Sony's Home Gets First SPAMvertisement

[Evil Avatar]

It wouldn't be Home without advertising, right? Brandrepublic is reporting (http://www.brandrepublic.com/Revolution/News/866365/Red-Bull-becomes-first-brand-PlayStation-Home/) that Sony will be partnering with Red Bull to bring a Tropic Island, including a Red Bull Air Racing game, to Sony's PS3 Home application.

John Beasley, brand marketing manager for Red Bull UK said Home represents an opportunity for brands to create "memorable and rich content".

Beasley said Home will show marketers how in-game advertising can be used effectively and will open up the medium to more brands. "It's an easy environment for brands to take that first step into gaming," he added.

Sony has set up Home so that gamers and brands can "generate significant revenues", but has not revealed details of brands it is working with.

A spokesman for Sony said that brand partnerships for Home will be announced at a later date.Take 1 Application, Fill with spam, blend until it becomes unpalatable. Sony's recipe for success.

[Johan]

Home is going to suck.

[Evil Avatar]

Home is going to suck.

I'm still not sure what Home is. I have seen it, I have it installed on my PS3 and I'm still not sure what the point is.

After reading the above article, the point seems to be to try to spam me with advertising.

[Capt_Thad]

Hey I don't mind a few advertisements for free additional content. So much of the entertainment industry is branded as is (and that includes games), I don't see it as much of a huge step. Now if I start having to fill stuff out and getting spam mail for using Home, then there will be some complaints. Home is already pretty much a platform for Sony ads, a few more mixed in will just lessen the monotony.

[Crimson]

I agree with you Evil, I don't quite get Home yet. However, don't just single out Sony. MS still charges $50 for Live Gold, and then you still get the advertisements. It seems Next Gen = Ads these days.

[Azriel77]

I agree with you Crimson, Charging people for multiplayer AND forcing ads on people is B.S. I also feel cheated in games where their are ads present. If you are putting ads in something, it better be free or at least have a reduced price. home and the PS3 network is free, so I can't complain too much about them, however I can sure as hell complain about microsoft.

[TeeCakes]

home and the PS3 network is free, so I can't complain too much about them, however I can sure as hell complain about microsoft.

Well said!

Considering that the NXE is as bug-ridden as the 360's hardware, it's hard to justify a fee for Live when the alternative of Home offers basically the same service for free (with ads), I'd like to see Sony's Home host some free HD movie weekends that draw from the wealth of their motion picture library, personally.

With ads, this is something that can easily be paid for-- contrary to Johan's unfounded bias about Home "sucking" before it even has time to get off the ground, advertisements can be used to benefit consumers at no cost to them.

[CapnBob]

I'm told by acquaintances who enjoy suckling at Sony's dripping phallus that Home is going to be amazing and blow away everything ever, or something to that effect. Apparently Animal Crossing + Sims + Advertising + Sony PR = something that isn't shitty enough to prevent committed Kutaragi disciples from drinking the kool-aid.

[TeeCakes]

I'm told by acquaintances who enjoy suckling at Sony's dripping phallus that Home is going to be amazing and blow away everything ever, or something to that effect. Apparently Animal Crossing + Sims + Advertising + Sony PR = something that isn't shitty enough to prevent committed Kutaragi disciples from drinking the kool-aid.

Hmm... no 'well said' for you, Capn! :mad:

[Soylent Bob]

Personally, I have no problem with paying for Live, ads or not. It's £40 a year! That's, like, what, £3 a month? It's hardly highway robbery... I think I can stretch to that for a consistently good service that (at least so far) is better than the competition.

[CapnBob]

Hmm... no 'well said' for you, Capn! :mad:

Hey, I have to work every day around people who fawn over every next big thing that's supposed to make the PS3 into the #1 must-have system, despite the fact that every time it's either a massive let-down or a canceled title or at best a decent niche title that's been massively overhyped. I understand what they're going through as I was a huge fan of the gamecube back in the day, but it's really annoying and at this point I just want to stab every PR person at Sony in the eyes.

[Morratut]

Home will suck. I won't be installing it on my PS3.

[Rotting]

Home is a useless piece of shit. I've tried it and I just don't see the point.

[grognard66]

This game will probably be about as good as that Yaris game on 360.

[ElfShotTheFood]

Second Life with better graphics?

[riposte101]

I personally don't mind seeing a few ads. They are trying to make money afterall. The money made be reinvested into additional new games and infrastructure so there is a benefit to keeping developers financially healthy.

[Samstag]

Maybe I'm weird, but I like the ads in Live. It gives me easy access to game demos, movie trailers, etc. When they announced the NXE and I wasn't seeing any ads in the early demos I was a little annoyed.

p.s. Forget the maybe.

[Johan]

contrary to Johan's unfounded bias about Home "sucking" before it even has time to get off the ground

Before it has time? Are you kidding?

Hahahaha! :D Sony; better late, and less than promised, than never this gen.

First to last.
70%+ to less than 30%
King of the hill, to bastard red-headed step-child.

It's going to rock, TeenieCakes...it's going to ROCK!

[Flatpicker]

Well said!

Considering that the NXE is as bug-ridden as the 360's hardware?

Wha?
That is a new one.
I head about the HDMI sound issue, but I wouldn't say that 1 issue is "bug-ridden".

or if you want to say that then we have to bring up the Ps3 firmware rev that bricked systems.

[Johan]

1 issue is "bug-ridden".

One issue for MS in the NXE is "bug-ridden."

A year late and in last is "right on time and doing fine" for Sony.

:D

[Demo_Boy]

Lots of hate-on here, but I think it's misguided.

Home is going to be a pretty cool virtual space. The bane of virtual spaces is not having anything to do. If Sony can actually get free gameplay added to the space in exchange for ads, I think that is a good deal.

It would backfire if the quality is only as good as that crap Yaris game, but I have a feeling that the quality will be much better than that.

[Flatpicker]

Lots of hate-on here, but I think it's misguided.

Home is going to be a pretty cool virtual space. The bane of virtual spaces is not having anything to do. If Sony can actually get free gameplay added to the space in exchange for ads, I think that is a good deal.

