Sorry i don´t get it? So is games, communities and lots of other stuff.... What has that to do with Home?
Phil Harrison's GDC keynote - Home, LittleBigPlanet & more
- Thread starter Titanio
- Start date
Sorry i don´t get it? So is games, communities and lots of other stuff.... What has that to do with Home?
Then you should understand the addictive chatting dynamics online for some people.
Irrelevant point. It's part of something larger.
As I mentioned, 600 dollar console spending power may indeed justify for higher advertiser fees to fund part of the free online infrastructure. It's my 600 dollar anyway.
Not for you to decide. Sorry again. We'll have to see about that post launch. People act like this is the final picture for Sony. PS Home is a concerted company effort. There are smart people behind it to push and evolve the platform. It is an online venture (which means it can be changed easily).
Context: Virtual chatroom on a game console.
Brand relevance: Sony -- no relevance.
Did I miss something?
Another bad example. It's like saying Xbox Live doesn't need chat or chatroom in game lobbies. You're just arguing for argument sake.
Ok, more specifically, if there is going to be video sharing in Home, what set it apart from any other online service? Is it exclusive content? I don't believe there will be too much. Maybe extended game trailers or movie trailers. How much added value does that provide over any other system? Does the fact that it's presented in a 3D environment on a virtual TV make it a better experience? I don't think Home greatly improves the formula Live started by integrated a lot of these features. I don't think Home is bad, but there are people that think it is the godsend for gamers, which I don't understand. Behind the glossy packaging of a 3D world, there is not a lot of unique experience to make something revolutionary.
I do, it's all about the community though.
If I spend $600 on a console I feel I can complain about it if they head in the wrong direction.
I'm sorry, I don't see the connection here. Communication with regards to teamplay is essential to a multiplayer game, including in the lobbies where teams are set up. How does this compare to an application independent of games altogether?
I do, it's all about the community though.
and ? These people can't be part of PS Home ?
If I spend $600 on a console I feel I can complain about it if they head in the wrong direction.
Of course... stupid question on my part. I have removed it from my post. Phil said Sony is prepared to listen. So remember to send in your feedback when the time comes.
Sony is exploring using PS Home platform as game lobbies (amongst other things).
Plus PS3 is an entertainment computer. Chat junkies looking for entertainment are welcomed too.
I do, it's all about the community though.
I'm sorry, I don't see the connection here. Communication with regards to teamplay is essential to a multiplayer game, including in the lobbies where teams are set up. How does this compare to an application independent of games altogether?
I fail to see how Home can´t provide a community enviroment for friends, is it because it doesn´t have a unified ingame list of friends.... yet! ?
And again, why shouldn´t i be able to setup and play a multiplayer game with my friends or randoms i meet in the lobby?
Phil stated that this was the intent and aim of Sony to do so and provide this function.
The shortest answer is "wait and see". From what's shown so far, there are lot's of potential for interesting online interactions. This thread is too argumentative. Look at any other Home idea threads. The fact that people feel excited and compelled to contribute ideas is saying something. This is the dynamics Sony is looking for (Remember Game 3.0 ?).
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a big AIM list with dozens of names, all from different places or associated with different activities.
I grouped some of them but it's a chore.
In some ways, it would be better to have multiple accounts and then maintain different lists for different people.
You don't have to sort through a large list and remember who's from where.
As per the FAQ posted up, you can meet people in Home and then go jump into a game. How is that limiting? The community is as large as Home. The only problem with it is when you meet a person in a game, rather than adding them then and there to your friends, you have to arrange to meet up in Home. Once in Home, you can do all the community things without the need for a UFL.
And they're not dependent on unified friends lists. That's a matter of multitasking network communications and a single network identity. As long as the messenging service from Home (or XMB) can reach you, you can do those things.
I agree, wait and see approach is the way to go. I believe the biggest draw may come from the game developers. The tools are there for someone like EA to create a space of there own to provide exclusive content, mini games etc....
How cool would it be to be able to have access to a room and sit in on the new God of War trailer with David Jaffe present, or maybe Cliff B showing off UnReal3 inside a room designed around the title? Stuff like that could really make Home take off.
To be honest, I'm not sure how much I would get into the personal room part of the experience but it really would be cool to be able to be in 3d enviroment with my friends across the country shooting some pool or bowl a few rounds while waiting for the rest to jump on before hitting some multiplayer title.
That would be very cool. Sony seems to be thinking of that:
Of course, one would hope not all such events would be paid-for, and I imagine developer meets or the like would be seen as promotion, and thus free.
