that kind of information.
EDIT: Right, lowgear. Only poor people, women, and 'cheapskates' play PS2 games. Christ; were you employed by Sony Japan 2.5 years ago?
Buying decisions by consumers are made either by "I only have a 360", or "I mostly play that 360".[/QUOTE]
I'm more or less just data hungry, y'know. The all-too-brief summary is an indicator that this is a tricky thing to measure, and not something that can be summarized as succinctly as tv ratings info is.
And I don't see how this becomes useful information for developers. With TV, ratings are currency, as it sets the standards for ad rates. With consoles, penetration is very important, and previous sales numbers are important - but is "time used" important for me, the hypothetical developer? I'd think sales numbers matter to me. If I'm interested in the bottom line, I don't care if you shove the software up your ass, eat it with a bowl of honey nut cheerios, or put a trillion hours into it - I've made the same $30-60 no matter the case. Perhaps, once these data are better prepared, refined, and made more accessible and/or intuitive (I've more faith in the former than the latter, but that's just the nature of what you're trying to measure), time usage can be an important way of determining if a company should go ahead with DLC development. But, for now, the data don't seem to bear out that kind of information.
EDIT: Right, lowgear. Only poor people, women, and 'cheapskates' play PS2 games. Christ; were you employed by Sony Japan 2.5 years ago?
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm more or less just data hungry, y'know. The all-too-brief summary is an indicator that this is a tricky thing to measure, and not something that can be summarized as succinctly as tv ratings info is.
And I don't see how this becomes useful information for developers. With TV, ratings are currency, as it sets the standards for ad rates. With consoles, penetration is very important, and previous sales numbers are important - but is "time used" important for me, the hypothetical developer? I'd think sales numbers matter to me. If I'm interested in the bottom line, I don't care if you shove the software up your ass, eat it with a bowl of honey nut cheerios, or put a trillion hours into it - I've made the same $30-60 no matter the case. Perhaps, once these data are better prepared, refined, and made more accessible and/or intuitive (I've more faith in the former than the latter, but that's just the nature of what you're trying to measure), time usage can be an important way of determining if a company should go ahead with DLC development. But, for now, the data don't seem to bear out that kind of information.
EDIT: Right, lowgear. Only poor people, women, and 'cheapskates' play PS2 games. Christ; were you employed by Sony Japan 2.5 years ago?[/QUOTE]
Thats not what I meanthead.........More people with less money for gaming.........less caring people of what Gen they are in will get PS2's. I am talking about the "average" gamer that is in this country........does everyone have the ability to knock off money on Video games and syetems every year?
People still use VCR's because they dont feel the need to change and people still drive that 1990 Ford Tempo because it still runs. While it sounds insensitive, people with less money do get PS2's and use them......and Women generally that are into gaming purchases, buy for their kids.
It may come across harsh but I'm sure it contributes to these figures a bit.
And I don't see how this becomes useful information for developers. With TV, ratings are currency, as it sets the standards for ad rates. With consoles, penetration is very important, and previous sales numbers are important - but is "time used" important for me, the hypothetical developer? I'd think sales numbers matter to me. If I'm interested in the bottom line, I don't care if you shove the software up your ass, eat it with a bowl of honey nut cheerios, or put a trillion hours into it - I've made the same $30-60 no matter the case. Perhaps, once these data are better prepared, refined, and made more accessible and/or intuitive (I've more faith in the former than the latter, but that's just the nature of what you're trying to measure), time usage can be an important way of determining if a company should go ahead with DLC development. But, for now, the data don't seem to bear out that kind of information.
EDIT: Right, lowgear. Only poor people, women, and 'cheapskates' play PS2 games. Christ; were you employed by Sony Japan 2.5 years ago?[/QUOTE]
Thats not what I meant
head.........More people with less money for gaming.........less caring people of what Gen they are in will get PS2's. I am talking about the "average" gamer that is in this country........does everyone have the ability to knock off money on Video games and syetems every year?People still use VCR's because they dont feel the need to change and people still drive that 1990 Ford Tempo because it still runs. While it sounds insensitive, people with less money do get PS2's and use them......and Women generally that are into gaming purchases, buy for their kids.
It may come across harsh but I'm sure it contributes to these figures a bit.
Last edited by a moderator:
eddieismail
CAG Veteran
Why the hell are people still buying Wii. I cannot fathom it, it like the iPod craze, but more useless
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm more or less just data hungry, y'know. The all-too-brief summary is an indicator that this is a tricky thing to measure, and not something that can be summarized as succinctly as tv ratings info is.
And I don't see how this becomes useful information for developers. With TV, ratings are currency, as it sets the standards for ad rates. With consoles, penetration is very important, and previous sales numbers are important - but is "time used" important for me, the hypothetical developer? I'd think sales numbers matter to me. If I'm interested in the bottom line, I don't care if you shove the software up your ass, eat it with a bowl of honey nut cheerios, or put a trillion hours into it - I've made the same $30-60 no matter the case. Perhaps, once these data are better prepared, refined, and made more accessible and/or intuitive (I've more faith in the former than the latter, but that's just the nature of what you're trying to measure), time usage can be an important way of determining if a company should go ahead with DLC development. But, for now, the data don't seem to bear out that kind of information.
EDIT: Right, lowgear. Only poor people, women, and 'cheapskates' play PS2 games. Christ; were you employed by Sony Japan 2.5 years ago?[/quote]
You're looking at it the wrong way. This is advertising driven. Developers don't care. It is targeted only at publishers and console manufacturers in the industry and then advertisers outside of the video game industry.
I'd bet that these numbers are based on the total minutes of all survey owners per console divided by the total minutes of all consoles. The reason they can't just come out and say that is that there is probably an extra step where they adjust the numbers to align with other data points (like total video game time from other surveys).
That said they're probably more statistically valid than NPD numbers. Given that NPD numbers are pretty close to actual sales, I'm fairly confident that these numbers are at the very least directionally correct.
And I don't see how this becomes useful information for developers. With TV, ratings are currency, as it sets the standards for ad rates. With consoles, penetration is very important, and previous sales numbers are important - but is "time used" important for me, the hypothetical developer? I'd think sales numbers matter to me. If I'm interested in the bottom line, I don't care if you shove the software up your ass, eat it with a bowl of honey nut cheerios, or put a trillion hours into it - I've made the same $30-60 no matter the case. Perhaps, once these data are better prepared, refined, and made more accessible and/or intuitive (I've more faith in the former than the latter, but that's just the nature of what you're trying to measure), time usage can be an important way of determining if a company should go ahead with DLC development. But, for now, the data don't seem to bear out that kind of information.
EDIT: Right, lowgear. Only poor people, women, and 'cheapskates' play PS2 games. Christ; were you employed by Sony Japan 2.5 years ago?[/quote]
You're looking at it the wrong way. This is advertising driven. Developers don't care. It is targeted only at publishers and console manufacturers in the industry and then advertisers outside of the video game industry.
I'd bet that these numbers are based on the total minutes of all survey owners per console divided by the total minutes of all consoles. The reason they can't just come out and say that is that there is probably an extra step where they adjust the numbers to align with other data points (like total video game time from other surveys).
That said they're probably more statistically valid than NPD numbers. Given that NPD numbers are pretty close to actual sales, I'm fairly confident that these numbers are at the very least directionally correct.
bread's done