As far the wiring issue goes, let’s keep in mind that Japan is roughly 146,000 square miles, smaller than the land mass of California. Wiring a space that size isn’t nearly as complicated as wiring something the size of the United States.

It’s not so much a situation of anyone being opposed to it, as a recognition of what it will cost in a country where companies and our government try to spend as little as possible on keeping the vast majority of consumers happy. I do think that someone is hoping a wireless miracle will solve all of this, but until then the cloud advocates need to accept that their dreams of remote storage are a long way from becoming reality.

The answer should be self evident. If I want to play a game by myself, I don’t need to go onto Home to do it. I have my PS3 for that, or my PSP, or my PC. In fact, whenever I do find myself in Home playing a game by myself -- for any length of time -- I always find it a bit strange, because I feel disconnected from everything that’s going on around me. Now if the gameplay session is short, so that you can intermix gameplay with socialization, it’s fine. And of course when you throw competition into the mix in the form of leaderboards, that also makes it more compelling – for some. But speaking for myself, I’m really not drawn to single player experiences in Home.

Now any game, regardless of complexity, is going to get stale over time as Norse pointed out. With regards to offline games, one obvious way to alleviate this is to wrap the gameplay in a compelling story. The story not only gives you a break from the gameplay, it also creates an emotional identification with the characters and gives you incentive to finish the game.

With regards to online games, we supply that emotional incentive ourselves. Instead of identifying with another character, we are ourselves the characters. When I can play a game using my own avatar I enjoy the experience more. And if I can also interact with the avatars of my friends while playing a game, that makes it even more fun.

Now to back up a bit, I’m not saying there’s no place for single player experiences in Home. Not at all. All I’m trying to do, is point out that since Home is a social platform, why not take advantage of it? Of course creating a multiplayer experience in Home is inherently more complex than creating a single player experience, but I would think the potential rewards are inherently greater too.

And of course the point that I’ve been leading to all this time is this: the social aspects of Home cannot be ignored. If Home is a place where people can easily meet, interact and get to know one another, then this will naturally create a desire for gaming experiences which can be enjoyed and shared. I understand the argument being made very well, that if you provide compelling gaming experiences that people will be drawn into Home and then become friends. The thing is, in my experience it doesn’t work that way.

Playing an online game with someone you’ve never met before just doesn’t provide much room for socialization. And when the game is over, I usually don’t have much interaction with people I’ve met this way, because people who are very different from one another can still be drawn to similar gaming experiences for their own individual reasons. On the other hand, when I get to know someone beforehand, it’s common (for me) to eventually share many different types of gaming experiences with that person.

I remember when universities and think tanks began preaching the benefits of a post-industrial economy. I immediately called it suicidal and insane. When America became a post agricultural society, we didn’t stop producing food stuffs. Instead we became so efficient that we could move the majority of our worker force elsewhere. That never happened with industrial production. Instead what we were doing was moving into a de-industrialized society, where jobs were simply transferred offshore to take advantage of lower wages, the same way that illegal immigration has been encouraged to artificially depress worker’s wages. Today the buzz word for that supposedly post industrial society is a “service sector economy.” Everyone knows that worker’s wages have been flatlining for decades. It used to be that a single male could support a wife and 2.5 kids. Now two parents working can barely support one child. This is no accident. It’s the logical outcome of public policy decisions which benefit the few at the expense of the many.

As for renting vs owning, that battle was lost long ago. The only property the average American owns is their home and their auto. But if you have a mortgage you are essentially renting your home, as become clear when you can no longer make your mortgage payments. And how many people actually own their cars, as opposed to leasing them or buying them on credit? And once they have paid off their autos, how long is it until they buy a new one?

And personally, I’ve always assumed that home consoles were going the way of the dinosaur (just look at Japan). And while I don’t mean to imply that simplistic games that can be enjoyed in isolation are going anywhere (particularly not in a marketplace where handheld gaming devices will soon be ubiquitous), I think it’s also just as certain that the current convergence we see between movie making and game making will only continue. Blockbuster games aren’t going anywhere either.

