Phil Harrison's GDC keynote - Home, LittleBigPlanet & more

[Asher]

FUD. What's so scary about it since we can walk away ?
As for Sony's track record so far for online pricing, Playstation online games can be cheaper or bigger, and they don't charge subscription fee.

I'm thinking bigger picture of Sony's promises and then what they deliver after. I'm not sure what they said pricing would be for Playstation online games, but I am certain that my PS3 doesn't look better than my Xbox 360, it doesn't have dual HDMI ports, and it's missing two of its gigabit ethernet ports, and UPS must've lost it because it came six months late.

 

[patsu]

I'm thinking bigger picture of Sony's promises and then what they deliver after. I'm not sure what they said pricing would be for Playstation online games, but I am certain that my PS3 doesn't look better than my Xbox 360, it doesn't have dual HDMI ports, and it's missing two of its gigabit ethernet ports, and UPS must've lost it because it came six months late.

Ah ! Still emotionally scar'ed from that traumatic experience. My condolences.
Mr. Kutaragi got it rough too, I'm afraid.

The crazy 4D and jack-in-the-matrix talks finally come to fruition in the form of Playstation Home this GDC and you chose to downplay it.

Nevertheless where pricing is concerned, they have been above the table I might say... from the initial "It's going to be expensive dude" statement to free onling gaming and inexpensive online titles. So Playstation Home and Online gaming will stay free until we are notified otherwise.

 

[Asher]

Fair enough, I forgot about his "very expensive" comments regarding the PS3.

I've learned over the past decade or so to lower my expectations with Sony's announcements, however. It's nice and all to have so many people here incredibly enthused about the possibilities, but I'm going to remain skeptical. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't have much faith in that happening.

 

[rounin]

Nice to see that in the end, it all comes down to whether or not the concept, which in itself is amazing, can be properly implemented, as I had early pointed out

 

[DeathKnight]

He's probably the same DeathKnight as the one at Rage3D looking at his past posts.

Yes. Let's keep to the discussion at hand :smile: (I'm also "DeathKnight" on AVS, but I'm not the developer that patsu is referring to)

 

[Inane_Dork]

Some people will buy that stuff, and good for them. You're clearly not interested, but you can clearly ignore that aspect too if you want.

Not really. I know it sounds quite reasonable, but it's not.

Sony controls all the levers, ultimately. They have a total monopoly on delivering content to PS3 owners. As long as Sony makes decisions that are in your favor, you're okay. But they won't do so all the time. It's inevitable, and it's likely you won't have a reasonable fallback. You might be able to get in out your PC or find it in a store. Keep in mind that what Sony doesn't allow is just as important as what they charge for what they do allow.

It's the same upside/downside to Xbox Live. It's good when MS makes decisions that are good for us. It's bad when MS makes decisions that are bad for us. Either way, we can either take MS's offer or make due without.

 

[patsu]

Fair enough, I forgot about his "very expensive" comments regarding the PS3.

I've learned over the past decade or so to lower my expectations with Sony's announcements, however. It's nice and all to have so many people here incredibly enthused about the possibilities, but I'm going to remain skeptical. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't have much faith in that happening.

I'm actually a little confused because you disregarded Kutaragi's "It'll be expensive" comment and bought a PS3, but keep zeroing onto "free" when it costs you nothing to play online games or stroll in the "Matrix"... but whatever... let's be friend.

Too bad they turn off hugging emotes in PS Home, my fellow MUSHer.

EDIT:
\O/

 

[DemoCoder]

So after all of this talk of how the PS3 is the "True HD" console, the content is going to be 480p? Given that the downloads on XBL are HDTV? As an owner of a 1080p set, even "DVD quality VC-1 or H.264" is not appealing to me, given the alternatives. Why stream? Queue it up and watch it later in reasonable quality without packetloss.

First of all, I was talking about free *screening* events for upcoming films, clips, and trailers, not watching full length purchased movies, although people could do that if they want. There is plenty of room left in the world for non-1080p streams however.

Please don't patronize me, it doesn't help anyone. I'm critical of the whole streaming SDTV media approach after Sony is so gung-ho about HDTV. Ironically, I think you'd need to have your development license revoked if you used TCP to stream video.