It would backfire if the quality is only as good as that crap Yaris game, but I have a feeling that the quality will be much better than that.

I guess the question I have is, do we need a virtual space, cool or not?
or,
What's the point, when what I want a UI on a console for is to:
1. Get to a game.
2. Manage the saves and other game related data.

Anything that doesn't affect 1 or 2 is a non issue and anything that makes 1 or 2 harder to accomplish is a failure.

So, MS having the NXE with netflix = non issue. it dosen't make playing a game any different. Matchmaking is still the same and i still can access a friends list and set up an online session.

Sony using Home, to make me move to a virtual space(lobby) to talk or whatever before getting to the game is a takeaway from the actual playing of the game?

Does that make any sense in it's own roundabout way? I know what I'm thinking but want to communicate it properly.

[Froggy]

Maybe I'm weird, but I like the ads in Live. It gives me easy access to game demos, movie trailers, etc. When they announced the NXE and I wasn't seeing any ads in the early demos I was a little annoyed.

p.s. Forget the maybe.

Good show! Clearly we're all the type of people who are interested in keeping up with "what's hot." The Live ads help us stay in tune with the community. Yeah, I know, the Hype-monster is at play, but it's all over our favorite news sites as well. The whole Kane n Lynch fiasco has opened our eyes to the corruption of gaming "Journalism" and now all we have left is EvAv and Penny Arcade.

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

With ads, this is something that can easily be paid for-- contrary to Johan's unfounded bias about Home "sucking" before it even has time to get off the ground, advertisements can be used to benefit consumers at no cost to them.Home hasn't had time to get off the ground yet?!?!?! Are you kidding me? It's two years late to the party, and is caught in beta-spam hell. They are currently beta'ing the spam system, aren't they? Two years ago your point was valid, today not so much.

Home spam is fine, it's what is expected. If you want that sort of thing it's great Sony caters to your needs. My problem is that I don't see why people would go there more than once. The first time, you walk about and say "Ahhhh". Then, what?

Sony has to prove people will come back there frequently in order to make the advertising system work. But, the more time you spend at home, the less time you spend going out to game. If you game less you might buy fewer games, or expect free.

That is a fundamental issue between Sony and MS. People are used to paying on the MS systems, they buy points and spend them. Sony spends a ton of time and money advertising "free stuff". But, the indie developers on MS are already finding they have upper limits on what they can charge, since the big games are often just $10 or so.

Sony has set up an environment were "free" is good and expected. So, where do the indie developers make money? Advertising?!? You would be nuts banking development time on the most expensive hardware and the most expensive development time on the most complex hardware, in the hopes you can survive on click-throughs. Nobody is sitting around saying "You know what went wrong with Second Life? Not enough complex, expensive, and proprietary hardware", well, except Sony. And, companies are leaving Second Life because it didn't pan out long term.

Sony does themselves and their developers a disservice by constantly promoting "free". It makes anything you charge expensive by comparison.

[Mr.Green]

I was accepted in the Home beta and didn't even bother downloading it. That's how interesting it is.

Thanks to Buzz and Blu-Ray winning over HD-DVD, my PS3 isn't completely useless.

[Johan]

Sony does themselves and their developers a disservice by constantly promoting "free". It makes anything you charge expensive by comparison.

As painful as it is for a consumer to admit it, this is very true. Free is not always awesome. To some extent, we get what we pay for.

* Companies have to make money to continue to create innovative products going forward. Sony poured all of their hardware profits from the PS2, for example, into the PS3, which by all accounts is a terrific piece of hardware. It just doesn't sell like its competitors, or anything like its predecessor, unfortunately. What will happen with the PS4 as a result of the slower stream of revenue?
* MS has been able to invest hundreds of millions in their online service in part because they have had a steady revenue stream from subscribers to encourage the investment. As a result, in the console space at least, Live is unmatched in its features. Imagine what Sony could do with its PSN if it had a similar revenue stream to support it!
* Community/indie games are taking off on Live in a very exciting way. There are 59 titles on there in just a few weeks. Several are actually gems, as well. Having the ability to charge for their work is encouraging more of this work to be done and distributed.

Everyone likes stuff for free, but unless we get Sony, MS and Nintendo in on the global-bailout-free-government-money program, they need to actually make a profit to continue. :)

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

Everyone likes stuff for free, but unless we get Sony, MS and Nintendo in on the global-bailout-free-government-money program, they need to actually make a profit to continue. :)Exactly. Sony's concepts have two different issues. Firstly, they often don't take off as expected/hoped. Secondly, they are sold as free without a clear way to create revenue. At some point Sony upper management is going to say "enough is enough", since Sony is sucking air financially and already announced that Christmas sales of Bluray won't even come close to expectations.

How long will free software and online gaming be an option? Does anyone believe that they wouldn't rather be charging every gamer $50/year? Does anyone really believe there is no overhead to creating new software, testing it, maintaining the environment so some users don't create a negative atmosphere, policing advertising, bug hunting, advertising of the free system before anyone goes to it to click on the advertising to make money ...

The list goes on and on, and it's nothing at all like cheap. But, Sony painted themselves into a corner. It's really, really easy to go from $50/year to popping out coupons to make it $30/year, or to drop the price to $25/year as the user base grows, or to have free give-aways of $50 value, or finally removing the price. Those are all options for Microsoft, and they certainly don't even need to take those actions.

But, Sony doesn't have any of those options. They are already at rock bottom, and anything they do to generate funds is a negative and flies in the face of years of advertising.

Spam. Spam is Sony's big option. Lets hope its good and profit generating spam. I just think its a long, long, long shot based on the ease of getting spam at home or work if you really want it.

Advertising isn't a rare commodity.

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

Does anyone else think it's funny that Sony needs to spend a ton of advertising to get people to buy the PS3, just so they can sell advertising to other companies and hope for click through money to make ends meet?

What's even more funny is that companies like GM who did a lot of advertising are crashing. Two world wide companies who still run profits are Microsoft and Nintendo. So, two excellent candidates for advertising space are two companies Sony doesn't want to advertise.