The problem of providing an adequate internet backbone for this country will be solved when someone decides they can make more money by making Internet access universal, rather than overcharging Americans for inferior Internet service. This will be driven to a certain extent by the proliferation of handheld gaming devices, as well as Internet enabled smart phones and tablets. As the cost comes down and the market expands, the lack of adequate Internet service in this country will become more and more of an issue.

And when that day arrives, I believe you’ll find that the “story” in online games will increasingly become “us.” There will be a convergence between gaming and virtual worlds, and so I’ll say again that the strength of an online community will become a factor in a game’s success or failure. If two identical “social games” are made available on two different online platforms, I should think it would be obvious that the game will do better on the platform which does everything possible to facilitate the growth of its online community, as opposed to one which consistently ignores its online community.

Problem 1: The U.S. lacks the infrastructure to support massive streaming and downloading, and no one seems to be in a hurry to do anything about it. We just don’t have the bandwidth to support the amounts of data traffic that cloud computing requires. And, if we ever were to move to such a model, the question of access would roil our government for at least a decade. Who’s going to shell out the extra $50 billion (and rising daily) cost to wire the most remote parts of the country? Or are we just going to leave some people behind? That won’t fly, so unless someone figures out a way to make wireless pump more data over long distances without incinerating everything in the sky along the path, we’re a very long way away from any sort of cloud-based reality.

Problem 2: There is no ownership. Until you have an actual file in your posession, you have no ownership of a product. Even then, ownership is questionable. Business minds love this, because they could essentially turn us into a nation of renters, putting expiration dates on everything and forcing us to buy it again. Hollywood has been trying to figure this out since the VHS days, when they immediately realized that letting people buy things meant less money than letting them rent.

Major content distributors have ecstatic dreams about turning us into a nation of renters. Given that younger generations raised on MP3s and the Web have less of a connection to physical ownership of a thing than those who grew up with vinyl and cartridges, that may yet come to be the norm, but my generation is in the purchasing power drivers seat for another two decades, and enough of us are deeply opposed to the content rental model that it’s probably at least a decade away from widespread acceptance.

Problem 3: You assume that the console will continue to be the delivery platform. Console gaming died once and is likely to do so again, as the industry has lapsed back into delivering me-too, formulaic products that blur into a forgettable continuum. Hollywood gets away with this because, as a friend of mine so astutely put, “We will always have a primal need to gather in the cave and hear stories.” Console gaming has become hamstrung by its reliance on individual, isolating experiences. The two rays of light that threatened that model, Rock Band and the Wii, have both fallen flat because with the mainstream because there wasn’t enough depth to the experience. People sitting by themselves at a console, even if they’re in Home or playing multiplayer, are still people sitting by themselves at a console, blocking out everything else that’s happening around them. We can only take so much of that.

One thing that you fail to note in your apt description of asymmetrical warfare is that the console has not been the dominant medium. Game developers are working on smart phones, tablets and the web. The main stream, and a good number of gamers, are satisfied with these unconventional, smaller games because they provide new challenges or precisely because they’re smaller, pick-up-and-play experiences that don’t require hours of investment to enjoy. You can chicken-and-egg gameplay vs. story all you want, but the first question any game must answer is, “Is it fun?” Two games that utterly lack story, Angry Birds and Minecraft, are two of the most popular titles in the market right now. Early Wii games and Rock Band thrived on that same fun factor with no story requirement. Tetris remains one of the most popular games of all time.

The cloud is long in coming and the console itself may be doomed, replaced by portables and televisions that do everything the current console generation can do. Alternative platforms are too compelling for business owners, because they provide insulation from parasitic companies like GameStop, which deserves more of the blame for ruining the gaming industry than any macroeconomic factors.

It’s GameStop that has destroyed the shelf life of titles, forcing publishers to extract their profits in the first month of release. Market research trumps innovation in that reality, because every idea gets focus grouped and analyzed to its smallest detail to ensure that gamers must own it on its street date.

Anyone who knows the inner workings of the publishing industry knows that a similar set of parasitic companies drove the price of textbooks so high that a rental model is now a desirable alternative. When the content creator receives no payment for secondary sales, and secondary sales controlled by a single entity rule the market, alternative distribution is the only way to keep the content business running.

