lol, I would have all my systems on if I could play them all at once.
sounds like the makers behind the wii are trying anything to boost sales. but seriously, what kind of idiot leaves there console on after they are done playing?
thats retarded, who leaves it on 24/7 lol
I am Al Gore’s personal nightmare.
Besides manbearpig.
i wonder how many of those activists leave their computers on all day.
i never turn mine off, haha.
lol, I know there was a thread on here at some point, where probably 5-10 people admitted to never turning it off. I mean…come on. How stupid can you be? Nothing is that important that it has to stay on 24/7. Im not an environmentalist, but its common sense. Do you enjoy higher bills?
I saw an article earlier this year of a few people that had their Wii powered entirely on solar power.
nice 10 bucks a year
I never turn mine off… what a terrible study though. It doesn’t take into account the number of people who just leave their shit on all the time compared to the number of people that shut it off…
I’m willing to bet the people that leave their shit on all the time play > 8 hours a day. where as the dickheads that turn it off after use play < 2 hours
That 10 bucks applies to wii only. In general it seems like leaving the console on is a problem with 360 and ps3 owners.
- Sony Playstation 3 is the most power-hungry model. For the 2007 version, you’ll spend about $12 a year if you turn the console off when you’re not using it, compared to about $134 if you leave it on all the time.
- Microsoft Xbox 360 ranks a close second. If you shut it down when you’re not playing a game or watching a movie, it costs about $11 to operate annually. Leaving it on continuously will cost you $103.
- Nintendo Wii uses significantly less energy than the others. It costs about $3 a year if you turn it off after use, compared to about $10 if you don’t.
yeah, that’s an extremely stupid study. Too many variables to take into account.
don’t these activists have a life and a job?
There are alot of variables, but who knows how they did the study. They could have just put a few consoles in a bunch of different houses for a month or so, tested power consumption under constant conditions with the system on 24/7 and with it on only 2-4 hours a day. Then find the difference in the electricity bills, conclude it was the console, then have some type of survey between 1000 people asking which ones keep their consoles on. Then assume the whole population follows the same trend, and multiply that % by the total sales to see how many people leave theirs on, and how much power it consumes. I cant think of any other way theyd figure that out accurately. Even though that method isnt completely accurate, its a rough idea.
wat?
it’s pretty easy to figure out how much power it consumes, both during use and idle, then they probably just polled people and found out their habits.
why the fuck would they look at people’s electric bills?
The reason you couldn’t think of another way is because you’re an idiot and your brain sucks at thinking.
ok, I guess I should of said, it’s not very relevant since most people don’t even turn them on daily, let alone 24 hours at a time 
I don’t see why you think this is such a flawed study. If someone were to ask me about my PS3 usage, it would be very simple.
2 questions:
- You turn off your system after use:
a)100% of the time
b)75% of the time
c)50% of the time
d)25% of the time
e)0% of the time
- How many hours a day do you use your system on average?
Obviously, I’m not a fucking moron, and can figure these questions out, even though I don’t use it every day.
If i had more time to devote to this, I’m sure i could come up with a fairly short set of questions and answers to determine a reliable dataset.
I’m still laughing about the electricity bills.
On that note, my console has been running since i got it.
buickGN runs his 24 hours a day
I am in agreement with Newman here, its not a poorly designed study. They even have devices you can plug into the wall, inline with the device, and it tells you the power usage. Interpolate that out for the year, multiply by the going rate of electricity cost, and you have your results. What other variables are they leaving out? What else is there to take into account?
Your right. Its impossible for them to do a study on a certain number of people, and then make a generalization about the rest of the population. What was I thinking? So the electricity bills part was bad, the rest made sense. Dont gotta be a fuckin douche tool about it.
um, it’s called fucking statistics. There are COUNTLESS institutions whose sole purpose is the evaluation of statistics, and they frequently are a very good tool for the estimation of data.