Public Home, Private Home
“In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking, but now God knows — anything goes!”
–Cole Porter
What I’m about to suggest is probably not technologically feasible within the current architecture of Home. Let’s assume though, for a moment, that it is. As you read through this article, I want you to consider whether or not this is a good idea that would benefit the Home community.
We’ve said before in the pages of HSM that Home, compared to other virtual realities, is more of a gated community than a sprawling metropolis. When contrasted to the other major (and graphically inferior) alternatives out there — Second Life, Entropia, Kaneva, IMVU, etc. — Home is easily the most conservative virtual reality application out there. The recent debate about the business ethics behind approving Mass Media’s Weird Wear, and whether or not it’s socially appropriate, would doubtlessly amuse the Gorean roleplayers of Second Life, for instance.
It’s important to point out, though, that there is a major difference between Home and pretty much any other virtual reality program out there. Second Life, for instance, only answers to itself (and whatever state, federal or international laws may apply). Home, on the other hand, answers to Sony Computer Entertainment, and as such must be in alignment with SCE’s corporate objectives. More accurately, perhaps, it must not engage in business practices which might adversely affect SCE, including from a public relations standpoint.
This is why you’ll almost certainly never see an “adults only” public space in Home, with more mature content and a greater range of adult-themed avatar expression. Can you imagine what a PR nightmare that would be? Even if it proved to be a gold mine for Home, it would necessitate age-locking the whole service to anyone under the age of eighteen (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and would inevitably be a PR meltdown for the parent company. Christ, video games are already trotted out as the work of Satan whenever it’s convenient for a political figure to appeal to middle America, and this would just add fuel to the fire. Can you imagine the headlines?
ZOMG A RED LIGHT DISTRICT!
SONY HAS A RED LIGHT DISTRICT!
…And worse.
So that’s not what I’m about to propose. I do, however, want to suggest something different.
What if private estates allowed for rated-PG avatar interaction — and, in return, there were limits on what sorts of attire could be worn in public spaces?
Like I said. This probably isn’t technologically feasible within the current architecture of Home. But let’s imagine that it was. In short, it would alter Home to more accurately reflect real life: that we’re free to indulge in a wide array of behavior in private, but that in public we abide by a certain level of decorum.
Look. Here’s the harsh reality. Human beings are freaky. We always have been, and try to pretend we’re not. America, in particular, is a society founded by theocrats who were so uptight that the British kicked them out. As a result, we live in a culture that condones graphic depictions of violence and yet goes all Spanish Inquisition on the subject of intimacy.
Nobody expects it.
In virtual reality, the anonymity of the internet only exacerbates this. And thus Sony has a real challenge on its hands by offering a service which is available to people who are legal minors, likely because they may constitute a source of revenue. I want you to keep in mind, as you read this, that what I’m proposing would also help protect them.
First off, let’s take a look at what I’m specifically proposing as additional functionality for private estates exclusively: 
- Standing embrace
- Seated embrace (would require both parties to be on a sofa or bed)
- Embrace with kiss (non-French)
- Seated foot massage
- Seated back massage
- Lying down in bed side by side
- Lying down in bed face to face
- Lying down in bed spooned
As you can see, it’s a pretty tame list. This isn’t even PG-13 material, so it minimizes the risk of any negative PR. But there may be significant commercial opportunity here: the easiest way to achieve these features without completely overhauling Home’s architecture, as far as I can tell, is to build the extra functionality into pieces of furniture or pieces of clothing. In this regard, it’s not that much different than how certain outfits in Home already come with custom emotes. Granted, a certain level of interactivity would have to be programmed in, but I don’t see how it’s much different than the interactivity with certain games in Home (such as that “Spin the Bottle” minigame), or even giving someone a call in Home.
The two demonstrable benefits from this business strategy: greater revenue generation and longer average user session time. It’s a quantifiable method of enhancing the social experience of Home, but in private. If anything, it would help the sales of private estates.
Now, in return, I’d recommend greater social control over public spaces, which might prove more challenging from a technical standpoint. In short, the idea would be to restrict certain articles of clothing to private estates (which could also help fuel the sales of private estates). A case can be made, perhaps, that Mass Media’s Weird Wear really isn’t suitable for wearing in public spaces. By Home’s admittedly conservative standards it is a blatantly salacious clothing lineup, and while I have no issue with someone wearing whatever they want in private, it does call into question what’s permissible in public.
Obviously, the question of what’s permissible and what isn’t in virtual-reality public gathering spaces is an interesting question. What of fantasy outfits, for instance? And what of swimwear? Where is the reasonable-person standard in virtual reality?
The easiest template to use for SCEA Home is our real-world culture (flawed though it may be). Sure, there are going to be differences between the real world and virtual reality, but it’s the easiest baseline to work with. One would not expect to see a recreation of Japan’s 新宿二丁目 Shinjuku neighborhood, for instance, in America Home.