None of these realities bode well for the future of console gaming, at least in the United States. I have no doubt that Home will persist and propagate across new platforms, as it does provide a compelling interface for a wide variety of content. Just don’t be surprised when you’re accessing it through a 6G network on a 10-inch tablet at your favorite bar, rather than sitting in front of it on a home console.

In the future when there are a significant number of people ready to pay to play, then I see the bigger games coming online. Right now it does not make business sense to invest in something that is likely to be a good idea a couple years out.

People loved Xi, but I am going to guess that it did not make money. If it had, then I cannot imagine why they would not have done Xi 2. They are the Van Halen of Home. They could make Xi breakfast cereal and people would buy it. I know of at least one item that got a bump in sales because it was percieved to be associated with Xi.

So the template for love is out their. It just has to get matched up with a plan that can make money.

I feel Home is moving in a very positive direction. Time will tell.

First, when I see you talking about asymmetric warfare/ asymmetric responses, I essentially hear you validating my question as to whether Home based games are ready for prime time. But there’s another way to look at that situation, namely, from the opposite perspective of, “Are disc based games ready for a Home that’s being repositioned as a gaming platform?” If I were a game dev, I’d want each of my games to support in-Home game launching *and* I’d also want them to support in-Home advertising, whether by unlocking clothing items (like RDR) or personal items (like LBP) -- just so long as it isn’t a t-shirt. But how many games support Home in either manner right now?

The second thing I want to question, is whether SCEA has yet figured out how to turn a profit from every type of Home based game or activity. For example, Sodium 1 offers a traditional shooter type experience. Sodium 2 offers a traditional racing type experience. In both cases the freemium model works well. Give Home users a basic game they can try out for free, and if they enjoy it, they can purchase enhancements for their gaming experience. I imagine such enhancements could easily be provided in the case of chocobo racing or snowboard racing as well. But what about something like Triple Triad?

Now if PS Home ever offered Triple Triad tournament, I’d be there in a heartbeat. But how would Square Enix capitalize on such a space? By putting up billboard advertisements? Would people even pay attention? Now I confess that more than once I’ve been reminded of a newly released movie by walking into Central Plaza, and minutes later was on my way to the nearest theater. But how do you measure the effectiveness of such advertising? Perhaps by offering a discount on movie tickets if someone provides a unique code which can only be obtained while visiting PS Home?

A Triple Triad space in Home wouldn’t be like a Las Vegas casino, where the house can calculate how much money is being earned from each tourist at each table each hour. Perhaps one could allow players to purchase a limited number of cards each hour (for those unfamiliar with Triple Triad, losing a game means that you also forfeit some or all of your cards). But if players didn’t wish to spend any money, then each day they could also earn a small number of new cards by simply visiting the space. Would such a model be workable? I’d love to see it.

And third, and most importantly, a point I’ve already made above -- Home itself needs a certain amount of freemium content, otherwise known as Events, with of course the granddaddy of all events being Xi. Home should never become a shining, glittery virtual Disneyland where you can do whatever you want, as long as it’s play a game, and every game requires some sort of financial outlay. There are a lot of people who don’t use Home. And I would argue that asking them to pull out their wallets and register their credit cards isn’t necessarily the best way to introduce them to PS Home.

To look at this from another perspective, those who want to use Home for socializing as well as game playing shouldn’t be made to feel like red headed step-children. The same events which we are continually asking for in the Western Homes, would also serve admirably to introduce new users to PS Home. It would give them a chance to come in, take a look around, get acclimated to perhaps the first virtual world they’d ever experienced, maybe even strike up a conversation or two – and all without ever making any demands upon them. And since the best events are those which encourage users to return to Home again and again, once the use of Home had become a regular habit, it would only be natural for these new users to start asking themselves what else is available to do in this digital wonderland.

There’s a phrase that’s been used earlier in this conversation which I completely agree with: emotional investment. And this is where Home has a distinct advantage. Very few gaming experiences can provide a long-term emotional connection, but if you can find that magical blend of gaming and social interaction, you’ve basically got a license to print money (and your name doesn’t even have to end in Bernanke).

