| DaRev said: 1.) Exactly, Home was a silly idea because it proposed to take up way too much of a gamers often very limited time for playing games and propse that they instead do the running man and wait in line to play virtual games at a virtual arcade - serious, what a silly and over ambitious idea lol. 2.) Home can be compared to Live as there are both propose to provide gamers with gaming and non-gaming experiances outside of stand-alone games. 3.) Ha ha, you telling me that Home was not meant for mainstream gamers? Well no wonder it didn't make any money. No wonder it is a failure and fit for a small minority that think it's better to do the virtual running man and watch Sony movie trailers all day than play actaul games! lol What a silly and over ambitious idea. |
1.) Silly? sure. Over-ambitious? As in, was it too ambitious to make a profit? That's the question of this thread.
2.) No. Live is the Xbox's sole service for allowing Xbox users to use online multiplayer and other online services. PSN is an equivalent to Xbox Live. Home is not the PS3's service that all PS3 owners must use to play online multiplayer and other online services. If you want to play your game online on the 360, you have to do so through Live. The same cannot be said for Home.
3.) Not appealing to mainstream =/= failure and didn't make any money. You're trying to equate "fitting for a small minority" to "being a failure." That's simply not true.
