xwan said: I think it did made Sony some money, because there are companies like Loot and Lockwood they are doing almost just PS Home content for years and they haven't went belly up yet..Why would you do this if business isn't viable. So i think it must be viable somehow. Even if the teams are very small, a few guys, but it was probably non the less viable.

1)      1) Well I think it didn’t make any money. I’m sure that Home had significant start-up and R&D costs just to get it off the ground, and then it was hardly half finished and rushed out the door just to save face and not look like a bunch of idiots developing an already doomed product, trying their best to keep up with MS and Live.

2)      2) So what if Loot and other companies sell little trinkets on Home, that doesn’t mean Sony recouped the cost of Home or the cost to keep it up and running. That just means Loot and such companies might be making some money from people that like spending hard earned gaming dollars on useless virtual trinkets for vitual character to look a bit cooler when they do the running man.

3)      3) Why do business if it going to be a failure? Well, I already said above that the just wanted to save face and not look like idiots developing an already doomed project. Also, maybe they didn’t think it was going to be a failure – neither did Nintendo think the Virtual Boy was going to be a failure, but it was and so is Home, regardless of any good intention.  Not because you have a good idea on paper means it will work when you release it, e.g. PS Vita. There many viable products in gaming, e.g. Sega Dreamcast, but does that mean that they all made money or better yet a profit?

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. 

PlayStation Home Actually Makes a Profit

Jay520 said: 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.

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.

Jay520 said: PlayStation Home Actually Makes a Profit

That article is the most misleading bunch of BS I ever saw. Almost as bad as asking Sony themselves if Home was a failure. I wouldn't even waste my time on that article.

xwan said: A new free to play MMORPG called Mercia Fractured Realm just got released and every week there is updates on virtual items on Home; I am just wondering if this has been profitable for Sony. You would have to think this is profitable or else why would they keep updating and pour money into it? But again, I don't see alot of major game company developing contents for it, so it is probably just chump changes more suited for smaller development house like Lockwood Publishing and Sony London's inhouse dev team.   What are your thought? And will PS4 launch with some sort of build in meta-game?

How hard it is to google "ps home profit/profitable"? This was the first hit:

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/07/02/playstation-home-is-a-good-profitable-business-says-sonys-bus/

DaRev said: Jay520 said: PlayStation Home Actually Makes a Profit That article is the most misleading bunch of BS I ever saw. Almost as bad as asking Sony themselves if Home was a failure. I wouldn't even waste my time on that article.

Care to explain why you think its bullshit?  lol

Turkish said: DaRev said: Jay520 said: PlayStation Home Actually Makes a Profit That article is the most misleading bunch of BS I ever saw. Almost as bad as asking Sony themselves if Home was a failure. I wouldn't even waste my time on that article. Care to explain why you think its bullshit?  lol

It appears he has made his mind up about Home despite any evidence to the contrary. 

DaRev said: 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.

1.) It's only over ambitious if it cost too much to make a profit. But you still haven't demonstrated that it hasnt made a profit. So you can't keep saying its over ambitious.

2.) No, Home is an optional program on the PS3. It is not the dominant means to connect to the internet, like Xbox Live. Just because they offer non-gaming experience doesn't mean they're similar. Xbox Live is the means to do almost everything on Xbox Live. You NEED Xbox Live to play your games online. You do not need Home to play ps3 games online. If you don't have Xbox Live, you miss out on a large amount of perks of your 360. If you don't have Home, you don't miss out on the major perks of the system. You don't need Home to play your games online. You don't need Home to watch Netflix. You do not need Home to use a large number of the system's apps, unlike Live. In fact, Home is pretty much a robust App. It's not something you need to use the major components of the system.

3.) You just said " 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." But now you're saying you don't agree that Home was for the mainstream, thus making your 3rd point entirely irrelevant. Which is it?

DaRev said: Jay520 said: PlayStation Home Actually Makes a Profit That article is the most misleading bunch of BS I ever saw. Almost as bad as asking Sony themselves if Home was a failure. I wouldn't even waste my time on that article.

its not the article that matters. Its the fact that Sony themselves came out and stated that Hone was profitable. Can you demonstrate evidence more convincing than Sony's own words ? Or are you just basing your claim on a hunch.