News Microsoft says Sony underestimated Home

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/09/24/microsoft_says_sony_underestimated_home/1

Home has been delayed again and Microsoft are quick to accuse Sony of undestimating how difficult Home would be to make.

handbags out, ladies

 

You would've thought that with a few destroyed MMO's under their belt now, Sony would know what they've been doing wrong. I'm not particularly fussed about a Second Life clone, I think their resources would have been better spent elsewhere, but if it does turn out to be great when it finally comes out then good on them.

 

not that I'm very interested in this Home stuff, but the attitude of both companies is deplorable: Microsoft will do anything to put a finger in Sony's eye and viceversa. It'll take longer than expected to finish? So what. People want a good product to play with in the end? Then shut up and wait until they think it's ready. As simple as that.

 

Neil Thompson is simply making a comment based on his own opinion. It has nothing to do with Microsoft and it's hardly an attack on Sony either. He's just observing that Sony might well have underestimated the demand for this kind of service which is interesting because no other MMO like this exists on a console - it would be difficult for anyone to have guessed the response that gamers would have to it. If anything he's giving a compliment to Sony's innovation.

 

I cant see it being the reason to buy a console, its the games after all that sells a machine! the online service is bonus

 

I still don't get quite what Home's trying to be...? I doesn't look like it actually 'does' much if it's trying to be some kind of Second Life clone but it looks far too much hassle to really work as an interface to messaging/mini-games/downloads/getting bits of your console to work.

 

It's just like second life, yeah. Oh, except you can't use it to design and make your own stuff IIRC. So it isn't really like second life at all and instead thrives on people saying it *is* like second life.

In reality, you walk around, earn trophies by playing proper PS3 games, and talk to other people. You can't even really decide what to look like, etc:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/06/06/ps3__no_orcs_allowed_/1

 

if you have looked at Home at E3'07 it's looking pretty good, they added a huge amount of content they are probably just adding more crap that fans requested. Maybe a large park or theme park or something, that would be cool to have at launch of the service.

 

I just hope they add achievements.....that's one of the main things I think Sony is currently lacking as a known/upcoming experience with their games....but don't get me wrong...everything else that Home will/should offer (that I know of so far) is going to be great.

 

Why it looks crap, id rather go online to play a game without a like second life thing

 

HOME does look very interesting, and it's certainly looking better then anything 'community' related that the 360 has. With all the possibilities like actually having a 'home', watching video's/trailers ingame, inviting other players to your friendlist and actually challenging them into a game while you're in HOME all sounds really exciting to me personally.

But wether or not they'll be able to pull it off is sometihng completely different. I think they know that, and therefore made the "game" a free download instead.

XBOX might be selling more consoles at the moment, but that's mostly because of the price of the PS3. If Sony comes up with more games like HOME and a couple of PS3-exclusives they might actually beat XBOX's sales on the long run. It's innovative games like this that make or break the console... look at the Wii; it's good prices, yes. But there are a bunch of really innovative games that pushed the Wii way beyond their competitors.

 

I have to disagree really, I don't really see how home is any better than anything Xbox live give you, watching trailers and videos in game? Oh wow how great, instead of watching stuff nice and big, full screen, I get to watch a TV through my TV showing me a trailer. It doesn't really offer anything new that xbox live doesn't already offer apart from the avatar part. The only thing the avatar part of home does is make the interface for doing it horribly clunky. Group chat is quite cool though, I hope MS implement a way to have voice chat with several people.

They've already copied that idea, it's called "Trophies", but not all games support it.

 

Actually veles, you can watch the trailers in big full screen by going to the Theater section of Home or just by going to the PSN. The only time you see trailers not in the theater is while walking through home, you have the various "TV's" setup which play trailers for different games. You can also go into a First-Person mode if you do want to look at the trailers from those small TV's. But as I said, you can go to the Theater and watch them in full screen or just get them from the PSN.

Sony is trying to put their own spin on the online community. Give them credit atleast. You all talk about they need to just do what Xbox Live does, but as soon as that happens, you will chide them for copying. Just like everyone finds it convention of label them for using Tilt. Home is obviously going to do what Live does, but it's also creating it's own little path with the obvious differences. And I see don't see this huge deal with achievements. Some games feature unlockables and scores, they don't contribute to some over all meaningless gamerscore that doesn't benefit you in anyway but to say "look what I got" but they are there. Resistance has them and The Darkness has them for example.

 

Achievements give games more worth due to the replayability factor. For example, to some, beating a game in Hard mode without saving may seem tedious and a waste of time, but others (such as myself) find it fun and challenging and personally I like knowing that there are multiple ways to playing/beating a game.....it just makes the purchase seem that much more worth it in the long-run....

I also like seeing how well I compare to other players and in a way it makes it a "game within a game"......

As for Sony's Trophies, I don't think it's the same as Xbox's Achievements because Achievements offer multiple factors/points within it vs. (and this is again what I am assuming) just earning a trophy......(I hope I'm wrong on that, so somebody please prove to me that Sony's Trophies = 360's Achievements)

 

From what I've seen Home seems to be more of a gimmick than an innovation, it certainly doesn't seem to truely add anything that Live doesn't do except the avatars and a 3D environment, and quite honestly I can see the appeal of that wearing off fairly quickly.

So what you're left with is a fairly clunky interface (compared to y'know, a few menus). Fair play to Sony for trying to differentiate their product but perhaps they should have spent the time and money on developing stand out features and not just on a shiny interface for the same old stuff.