It would be funny to see advertising in Home to show the benefits of Mario-ware. Or, an ad that says "Sure you could be watching this advert, or you could be watching download movies in HiDef from Netflix. If only you had a 360".

That's part of the problem of being last place. The number of advertising companies are limited compared to the ones who go to the two competitors who sell more units (by a long shot).

[ResistanceAddict]

The list goes on and on, and it's nothing at all like cheap. But, Sony painted themselves into a corner. It's really, really easy to go from $50/year to popping out coupons to make it $30/year, or to drop the price to $25/year as the user base grows, or to have free give-aways of $50 value, or finally removing the price. Those are all options for Microsoft, and they certainly don't even need to take those actions.

But, Sony doesn't have any of those options. They are already at rock bottom, and anything they do to generate funds is a negative and flies in the face of years of advertising.


That. QFT.

[silv]

Kind of like Backwards Compatability. Oops.

[TeeCakes]

Does anyone else think it's funny that Sony needs to spend a ton of advertising to get people to buy the PS3, just so they can sell advertising to other companies and hope for click through money to make ends meet?

What's even more funny is that companies like GM who did a lot of advertising are crashing. Two world wide companies who still run profits are Microsoft and Nintendo. So, two excellent candidates for advertising space are two companies Sony doesn't want to advertise.

It would be funny to see advertising in Home to show the benefits of Mario-ware. Or, an ad that says "Sure you could be watching this advert, or you could be watching download movies in HiDef from Netflix. If only you had a 360".

That's part of the problem of being last place. The number of advertising companies are limited compared to the ones who go to the two competitors who sell more units (by a long shot).

As a longtime fan of pro-wrestling (don't say it, I know) you remind me a lot of the 'smarks'-- aka the wrestling fans that are hip to the backstage developments, who realize why John Cena is constantly given championship belts despite no fan over the age of 10 actually cheering for him at live events. It's because John Cena puts asses in seats (mostly kids), he sells merchandise, and smarks realize this yet still will flame the fact that he can't wrestle worth a damn compared to an Eddy Guerrero or a Kurt Angle.

I bring this up because while most smarks think they 'know' everything about the biz, they rarely do in actuality. Similarly, you may think you have an ounce of insight into the Sony Master Plan with Home-- but you simply don't. Unless you work for the company, you have literally no earthly idea what you're talking about.

So go ahead and compare Microsoft to Sony-- the facts remain that Sony's newest system sells faster than Microsoft's at double the price. The facts remain that the hardware is loads more reliable, more advanced, and more impressive for Sony's console than Microsoft's. The facts remain that Sony's Home is a brave, FREE, heavily-researched product being offered to PSN users, and will hardly be the dud a lot of you 'smarks' are apparently hoping it will. Simply put, if Sony is willing to burn their PS2 profits to make Blu Ray, and the PS3 forge forward, they'll burn even more profits into making Home a strong, FREE rival to the XBL experience. All the hate from you smarks will never change that fact, but it definitely shows an oddly irrational need to see Sony fail on your part that I simply can't understand, unless you own shares of Nintendo or Microsoft stock.

In conclusion, Sony has been in the entertainment business for a long time now. From movies, to music, and finally to video games, they know what the hell they're doing. Call me crazy, but a bunch of internet haters on a forum predicting doom and gloom while they happily pay $50/year for their advertising isn't exactly gonna worry those of us who will enjoy Home for what it turns out to be.

[Johan]

Similarly, you may think you have an ounce of insight into the Sony Master Plan with Home-- but you simply don't.

Good LORD!

You didn't just drink the Kool-Aid; you cornered the market on it! :D

*The "Master Plan" was to be in third place?
*The "Master Plan" was to sell less software than either competitor this generation, whether on a total basis or on an 'attach rate' basis?
*The "Master Plan" was to lose all the PS2 hardware profits on the PS3 hardware, while your competitors break even and make a profit on hardware, respectively?
*The "Master Plan" was to turn a 70% market share into 30%?

You are well and truly blind. You're also very, very entertaining. Sony should package you with each PS3...your hopes, faith, dreams, and loyalty. :D

[TeeCakes]

You are well and truly blind. You're also very, very entertaining. Sony should package you with each PS3...your hopes, faith, dreams, and loyalty. :D

:sigh: it gets pretty boring responding to your broken record-like comments, Jo. You make some blatant attack about me drinking the 'Kool-Aid' every other time. Add in the :D punctuations in between especially irrelevant figures like 70%->30% market share (which again is quite irrelevant to Home being a success, and should only matter to Sony stockholders, which neither of us are), mix, and repeat.

Classic Jo! :D I do feel the need to remind you, for the nth time, that I don't even have a PS3, so that 'loyalty' you erroneously, pathetically assume that I'm displaying is as false as the thought that Home won't do as much for $0/year that XBL does at $50/year. :D:D:D

:D

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

I bring this up because while most smarks think they 'know' everything about the biz, they rarely do in actuality.Fine, you go on believing that. Your problem is that I mostly use common sense in my reasoning, whereas you believe there is some "master Plan" out there. I think there also might be a master plan out there, but I simply don't believe any of it exists at Sony.

Sure, sure, you go ahead and believe what you want. The single biggest issue you have is all I do is come to a common sense conclusion, and then expect Sony to prove me false. Instead, they continuously prove my point.

Plus, I would be DELIGHTED if Sony was even 50% of the company it was 10 years ago. They lost sight of what made them successful. Its gone, and they have no plan at all to get it back. Or, its a carefully kept secret. Either way, I am not convinced and I see no proof.

You can cling to your theories just as much as I can. Get over it, people disagree with you. I am fine with you coming out here and presenting your "facts" and "master plans" and other lords of the universe causality theories. Maybe they are right, so you have every right to present them. And, we get to discuss them, and present our own thinking. Sometimes we mock each other, and that also is fine.

Of course, another issue for you is that if I prove to be right then perhaps so are pro-wrestling fans. Maybe you dismiss them too easily as well, for doing nothing but pointing out the obvious.