Well, I was being sarcastic, but if you want to be pedantic, TCP is a perfectly fine protocol to stream video, it is, in fact, the predominant streaming video protocol, deployed far more widely than RTP/RTSP on the web. That's because TCP is a streaming protocol.

There are reasons why you want to use RTP/RTSP or custom UDP protocols, but those are orthogonal to the fact that it's video, and wholly related to whether or not the video is "live", "interactive" or synced somehow. For example, shared broadcasts and video teleconferencing. You *want* dropped UDP packets and dropped frames in those applications because you don't want the video to freeze while retries occur or buffers are flushed. In other worlds, you are willing to drop packets and settle for unreliability in order to maintain synchronization.

However, if I am alone, at home, streaming video on demand from a server, I do NOT want UDP, because I don't want dropped chunks of video from congestion or other network hiccups. And RTP doesn't really give you any benefit here. I will tolerate extra buffering or a pause to catchup, and when I rewind, I see everything in full quality, I'm not missing data. YouTube is arguably the #1 streaming video site in the world and it is TCP.

That's because there's no real market for that.

Says you. MTV and G4TV says otherwise. These networks host plenty of shows that allow people to watch and chat about the show at their computer at the same time. Lookup Star Trek 2.0. It was such a hit for G4 that they went and did it for TNG as well. I love how people declare themselves an Oracle of Authority on what people will like or dislike.

That would certainly explain why DVD sales are up and boxoffice sales are down.

Non-sequitur. The existence of an audience of people who like communal entertainment is a subgroup of people who like going to theaters. It's like saying that if CD and MP3 sales are going through the roof and concert proceeds are down (relatively), that somehow there is no audience for concerts.

Besides, the issue of the Hollywood Malaise is much more complex. DVD sales growth year over year has slumped too.

Why bother watching Star Wars in 1080p with uncompressed PCM audio when you can watch near DVD-like quality with teenagers giggling about sex jokes in the "virtual back row"?

Because watching a blockbuster in a theater with hoot-n-hollering raving fans is sometimes fun and ads energy and excitement? How many people are going to be watching the Rocky Horror Picture Show in 1080p uncompressed PCM at home. How old are you? I'm 36, married with children, and I can still remember how fun this was. A shared audience can even make a shitty movie experience better, and it definately ads to comedies where you don't need a laugh track.

Yes, and most people do toggle full screen mode. So again, what's the point of the 3D theatre?

Because I, or the director, can make comments, and bring up the interface when I want. What's the point of PIP HD-DVD/BRD director commentaries then? Oh no, everyone wants full uninterrupted experience and no one would ever want to toggle those on.

If you think anyone and their dog can set up a massive American Idol-like competition on Home...well, I'll leave it at that. Your comparison is ridiculous.

Strawman. I never claimed this. In fact, in another post, I called for Sony to export a separate interface for hobbyists, as it is clear that the C-language interface will be for licensed partners with big development budgets and liability.

On the other hand, setting up a singing competition on the Web is pretty easy. People have already done it trivially by mashing up with YouTube.

My argument isn't "it's been done before, therefore it's worthless". It's that this is worthless, it's been done before, and there's reasons why it hasn't taken off.

And my argument is, you are no authority on what's worthless and what's not. To wit: who the fuck are you.

Comparing Sony's Home to Google's search engine...well, I don't think I even need to say anything about that. Are you on their payroll?

Prior to Google, search was supposedly a saturated market. "Done" Google make people eat their words several times. WebMail was supposedly a done deal too, there were literally thousands of free webmails. The comparison is accurate, because I've seen so many naysayers like you making proclamations get pie in the face over the years.

 

[Asher]

Says you. MTV and G4TV says otherwise. These networks host plenty of shows that allow people to watch and chat about the show at their computer at the same time. Lookup Star Trek 2.0. It was such a hit for G4 that they went and did it for TNG as well. I love how people declare themselves an Oracle of Authority on what people will like or dislike.

I'm not establishing myself as the Oracle of Authority. I'm giving my opinion -- I thought that would be patently clear.

Because watching a blockbuster in a theater with hoot-n-hollering raving fans is sometimes fun and ads energy and excitement? How many people are going to be watching the Rocky Horror Picture Show in 1080p uncompressed PCM at home. How old are you? I'm 36, married with children, and I can still remember how fun this was.

