Originally posted by Lord Rock
Uhm... Have you by any chance heard about socking? I could return if i was banned, even through i WONT get banned, only temporary😉
In depth demonstration of Playstation Online "Home" :
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=17701&type=mov
It's very cool in my opinion and it's a cool way to interact online with the gaming community.
I just dont think its worth an extra two hundred bucks.
I personally dont care about it. I want to play games.
It will be interesting to see if casual gamers eat this up? I personally think they will, but that price tag might turn them off. It's not that big of a feature to expect people to pay an huge price for. It looks cool, but I can see them going, "wow, thats really cool, but I'm not paying two hundred bucks to walk around talking to gamers when I can just interact with friends on my computer."
Overall, its cool, but I dont know think its going to be that big of a deal. I might be wrong though.
I think it's appealing for the sheer interactivity. It's basically just an added feature that allows gamers to add more to their gaming experience.
To "hardcore" gamers who simply don't care about anything but gaming, they'll likely shun it and continue their 27-hour marathon of Metroid. I think this is personally true of older gamers in their 30s who grew up with a simple system and cartridge and usual shun anything else that's added to the system whether it be internet interactivity or dvd playback.
To "casual" gamers I think they'll find it appealing (particularly young adults to mid-twenties) since it allows "Myspace" like qualities, interaction with other gamers and social networking unlike any other.
Will people buy the PS3 just for Home? No. Will Home make the PS3 distinct from the menu-based Xbox 360 and the Wii? Sure. In the end , it's the games that count. I think Home will basically improve the interactivity with their games. The PS3 isn't touted as just gaming system from the get-go. It's touted as all-in-one entertainment system that has tremendous potential if applied correctly.
I personally might use Home if I like it. Hardcore gamers simply won't. They'll only play the games and likely just ignore everything else. Casual gamers will likely touch and go with what they like for every feature on the system.
Home is just an online answer to Live and Mii. People WILL however quickly notice the Home for it's "ooh" and "ahhs". It's certainly an eyecatcher.
Also the embedded payments of advertisement is brilliant since it allows "free" service and they still get revenue regardless.
The problem is that the PS3 is the least casual system out there. The requirement of an HDTV, cables for the HDTV and the price is surely not catering towards the casual gamer.
And if Home is suppose to be for the casual gamer, whats the point of it when the PS3 is clearly labelled as an hardcore system. Is it not?
The Wii is typecasted as the most casual system out there for gamers (especially with Wii Sports), IMO.
It is an interesting dilemma that many "hardcore" gamers are either in disdain for the PS3 (mainly and sometimes only for it's price) or for it. The fact that Home is something normal people other than hardcore gamers would like is interesting since hardcore gamers rarely like social interaction.
It's paradox to say the least. A online interface that appeals casual, normal people on a system that is supposedly for hardcore gamers.
It's a mystery on what audience Sony is trying to target.
My guess is both. With everything they've done, they're trying to grab a piece of every audience they can. With the mixing and mashing of popular online/technological trends, they're trying to make the PS3 appealing to every demographic they can.
It is an mystery.
I said from the beginning when the whole console race started. I just didnt understand what Sony was doing. The PS2 is the highest selling console ever ( I think, if not its very close) and it worked because it was catering towards casual gamers, but Sony did a complete 360 (sorry for the bad pun) and made an system that easily caters towards hardcore gamers.
I just dont think Home is that good enough to make people pay the extra money for the PS3, especially considering MS is doing very good in the software department now.
I guess we'll see.
Oh, okey. Well, it's a really nice extra to the PS3. Obviously noone will buy the system just to use Home. It's like people won't just buy the Wii to play Wii Sports. However, it could still encourage people to buy it. And some people, who are hardcore fans of sites such as Myspace, could really start buying it for that reason O_O. And if Home turns out a very interactive and fun virtual meeting place, something like the Sims, where you can beat up people with your friends 😛 Then people may start using it more and more, and if it does become famous then, well, the PS3 would become popular.
First off PS3 is missing simple "Friends List" features like Wii or XBOX360. When they anounced this Home feature it sorta made me think... A) Is this a seperate feature where its like Phantasy Star Universe, Habbo, Second Life or B) is this their missing friends feature. If you own a PS3 right now there is not reason why you should hate it because this is what you will be using and hence you have to support it. The idea of getting virtual stuff such as tvs, shirts etc by beating the first boss (sort of like achievments) is not so appealing. If I owned a PS3 and maybe I will in the future this is definitely one feature that I would never use because I could simple use HABBO or Second Life. I dont need a console for MMO style lobby just to chat with friends.
Originally posted by SmasandianSo are you saying a High Definition Television is REQUIRED to play the Playstation Three??
The problem is that the PS3 is the least casual system out there. The requirement of an HDTV, cables for the HDTV and the price is surely not catering towards the casual gamer.And if Home is suppose to be for the casual gamer, whats the point of it when the PS3 is clearly labelled as an hardcore system. Is it not?
anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
For the majority of games, yes.
Sure, you dont have to play with an HDTV...but whats the point, unlike the XBOX 360, the PS3 looks like shit on SDTV boxes. What's the point of paying $600 bucks for an system if it looks like shit without an HDTV. I'm not including the cost of componenet cables, or the highly touted FULL HD HDMI cables.