NPD March 2008

[ShaidarHaran]

You don't need to pay to use any of the features of Live, except for multiplayer. I suggest that the free portion of Live is more attractive than Home to mainstream users. I'm a longtime MMORPG gamer, but to me there is no contest - the average customer has little interest in fooling around with a 3D avatar. Giving them a convenient way to rent their favorite TV/movies is way more mainstream.

I mean no offense by the following, but the above implies you do not realize Home will offer access to the same (and better) services than Live. B-r BD-live enabled titles on-demand is a pretty nice feature... Also I don't believe a feature that MS offers

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I mean no offense by the following, but the above implies you do not realize Home will offer access to the same (and better) services than Live. B-r BD-live enabled titles on-demand is a pretty nice feature... Also I don't believe a feature that MS offers

Will it thought?

I was completely shocked that Sony didn't manage to unify their online (like XBL) is right away from release. It shouldn't be that hard, aspecially not when you got a division that only makes online games (SOE).

I guess it goes to show how little Sony value(d) online, hopefully Home will make up for this, but there is absolutely no reason why we needed to wait so long to get a decent online service.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Live has value to consumers. It's part of the value proposition. I don't know how anyone could think it ISN'T a factor in some peoples decision on which console to get. Live sells X360s. Not as much as the great games, but it definitely factors into decisions. It's foolish to think otherwise IMO.

Who are you debating this point with? Not me. All I'm trying to get across is that Home/PSN are/will be just as large factors in selling PS3s. You don't have to agree with me now, but you'll see before too long. MS may be ahead in the online arena for the moment, but if you think Sony's just going to cede this to MS you're mistaken.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Home is delayed again. Stays in beta through the fall. Spring'09 for home?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20080422/tc_pcworld/144924;_ylt=Am1Myen_CqwZD4jPyv4TrvMjtBAF

 

[patsu]

Home is delayed again. Stays in beta through the fall. Spring'09 for home?

Once it's in open beta, everyone can use it. Hopefully the extra time allows them to work out the kinks, unlike the MGO beta.

Yes. It's ridiculous that PS3 doesn't have most of the features that Xbox had in 2002. It's 2008!!!! Come on. Seriously?!?!? The revolution is always right around the corner. Forget about Web3.0, how about Web1.0.

The real question is whether in-game XMB will be delivered separately in firmware 2.4 this Summer as hinted. Home beta provides extra, sexy functionalities on top in Fall. *If* this plan is realized, you get the basics and the revolution 3-6 months later.



EDIT: The easiest way to track this is to see if Sony have more developers integrate with Home during the extension period. We already know four developers have done so. According to the initial plan, Phil wanted to launch Home early without game launching. Kaz (and the beta testers ?) probably felt that robust game service integration is crucial to the first impression.

 

[dlm]

Who are you debating this point with? Not me. All I'm trying to get across is that Home/PSN are/will be just as large factors in selling PS3s. You don't have to agree with me now, but you'll see before too long. MS may be ahead in the online arena for the moment, but if you think Sony's just going to cede this to MS you're mistaken.

And if *you* think that MS is just going to sit there and do nothing in their own house while Sony is on active development, you are at least as mistaken.

I've owned both consoles since soon after they launched, and the 360 went a lot further in its first year than the PS3. I don't really know whether Home is going to blow the doors off of the online competition arena or not (though I certainly have my doubts). I sure hope it's good. I'm not convinced that Live would have ever been for pay (or at least for as much) if there had been decent competition in that space. I'm curious to see what an entrenched MS would do against a strong, cohesive online strategy from Sony... provided it actually happens.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

And if *you* think that MS is just going to sit there and do nothing in their own house while Sony is on active development, you are at least as mistaken.

Difference being - MS stands no chance of stealing any share of this market, they already own it. MS only stands to lose, Sony only stands to gain. Sorry, but it's the only realistic conclusion.

 

[dlm]

Difference being - MS stands no chance of stealing any share of this market, they already own it. MS only stands to lose, Sony only stands to gain. Sorry, but it's the only realistic conclusion.

That's not true at all though. There are huge piles of feature requests for Live every day, and some of them are hurting adoption. MS has a huge incentive to improve the quality of the experience of random matchmaking on Live, for example. That's an area with many complaints that causes them negative press and hurts adoption. There are plenty of others.

I think ultimately though, a feature-for-feature comparison of online services is fairly meaningless. The biggest driver from online services is the social networking side. As long as you aren't broken, you're pretty much okay provided you can pull people in to the network. After that, the ripple effect will do a lot of dirty work for you.

