Thats a good point Monster. However, right now the one console that most closely resembles the ps2 is the wii.

Hopefully people play ps2 for its exclusives and not for its price.

*Bing* the light goes on.  Sorry, must have missed that earlier in the thread.

I did see that - I assumed it was some division of the times per month into 30 days or hours or something but didn't work the math.  Did now, can't figure it either.

yeah its strange and doesn't make a heapload of sense, unless something is really off lol.

 Perhaps when people turn on the Wii (5-6 times a month) they usually play 1-3 games (1.8 - 2.1 avg) at a time for about 47-60 minutes each.   So it's actually one 2hr play session, but they switch games once or twice during that session.   That would make perfect sense actually because that'd fit the 'playing with friends' theory exactly.  Play some Wii Sports, then switch to Mario Kart.  

Part of the factor may be people, like myself, who like the Wii exactly because you can turn it on, have fun instantly and enjoy it for 20 minutes for a break. I just don't have the hours and hours to get involved in a game like MGS. In 20 minutes I'd just be about getting into the story again.

I use it for 20 minutes of exercise in Wii Fit several times a week, otherwise unless I having a genuine down day (rare) or have company over, the best usage is when I get tired of writing and need to take a break , I may pick up MK and race around a few times or SSBB and practice my Princess Peach drop kick, or even Link Crossbow and relax and unwind for 20 minutes.

Does that mean I'm not a hardass hardcore, yea I reckon. Do I give a rat's ass - no not really

I understand it's an average. And playing multiple times per day makes more sense than you might think. Play an hour each before and after dinner, for example. Or in the morning on the weekend, then go out for the afternoon, and again in the evening. It's only the minority hardcore player that has the single-session marathons.

And a lot of the interpretation does depend on what exactly the methodology for the survey really is, too.

Well, yeah the amount of time played makes sense. The troubling thing is that data combined with the other data. Like you said you play several times a week, this graph doesn't show that. I would think people played, or used the wii more like you do. The implications of the graph say a lot of things, but require numbers and methodology to figure out, which is why......

@gamerace
I don't know if playing a different game counts as a session. But yeah, it doesn't mention the methodology so it could either be playing once in the morning and then again at night, taking a shower in between playing, letting someone else play, really anything.

My point really is that this kind of gaming doesn't make sense. How many people do you know play only 5-6 times a month and ALSO play it twice during those times. This says a lot of things but without knowing what the survey questions were, it really is impossible to determine what it is saying.

However, in a very basic interpretation, it says that a large amount of people are playing 3-4 times a day or more, which is unusual.

yeah dk but how sure can you say that people play twice?
as implied there are a few single session marathon people like us, so on the other end of the spectrum there must be 3-4 time a day people.
I dunno, to me that doesn't seem normal.
Is that like playing wii golf before church, and then after church, and then before dinner and then after dinner?
If we are a minority, then they must also be a minority, so that theory has that fact going for it. But then that also implies that the bulk of people play twice. I just can't wrap my mind around that.
Maybe thats my failure....

I tried to look something to benchmark this research. Here's a few months from 2007:

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=92202d7fd9ef3110VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCRD

This news article states the sample size used:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2007-07-26-ps2-most-played-in-june_N.htm

This Kotaku news has a link to Nielsens april-nov 2007:

http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2007/12/nielsen_ratings_show_wow_tops_.html

Nielsens benchmark study from 2004:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-07-2005/0003338769

And this i posted just to piss people off:

http://www.marketingvox.com/nielsen_56_of_active_gamers_are_online_64_are_women-022774/

And some other online related info:

http://wii.spong.com/article/11981/Deep_Penetration_In_The_Home?cb=924

Then a 2005-2006 study:

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/report-social-aspects-of-gaming-increasingly-important/69521/?biz=1

@Theprof: They are averages. DKII explained it in the same way i would have.
Besides, two sessions averaging 50-60 minutes doesn't mean that there would be literally two sessions and even less that the would be 50-60 minutes sessions. You can have one 5 minute session and one 115 minute session and it still averages two 60 minute sessions.
Averages give a lot room for individuals.

@Gamerace: By saying "regular", you're saying "core". Both mean practically the same thing.

bdbdbd

that's what I've been saying this whole time. In my first post I said there can't be any real large demographic reflecting this data.
There is a problem when the average, does not actually reflect your "average" gamer. Know what I mean?

To clarify: I think this graph is trying to represent a bell curve average, when the actuality is probably more of an inverted bell curve.