Good on you -- if you think that this is a massive untapped market, that's your opinion. Maybe all kinds of 36-year old men will get a kick out of reliving their youth like you, but I'm willing to bet this is a niche market.

For what it's worth, I'm younger than that. I can't stand hooting and hollering during movies. Maybe this is a cultural disconnect thing...

Because I, or the director, can make comments, and bring up the interface when I want. What's the point of PIP HD-DVD/BRD director commentaries then? Oh no, everyone wants full uninterrupted experience and no one would ever want to toggle those on.

So without the 3D rendering of the theatre, we cannot have PIP. Interesting argument. I'll pass on that one.

And my argument is, you are no authority on what's worthless and what's not. To wit: who the fuck are you.

And neither are you. In fact, no one is here. Why don't we just shut down the site, since people can't have opinions without getting chewed out by a clearly agitated, rude know-it-all, condescending American?

Ease up, man. There's no need to be so rude and confrontational -- you'd think criticism of Home is criticism of your first born or something.

Prior to Google, search was supposedly a saturated market. "Done" Google make people eat their words several times. WebMail was supposedly a done deal too, there were literally thousands of free webmails. The comparison is accurate, because I've seen so many naysayers like you making proclamations get pie in the face over the years.

I'd never heard anyone say Webmail or Search were saturated markets.

The comparison isn't accurate, because no one ever said the market was saturated. Nothing Sony has announced makes this a groundbreaking thing, which is very contrary to when Google and Gmail were announced and detailed.

 

[Scott_Arm]

PS3 Home is a niche market simply from the fact that it is only available to PS3 users. The userbase has limited ability to create or add content, unlike the Internet. Home cannot be compared to any online services like Google, because it's audience, by nature of being PS3 exclusive, is far far far smaller. Home is also not an open platform. It is open to companies that can afford the licensing fees, but Sony still calls all the shots and the regular user has far less ability to add content. All of these limits are perfectly reasonable, considering the platform it is developed for. At this point, I do not think it is a revolutionary system, because I think Xbox live is in a position to feature all of the same types of content creation and delivery, but without the 3D interface, which in my opinion is not necessary or optimal in a lot of ways. Hopefully I'm proven wrong, and Home will surprise me and be far more than what has been described and it will be a revolutionary as a prototype for a greater, cross platform and open system on the Internet. As it stands, Home can never be anything more than a niche because it is locked to the Playstation3. Maybe they'll find a way to bring some of the content to people outside of the Home world, which would be a great step to providing a more useful product.

One thing I always wanted to see from any of the console makers, was an Xbox Live style system with a friends list that could cross platforms. That way I could have some form of communication tool on my PC that could communicate via VOIP or chat or video to people within' that Live system. So, if I was on my PC and my friend was playing some multiplayer game on his Xbox/PS3/Wii, he could chat with me over VOIP and tell me to get my ass in the game, or send me an invite that would notify on my PC, so I would know to check my console and accept the invite. Or easily hosting media from my Playstation3 or Xbox360 on the internet. Those are the types of communications and content delivery systems that will be revolutionary in the future. Something that has a broader vision than being locked solely to one platform. Maybe MS or Sony can expand their systems in that direction, and I hope they do.


Edit: I would say the OLPC initiative is far more revolutionary than anything PS3 Home is doing. That is doing something to truly expand and improve world-wide communication and content delivery.

 

[Bagel seed]

At this point, I do not think it is a revolutionary system, because I think Xbox live is in a position to feature all of the same types of content creation and delivery, but without the 3D interface, which in my opinion is not necessary or optimal in a lot of ways.

I think it's alot easier to market their online to casuals because of such a 3D interface. Which is basically the bottom line of why they chose to go with this Sims style approach. Of course, it won't draw them in overnight. In time, after a couple price drops and ad campaigns no doubt. Something like this is much easier to market to a wider audience (ie. not pc centric or existing "hardcore" gamer types) than Live currently is.

Whether it's sucessful in getting those casuals is left to be seen, but that is their direction with this whole thing, imo.

 

[ninzel]

I have different reactions to LBP. I love the concept and this should keep the game fresh for a long time. It looks great and I really like new 2D platformers.
On the other hand the idea of possibly having to create something myself is a little intimidating.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I think it's alot easier to market their online to casuals because of such a 3D interface. Which is basically the bottom line of why they chose to go with this Sims style approach. Of course, it won't draw them in overnight. In time, after a couple price drops and ad campaigns no doubt. Something like this is much easier to market to a wider audience (ie. not pc centric or existing "hardcore" gamer types) than Live currently is.

