Playstation Home

[madbassman39]

Disclaimer: If this forum topic already exists, I'm sorry I searched for it, but my work internet is uncooperative.

 

I've spent maybe a total of 2 hours in home since it opened. The most fun was that odd racing thing... dust or something and the resistance shooting thing. They lasted about 5 minutes for me then I got bored.

 

ANYHOW it seems they are revamping it and it looks much better now, check the link below!

 

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/01/video-welcome-to-your-new-playstation-home/

[Thursday Next]

The only way Home would "work" in my opinion is if Sony did something along the lines of the Battlefield / Battlelog thing. They would need to replace the XMB with Home. Have your games appear on a shelf in you apartment instead of in a menu, to add someone as a friend you need to do so through Home, make the PSN store a store within Home, etc. As it is, it's too far out of the average users path to get much traffic (as a % of user base, I'm sure there are 10,000s of people that do use it regularly).

 

They would annoy a lot of people to begin with, but eventually they'd get used to it... or Sony would die a slow painful death.

[madbassman39]

I personally think Home looks too boring, I wish they made it like the xbox avatar style.

[FredEffinChopin]

The most exciting thing about Home when it announced was the ability to have virtual media players in your home with which you could stream HDD content to anyone in your homespace. Once that was cancelled my excitement for it was pretty much gone. I was really into the possibility of watching weekly episodes of Bleach with my buddies online while bullshitting, or listening to our music while shooting some pool.

 

They have gone a long way since launch though, and there is so much more to do now than ever. Last couple of times I was in a spent a good hour or so dicking around with a couple of people. I should probably pop in again soon and check out the new game-things they incorporated.

 

Speaking of last time I was in, the streaming of live events through home is awesome, despite the fact that it functions less than perfectly. I was there for the E3 press conference stream as well as Evo 2011, and both were cool to share with other people as they happened. A little fine-tuning and that is the kind of thing I can see myself popping into whenever it happens.

[deanb]

The only way Home would "work" in my opinion is if Sony did something along the lines of the Battlefield / Battlelog thing. They would need to replace the XMB with Home. Have your games appear on a shelf in you apartment instead of in a menu, to add someone as a friend you need to do so through Home, make the PSN store a store within Home, etc.

"Playstation Bob"

 

That guy sounded too excited. I think their problem is they don't push it as much as they could/should. I think it's a good idea, and it could grow into something neat, but I don't think making it a "your games are on a shelf" type thing would work at all (cos it never ever has before). Having some mini-games, unlocking content for other games would be neat. Make it like a low scale MMO. For early buyers it's certainly something that can be neat, the games library isn't so great but there's a bunch of mini-games to pop on in Home, chat with folks meet people. If someone is in the Uncharted area it's a good bet they play Uncharted, so could get a co-op buddy. Becoming a lobby, which iirc they did with MAG n maybe Killzone, is something they should work on too.

 

The main problem is it's fucking SLOOOOWWWWWW. (which will be tripley a pain if you went with making it the main GUI).

[VicariousShaner]

I think I am going to give Playstation Home the benefit of the doubt when the revamp happens. It kind of reminds me of an amusement park. I also watched some EVO 2011 on Home, and it was really, really, really choppy. I was a bit suprised with what a small amount of people were watching, as well. Not to mention how the fullscreen isn't really taking up the entire screen, and you can still see quite a bit of theater. Also, they only reserved one tiny little theater for it, despite there being 2 EVO streams. Want to watch BlazBlue? Too bad, Mortal Kombat 9 for you.

 

In terms of games, the single most immersing thing I had found was a few text adventures. It had a built in map, and controlled in possibly the only reasonable way on a console. Other than that, I did not find much else of value. The games built right into Home's engine were some of the worst. It turns out Home was not meant to be a third person shooter, much to the chagrin of some fledgling game developer.

 

But yeah, low expectations, high hopes.

[SixTwoSixFour]

Playstation Home is just... I mean, I felt like it was a neat idea back in the day, when I was young and optimistic, and full of dreams. Now I'm old enough to realize, a game with no game is a waste of my time. The core concept just seems flawed to me.

 

Attempts to make it more game-y will never be as enjoyable as a proper game, attempts to make it more useful in other ways will fail because of how slow it is, like Dean said.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

You're thinking of it as a game. That's the problem. It's much closer to a virtual social network.

[SixTwoSixFour]

It thinks of itself as a game, as well as a social network, and it's fairly shitty at being both.

[Chewblaha]

It thinks of itself as a game, as well as a social network, and it's fairly shitty at being both.