The issue here is one of social responsibility. Does Sony have a social responsibility to refuse to publish overtly salacious clothing? Should developers exercise restraint in what sort of commodities they choose to bring to market? Indeed, do we as a community have a responsibility to each other?
Keep in mind, by the way, that were it up to me, Home would be a very different place. But I’m also a grown adult who’s old enough to not be ruled by hormones. Besides, I grew up in San Francisco, so it takes a hell of a lot more than Home’s digital Beach Blanket Babylon to shock me. But the sad reality of Home is that it’s populated by a lot of younger people, many of whom may not even be legal adults. And thus the question of social responsibility does come into play. Whether any of us adults like it or not, we’ve got to share this virtual world with a ridiculous number of kids. You may bristle at the idea of this constraining your freedom, but that’s exactly why I’m proposing more freedom in private and more enforced civility in public.
In the real world, socially acceptable behavior is enforced with fear of consequences, ranging from public humiliation and loss of employment to civil and criminal violations. In Home, however, everyone is anonymous and there is no visible police presence. This is a recipe for people to behave like animals. Because they can.
HSM has stated this repeatedly: Home’s greatest flaw isn’t the people who created it. It’s the people who populate it. Social harassment is the single biggest drawback to the Home experience. Does salacious clothing cause this problem? No. But it doesn’t help it, either. If the community at large cannot be trusted to behave like civilized human beings, then frankly it falls to Sony to enforce a certain level of decorum, while maintaining an environment in which content providers can generate revenue.
The easiest solution, of course, is to refuse to publish content which is egregiously sexualized (or, at the very least, to tone down the crass and tasteless marketing which promotes such a perception). My inner libertarian bristles at this, though; it imposes a level of unilateral morality which could easily be viewed as stifling. Hence why I’m curious if it’s technologically possible, within the architecture of Home, to restrict certain pieces of virtual clothing to private estates exclusively.
Humorous? Sure. But appropriate for wearing in public?
Is it a perfect solution? No. You realistically couldn’t restrict someone from wearing swimwear, for instance, or clothing combinations which could appear sexually provocative. That would require some pretty stringent moderation. And, granted, I’m all for more draconian moderation in Home. There has to be some fear of consequences in order to enforce proper public behavior, both in real life and in virtual reality. But that’s a subject for another article.
From a marketing standpoint, I could see a savvy developer advertising a line of clothing as being “too hot for Home Square!” or somesuch (no, I’m not suggesting developers create lingerie lines — that’s veering back into PR meltdown territory). Coupled with enhancements to the range of avatar interactivity in private estates, this could actually provide a lucrative new means of marketing select apparel within Home, while at the same time ensuring that there is at least some enforced decorum in Home’s public spaces.
I don’t claim to have the answers. I just have a lot of questions. Home is a unique society — even by virtual reality standards — and thus it cannot define what its boundaries are until those boundaries are explored. Do you like the idea of Home having more freedom in private and more restraint in public?
October 25th, 2011 by NorseGamer | 16 comments
NorseGamer is the product manager for LOOT Entertainment at Sony Pictures, as well as the founder and publisher of HomeStation Magazine. Born and raised in Silicon Valley, he holds a B.A. in English/Creative Writing from San Francisco State University and presently lives in Los Angeles. All opinions expressed in HSM are solely his and do not necessarily reflect the views of Sony DADC.
LinkedIn
Twitter
In a conversation I had with a Home developer, the age gate thing and being able to lock out users under a certain age is definitely possible. It’s in place now to utilize if they decided to create mature content.
I kind of like this idea Norse. If they could create certain types of furniture like beds and such with built in PG rated abilities I could definitely see the sales of such items soaring in no time. The new UC3 game shows that our avatars can do a lot more than they normally do if given the right environment or clothing in the case of many of the newer costumes like the sorcerer that throws magic at you.
People are buying this stuff by the droves already and this added feature of having a private vs public set of abilities would be really great.
Good thoughts and great article as usual.
Asking questions is probably how we advanced from living in caves and playing with mud for fun to the state of things we find ourselves in now.Personally I don’t dress very sexually in public so I wouldn’t disagree with your idea,although I’d ask for more freedoms inside of the private estates.However I do know many ppl that do dress this way in public and I’m not too sure how they’d like it,maybe it’s time for a survey?
This is a very good article and holds many valid points. Personally, I think people should be able to wear what they want wherever they like, be it a public or private space. As for the arbitrary elements, as you stated Home has many young users, some not even old enough to meet the 13 (NA) and 16(EU) age limits, and so blocking content based on the age stated on the PSN account will not work. The fact is many of these young users lie about their age when signing up (usually so they can play COD online). So even with the age restriction, these young users will still be exposed to it.