[Johan]

irrelevant figures like 70%->30% market share

Well, you're no businessman, that's for sure. Irrelevant? Wow...

that 'loyalty' you erroneously, pathetically assume that I'm displaying is as false

Now you're just lying. You've stated yourself in the past you are loyal to Sony. You've gone so far as to analogize your loyalty to them with sexual acts, as well.

Yes, you did indeed...

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

Well, you're no businessman, that's for sure. Irrelevant? Wow...Johan, you will never get through to him that way. Try this:

The MONSTER NINTENDO WII, Master of the Universe and winner of the Golden Mario Award, has been PILE DRIVING the beleaguered SONY PS3 Into the mat for the third consecutive Christmas heavy duty matchup! Oh! OH! Did you see that?!?! They kicked the PS3 in the neck, while he was down and the ref wasn't watching! Oooooo you can hear the shouts from the crowd! Its a small crowd here at the Stadium today showing support for the son of one of our greats, but are they ever vocal! Can ... do we still have sound ... Oh my god I have never heard so much cheering for someone who hasn't moved in almost two years! Can someone get the ref's attention? Or maybe we need to send out an ambulance? Can anyone hear me? Oh wait, he moved his toe! Super! The fans are cheering. Oh the noise! Now that there is still some sign of life in the PS3, its fans are calling on the ref ... no wait .. they are DEMANDING that the ref call this a draw! They may have a point, since Master Wii had left the stadium almost 2 hours ago, looking for a bigger challenge.

:D

Oh, I forgot, Teecakes works in the industry and I am just one of the jackasses in the crowd. Hey, Teecakes, while there's a break, I'll take 2 hotdogs, a large popcorn, and coke. And can you move aside a bit while you make change, so I can watch the game?

[Johan]

I want tickets to this event. It sounds like a BLAST! How much? Front row, center; please. ;)

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

I want tickets to this event. It sounds like a BLAST! How much? Front row, center; please. ;)I don't know the current ticket price. I think Teecakes also sells the tickets so you can ask him, but I sent him out to park my car.

[TeeCakes]

Fine, you go on believing that. Your problem is that I mostly use common sense in my reasoning, whereas you believe there is some "master Plan" out there. I think there also might be a master plan out there, but I simply don't believe any of it exists at Sony.

While you clearly have a much more rational argument that the unfounded hate on from various other similarly-colored posters in this thread, you fall into the same trap at times. This is a discussion about Home-- not about Sony's failure to maintain their market share, or Microsoft having a better online presence, or my blind devotion to them, or whatnot.

I find it not only hypocritical but also downright foolish to chastize Sony's Home strategy for using ad-generated ideas, when the paid XBL service does exactly the same thing. Or to label Home as a failed project when it's still in Beta stages.

That's like me calling WAR a failure because it doesn't instantly have as many subscribers as WoW. Or because it's not immediately as polished a game as the top in the industry. It's no different, and no less ludicrous. I have yet to see any valid arguments why Home is a failure from anybody save emotional bitchfests against Sony as a company, which for the sake of this discussion, serves no purpose at all.

[ElektroDragon]

I'm still not sure what Home is. I have seen it, I have it installed on my PS3 and I'm still not sure what the point is.

After reading the above article, the point seems to be to try to spam me with advertising.

Sure, how else are they going to support the "free" Home service and online play? Maybe Microsoft wasn't all that insane with the paid Live thing after all... Now if only they'd provide real dedicated servers to Gold players instead of just a matchmaking service.

[ResistanceAddict]

I find it not only hypocritical but also downright foolish to chastize Sony's Home strategy for using ad-generated ideas, when the paid XBL service does exactly the same thing. Or to label Home as a failed project when it's still in Beta stages.

That's like me calling WAR a failure because it doesn't instantly have as many subscribers as WoW. Or because it's not immediately as polished a game as the top in the industry. It's no different, and no less ludicrous. I have yet to see any valid arguments why Home is a failure from anybody save emotional bitchfests against Sony as a company, which for the sake of this discussion, serves no purpose at all.

QFT. But as long as Sony has such a laundry list of problems, no one's going to give that to you.

[TeeCakes]

The MONSTER NINTENDO WII, Master of the Universe and winner of the Golden Mario Award, has been PILE DRIVING the beleaguered SONY PS3 Into the mat for the third consecutive Christmas heavy duty matchup! Oh! OH! Did you see that?!?! They kicked the PS3 in the neck, while he was down and the ref wasn't watching! Oooooo you can hear the shouts from the crowd! Its a small crowd here at the Stadium today showing support for the son of one of our greats, but are they ever vocal! Can ... do we still have sound ... Oh my god I have never heard so much cheering for someone who hasn't moved in almost two years! Can someone get the ref's attention? Or maybe we need to send out an ambulance? Can anyone hear me? Oh wait, he moved his toe! Super! The fans are cheering. Oh the noise! Now that there is still some sign of life in the PS3, its fans are calling on the ref ... no wait .. they are DEMANDING that the ref call this a draw! They may have a point, since Master Wii had left the stadium almost 2 hours ago, looking for a bigger challenge.

I'll have to give credit where it's due, this made me chuckle quite a bit!

+2 to Style

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

While you clearly have a much more rational argument that the unfounded hate on from various other similarly-colored posters in this thread, you fall into the same trap at times. This is a discussion about Home-- not about Sony's failure to maintain their market share, or Microsoft having a better online presence, or my blind devotion to them, or whatnot.I am sorry, but this makes no sense at all. Either Home is the second coming of Christ (exclusive to the PS3 apparently) and the "one true application" that makes the PS3 a success, or not.

We are discussing exactly that. Home needs to be a big hit; not just for wrestling fans like myself but also it needs to bring in money to Sony. Sony has lots and lots of financially draining projects. They have their online system that they need to maintain (hardware, software and costs of data transmission). They need to work on the operating system continuously. They need to moderate the projects such as LBP and all the content customers create. They need to advertise and promote.

I simply point out that they also need to create a free environment that duplicates projects like Second Life like they need another hole in their foot. What Sony needs is projects worth paying for. They need to make users start to pay for all that free stuff, like Microsoft is doing.

