What does Microsoft think of Sony’s PlayStation Home service? Xbox 360 group product manager Aaron Greenberg told Kotaku the following:
“What Home to me feels like is Second Life for hardcore gamers. It doesn’t feel like it broadens the experience and invites people in. When they unveiled it, it seemed innovative. I think what’s happened is now here we are a couple of years later and we feel beyond that. It feels like 2005 tech in 2008. I’m not sure that’s what people want.”
Greenberg also defended the price of Xbox Live Gold subscriptions ($8/month or $50/year), saying “I think we have seen people are willing to pay for the premium experience. When they compare Live, even to Home, there is still a huge gap.”
Some of you might recall that I’m in the seemingly small minority that thinks Xbox Live Gold should be free, but it doesn’t appear that Microsoft’s even remotely leaning towards letting everybody in without paying.
At any rate, It’d be interesting to see Sony’s reaction to Microsoft’s comments. I hope things don’t get too out of hand, though. If I could offer advice to both parties, it’d be:
1. No one wants to be defeated.
2. It doesn’t matter who’s wrong or right.
3. Don’t wanna see no blood, don’t be no macho man.
I haven’t tried Home yet, so I can’t really comment on it. But like I said in a previous post, I’m a PS3 fanboy and not remotely interested in the service. And on the surface, as much as it pains me to admit it, I think Greenberg has a point. It took far too long to roll this thing out. Wonder if I’ll change my mind when/if I try it out.
And I agree with you, Doug, the XBox service should be free. I still maintain that after adding up the expenses of owning an XBox between that service and paying for a wireless connection – sorry, everyone I know bought the wireless connector for the 360 so don’t say it shouldn’t count – that it costs at least as much to own a 360 as a PS3 in the long run. And Sony’s online service is now on par with XBox Live.
Then again, if Microsoft can get away with charging for it – which they obviously can – than they have every reason to keep charging for it. I’m just surprised there weren’t more calls to make it free. I bet that had a lot to do with Sony’s lackluster offering in the beginning, because there was far more value in 2006 than there is now.
So Aunt Linda, errr… I mean, Aaron Greenberg gave Sony’s home two “Whaaat?” and one “Oh, brother!”…
By this standards, Windows Vis7a looks and feels like old tech too.
Glass ceilings, throwing stones… you get the picture!
Nintendo’s comment:
“What, me worry?”
What Home to me feels like is Second Life for hardcore gamers…
OH SNAP!
I am a bit torn. It’s not that I think Home is a great concept…it’s just that I think it’s better than Wii’s and Microsoft’s social gathering efforts.
Sure, mii’s are cute–but who uses them? Hell, who even uses wii’s networking capabilities? Isn’t the wii just for wii sports? Microsoft? Well–they just copied mii’s.
I think Home could find itself a fanbase–if they can support it.
I feel the Microsoft should offer free online play. Earlier this year, I was so upset with my online play on the Halo 3 Server that I quit playing online. During live Slayer play or TeamSlayer play, everyone would die. I could see myself and all of my teammates all dead and the server would take us back to the lobby. I did not pay $50 for that kind of service. Also, with the price of accessories: wireless battery charger for the controller or batteries/re-chargeable batteries, wireless adapter, and membership? C’mon. If we are to pay $50 to play online on Microsoft servers, at least let the $50 be a lifetime or longer subscription.