even exist?

Sorry for the long response time, my parents have just got back from Hong Kong.

A) I used The Getaway as an example, I also mentioned spending more on marketing.

B) I know it's my opinion, that's assumed by the fact that I said it. If it weren't opinions, there'd be no point in debating the issues - you can't debate facts. But I will say this: it doesn't matter if we don't know exact figures - we can assume that the cost is in the millions by virtue of the fact that most projects this generation has a cost in the millions, and that the money could have seen a much greater return if it was spent on, say, marketing, or signing some exclusive contracts on large IPs (exclusive maps on MW2 would see a huge boost in sales, for example).

C) At what point did I say that I have to use Home? I'm complaining because I feel (see, I've now got to start putting in extra words so that readers know that it's my opinion) that I, as a consumer, would have benefited more if Sony had put their resources elsewhere. I don't understand how you can "fail" to see my point. I'm not debating the service itself (I can't stand it, but that's not what I'm debating), I'm arguing that Sony would have been wise (or wiser) to invest elsewhere.

And what if I do know better? Your assumption is that everything that Sony, or any other "billion dollar corporation", can't make mistakes, and that everyone who isn't managing these corporations is, by default, stupider because they haven't been given the same chances in life.

Not that I'm saying that I know-all, therefore, everything I say must be right, but I'm saying it's not uncommon for corporations to make mistakes, or to invest in the wrong things (hell, the entire credit crunch was because of big billion-dollar corporations putting their money in the wrong place, and I could of told them it was a bad idea).

Personally, I feel I am more than capable to doing what Sony execs are doing, I have the drive, and the intellect, and I'm working towards getting all the necessary qualifications. In ten years or so, you will see me in one of these positions, and I will be making these decisions - but I'm still human, and so I still make mistakes, as do the people who are currently at the top.

---

Honestly, if Sony had a time machine, and they were able to go forward to today from just before green-lighting the Home project - do you think that they would have? Home was a very ambitious project and a lot of risks were involved, and sure, people like cgi-quality and leo-j and what-have-you really like using the service, but is it really the roaring success that Sony were hoping for? Was it really worth that initial investment?

Those are the questions that we are debating here, and I am arguing that, no, it wasn't worth that initial investment.

@SamuelRSmith

with your statement you just stated signing Exclusive on large Ip's..think about that for a sec. Sony with Home is already doing that think about the very fact that the Enviroment within Home is setup for such that very reason you just pointed out. just think Gamer's are already paying for clothes for their Home Avatar's. Not just on Sony IP's also other Companies IP's. Virtual Items generate not only money but more advertisement because it's in Home and Gamer's have been buying content from sony an their other content holder's in Home. 

EA : sports

CAPCOM

Big Companies with IP's.

your Quote:

we can assume that the cost is in the millions by virtue of the fact that most projects this generation has a cost in the millions, and that the money could have seen a much greater return if it was spent on, say, marketing, or signing some exclusive contracts on large IPs(exclusive maps on MW2 would see a huge boost in sales, for example) 

Good point.

Though I will rebuttal it with: How big of a boost in sales has getting EA Sports, Capcom, etc, to make this exclusive Home content? I mean, how many copies of their games, and how many consoles did this push? However, what if Sony had spent the money on getting some kind of exclusive content for Madden, or Street Figher/Resident Evil... how many sales would this have pushed?

And I think this is the crux of our argument. I believe that they would have benefited more from the second statement, rather than through the first.

it's just too slow.

maybe it's not as busy now, i guess i should try it again.

its the same IDEA which would you rather have a quick upfront sale's or sustained sales over the long haul?

looking at the front loaded sales is not always the best to see how the trend's will alway's go. its a good guide but like so many thing's you have no idea how it will turn out until it does.

for instance Sony in home :

has many companies all getting content, into Home which for all intent's and purpose advertising, now take into account you have a stream of money from 1 IP or many small IP's all generating money. Sony took all the small IP's over the larger IP . and i do not Blame them because this race is not about who can get to the finish first . its about who can make the most sustained profit.

does that mean they may fail at that ..sure but we will never know until its over and done with , but currently there are more companies signing up for Home spaces not decreasing. there are 22 companies all signed up for the PSN than Add in Home. the investment for that is spread out among many companies instead of a single company eating all the cost themselves.

To be honest, I was expecting home to be like a massively-multiplayer Animal Crossing-type thing. Too bad...

I like Home but I can't go on it cause it freezes everytime at the message of the day screen. I might need to get a new PS3.

I have a better way to social netwok... it's called playing KZ2 with my bro and friends.