It’s sort of a chicken-versus-egg argument: which causes which? Does a compelling social experience drive people to spend money on games in Home, or do compelling games drive people to spend money enhancing the social aspects of Home?

Right now, Sony is pursuing the latter strategy — and for very sound business reasons which I completely agree with. I just hope they remember to offer social interaction with the gaming if they want long-term return on investment.

This is not going to be a war of price, but a war of content and audience. Basically they are committing to the Team Fortress financial model. Now they need content for Home as compelling as Team Fortress.

The reality is that there will be no winnner. Many platforms will remain around. We will see which one is more successful.

The business model for such entertainment has indeed gone stale, and companies which have been at the fore front of consumable media are definitely feeling the financial strain. Fewer movies are being green lighted by the big studios, and the ones which are would not be what one would cal ‘risky’. More musicians are finding alternative ways to promote and sell their music as the industry big-wigs are spending more and more time and money advertising their stable via the paparazzi than signing bands and getting them in studios or on tour. And games are being rushed out the door with a ton of bugs and flaws to meet release schedules and budget concerns – as well as to immediately begin work on a sequel; while, at the same time, smaller development houses are receiving the lion’s share of the critical acclaim (and , in some cases, profits) as they are putting out original (albeit, smaller in some cases)and WORKING games.

We’re definitely at a crossroads when it comes to how (and where) we choose to consume media. And I believe you may have hit the nail on the head when you pointed to Home as a logical step in what may be the right direction for game developers to survive and thrive. Good promotion often leads to good sales…it’s a simple fact of life. And it’s the amount of advertising which may suck the soul out of Home more than changes made to draw in and target gamers.

Everywhere we turn in our daily lives we are confronted by a sales pitch. Driving around we have chunks of commercials on the radio…which we listen to as we pass by billboard after billboard. Many videos we want to watch online now have a 30 second commercial before the video actually starts. And TV…well, we all know there are WAY too many commercial breaks at WAY too high a volume. As a result, many of us simply don’t pay attention any more – we simply tune it all out lest our brains melt and devolve. If Home was going to go that route, I would be very much concerned. Fortunately, the major advertising in Home seems to be tied in with an experience integrating the thing being sold with a mini-game of its own. While this may not always turn into revenue, it can certainly bring awareness to a company and make ones view of a company or product better than it was before.

This new form of advertising is a fascinating thing to watch, but it really is nothing new. During my tenure as a working musician, my various bands made decent sales from what merchandise we sold after a gig. We gave people an experience (the performance) and, if they liked it enough, they would pick up a CD (or tapes in the olden days), shirt or bumper sticker. This is similar to what’s being applied in Home in recent months. Go play a Zombie slaying game, and you may buy the full game it is advertising. Or, if you don’t want the game, you may pick up a nifty item for you avatar for a buck or so. Even if you purchase nothing, the fact that a company set you up with a free experience (with rewards) leaves you with the impression that the company in question is very consumer friendly…which may weigh heavily in a future gaming purchase. While the angle isn’t new, the implementation is; as a result, it might just prove successful. I for one, don’t mind this trend at all…it could be a lot worse and much more ‘in your face’.

Smart and insightful article, Norse. Lotsa stuffs to chew on. I believe it IS a good time to be Home :>

While I agree that some of the big name developers should consider having Home teams I think the draw of Home development are smaller studios that have big ambitions. So far this is what we have seen. Home is the perfect platform for that smaller studio to make its mark with an instant, willing and eager audience.

Home should be seen as a way to enable the games industry to grow and flourish, not a way to stifle the efforts of studios making disk-based games. While it is true that Home games could be and will be competition for disk-based games I think Sony is making a mistake if they are offering Home as an “instead of” option to big game studios. They are not going to want to rest their financial success on the integrity of Home. Especially after the debacle they had on their hands just a couple of months ago. How many companies can afford a month’s worth of lost revenues? Small companies might be able to. I think Home, and services like it, should be considered for supplementary and casual gaming.

If used right a company can increase their profits quite a bit by using Home. I’m actually buying Dead Island because of the Home content. Before then, it was a pass for me.