The case in which Sony's online story is interesting is for buyers that own both consoles and have friends that also own both consoles. In a case like that, it may be that people decide, "Hey, this PS3 stuff works well, and we all have it, why pay for Live?" On the whole though, I think that's a pretty niche case at present.

 

[dobwal]

Difference being - MS stands no chance of stealing any share of this market, they already own it. MS only stands to lose, Sony only stands to gain. Sorry, but it's the only realistic conclusion.

Its not the only realistic conclusion due to the fact that the console market itself is no where near saturation. Everybody who is interested in online gaming doesn't own a console. Both Live and PSN will grow as the 360 and PS3 userbase grows and most of that growth will come from new users and not 360 or PS3 users migrating because they want a better online service.

Ultimately the demand and marketshare of the console will be decided by features other than online services as secondary features become less and less important as most mainstream and lowend buyers usually make their purchase decision based on limited information concentrated around the primary function of the consoles.

 

[Zassk]

Now Home isn't going to release until Year 4 of this console generation? :/ The timing of this service stinks. It should either have been released sooner, or put off until the PS4.

 

[dlm]

Now Home isn't going to release until Year 4 of this console generation? :/ The timing of this service stinks. It should either have been released sooner, or put off until the PS4.

While I think the lateness this gen is going to hurt a lot of advantage that Home may have provided, I don't know that holding it off until the PS4 would be a great alternative.

An interesting advantage that they will get is that a couple years to bake on the PS3 should mean that Home (and associated technologies) will be in much better shape when the PS4 does hit. I'd say that's worth it.

 

[dobwal]

Now Home isn't going to release until Year 4 of this console generation? :/ The timing of this service stinks. It should either have been released sooner, or put off until the PS4.

Why? By the time the PS4 it will be fully functioning. Its no different than Live appearing well after the xbox1 release. Live on the 360 benefit from that scenario so should Home on the PS4.

 

[Tap In]

....Its no different than Live appearing well after the xbox1 release.....

1 year to the day from release of the console.

 

[betan]

Comparing home and live is like comparing IRC and second life.
And I see little value in discussing the potential of home which has a lot to prove, in an NPD thread.
Maybe those who have high hopes for home, and those who are very pleased with its delays should start talking about more immediate and obvious battles of the war.

 

[patsu]

People who see Home's potential are disappointed (Remember, it is DIFFERENT from in-game XMB and Xbox Live). Why are people who don't see Home's potential and won't be using it complaining ?

 

[RobertR1]

The problem with Home is that it won't sell consoles. It'll be a feature that people may or may not use once they have a PS3 but outside of a small number, it will not drive the masses towards the console.

So the ROI will come from microtransactions. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out but for someone like me, it has no value. I barely have enough time to play games. I certainly won't want to be using that time walking around in a virtual world buying clothes....

 

[AlphaWolf]

Once it's in open beta, everyone can use it. Hopefully the extra time allows them to work out the kinks, unlike the MGO beta.

Open beta doesn't scream selling point to me. I've been a part of dozens of online beta's and there's a pretty big frustration element that goes along with them. When it's ready for general consumption, they won't call it a beta.

 

[patsu]

The problem with Home is that it won't sell consoles.

The missing concept is "it won't sell consoles to whom and at what price" ?

Home is lacking from a utilitarian view. I am not convinced it won't help from a community play perspective. The only reason I hesitate to comment is I heard it is still relatively slow. If it's quick enough, there are ways to market it.

Open beta doesn't scream selling point to me. I've been a part of dozens of online beta's and there's a pretty big frustration element that goes along with them. When it's ready for general consumption, they won't call it a beta.

Depends on the meaning of beta. Google mail has been in beta for eons and it certainly did well. It could be a way to manage expectation.

 

[dobwal]

People who see Home's potential are disappointed (Remember, it is DIFFERENT from in-game XMB and Xbox Live). Why are people who don't see Home's potential and won't be using it complaining ?

No one is complaining about Home, what we are discussing is whether it will act as a differentor between the PS3 and 360 and have an noticeable impact on hardware sales.

 

[Scott_Arm]

People who see Home's potential are disappointed (Remember, it is DIFFERENT from in-game XMB and Xbox Live). Why are people who don't see Home's potential and won't be using it complaining ?

I just want to know what the potential is, because I don't see how Home would be a sales driver for the platform. You can have voice chat, content sharing, game lobbies, text messages, trophies/achievements etc all without 3D avatars, which is what home really is. I just don't see the big deal. I'd rather have all of those functions delivered to me in a more efficient manner.