Whether it's sucessful in getting those casuals is left to be seen, but that is their direction with this whole thing, imo.

That is true. I think a lot of it has to do with finding a way to make the system generate revenues through advertisements and microtransactions. It would be harder to find ways to generate revenues in a more traditional system with intrusive banners etc that can be blocked in web browsers.

 

[patsu]

PS3 Home is a niche market simply from the fact that it is only available to PS3 users.

Why do you want to split Playstation Home away from Playstation 3 and Playstation Portable ? They are "together" (like iTunes and iPod). Sony is unlikely to report separate revenue for Home.

The userbase has limited ability to create or add content, unlike the Internet.

What has that got to do with Playstation earnings ?

Home cannot be compared to any online services like Google, because it's audience, by nature of being PS3 exclusive, is far far far smaller. Home is also not an open platform. It is open to companies that can afford the licensing fees, but Sony still calls all the shots and the regular user has far less ability to add content. All of these limits are perfectly reasonable, considering the platform it is developed for.

Different business, different rules. The model is closer to iTunes + iPod.

Where the Playstation Network gaming infrastructure is concerned, it is open because there are 3rd party middleware solutions on the bandwagon.

Playstation Home is the community "glue" that holds all these components together. Developers can also work with Sony to deliver more value-added services on top of this world. If you read the FAQ, you'll also see that Sony is interested to get hobbyist games on board too.

I don't think "open" is a binary value. Sony has to call the shot because content is involved. People are already asking about moderation responsibility and parental control in Playstation Home.

An Analogy is: Apple is not going to let any band into iTunes because they (most) will dilute the premium content.

Remember: Different business, different rules. This is not the Internet. We don't want it to be the Internet in that regard (Other respects may be).

At this point, I do not think it is a revolutionary system, because I think Xbox live is in a position to feature all of the same types of content creation and delivery, but without the 3D interface, which in my opinion is not necessary or optimal in a lot of ways.

By the fact that Asher still find it hard to believe that Playstation Home's "free free", I'd consider it an amazing offering.

The observation that Xbox Live is "in a position to feature all of the same types of content creation and delivery" but hasn't done so for the past 4 years speaks volume about Sony's boldness. The same way MS also did not follow through with the motion sensing controller idea, which all their competitors did.

I agree that 3D interface may not be optimal but it is software... and can be improved. It is not impossible to offer alternative and more efficient views/mode in Playstation Home (Already mentioned is the Virtual PSP view). Why are people so stucked to this 3D UI ? Playstation Home is not just a shallow 3D UI shell.

As it stands, Home can never be anything more than a niche because it is locked to the Playstation3. Maybe they'll find a way to bring some of the content to people outside of the Home world, which would be a great step to providing a more useful product.

You forgot about Playstation Portable, and future Playstations...

If it is successful, Sony execs will leverage it for other consumer devices too. There are already talks by Sony and Toshiba executives to offer video communication service and video download service to their HDTVs.

One thing I always wanted to see from any of the console makers, was an Xbox Live style system with a friends list that could cross platforms. That way I could have some form of communication tool on my PC that could communicate via VOIP or chat or video to people within' that Live system. So, if I was on my PC and my friend was playing some multiplayer game on his Xbox/PS3/Wii, he could chat with me over VOIP and tell me to get my ass in the game, or send me an invite that would notify on my PC, so I would know to check my console and accept the invite.

Playstation Network already has it in some form. Players can communicate with PC gamers over 3rd party middleware partners such as XFire. This has been revealed last October/November before PS3 was launched.

Or easily hosting media from my Playstation3 or Xbox360 on the internet. Those are the types of communications and content delivery systems that will be revolutionary in the future. Something that has a broader vision than being locked solely to one platform. Maybe MS or Sony can expand their systems in that direction, and I hope they do.

Time will tell.

Edit: I would say the OLPC initiative is far more revolutionary than anything PS3 Home is doing. That is doing something to truly expand and improve world-wide communication and content delivery.

Err.... this OLPC ?!

 

[Scott_Arm]

Why do you want to split Playstation Home away from Playstation 3 and Playstation Portable ? They are "together" (like iTunes and iPod). Sony is unlikely to report separate revenue for Home.