I simply also point out that the bigger the hit that Home and LBP are, the more costly everything becomes for Sony. And, just because people are using and loving every single thing about Home, doesn't mean they will buy a lot of stuff there or click through on advertising.

I simply pointed out that it's a bit weird to create a project on expensive hardware that requires a lot of advertising to sell (since word of mouth isn't working; word of mouth works splendidly for Nintendo but not for Sony). So, they need to do advertising to get people to buy expensive hardware in order to load a free software environment instead of the faster menu based one, so that people can watch other companies advertising, of which Sony hopes to get some portion of money.

I don't see where profit comes in, except as a wild goose chase that has a success rate similar to winning a lottery. Sure, winning the lottery is a great financial success, but it makes for a really poor business plan.

But, then again all I am is a wrestling spectator so what do I know? :)

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

That's like me calling WAR a failure because it doesn't instantly have as many subscribers as WoW. Or because it's not immediately as polished a game as the top in the industry. It's no different, and no less ludicrous. I have yet to see any valid arguments why Home is a failure from anybody save emotional bitchfests against Sony as a company, which for the sake of this discussion, serves no purpose at all.No, it's nothing like this at all.

It's like War and WoW being released within a year of each other, but WoW charges $15 per month and the War guys decide you need much higher hardware requirements for their game, while also saying that the online is free. So, they end up with fewer subscribers and a harder (and more expensive) sell. It takes more marketing dollars to overcome the less expensive competitors.

And, why not actually compare to EverQuest, a Sony game? Star Wars Galaxies? Or, Anarchy Online, a game with "free" access and a free game. There is a game that had a big marketing push, faded quickly, had to go the "free!" route by no other choice since they didn't have enough to offer to make a compelling argument against the competition, and painted themselves into a corner since their monthly charge seems so high compared to what you get for free. They aren't market leaders.

And people like me are sitting at the match, pointing out that it doesn't make sense. One side is selling more hardware, more software, charging for their online play to the tune of $350,000,000/year and the other side has promises of future click through advertising but they show nothing in their first 2 years that even closely resembles their competitor. Plus, the more people who sign up for the free game of War just add more costs to the support for the free game of War. That adds a lot more weight onto the need for advertising to create profits for a project that has repeatedly fallen behind and missed it's launch dates. Home might have had a chance it it was released when the PS3 launched. The two of them would have shared the marketing punch, and might have made a real dent in Microsofts share of the market.

I simply don't believe they can pull it off now. Simple as that. I think it's more likely that the Sony upper management pulls the plug on dubious financial projects as the economy crashes.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is looking forward to another great Christmas. Sure, that could be marketing hype, but recent NDP numbers don't disagree with them. And about half of those new systems end up selling Gold Live accounts, plus the games. It just sounds healthier to me.

[Johan]

I find it not only hypocritical but also downright foolish to chastize Sony's Home strategy for using ad-generated ideas, when the paid XBL service does exactly the same thing.

This is a good point which I haven't addressed at all, but which annoys me about BOTH online services.

Or to label Home as a failed project when it's still in Beta stages.

Considering how delayed it has been, and the changes in the offerings that have been announced and then un-announced (renounced), I'm comfortable stating it's a mess and will suck.

They need to make users start to pay for all that free stuff, like Microsoft is doing.

THAT is the key. Sure, it's nice to say "PSN is free" but that's not actually a good thing for Sony, and ultimately I'd argue it's not such a good thing for Sony fans, because revenue allows a company to invest in, improve upon, and grow services and features.

Live isn't perfect, but it truly rocks, and a big part of that is there is a financial imperative for MS to make it work...they make MONEY off subscribers, and not just the DLC. It makes fiscal sense for them to pour money into Live, whereas with Sony, there has to be a concern to LIMIT exposure financially in online spending, since it doesn't generate subscriber revenue.

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

"Free" doesn't always sell. If it did, then WoW would have 100,000 subscribers and Anarchy Online 12 million, instead of the reverse. Far, far, far more people pay WoW monthly fees and expansion packs than they play for free on Anarchy Online.

"Free" is almost always the last resort, not the first one. "Everyone wants something for free" isn't at all correct, as WoW vs. Anarchy Online shows. People want something special and will pay a lot for it, in large numbers. They want magic, but magic is hard to define. You know you have it when people pay for it when a free solution exists.

"Free" often sounds desperate, especially when it's sold as a feature of goods to come in the future. Free isn't even hard to sell, it should sell itself. You shouldn't need a marketing campaign to promote something that is free, should you? And if you do, is that money well spent?

And, if your project fails then you don't even have the ability to say that the price was too high. People will point out that failing to sell a free product is a bit like the ultimate in fail. Especially for a big company. Especially also for one that owned that marketplace until they decided to "upgrade" the requirements.

And, remember that free is how much it costs you but it isn't what it costs Sony. If indeed Europe has sold tons and tons of PS3's, to make up for their poor sales everywhere else then suddenly Home might be Home for Europe. Europeans speak many languages, so the cost of moderation will be higher (you need multilingual support), and gray areas of what is acceptable have to transcend languages. Europe is probably Sony's most costly support area for Home. Lets hope they accounted for that intheir budgeting.

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

This is a good point which I haven't addressed at all, but which annoys me about BOTH online services.Oh I agree entirely. But, could I just point out that if Sony was a super competitor in the online world, MS would have to change that policy? Hell, MS hasn't even blinked or budged on that policy. That's how scared they are of Home. I am not at all anti-Sony, but I am entirely anti-SonyStupidity.

That's why we need more competition, but "free" isn't it when both sides agree that too much advertising is just fine.

Think of it as advertising and the fee being completely independent. Consumers think they are the same, but MS probably thinks "everyone get advertising", but Live Gold people also get the online perks (that's what they pay for).

If there was competition, Sony has nowhere to go but to drop advertising. Good thinking, Sony. MS could drop Live Gold to $25/year with advertising. Or create "Live Platinum with Jellybeans" for $60/year without advertising.

