Jay520 said:
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. |
1) Yes, Silly + Over ambitious = no profit for Sony with regards Home. I understand the thread.
2) Yes there are differences but there are also similarities, for example, you sell stuff on both and can watch movie trailers however you cannot do the running man or chase virtual girls around all day in Live. Ultimately, however, they both provide gamers with non-gaming experiences outside of standalone games on the respective consoles.
3) I never said that. Plus who says Sony was catering for just a minority? If they were, who is this minority? Is it people that like doing the virtual running man and chase virtual girls around all day, instead of playing actual videogames? Please explain who Home was expected to attract if in fact it wasn’t meant to attract mainstream gamers.
Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren
I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.








