What's so bad about Home?

I've heard that people are complaining about Home.

Wha?

Why?

I see nothing wrong with Home.

Enlighten me. 

I've heard that people are complaining about Home.

Wha?

Why?

I see nothing wrong with Home.

Enlighten me.

Willy105

I think it's a badass idea!!

It reminds me a lot of Animal Crossing, but more realistic(of course). 

From the Playstation 3 article on the main page, from the section about "Home":

Worlds like Second Life and There exist on the fringe and, if I may recklessly dismiss and generalize something that I deliberately choose not to understand, are only used by lunatics and shut-ins. Is that because not enough people have been exposed to these sorts of virtual worlds? Or is it because most people simply aren't interested in some creepy emote-based chat room where 30 guys are doing the robot while trying to hit on the one female avatar in the area and 30 more guys are trying to tell you that you aren't cool if you don't go buy some more virtual bucket hats and headphones for your already-far-too-metrosexual-looking avatars? As long as the PlayStation 3 keeps selling, PS Home is going to be the big mainstream experiment that finally gives us the answer. But all I want to do is accept a game invite from a friend without first having to fumble through a bunch of game-specific menus and obsolete lobbies.

You might think I'm down on PlayStation Home, but to be honest, I can't wait to try it. It all looks so creepy and marketing-driven that getting in there and messing with people is almost certain to be a good time. But considering that Sony doesn't quite have the basics of online functionality down yet, it's hard to get excited about anything that isn't directly focused on filling those basic needs first.Jeff Gerstmann, Editorial Director, Reviews

From the Playstation 3 article on the main page, from the section about "Home":

[quote="Jeff Gerstmann, Editorial Director, Reviews"]

Worlds like Second Life and There exist on the fringe and, if I may recklessly dismiss and generalize something that I deliberately choose not to understand, are only used by lunatics and shut-ins. Is that because not enough people have been exposed to these sorts of virtual worlds? Or is it because most people simply aren't interested in some creepy emote-based chat room where 30 guys are doing the robot while trying to hit on the one female avatar in the area and 30 more guys are trying to tell you that you aren't cool if you don't go buy some more virtual bucket hats and headphones for your already-far-too-metrosexual-looking avatars? As long as the PlayStation 3 keeps selling, PS Home is going to be the big mainstream experiment that finally gives us the answer. But all I want to do is accept a game invite from a friend without first having to fumble through a bunch of game-specific menus and obsolete lobbies.

You might think I'm down on PlayStation Home, but to be honest, I can't wait to try it. It all looks so creepy and marketing-driven that getting in there and messing with people is almost certain to be a good time. But considering that Sony doesn't quite have the basics of online functionality down yet, it's hard to get excited about anything that isn't directly focused on filling those basic needs first.buuzer0

no instant voice messaging, it seems okay for a bit if you are a kid....and I already have one life, I dont need to spend 600 bucks to pretend to have one that isnt real.  Sony needs to start ponying up gaming wise.

I've heard that people are complaining about Home.

Wha?

Why?

I see nothing wrong with Home.

Enlighten me.

Willy105

It's not that there's something "wrong" with Home.  It may very well be a fully functional "life sim" - most of the people arguing against it are doing so defensively.

For example, the people saying this is an XBL-killer.  That's like saying Devil May Cry 4 is a Halo-killer.  They're not in competition with one another.  PSN *IS* in competition with XBL.  Because it's the foundational online gaming service for the console, it's the OS for it.  For all intensive purposes, Home is really... well, a game.  It doesn't actually do anything for the gaming itself. 

And walking through a room fully of 3D trophies to see what someone else has accomplished in a game is just waaaaaaay too much work.  Much easier to click the Guide button in a lobby while you're waiting for people to file in, look through a list and see what the person's done.

I've heard that people are complaining about Home.

Wha?

Why?

I see nothing wrong with Home.

Enlighten me. 

Willy105

I've heard that people are complaining about Home.

Wha?

Why?

I see nothing wrong with Home.

Enlighten me. 

Willy105

Nothing is wrong with Home per se - it seems like a cool feature, my major complaint is with Sony's online priorities.

Home is a nice feature and all, but they need to fix the fundamentals before they start adding features like Home. They need to fix the Friends List issues (the ease at which one can invite friends and other players into games and matches,) they can't leave this up to developers to implement on a game by game basis - history has proven that if they do this it simply won't get done half of the time. They also need to fix the voice-messaging issues - voice messages should be easy to send and listen to, even in-game. They need to unify and streamline these basic features.

The heart and soul of a good online gaming service is the ease at which one can play and communicate with friends and other players within video games. Features like Home make good services better, but without the basics in place and streamlined added bonuses like Home to very little to improve the online service's most important feature - playing games online with other people. Home itself, though, seems very cool.

This has always seemed like common sense to me... even when the news was first announced I was asking these questions:

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25431026&page=1

The issue isn't what's wrong with home, it's what wrong with PSN's basic functionality.