And also, kind of related to some of the stuff we were talking about earlier:
This is all from the developer FAQ, posted in another thread. Lots of good info in there. Also worth noting that despite Harrison's comments about user-created content, in the future they are planning to allow that and support it with tools - and even to allow you to share, sell or auction items to other users.
http://www.scedev.net/home/Third Party Relations Q&A.pdf
Look at it the other way around. MS doesn't have to sell Sony Window OSes for their PCs. But MS doesn't restrict its PC business with Sony because they are competitors in the gaming market. So I doubt Sony film division would turn down a revenue stream because of competition that exist in another division. Toshiba is a ally as well as a direct competitor of Sony even in the same market.
Hobbyist games on the Home arcades? Maybe!
http://games.slashdot.org/games/07/03/09/212220.shtml
Please make that happen, it would be totally awesome. This could be the way you get your game exposed to all users, not just those with PS3 Linux (even though I'm sure you'd be more limited in what you could do for a Home arcade game..but still, it ought to be perfectly suitable for many hobbyist games). A PS3 Youtube for homebrew games.
http://games.slashdot.org/games/07/03/09/212220.shtml
Please make that happen, it would be totally awesome. This could be the way you get your game exposed to all users, not just those with PS3 Linux (even though I'm sure you'd be more limited in what you could do for a Home arcade game..but still, it ought to be perfectly suitable for many hobbyist games). A PS3 Youtube for homebrew games.
DeathKnight
Regular
See, this is the fundamental problem. Now is not the time to have an online infrastructure and experience that's a "work in progress" and is relatively bare-bones at this point in time. They're already vastly behind and trying to play catch up. They got caught with their pants down and IMO I don't think they'll ever truly catch up with and exceed the competition (in this case Xbox Live).
Some of us are simply not impressed nor as convinced as others who are in some kind of endless Cloud-9 state with everything Sony. Their whole outlook and attitude almost make me gag, but I'll try my best to keep the floors clean in here.
Why not, exactly? The only downside to being a work-in-progress is alienating some potential buyers who value the functions of Live! over the features PS3 offers. Which is a limited proportion of gamers. That is, whether a console supports in-game messaging or not isn't a deciding factor when there's so many other differences to worry about. It's not like someone's going to be ummng and erring over whether to get a PS3 or XB360, and after seeing PS3 costs $200 more and has a different library and comes with BRD playback, decides to buy a 360 only because it has better online features! I can't see Sony losing anything by not having a 100% complete package on day one, except reputation amongst some internet forumites.
What I find more upsetting is the fact whenever anyone gets excited or interested in a console goings-on, some people always take offense at that. Having different opinions is fine, but taking offense at people seeing positives where you only see negatives reflects very badly on your personality. Argue (discuss) the logical, debateable rights and wrongs of people's opinions, but don't belittle them for seeing the world differently to you.
woundingchaney
Regular
I dont really think anyone is taking offense here. Some are a little more hesitant to accept the magnitude Sony is suggesting with this concept; as much of their PR has been horribly misplaced and definetely not representative of reality or future in which it was supposed to be referring to.
Although I would agree, essentially this is very good news for those owning the PS3. If Sony only accomplishes a portion of what they are suggesting it should be reasonably successful. My main concern is integration, this has to be interwoven into the gaming experience and not outside of it. It seems to me that Sony may not have the barriers of "home" positioned at this point.
From what I can see, the only people taking offense here are those who take Sony's PR as gospel.
It's logical to expect a good deal of the content that makes it up for downloads in Home will be premium, but even when I suggest that I get jumped on by several people.
I would hope that people would know enough to take anything Sony says, technical or otherwise, with a metric tonne of salt. Sony's losing money at record levels and investors are not at all happy with that, and waiting for cost reductions and game sales to offset that isn't going to cut it. Sony is looking at alternative forms of revenue, and this is going to be one of them. While it's a really nice thought for Sony to be making this out of the goodness of their heart, hosting all of this, then creating and distributing content for free...I can virtually guarantee people are going to be paying $0.99 for that new shirt or $1.99 for that new The Fray poster to put on the wall of their apartment...
Sure, but if they do, they'll do it because they want to, not because they have to. You can enjoy all the core functionality there without buying a thing.
If people expect everything will be free, sure, that'd be a dangerous assumption to make. But I'm not sure how many actually do. Some stuff will be free, some stuff will be unlockable, and some stuff will come at a premium. You can safely ignore the latter if you want, or you might be the type of person who happily pays for that.
Oh, and I find it funny to hear you reference "Sony PR gospel", when they're PR clearly outlines that, and makes clear their intentions about monetising this.