 

Truer words have never been spoken.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I've always noticed that women and those who are more socially inclined are the ones who are into it to begin with. I'm going with "more like a social network." Plus, to some people, being social IS a game. See: Facebook.

[Chewblaha]

Social Network or game, Home still completely sucks.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

To you.

[Chewblaha]

Rarely do I push my opinions on people. I may tell you flat out how I feel about them or how you feel about them, but I never expect people to agree with me after I speak.

 

Though in this case, I'm gonna be that guy.

 

Home sucks and you should think that too. Anyone who thinks Home has been a good thing, in any way, shape, or form, has some awful judgement on what is good and what is not.

 

Comma splices.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Chewblaha

[FredEffinChopin]

So I did check it out the night the new Home launched, and it looks like they're taking things in the right direction, though with less-than stellar execution. A friend and I (two briefly, but mostly one) went and did the quest that has you checking out the new areas and playing the games. The FPS they put in there (Bootlegger something-or-other) wasn't even remotely fun, which was a letdown. The RC Racing game was sorta neat, as was the game that was basically a tile-sliding puzzle on cubes, but we actually spent a good hour and a half playing Texas hold em. 2 if you count how long it took us to get it functioning properly with both of us at a table, but that kind of stuff is expected on a launch.

 

For what they're working with in Home at this point, incorporating little games like that seems like the way to go, but to keep people coming back those games need to be something more than a passing distraction (and good). While there is stat tracking of some sort for the quest you're given and whatnot, there need to be leaderboards for specific games... Pardon me if there are and I just didn't notice. I know if they had a section where chess games were ranked and recorded I would be in there playing pretty frequently, and even watching while the higher ranked players played. Wherever that is going on, I'm sure to bullshit with others who are into it, and just like that I've become a social Home user. I'm sure if the latest game of push-the-ball of whatever would go over a lot better if there monthly, weekly, or daily leaderboards to gloat about being top on, maybe with exclusive gear for people who achieve that.

 

It would also benefit from more games that feature one's avatar, and that get multiple people going together. Hold em and the Bootlegger game seemed like their attempt at that, but the latter was terrible, even for a first attempt. They should start a little less ambitious, like tower defense or something. Some of the arcade games in there are ok for a couple of minutes, but ultimately they want to get people having fun together.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

So basically what you're saying is that you want better games, rather than better social features, which is what it was focused on before. It should be expected that a bunch of people who bitch about video games on a message board are not going to be into the social aspects of such a thing. I think Sony has realized this and is now attempting to appeal to that crowd. Obviously, Home is doing well enough that they even cared to revamp it. Dem micro-transactions. Someone's buying.

[Chewblaha]

You act as if Sony isn't egotistical enough to lose money on something they believe is good. Such as Home.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29158/Buser_PlayStation_Home_Model_Is_Quite_Profitable.php

[madbassman39]

OK wow, couple of things, 1) just because we are on a gaming forum does not make us un-social. You may only speak for yourself, but I am willing to bet that many of the members to this forum live very social lives. To assume such a thing means that you think little of the community you have been... socializing with.

 

2) profitable does not mean good. Farmville is one of the most profitable games, does that make it good? To each his own, but I also will say that Sony didn't revamp Home to keep the people who were already enjoying it, but to attract people who have no interest in it. You don't change something that does well (Look at the CoD series), you change something that is not doing well to attract new customers.

 

Of course Home is going to be profitable, GAP pays to put their ads in the game, their virtual clothing in the game, so does every other non-Sony brand. Sony makes money off of their sales, and off of them just being there, whether or not they sell something. Do you know how much it costs to produce a digital shirt? Next to nothing. There are no tangible goods being sold, just a digital shirt that you wear. They can produce millions of shirts by the press of a button, no material was used to create those shirts, only one person made the shirts, so the cost of labor and materials are very minimal.

 

This is why social games such as Second Life do so well, because the goods being sold for $200 dollars cost roughly $5 to make once and can sell an unlimited number. The profit margin on a $200 item that costs $5 to make is $195, when you sell two the profit becomes $197.5 per item. For 3 the profit becomes $198.67, and so on and so fourth. Profit grows with each sale.

 

My point is, profit means nothing to the success when selling digital clothing, and Home will always be profitable as long as 1 person buys something.

[Thursday Next]

2) profitable does not mean good. Farmville is one of the most profitable games, does that make it good? To each his own, but I also will say that Sony didn't revamp Home to keep the people who were already enjoying it, but to attract people who have no interest in it. You don't change something that does well (Look at the CoD series), you change something that is not doing well to attract new customers.

