didnt understand how can a free application that you are not obligate to use at anytime, could be bad for the consumer? its not great, aint the most original thing but bad aint something that we should say about home... if you like it use it if you dont like dont use it. Time now a days is a very important thing so if people are spending their time in there its because they get something back from it. home surely could be a bad ideia to sony thats a fact but for us? does not make any logic saying that home is bad for us...

You do realize it is possible for free things to be bad correct? A free bad game is still a bad game.

And just as you say, I don't use it.  I've given it many chances and each time I came away upset so I just don't even bother anymore.

I think where you're confused is the consumer bit.  When I say that I mean it's good for Sony because it does make them money.  I don't need figures to know that something that costs around $1000 to make is low cost, low risk, and high return so that's great for them.  It's bad for consumers because it's just a bad game.  I'm not denying there are people that enjoy it, but you can find someone that enjoys every game.

HOME IS POO

Even before I downloaded Home out of curiousity, I already knew that this kind of virtual world is not my cup of tea, but outside the loading times I thought it looked good and could be very interesting for people who are into this. Fans of Second Life, social networking or MMO in general.

I think Sony have just started. They still have many years to improve Home on PS3 and its successor(s) and then there's also their other social networking/MMO hybrid(?) Free Realms, which seems to be very succesful already on PC and comes to PS3 next year.

What Pull...er...Severance said about one of his PSN friends who bought her PS3 just for Home is an interesting anecdote. Broadening the audience, isn't this what all three console makers want?

Was Playstation Home a bad idea?

Yes.
Waste of time and ressources.

How much could Home POSSIBLY have cost to develop? It's a few thousand square feet of fancy scenery, and really not very much else, except the occasional game/movie.

When you consider that an average HD game costs $5 million, could Home have cost anywhere NEAR that?

People are quick to snark at those who say Home makes money, can anyone prove it doesn't? I dunno if it does, but I'm pretty sure no one else knows if it doesn't, so don't jump the gun.

Long story short, if you don't like it, don't use it.

I liked the Home idea, but I would like to see it in a different way.... Im not sure how tho.

People seem to forget it's a brand new venture for consoles, a Sony console for that matter, I have no idea why everyone expected it to be the best thing since sliced bread. It's basically a glorified chatroom to make psn friends and talk about games so why oh why oh why do people expect it to be the best thing ever? I really don't get it.

Funnily enough I think it's too early to tell. Clearly the initial hype implying we'd all be madly cavorting around Home, gazing at each others Trophies - oh er madam - and discussing tactics for the next big match in KZ2 doesn't seem to have come to fruition.

However, judging by press releases, etc. I suspect it makes money, it's clearly got a core regular audience, and as they add more reason to actual bother being in Home I do expect to see it expand.

But right now it still seems very much like a Beta for me, and still seems somewhat adrift in terms of clearly aligning to some overall strategy.

I do suspect Sony would have seen better return focusing the effort that went into Home into PSN and matching Live first, then pushing Home, but we'll never know for sure.