MS has options. Sony has no options, and they haven't even launched yet. Yeah, I am going to back Sony ... only if I get a boot to the head while I am watching the wrestling match on the sidelines. :p

[TeeCakes]

I simply point out that they also need to create a free environment that duplicates projects like Second Life like they need another hole in their foot. What Sony needs is projects worth paying for. They need to make users start to pay for all that free stuff, like Microsoft is doing.

This is perhaps your strongest argument. Sad that it's entirely accurate, or are you now suggesting that Second Life also had the integration of the PS3's library of games, their Trophy Achievement-like system, movie/music/HD-content sharing, functionality with the PSP, and pretty much a tit-for-tat presentation of everything the PSN was missing compared to a Gold XBL account? Ha.

I simply also point out that the bigger the hit that Home and LBP are, the more costly everything becomes for Sony. And, just because people are using and loving every single thing about Home, doesn't mean they will buy a lot of stuff there or click through on advertising.

You keep harping on the background finances relating to the Sony Corporation, which I'd daresay is a lot healthier than a bunch of other worldwide companies at this exact moment. Only YOU and other armchair economists seem to want to link everything Sony does to how it's slid down in the North American market. The PS3 owners who will be enjoying their free Home product sure won't, my dear Smarky Smark! :D

I simply pointed out that it's a bit weird to create a project on expensive hardware that requires a lot of advertising to sell (since word of mouth isn't working; word of mouth works splendidly for Nintendo but not for Sony). So, they need to do advertising to get people to buy expensive hardware in order to load a free software environment instead of the faster menu based one, so that people can watch other companies advertising, of which Sony hopes to get some portion of money.

More with the doomed financial prognosis. You ain't a Sony stockholder, stop talking like you care about their economic well-being. If they think a 'gamble' like Home is worth whatever the cost is to them, I'd take their opinion over yours everday and twice on Sundays! :cool:

I don't see where profit comes in, except as a wild goose chase that has a success rate similar to winning a lottery. Sure, winning the lottery is a great financial success, but it makes for a really poor business plan.

Hopefully you can now see how repeatedly begging you to stay on topic, while you offer nothing but these irrelevant, non-Home-related discussions where you obviously can't understand simple marketplace strategies gets tiring, no? Do yourself a favor and research how local TV stations (that are FREE if you own TV!) can afford to run shows like 'LOST' (the most expensive show ever produced, INCLUDING premium-channel shows like 'The Sopranos') and 'Heroes' despite not charging their audience a dime. Or why cable networks (that cost money to view) only receive the cast-offs that FREE stations don't ever bid on.

And people like me are sitting at the match, pointing out that it doesn't make sense. One side is selling more hardware, more software, charging for their online play to the tune of $350,000,000 and the other side has promises of future click through advertising but they show nothing in their first 2 years that even closely resembles their competitor. Plus, the more people who sign up for the free game of War just add more costs to the support for the free game of War. That adds a lot more weight onto the need for advertising to create profits for a project that has repeatedly fallen behind and missed it's launch dates. Home might have had a chance it it was released when the PS3 launched. The two of them would have shared the marketing punch, and might have made a real dent in Microsofts share of the market.

I went ahead and color-coded your quote, the stuff in red is more predicable off-topic, non-Home related Sony hate. Stuff in green is laughably pro-Microsoft to the point of being inaccurate-- why don't YOU tell me how much of the market MS currently enjoys? Cause it shore nuff ain't as much as Sony's share!

The rest of the quote is misleading at best. WAR/WoW was a good comparison because they are like products, but in truth any free MMO such as Maple Story would've been better to compare against WoW's success. Maple is a fun, free distraction, and many have been playing that title for years now. Of course, the same can be said about the paid-WoW product, but only one of those games makes its players feel like they've been wasting their life, burning away their money, and still feel cheated due to the various things that are 'broken' about the game (PvP, low drop rates, need to farm/grind, etc.) that they still pay for.

I see the entire Xbox 360 experience itself as a lot like that-- a lot of 'broken' things about the hardware, a foul-mouthed XBL userbase, unwanted ads, monopoly-like business practices (tell me that Netflix deal or the buying of exclusives to screw the PS3 was the act of a confident company, and I'll LOL :D) that many people want and need a better alternative to. This is why Home has a good chance of being successful, IMO. They have the benefit of a large margin of error with their previous/continued success in the PS2 era to ensure that Home will be everything it needs to be.

Do yourself a favor and don't respond back if it's just gonna be more "PS3's North American figures are X compared to the PS2 back in the day, Nintendo is still killing them, Home is like Second Life even though I've never even played either product extensively, etc. etc." because you've used up your cool points from the pro-wrestling comment I'm afraid!

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

PS3's North American figures are X compared to the PS2 back in the day, Nintendo is still killing them, Home is like Second Life even though I've never even played either product extensively, etc. etc.. You get the drift by now.

because you've used up your cool points from the pro-wrestling comment I'm afraid!I don't care about "cool points". I am 50 years old, I made them by the time I was 10.

What I am doing is reusing your statement over and over, until you are completely sick and tired of hearing about it, and feel the need to complain. Then I use it for ages thereafter.

I do it not for "cool points", but to ensure it doesn't happen again. Plus, I have fun with looking at it from that point of view. Plus, it sets the lower boundary of what people expect for me. Plus, I have more to say about it than you do; it's stuff that makes my arguments more fun to read (I hope) but makes you look bitter. Plus, I can always say "well, I'm just some loud mouth schnook in the audience", and people will laugh and remember what I mean. Plus, my wife loves my Foghorn Leghorn imitation, and I love the idea of 2000 Foghorn Leghorns watching a wrestling match. I don't want to be less than the average Joe at the ringside, and I want a lot of other roosters there to have fun with me. I love to heckle. I would even watch that on my Live Gold account, for which I have to pay $50/year plus my $15/month Netflix fee, plus the cost of a 360, just to see it in HiDef.

But, that's just me.

[TeeCakes]

This is a good point which I haven't addressed at all, but which annoys me about BOTH online services.