 

The link to the "Profitability" of Home was clearly in response to Chewie's suggestion that Home is unprofitable. "Good" is subjective. Lots of people obviously think Home is "good". You and Chewie clearly do not.

 

Of course Home is going to be profitable, GAP pays to put their ads in the game, their virtual clothing in the game, so does every other non-Sony brand. Sony makes money off of their sales, and off of them just being there, whether or not they sell something. Do you know how much it costs to produce a digital shirt? Next to nothing. There are no tangible goods being sold, just a digital shirt that you wear. They can produce millions of shirts by the press of a button, no material was used to create those shirts, only one person made the shirts, so the cost of labor and materials are very minimal.

 

This is why social games such as Second Life do so well, because the goods being sold for $200 dollars cost roughly $5 to make once and can sell an unlimited number. The profit margin on a $200 item that costs $5 to make is $195, when you sell two the profit becomes $197.5 per item. For 3 the profit becomes $198.67, and so on and so fourth. Profit grows with each sale.

 

My point is, profit means nothing to the success when selling digital clothing, and Home will always be profitable as long as 1 person buys something.

 

Do you know how much it costs? It would take more than one person to design, render, test and upload a shirt, and no one in this industry is working for "next to nothing" so no, it does not cost "next to nothing" to create a digital shirt. The infrastructure and manpower required to keep a social network running, especially one as rich in content as Home is far from tiny so it's not simply a case of:

 

1. Set up Social Network.

2. Sell one digital t-shirt.

3. Profit!

[madbassman39]

 

Do you know how much it costs? It would take more than one person to design, render, test and upload a shirt, and no one in this industry is working for "next to nothing" so no, it does not cost "next to nothing" to create a digital shirt. The infrastructure and manpower required to keep a social network running, especially one as rich in content as Home is far from tiny so it's not simply a case of:

 

1. Set up Social Network.

2. Sell one digital t-shirt.

3. Profit!

 

I may have spoken too soon about the cost to create a digital shirt, there is a lot of money creating the initial digital item, but my point of once its created it no longer costs anything extra to sell one or sell one thousand is still valid.

 

My point was that the profit margin increases with each and every sell of the same item. Not to mention reskins, that use the same frame and model for the t-shirt.

 

Yes there are people who enjoy Home, and I don't absolutely dislike it, but it is not for me. My problem with home is the fact that it COULD have been so much more. As it is (before the revamp) it's not my cup of tea. I haven't had time to jump in to try out the new home, but I am interested because of the more interactivity involved in it.

[Thursday Next]

Fair enough. Profit margins on digital items are very good because the cogs is very low, but a social network with sell-able items is not a guaranteed success by any means.

[Strangelove]

Im neutral on Home. I dont dislike it, but I feel I have no reason to use it. Ive also thought long and hard about what it wold take for me to like it, but I cant come up with anything. I guess its just not my thing. My batcave is pretty awesome though.

[TheMightyEthan]

I feel basically the same as Strangelove. I logged in to Home when I first got my PS3 to see what it was about, went "huh" and never logged in again. I have no interest in it, and don't even know what it would need to get me interested.

[FredEffinChopin]

So basically what you're saying is that you want better games, rather than better social features, which is what it was focused on before.

 

(If that was intended for me)

It's not that I want better games to make Home fun or worthwhile, it's that I think right now it might be the best or only way to get more people interested enough in Home that they will actually spend time time in it is to give them something to make them want to return. Without any pretense at all, there aren't many reasons I could think of that would make me approach a random avatar and strike up conversation. I think the reasons most people had for doing so in the early stages of Home was a "hot" avatar in front of them, which was one of its earliest problems. Without a common theme bringing individuals together on there the appeal of the social aspect of it comes down to people's willingness to type to strangers with a visual skin on things. With Second Life out there, as well as countless chat alternatives that don't provide a visual virtual setting, the odds of building on their user base based on that alone seems pretty slim.

 

The best example I can think of is the Evo broadcast in Home, where for the first time, not only was I typing to a stranger, but with a whole bunch of them, and it was a lot of fun. We all laughed, cheered, shot the shit, and enjoyed the show. Without the common interest of the Evo tournaments and the broadcast happening live in front of us, I'm sure that we would've just been a bunch of avatars bumping into each other for a few minutes before we got bored and left. Things that bring people together are what (I believe) is going to keep people socializing in there and hanging out in general. Since it's the Playstation network games seem like the most natural thing to facilitate that dynamic, but other features and events could work as well, such as the live streaming they've tried a couple of times so far. They just need to be a little more than throwaway games and pretty environments though.