This is not a valid argument. Just because some parents give their children alcohol is no excuse to stop asking everyone who buys alcohol to show proof of age. Societies don’t work like this. Never have. Never will.
I beg to differ on the grounds that we are talking about a computer game here. Home is not a real-world “society” so every aspect of it is controlled by SCE. SCE is aware that minors access the Home Platform via PSN accounts with false information and they know the only way for them not to expose minors to contend which could be deemed unacceptable is not to make it available.
I don’t think there should be any separation between private and public Home spaces and how you dress or interact with your avatars.
People tend to forget Home was created for entertainment purposes, and there is A LOT of people using it. Home has to appeal to a broad audience.
remember: Sony creates and sells items, from reading Home community feedback and requests. therefore, if there was no demand for “sexy” avatar clothing it may not exist.
Sony has provided a environment for Play and entertainment, and provides their customers (YOU) an outlet to help choose what and how that environment was and is to be shaped. Home is always changing and its the Home community who is setting the course for that change. We are granted a unique privilege to play in Home,as Sony does listen to its customers and accommodates its community very well per their requests.
I find this to be a very generous on Sony’s part.
Like other forms of entertainment you may have available to you, If something is too offensive on Home for your personal taste -- you may shut it off. No one is obligated to participate, and Sony should not have to or be asked to be the “morality police” or become a censor, especially after what some are complaining about (sexy avatar items) is something the community at large highly requested.
Home does appeal to a broad audience, including children as young as 13, who are legally allowed by the NA Home to be there. And I would argue that the Top Heavy items are sexual, not sexy, and therefore not appropriate for an environment in which there are young children. I would also point out that these items were not created by Sony but by a third party dev. Furthermore, I read the general forums and the suggestions and *no one* has ever suggested items like these.
I have always found it interesting that the European Home seems to be more stringent in its forum policies, its in-world clothing restrictions, and its in-world moderation than the NA Home, particularly given the fact that European societies have always been much more liberal than American society, and also given the fact that the age limit in the EU Home is 16 rather than 13. This ought to suggest to anyone that perhaps the people setting the policies for the NA Home are out of touch with not only the NA Home population, but also American society in general.
Over the past few days I’ve spoken to quite a few members of the NA Home community who feel that these items are highly inappropriate, therefore I hope Sony does listen to these customers and does accommodate their requests.
What does it matter if a 13 year old or a 113 year old is using Home?
What is appropriate should be determined by the individual, or in the case of a minor their parent or guardian not by a group of “concerned citizens”
The problem here is people are too busy imposing their values and their perspective on how Home should be and not enjoying it for what it truly is.
People come to Home for many reasons, and some use it as fantastic (maybe even adult)role play , non the less it exists for peoples entertainment.
As for NA home is not in touch with its users, I would disagree. American values are as wide and diverse as its citizens. Not everything will please everyone. If there is a aspect or item in Home you personally don’t like or have a issue with it, why then deem it not acceptable for someone else?
Its not like these items in question are default avatar settings that can not be changed. Fact is you have to choose to purchase them or not, before they can be accessible to your avatar inventory. You then may choose to use them or not. Its nothing that is forced upon you as a must have to be apart of the Home community.
Americans values freedom of expression ( last time I checked) No matter what a users age is, what gives anyone the right to impose their values or morality on someone else? -- that’s not a very “american” thing to do.
If we as a community called for a ban on “TOP heavy” avatar clothing because some may find it inappropriate, then what else is next to be banned? Avatar weapons, like the guns,swords or light sabers that are currently available?
As If top heavy avatar wear is deemed sexual, then the same can be said of those weapons as they can be deemed violent, and in the same line of thinking that too is not appropriate.
Imagine what Home would be if every Home user had Carte Blanche to take anything out of Home, because they did not like it? Home would probably cease to exist. This is a extreme example, but in a way so is what some of the home community is proposing with banning certain avatar wears.
This is actually one of the primary reasons why I’m wondering if it’s technologically possible to restrict what could be worn in public spaces, in exchange for greater latitude in private spaces. I’m all for a more grown-up Home with greater latitude across the board, but there are two major hurdles:
1. Home has a lot of kids in it. A lot of kids. And I’m wondering how much of a revenue source they represent to Sony (hopefully not that much).
2. In terms of public perception, game consoles are still inherently viewed as something fit for the whole family; even if various game titles are rated differently based on content, the *medium* itself is viewed as open to all ages. It’d be a PR nightmare to allow the same sort of sexual activities into Home that exist on PC-based virtual realities.
So, as a result, what I’m hoping for is a happy medium: a Home where a certain amount of public decorum is enforced, but where there is greater freedom (up to, perhaps, PG-13 activities) in private. This to me would create commercial gain for Sony, ease the “what about the children!?” complaints, and create a much clearer delineation as to what Home considers to be a reasonable person standard.