I think people are completely underestimating and pigeonholing Home into narrow 3D chat toys of the past, going all the way back to stuff like Alphaworld, and seem completely oblivious to what is going on with collaborative spaces using open technology.
Case in point, Google Earth. A staggering number of people have contributed to Google Earth, and people routine create tours and other user communities for shared experience. But Google Earth is purely information lookup, it does not allow people to have a real time presence.
Someone already mentioned a killer example of what HOME, if done right, could potentially do -- the virtual Sundance Film Festival Screening. You sit in a movie theater with hundreds of select guests, to watch an advanced screening of an upcoming film, all the while, an EyeToy feed allows the director and actors/actresses present, to interact with the audience, and get feedback.
Now imagine American Idol style competitions, where people sit in a lobby and watch EyeToy singing performances in real time, hear judges feedback, and the audience votes in real time -- with REAL prizes.
Then there's the possibilities for teaching with virtual classrooms, whiteboards, video feeds, cross cultural exchange (especially foreign language workshops)
Sure, I'd all been done before, so what? That doesn't mean you can't do it BETTER, by providing a unifying API to deliver services, and a unified naturalistic user interface, with ubiquitous social networking. Google seems to think HOME is a great idea too in that they are looking at something similar.
One can point to virtual whiteboards, screensharing, text chat, audio chat, video conferencing, one can even point to point-to-point apps for conferencing that have all those features, but that doesn't mean iChat AV doesn't blow NetMeeting out of the water. And it also doesn't mean that Enterprise collaboration software that deals with small meetings is the same as an *open* collaborative space containing thousands of people and hundreds of contributors.
It's like claiming that Wikipedia is nothing more than a ripoff of Encyclopedia Britannica, or that Wiki's twist is more of the same, boring, "it's just another encyclopedia". Well, it has completely different characteristics.
There is a fundamental difference between current 3D/chat collaboration stuff, and a massively-scaled persistent collaboration space. There is also a big difference between *closed* online worlds like MMORPGs, even Second Life, and an open world with a public interface that allows third parties to expand it and offer a gateway to outside services.
Maybe the first iteration of HOME will turn out to be nothing more than Second Life 2.0, but it's not HOME 1.0 IMHO that's the point here, it's Sony's "Game 3.0" vision, it's their vision of what they want home to evolve into, and nothing in that vision isn't infeasible.
Case in point, Google Earth. A staggering number of people have contributed to Google Earth, and people routine create tours and other user communities for shared experience. But Google Earth is purely information lookup, it does not allow people to have a real time presence.
Someone already mentioned a killer example of what HOME, if done right, could potentially do -- the virtual Sundance Film Festival Screening. You sit in a movie theater with hundreds of select guests, to watch an advanced screening of an upcoming film, all the while, an EyeToy feed allows the director and actors/actresses present, to interact with the audience, and get feedback.
Now imagine American Idol style competitions, where people sit in a lobby and watch EyeToy singing performances in real time, hear judges feedback, and the audience votes in real time -- with REAL prizes.
Then there's the possibilities for teaching with virtual classrooms, whiteboards, video feeds, cross cultural exchange (especially foreign language workshops)
Sure, I'd all been done before, so what? That doesn't mean you can't do it BETTER, by providing a unifying API to deliver services, and a unified naturalistic user interface, with ubiquitous social networking. Google seems to think HOME is a great idea too in that they are looking at something similar.
One can point to virtual whiteboards, screensharing, text chat, audio chat, video conferencing, one can even point to point-to-point apps for conferencing that have all those features, but that doesn't mean iChat AV doesn't blow NetMeeting out of the water. And it also doesn't mean that Enterprise collaboration software that deals with small meetings is the same as an *open* collaborative space containing thousands of people and hundreds of contributors.
It's like claiming that Wikipedia is nothing more than a ripoff of Encyclopedia Britannica, or that Wiki's twist is more of the same, boring, "it's just another encyclopedia". Well, it has completely different characteristics.
There is a fundamental difference between current 3D/chat collaboration stuff, and a massively-scaled persistent collaboration space. There is also a big difference between *closed* online worlds like MMORPGs, even Second Life, and an open world with a public interface that allows third parties to expand it and offer a gateway to outside services.
Maybe the first iteration of HOME will turn out to be nothing more than Second Life 2.0, but it's not HOME 1.0 IMHO that's the point here, it's Sony's "Game 3.0" vision, it's their vision of what they want home to evolve into, and nothing in that vision isn't infeasible.
Which is what's scaring me. If Sony's PR is talking about "some" premium content now...it's scary to think what it'll be when they actually launch, given their track record.
Maybe start the avatars nude, requiring $10 in clothes to get started?