 

qft

 

Yeah I agree with dev that achievements do surprisingly add a lot to a game sometimes, yes they are pointless sometimes, i.e. King Kong where you get all 1000 points just for completing the game. Two games that come to mind where the achievement system really shines is Dead Rising and Crackdown, they're both pretty open games, and the achievements add challenges to the game to go for that you maybe wouldn't have thought of, and when you get the achievement you get the "Achievement Unlocked" pop-up which I find strangely satisfying. It really adds a breath of life to a game sometimes. For example, I was just idly browsing through the achievements of one of my friends, and I noticed he had gotten quite a few achievements in Dead Rising since I last looked, so I decided to put the game in and challenge myself to complete a few of them.

In a lot of the games, the achievements are a bit crap, but in some of them they really add a lot to the game. I was with you before I got my 360, I saw the achievements as a pointless addition, but now I have my 360 I think it's a great system.

I don't think Sony's online service should do just as the xbox does, but I think the Xbox Live service on the 360 is incredibly good, and from what I've heard, Sony's service only just beats that of the features that were present with Halo 2 (and in a few ways, worse), yet it came out a year later than the 360, unfortuneately, Sony doesn't seem to be able to be able to release a finished product, yes it's good that they're adding to it, but it would be nice if they were able to meet the base line before they released their product. Yeah, I do have to pay £40 a year to get the full features of Xbox Live, but I think it's well worth it, the service is amazing, the best there is right now. I also know that a few years down the line I'll still be able to play my favourite game online. Take one of my favourite games as an example, Shadowrun, a very good game that for some reason got very poor reviews, and because of that pretty poor sales. The developers shut down, had this game been on the PS3, the servers dealing with the matchmaking process would also be shut down, leaving me with a useless coaster, many great games on the PS2 had their servers shut down because the developers decided it was costing them too much, and the same thing will probably happen with the PS3.

As I said in my first post, I'm not terribly excited about home and I think it will be crap, but I won't be disappointed if it does turn out good. Although it might seem from my posts above I'm a Xbox fanboy, but I'm not, I plan on getting all three consoles eventually when money permits, I just think the 360 has the best features and games of all the consoles out right now, I don't dislike the PS3, I don't particularly care if it "wins", but I'll keep the 360 as my primary console for now because I think it's the best one. What I do dislike is Sony, they're a terrible company that has awful business practices, any person who has seen their favourite MMO tainted by the touch of SOE will very likely agree with me.

 

That's unfair. 1000 points on GoW, alone, would take me forever to get.

Veles, that's like saying, "I don't think Sony should include rumble in their controllers since 360 beat them to it first", yet it's in integral/universal part of any online environment, and honestly, with Home being free I don't see what there is to put down. It offers mini-games, web-chat, game invites, your own "space", videos, exclusive demos, etc. all for free. Also, multiply the yearly subscription fee for XBL for o let's say 6 years (since 360's lifespan could easily reach that figure) and that's a good chunk of change that you don't have to spend using the PSN and tbh (playing PS3 pretty much every day) the online network is every bit as good as XBL, but for now I can see why you say that it's "best there is right now".

If the game sells well, you will find yourself being able to multiplayer many years down the road. I would think Sony would always allow that, even if the game sucks, but of course if nobody's playing it it would make sense to shut it down. From what I understand, the PS3 acts as the server and handles pretty much everything; Sony's servers, on the other hand, (I would think) are just the central core of the network that handle any network traffic that needs routed, but again idk I'm just basing this off of my own thoughts.

Well, I guess my question to you would be: once Home does debut (along w/ rumble), will the 360 still have the "best features"? considering that you do have to pay extra for them. If so, what is the PS3 missing that 360 isn't? (I personally can't find anything that the 360 would offer over the PS3, so it'd be good to hear why)

Yet you own a Microsoft product as well? They're just as bad, dont you think? I mean their console even overheats (you pay $100 and you lose approximately 1 month w/o your console), yet they get off the hook without a scratch and somehow the PS3 is still seen as futile in comparison; I just don't get that. I've said this before: any company as large as Sony or Microsoft is going to get bad rep and instead of focusing on the good people focus on the bad (the only reason I bring up bad Microsoft rep is to try and counteract the bad that Sony gets because I like both companies, but when both sides need to be seen I want to show both sides of the fence, so please don't consider me a fanboy either because I, too, play 360, PS3, & the Wii).

 

Like MGS 3: Subsistence or whatever it was called? That sold pretty damn well, and it had fun multiplayer, but after around 4 months, the servers were brought down, you are right, the PS3 is the host, but to find matches a central hub is used, without that, you can't play the game. Unlike PSN (at least PSN for the PS2), Live has all of it's central servers owned by MS, who keep them up no matter how unpopular the game is (apart from EA games because EA are lame and force you upgrade to the new game if you want to use online functionality, EA wouldn't make their games Live enabled unless MS let them host the servers). PSN however, the central server for each game is held by the company who made it, and many games for the PS2 that could be played online had their servers yanked so people couldn't play them online any more.

 

Veles you are basing everything about the Playstation Network on the PS2's decentralized use of the internet for gaming. The Playstation 3's Network is nearly the same as Xbox Live. Xbox Live does not host it's own servers for games. Bomberman, Halo, Call of Duty, all of the games matchmake using Live as the service to do so, and depending on the game, either selects a random host from the playerbase, or the players themselves setup the matches. There is really no difference. Once a game ships with online for the PS3 it's not going to dissapear in 4 months just because it's not used. You are also not seeing that the PS2 had NO NETWORK. Everything was developer decided. It was Konami that pulled the servers for MGS3, not Sony. Sony has no control, they provided the network adapter and that was it.