Considering how delayed it has been, and the changes in the offerings that have been announced and then un-announced (renounced), I'm comfortable stating it's a mess and will suck.

I also hate the fact that a lot of cable stations (that aren't free) force you to watch commercials-- hell, even HBO has commercial interruptions between programs. Depending on how pervasive it is with the Home experience, it could be a deal-breaker for me and most of the PSN base.

I've said it before on these boards and I'll say it again now-- I'd rather a developer delay the blue hell out of a product rather than release it as a bug-ridden mess. First impressions are important, and having a product as important as Home released in a stage of infancy or as a bare-bones laughingstock does more harm than a few month's delay will do.

THAT is the key. Sure, it's nice to say "PSN is free" but that's not actually a good thing for Sony, and ultimately I'd argue it's not such a good thing for Sony fans, because revenue allows a company to invest in, improve upon, and grow services and features.

Live isn't perfect, but it truly rocks, and a big part of that is there is a financial imperative for MS to make it work...they make MONEY off subscribers, and not just the DLC. It makes fiscal sense for them to pour money into Live, whereas with Sony, there has to be a concern to LIMIT exposure financially in online spending, since it doesn't generate subscriber revenue.

You're free to argue that Sony is making a blunder by keeping their services free. It has nothing to do with how good Home will be, of course, but feel free nonetheless!

Live is the undisputed leader of online console gaming, nobody is arguing against that here. I'm quite sure Live has helped MS in lowering the price of the 360 to in turn increase their hardware sales in this, their 3rd year on the market. But what's good for the goose isn't exactly the only way to make the gander prosperous. Sony has certainly gone in a direction where their #1 concern is offering gamers the best available product on the market today-- most advanced console, free PSN network, free Home, Blu-Ray compatibility outta the box. They seem to be saying 'so what' to the MS model, no matter the isolated success it has in NA at present. Years of them being in this industry tell me that they know what they're doing with their PS3 strategerie, so I don't get where the "Dreamcast" mentality is coming into effect here.

[TeeCakes]

last comment

Ah, you seemed to have misunderstood that 'pro-wrestling' remark of mine. I was actually praising you for working it into your comments, instead of the other irrelevant stuff you keep harping on related to the background finances of Sony in North America vs generations past. At least when you play Devil's Advocate against wrasslin' fans, I'm entertained enough to bother responding to you!

But it's a shame that Microsoft continues to tap-out to the competition in lands other than where they can exploit their pseudo-monopolistic tactics as effectively as in North America, huh? The ref didn't see that low blow! :D

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

But it's a shame that Microsoft continues to tap-out to the competition in lands other than where they can exploit their pseudo-monopolistic tactics as effectively as in North America, huh? The ref didn't see that low blow! :DHmmm, I don't see how they are using pseudo-monopolistic tactics any more than Sony. In fact, they have more 3rd party support and support for indie developers. So do Nintendo and Sony. When you have three "pseudo-monopolistic tactic" corporations, that's not a monopoly; that's competition.

[Johan]

(tell me that Netflix deal or the buying of exclusives to screw the PS3 was the act of a confident company, and I'll LOL :D) that many people want and need a better alternative to.

First of all, who CARES if a company is confident? I'd rather they be fearful and WORKING for my dollars (or whatever denomination currency one uses). A confident company is more apt to screw its own customers.

Second of all, the Netflix deal is/was an incredible coup, and would have been for Sony as well if they had signed it (though I can understand why they didn't do that, since their media focus is on Blu-ray, not on streaming content). In fact, if Sony had signed such a deal, it would have enticed me to buy a PS3. I signed up for Netflix the day it launched on Live, and I truly, truly LOVE it. It's amazing, especially for those like myself who are a bit older and don't feel the need to stream the "latest and greatest" since streaming is a bit limited with the newer/hotter films (not many of them available to stream instantly). It's really great for those with kids, since there's a ton of kid-friendly streaming video on there.

Third, Sony needs to step up its game this generation; it would be good for all of us, and gaming, if Sony did so! I want to see MS is pressured into doing things that will improve the experience for its customers, and competition helps that. I want MS afraid they'll lose me as a customer, not confident (like I believe Sony was prior to this generation's launch, coming off of their PS2 dominance) and as a result, stupid as hell, making missteps left and right, pissing off their customer base, and the like.

I also hate the fact that a lot of cable stations (that aren't free) force you to watch commercials-- hell, even HBO has commercial interruptions between programs. Depending on how pervasive it is with the Home experience, it could be a deal-breaker for me and most of the PSN base.

I can't stand commercials on cable. It seems...wrong somehow.


I've said it before on these boards and I'll say it again now-- I'd rather a developer delay the blue hell out of a product rather than release it as a bug-ridden mess. First impressions are important, and having a product as important as Home released in a stage of infancy or as a bare-bones laughingstock does more harm than a few month's delay will do.

I agree. OMG...I agree. :confused:

You're free to argue that Sony is making a blunder by keeping their services free. It has nothing to do with how good Home will be...

Good point.

Years of them being in this industry tell me that they know what they're doing with their PS3 strategerie, so I don't get where the "Dreamcast" mentality is coming into effect here.

We disagree on that; there's the rub, I suppose. By no means do I see the PS3 going "away." However, I also think it will end in a very clear "third place" as this generation winds down.

[TeeCakes]

Worlds are colliding! Me and Johan agree on a few things!!11

We disagree on that; there's the rub, I suppose. By no means do I see the PS3 going "away." However, I also think it will end in a very clear "third place" as this generation winds down.

Yep, and I still maintain that a longer hardware cycle + better overall value offered by the PS3 will push it into second, much like how the PS2 continues to extend it's lead over Xbox/GCN every month it's remained as a viable purchase long past the deaths of its competition.

But I already made a bet with Flatpicker to donate $20 to EvAv if LBP wasn't still in the top 20 NPD by March. I'm also thinking of taking it up a notch.

If LBP's not still in the Top 10 come November/December, or if Home turns out to be an absolute dud, I'll be forgoing my 'loyalty,' if you will, with Sony to pick up a 360 this holiday season, as LBP and Home are probably representative of Sony's best shot to date for creating a PS Network to rival what's offered with the 360.

