Nielsen says WoW still tops the list
by Mike Schramm 
Jan 1st 2009 at 2:00PM
GameCyte has gone over the Nielsen ratings for 2008, and they're basically saying exactly what we've heard with other sites like GamerDNA: that WoW commanded PC playtime this year. On a list with such oldies on it as The Sims, CounterStrike, and even Blizzard's own Diablo II, World of Warcraft sits at the top of the charts with an average of 671 minutes (about 11 hours) played per week. This tells us two things: one, lots of people are playing World of Warcraft a lot. And two, PCs need some better games.There is an interesting trend in these numbers, especially when you compare them with last year. Last year, Nielsen claimed about 17 hours a week of playtime for WoW players, so playtime this year is actually down overall (and while we don't see month to month numbers, GameCyte says it was before the Wrath release, which makes sense). Sure, you could say that with dailies and the easier instances, players just don't have to play the game as much, but really, this seems to reflect the bigger trend: that WoW is leveling out.
There are probably years left in this game -- as we said on the podcast last week, the only real way people will stop playing WoW is when Blizzard finally turns the servers off. But all the numbers we've seen definitely point to a slowing down point among the game's subscribers. Lots of people (11.5 milion) are still playing World of Warcraft a lot. But not as much as they used to.
[via WorldofWar]
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, Blizzard, Economy, Wrath of the Lich King
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
almond Jan 1st 2009 2:43PM
That's mostly because the designers made a switch to allow more casual playing. With what seems the average age of the normal WoW player to be in the higher 20s, they needed to make amends for families and jobs and so on. It proved to be the good decision - the game gains more and more players and everyone can find something they like doing in the game
Zaniac Jan 1st 2009 3:14PM
You used the right keyword: Casual.
These numbers simply reflect the fact, that at 11.5 million subscribers now, the people that are coming into it this late, are more and more the casual type.
The likelyhood of a casual gamer to subscribe to an mmorpg was a lot lower two years ago, than it is today. - The popularity of WoW is definately the most defining factor behind that fact.
So we are getting more and more people, who play computer games for a lark.
- And they cause the average number to drop, even if the rest of us are still playing as much as we always have - or even more.
Not that I'm denying that a few hardcores have had their fill, but those are a much smaller factor, than "non-geeks" flooding into the game.
Raze Jan 1st 2009 3:07PM
I really, truly don't understand what difference it makes whether WoW is the world's most popular MMO, computer game, dish detergent and past time of every human on the planet or not. What, are we all still in the phase that we need to reassure ourselves what we're doing is 'cool'? I really, truly don't get why this is important to report at all, as it certainly isn't news.
Thander Jan 1st 2009 3:12PM
Consoles are the focus for new games now. Most casual people would rather buy a game system for $250-$300 instead of buying a whole new computer with the specs to play the games with pretty good graphics. There will always be PC games but most of the time they will be ports from console games.
If there was a way to play WoW through the 360 or PS3, I would probably go that route. Hooked up to the HDTV with wireless mouse and keyboard, it would be just as easy to play. I only need the better computer to play games. My retired 6 year old computer was perfectly fine for any work I needed to do. I only bought a new one to play WoW with a smooth framerate (plus all the extra addons).
Alkaios Jan 1st 2009 3:16PM
This entire Nielsen Rating article is just a giant corporate E-peen stroke.
"Here at GameCyte, we don’t typically post Top Ten lists. Why? With few exceptions, the vast majority of such articles are meaningless filler, only serving to provoke fanboys and flamers and generally denigrating the reputation of the website which hosts them."
This should not be an exception.
The 2007 List: Madden '07? GTA? Who bought them for PC? Seriously, they were better console games then PC games. PS2 (and later Xbox) worked wonders for GTA.
Why Halo 2 was below Halo 1 at that time, I have NO idea.
The Sims is terrible. There's nothing redeeming about that game. I got it for Christmas a few years ago, tried it, hated it, never touched it again. EA sent fappin pictures and booze to the organization that put together this survey.
Counter Strike is held higher then Source. Why. WHY? WHY?? I've played both, there's no comparison to Source!
Jagex obviously worked behind the scenes to put Runescape both here and in the 2008 lists. It has been, and will always be, a P.O.S MMORPG. The graphics update was just a gimmick to disguise how terribly repetitive the game is.