That is true. I forgot it would most likely find integration with the PSP. Still, it is only available to Sony users.

What has that got to do with Playstation earnings ?

Absolutely nothing. It has everything to do with a real communications and content delivery revolution, which is what we're talking about.

Different business, different rules. The model is closer to iTunes + iPod.

Where the Playstation Network gaming infrastructure is concerned, it is open because there are 3rd party middleware solutions on the bandwagon.

Playstation Home is the community "glue" that holds all these components together. Developers can also work with Sony to deliver more value-added services on top of this world. If you read the FAQ, you'll also see that Sony is interested to get hobbyist games on board too.

I don't think "open" is a binary value. Sony has to call the shot because content is involved. People are already asking about moderation responsibility and parental content on Playstation Home.

That is also why Apple is not going to let any band into iTunes because they (most) will dilute the premium content.

Remember: Different business, different rules. This is not the Internet. We don't want it to be the Internet in that regard (Other respects may be).

A closed system limits innovation from the user end. If someone understands web services, they can start up a small company and create all kinds of wonderful new ways to deliver content and information. In a system like Home, people depend on Sony to have a vision to show them the way forward and it is also has a limited userbase. If the Home solution is revolutionary, what realm of technology are we talking about other then communication and content delivery?

By the fact that Asher still find it hard to believe that Playstation Home's "free free", I'd consider it an amazing offering.

The observation that Xbox Live is "in a position to feature all of the same types of content creation and delivery" but hasn't done so for the past 4 years say something about Sony's boldness. The same way MS also did not follow through with the motion sensing controller idea, which all their competitors did.

I agree that 3D interface may not be optimal but it is software... and can be improved. It is not impossible to offer alternative and more efficient views/mode in Playstation Home (Already mentioned is the Virtual PSP view). Why are people so stucked to this 3D UI ? Playstation Home is not just a shallow 3D UI shell.

I think Microsoft is in a very competitive position right now. In terms of online services, hey have conceptualized, and more importantly delivered, a lot more than Sony has in the past four years. Sony's move is somewhat bold to try and do a one shot catchup and maybe slight improvement, rather than baby steps.

I think the 3D interface is a huge mistake. I don't believe it adds any value to the system and limits a worldwide audience to only those people with systems that have the horsepower to render that world. It does provide a niche genre of communication that is really a very minuscule piece of worldwide communication. I hope that they find ways to leverage the services and deliver content to people outside of the Sony world through open computer accessible methods. If Sony was able to create a device that could easily share media with anyone, I think that would be a much larger draw then just being able to share with people who own PSPs or PS3s or whatever other Sony product.

You forgot about Playstation Portable, and future Playstations...

If it is successful, Sony execs will leverage it for other consumer devices too. There are already talks by Sony and Toshiba executives to offer video communication service and video download service to their HDTVs.

In terms of a worldwide community, Sony has sold Playstation brand devices to a lot of people, but it's still a very small portion of the billions of people in the world.

Playstation Network already has it in some form. Players can communicate with PC gamers over 3rd party middleware partners such as XFire. This has been revealed last October/November before PS3 was launched.

That's great news. I hadn't followed it. Hopefully it becomes a very full featured partnership.

Err.... this OLPC ?!

Yep, that OLPC. If successful, it is going to reach an audience that Playstation will never reach and bring new people and new ideas into the worldwide community. A system like Home would be inaccessible to them. I wouldn't view any system like Home, with such a limited reach, to be revolutionary in practice, but possibly in theory.

 

[one]

I chuckle while some gamers dismiss Home because it's 3D while they are having fun in 3D games
Plain interface is disruptive for immersion. To jack in Matrix, you have to forget reality!

 

[Scott_Arm]

I chuckle while some gamers dismiss Home because it's 3D while they are having fun in 3D games
Plain interface is disruptive for immersion. To jack in Matrix, you have to forget reality!

So watching a video on a virtual tv is more immersive than watching a video on a real tv? I would like someone to explain to me the true benefit of the 3D interface. Home is not meant to be a game. It is meant to be a communication mechanism and a content delivery system. Is 3D in the way it's presented in Home, truly necessary or beneficial to either of those things?