That said, I doubt this is technologically feasible within Home’s current architecture. Age-gating public spaces is a good tool, as Beta pointed out (good to see ya again, man!), but it doesn’t prevent adults from wearing apparel in public which, in real life, would be deemed horribly inappropriate.
It’s an interesting question, isn’t it? Virtual reality’s great lure is freedom of expression, and yet societies are built upon restraining such things and adhering to common beliefs and rules. It’s a fascinating conundrum.
you forget a point! Sony is a censor, Mods & TOS are there to prove it.
and supply creates demand, is one of the very principle of “advertising”!
do not confuse sexy (in the sense “cute”) and sexual.
When sony allow some devs was very strongly inspired by costumes that can only be found (IRL) in catalogs of fine lingerie and naughty, I personaly think it s in total contradiction with What home is supposed to be …
the public of the home is absolutely not ready to use these “items” in an adult manner.
like say Norse, IRL we can not do What we want in public aera … Why It Was different on home?
And What Will Be the next level to shock and sell? sexual toys? a mask of a 21trisomic? a dwarf …
is it funny?
Even virtual, Humans (and more particulary woman) Should Be Respected on their Integrity!
do you think its funny for an incontinent to see Others laught about adults wearing diapers?
let the home go in this direction is to condemn it as a platform for players of all ages.
Sony and devs should focus on “social aspects” not “basic instincts”.
my apologises for my english, i m not a native american!
The fact of the matter is that North American Home is much more ready to peddle sex than the EU, Asia or Japan. One can see that with the Pin-up where only 3 were released in the EU and a couple of Lockwood bottoms which were considered too racy were held back and not released there.
Sadly it appears that money is the driving force behind some of the releases in North America.
If people buy it they’ll continue to make it. I’m personally waiting for the sexy Lingerie from Victoria’s Secret. :p
First, kudos for the tight and concise article. This is the type of writing I like to read.
As for your ideas, well, of course you know what I’m going to say since I’ve already suggested the same myself. In my opinion, the Top Heavy items have clearly taken us over the line from sexy to sexual. They are “mature” items in the sexual sense, and might be appropriate for adults for wish to role play in a private space, but they are not appropriate for young children in public spaces.
Personally I’d like to see three different types of content filters for clothing items, one for game spaces and general public spaces, a second for public spaces where swimwear would be expected, such as beaches and pools, and a third for private spaces.
Great Article Norse,
I think the reason we are talking about this in the first place is that the clothing lines are evolving to become alot more “mature.” The new top heavy weird wear is crazy over the top, I don’t really see it as sexy but rather cartoonish,
I do wish Sony would make up their minds about where they want Home to go. As a resident I don’t want to see it go into a downward spiral and become a new Second life, nor do I want it to be designed to appeal to a “rated E” group. I like you don’t have any answers ether but questions as well. I think maybe a private/public filter might be a good start.
ok, first off, EXCELLENT article, norse. i love your suggestions! WOO HOO!!! ooooo, spooning…..SO, im not seeing any problem anywhere here. especially with the new top heavy gear. so what! OH MY!! THERE HUGE AND POPPING OUT! WHAT WILL THE KIDS THINK! um….hasnt the amazon ‘boob’ top been available for eons? come on, gang, you know the one. THAT top is WAY more revealing! im just not getting where the argument is here. a family venue? i sooo dont think so anymore. that went out the window for credibility long back. like the UFC place. ok, so we cant actually fight or wrestle, but me personally hate wrestling, so i just dont go there. but ‘kids’ will. and what does it teach them. im not bible thumping, to each his own, but just saying 18 years only and putting the place there doesnt make a difference. the kids will still go there. OH! how about the wonderful family entertainment of going to CP and kicking someones head off! see what i mean?! the last thing that should be shouted out anymore is ‘family entertainment’. im pretty sure that everyone can throw out a ton of other examples. how about the fact that you can get married in japan and not here. whats up with that? is that church or state making that not happen here?! i think things should just mosey along as its going. we’ve already have had TONS of things that have come and gone that would constitute ‘suggestive’ or naughty to down right horrid. um, i have a gullotine (misspelled) in my apartment. siren lounge with murderous nurses? fortune hunter with shooting people (and being congratulated for most head shots (sorry glasswalls)), the killzone plaza….etc. why the heck would everyone suddenly get their knickers in a bunch for some boobs. theres always going to be someone with a beef about something. basically i say, dont like it, leave the space. why not, i do.and im STILL having a blast…..ooo, a pet monkey!
All of you are right, it’s up to the individual to choose what is appropriate and inappropriate for him or her. HOME is a virtual world much like the real world as the saying goes”there will always be snakes in every forest”,It boils down to the individual who uses Home if he thinks a particular public space in home is offensive to him or her due to other users avatars parading around in such suggestive and provocative clothing then he or she should leave that space end of story.