Halo: Combat Evolved was a good game...and few years ago. Now it's a derelict compared to Halo 2 and 3 (Halo 2, however, is the latest PC version and is not anywhere on this list).
What about AoC? The Warhammer 40k RTS series (It launched an expansion somewhat recently...)? The Warhammer MMORPG? Star Wars Galaxies? Portal? The 2008 list doesn't even mention them, despite how they're all amazing games.
Seriously, scrolling down a little more, the list that showed PS2 being used (% wise) then Xbox 360 and Wii combined. If this is OVERALL usage, it makes complete sense, but if this is over one year, it's downright retarded to believe it. Unless, of course, it's based on playing time all over the world, which then would make sense. 3rd world countries are still getting used to old technology like this, from what I understand.
I've never heard of a Nielson Rating, but I never want to see one again.
GG WoWinsider. Stick to the Wraith articles we all enjoy =).
Ice Jan 1st 2009 3:41PM
Sims might not be your thing but you know, its played by 10-14 year old girls anyway..mostly. Its girl game.
CS source is lower because people think its HC to play 1.6 or they are so use to it.
Runespace is like sims but for (small) boys. And for people that "dont know better". Some people even say wow as "rune with better graphs". I dont agree with them.. but thats what they say. And graphs are crap, still people play it.
Halo 2 is vista only. Halo 1 isnt. Halo 1 is also cheaper by now. And didnt halo 2 have windows live net only? or was it just gears..
Basically PC games are now ruled by people with "poor" comp specs. Face it: who would like to put thousands to new super computer so kid/you can play crysis and all other "wow, look at de graphicz" games? Not me. And very few after couple updates. HC is and always been minority customers in gaming..they just noticed them now. (in b4 "you can get super with 100 dollars lol)
Usedpresident Jan 1st 2009 6:58PM
"I've never heard of a Nielson Rating, but I never want to see one again."
Nielsen are the people who, more or less, control the TV market. They do research on the media. As far as TV shows go, which is what they are mainly known for, every time a show airs, they find out, through samples and survey, how many people are watching it. Using this information, advertisers who might want to advertise during these shows will determine whether enough people are watching it to be worth advertising for. Basically More people watching a show = higher Nielsen ratings = more potential ad revenue for advertisers = more revenue for the channel. When people say that a show is canceled due to low ratings, they are referring to the Nielsen ratings. Because the Nielsen ratings are pretty much the only way channels and advertisers can gauge the number of viewers, and since ads are the only way TV shows keep profitable, they depend on it for their livelihood. Without the Nielsen rating system, the entire system that television runs on fails. So, Nielsen is actually a pretty big, important, and respected company, who is just now starting to branch into the video game thing. Advertisers trust tens of millions of dollars to them for ads, so I'd say these numbers are pretty reliable. (Wow, I sound like a corporate shill, don't I?)
Also, why knock the Sims? I am a grown, mature male, and I enjoyed it.
Justin Jan 1st 2009 4:02PM
"that WoW is leveling out"
Interesting conclusion
The trend in numbers might indicate other such things. More new players might vary more in the playtime, etc. Is playtime average relevant to a "leveling out" in the game? I seriously doubt it!
Amorad Jan 1st 2009 5:53PM
RS isnt really that bad, especially for a JAVA game. From what I understand, java is only a few steps above flash in graphics. So, tell me when you've coded WoW in Java w/ full graphics. Jagex is clamping down, which sucks, but the game has really fun gameplay once you get into it. WoW and RS can't be compared though, because it's like trying to compare the graphics of an NES game to the graphics of a 360 game. The game can be good on NES, but of course the graphics aren't going to be on the same level. IMO, RS and WoW both have their good aspects.
/wait for flamers
Jessierockeron Jan 1st 2009 6:54PM
I won't flame you because I'm sure many WoW players had played RS before and actually enjoyed it too.
Fuerion Jan 1st 2009 6:54PM
lol at wow leveling out. does everyone wants them to die or fail or backslide, even you guys?
sharkeater75 Jan 1st 2009 7:21PM
yes, fuerion.
I really really hope darkfall which has been in development for years, is all it appears to be and kicks blizzard's ass.
this game is nothing compared to what I originally purchased or was promised it would be. May as make it more cartoony than it is and put in hello kitty for good measure.
Taytayflan Jan 1st 2009 7:34PM
Hey, I still play Halo: Combat Evolved on my PC. Just because it's old doesn't mean it isn't good.