 

[one]

So watching a video on a virtual tv is more immersive than watching a video on a real tv? I would like someone to explain to me the true benefit of the 3D interface. Home is not meant to be a game. It is meant to be a communication mechanism and a content delivery system. Is 3D in the way it's presented in Home, truly necessary or beneficial to either of those things?

Virtual TV? Why do you conveniently drop "virtual game"?

 

[Scott_Arm]

Virtual TV? Why do you conveniently drop "virtual game"?

Games require a method of presenting an environment, atmosphere and a visual mechanic to the user. It is not always necessary that it is 3D. Some games benefit from 3D representation by allowing perspectives that provide a more intuitive, realistic or entertaining experience.

Home is a communications system with mechanisms for delivery of information and content from either Sony or 3rd parties to the user, and from user to user in more limited manners. I think the 3D interface adds some novelty to user to user communication through emotes and the design of spaces and characters. I don't see any of the other aspects of home benefiting greatly from being integrated into a 3D environment or creating a more immersing experience. The mini games embedded in home could have easily been placed into a compartmentalized "arcade" with traditional game lobbies and the experience would be roughly the same.

 

[patsu]

That is true. I forgot it would most likely find integration with the PSP. Still, it is only available to Sony users.

Like iPods + iTunes ? Playstation Home + Playstations (Xbox Live + Xbox 360) is still big business. Otherwise why would such a large company like MS be bothered ?

Absolutely nothing. It has everything to do with a real communications and content delivery revolution, which is what we're talking about.

A closed system limits innovation from the user end. If someone understands web services, they can start up a small company and create all kinds of wonderful new ways to deliver content and information. In a system like Home, people depend on Sony to have a vision to show them the way forward and it is also has a limited userbase. If the Home solution is revolutionary, what realm of technology are we talking about other then communication and content delivery?

Aren't you talking about Xbox Live ? Playstation Network is more open than Xbox Live because it allows third party participation and innovation. Playstation Home will bring in third party community services too.

As pointed out, openness is only one dimension. You need to take care of content integrity in a kids network too. Google is very leaky in pr0n protection.

I think Microsoft is in a very competitive position right now. In terms of online services, hey have conceptualized, and more importantly delivered, a lot more than Sony has in the past four years. Sony's move is somewhat bold to try and do a one shot catchup and maybe slight improvement, rather than baby steps.

No one is denying MS's position. However a lot can be said about Sony in this GDC. LittleBigPlanet is now my definitive nextgen title for all ages. Home is something unique and intriguing, stirs much emotion, opens up revenue streams, differentiates Playstation brand, and consolidated Sony's offerings in 1 giant step. I have not seen reaction like this since E3 2005.

Granted Sony still has a lot to prove, but I think they are heading in the right direction.

I think the 3D interface is a huge mistake. I don't believe it adds any value to the system and limits a worldwide audience to only those people with systems that have the horsepower to render that world.

For its value, you already acknowledged the environment's richness and potential for advertisement and marketing. Computing devices are getting more powerful. Not to mention for the umpteenth time, there is a minimalist UI called Virtual PSP (XMB) that can be used for low power devices or quick access (Don't I sound more and more like your mother now ? ).

It does provide a niche genre of communication that is really a very minuscule piece of worldwide communication. I hope that they find ways to leverage the services and deliver content to people outside of the Sony world through open computer accessible methods. If Sony was able to create a device that could easily share media with anyone, I think that would be a much larger draw then just being able to share with people who own PSPs or PS3s or whatever other Sony product.

I don't think you need to worry about them. From the GDC presentations, you should already realize that Sony has an experienced and talented team behind this.

Communication with the outside world is not difficult (There are established standards and technologies to do so).

In terms of a worldwide community, Sony has sold Playstation brand devices to a lot of people, but it's still a very small portion of the billions of people in the world.

Again if it's a small business, why would MS be bothered ?

Yep, that OLPC. If successful, it is going to reach an audience that Playstation will never reach and bring new people and new ideas into the worldwide community. A system like Home would be inaccessible to them. I wouldn't view any system like Home, with such a limited reach, to be revolutionary in practice, but possibly in theory.

Oh ! now you need to save the world to be revolutionary ? That's news !
In the first place, must Playstation Home be revolutionary to be successful and competitive ? As it stands it's an exciting concept and extensible platform. Never done before in 1 (console) system... especially for free.