If 360 has the Netflix, a bigger/better software library, all of my console-owning friends on XBL, AND FFXIII (and hence cornering the market on affordability, HD-content, and good exclusives-- all which were mostly Sony's selling points for me when I initially bought my PS3) then I clearly will have misjudged things this gen, and 360 is a shoo-in for 2nd in market-share. The price is just about right too, factoring in what, 2 more years max of the 360 being the current gen (aka $100 for Gold XBL, +$360 for Netflix which roughly adds up to only about a dozen Blu-Ray films at most) to still make a less expensive deal than re-opting into my sold, hard-to-find 60-giger with BC.

I suppose it is a modest amount of blind faith on my part to think that Sony is capable of getting back on track with Home and their future prospects, especially when things continue to improve for 360 (even Japanese buyers are beginning to bite, talk about world's colliding!) But here's hoping the faith gets realized, otherwise Sony is certainly going to lose more than one loyal customer after 2008.

[Johan]

Why in the world would you sell your 60-gig PS3? That's the BEST iteration, imo. :( That's the one I would most want to own, for the hardware BC.

Yep, and I still maintain that a longer hardware cycle + better overall value offered by the PS3 will push it into second, much like how the PS2 continues to extend it's lead over Xbox/GCN every month it's remained as a viable purchase long past the deaths of its competition.

This is certainly possible. The PS2 is still an absolutely amazing phenomenon, and Sony does believe in a longer lifespan for their hardware than MS, which is a factor in Sony's favor, in my opinion. Then again, if I was losing as much as MS was last generation, I would cut off the gangrenous appendage as well. They could easily do the same to the 360, potentially...I have no faith in their commitment to hardware at all.

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

Second of all, the Netflix deal is/was an incredible coup, and would have been for Sony as well if they had signed it (though I can understand why they didn't do that, since their media focus is on Blu-ray, not on streaming content). In fact, if Sony had signed such a deal, it would have enticed me to buy a PS3. I signed up for Netflix the day it launched on Live, and I truly, truly LOVE it. It's amazing, especially for those like myself who are a bit older and don't feel the need to stream the "latest and greatest" since streaming is a bit limited with the newer/hotter films (not many of them available to stream instantly). It's really great for those with kids, since there's a ton of kid-friendly streaming video on there.We find the same thing. The Netflix downloads have become a big part of our content. We have 3 DVD's sitting in their sleeves still, and we haven't watched them in almost a month. We seem to have replaced the DVD from the mailers with downloaded shows. It would be fine with us if that trend continued, it's fun going through what's available in that catalog of 12,500 movies and getting to see it right away. And, it's just a fraction of what's to come since they keep adding more content.

I noticed Phil Harrison (http://www.edge-online.com/news/harrison-new-generation-will-never-buy-physical-media) is now thinking that the days of hard media are definitely numbered, and that the next console generation will be all digital downloads.

[Flatpicker]

Worlds are colliding! Me and Johan agree on a few things!!11



Yep, and I still maintain that a longer hardware cycle + better overall value offered by the PS3 will push it into second, much like how the PS2 continues to extend it's lead over Xbox/GCN every month it's remained as a viable purchase long past the deaths of its competition.

But I already made a bet with Flatpicker to donate $20 to EvAv if LBP wasn't still in the top 20 NPD by March. I'm also thinking of taking it up a notch.

If LBP's not still in the Top 10 come November/December, or if Home turns out to be an absolute dud, I'll be forgoing my 'loyalty,' if you will, with Sony to pick up a 360 this holiday season, as LBP and Home are probably representative of Sony's best shot to date for creating a PS Network to rival what's offered with the 360.

If 360 has the Netflix, a bigger/better software library, all of my console-owning friends on XBL, AND FFXIII (and hence cornering the market on affordability, HD-content, and good exclusives-- all which were mostly Sony's selling points for me when I initially bought my PS3) then I clearly will have misjudged things this gen, and 360 is a shoo-in for 2nd in market-share. The price is just about right too, factoring in what, 2 more years max of the 360 being the current gen (aka $100 for Gold XBL, +$360 for Netflix which roughly adds up to only about a dozen Blu-Ray films at most) to still make a less expensive deal than re-opting into my sold, hard-to-find 60-giger with BC.

I suppose it is a modest amount of blind faith on my part to think that Sony is capable of getting back on track with Home and their future prospects, especially when things continue to improve for 360 (even Japanese buyers are beginning to bite, talk about world's colliding!) But here's hoping the faith gets realized, otherwise Sony is certainly going to lose more than one loyal customer after 2008.

TC,
C'mon pick up that 360.
Join us on the Green side.:D

[im.thatoneguy]

In conclusion, Sony has been in the entertainment business for a long time now. From movies, to music, and finally to video games, they know what the hell they're doing.

Teeheee. Ahhh yes. Sony. The marketing geniuses behind... the only MP3 player which didn't play MP3s.

Or how about their incredible forsight with the Minidisc player? (Which by the way I have actually used extensively but never for listening to music. They make excellent portable sound recorders)

Or how about their razor sharp strategy to Conquer the VHS?

Their carefully crafted strategy of losing every single exclusive franchise from the playstation 2.

Yes ladies and gentleman these are the people who still think the memory stick is a great idea!

If you want to look for ideas on how to run a media and entertainment business look no further than the company who has had one brand succeed in the last 2 decades... and which is now in third place. Yep. That's the sort of leadership and mastery of market research that only Sony can bring to the table and Smartniacs like myself can dream of someday aquiring.

Irrational hope that they fail? No. I like the 360 controller. The 360 costs less. I like the XBox live service better (and it's practically free unless you still need an allowance from your parents. Seriously... $2.75 a month is too much? That's only.... .55% the cost of a PS3. So that works out to be... 200 months of Xbox live or a PS3... hmmm which is more valuable to me...

I want Xbox 360 to succeed or at least tie so that I don't have to use a PS3 controller to play games. I like me the 360 controller and I don't want to be bothered with two gaming systems! Viva la death to exclusives.