Sony: Virtual item sales keep Home free

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 22 December, 2010

Microtransactions its "bread and butter".

Why is PlayStation 3's virtual world Home free? Because you lot keep buying virtual items.

Home, which enjoys 17 million registered users and contains 236 games, has suffered criticism from the press and gamers since its 2008 launch, but Sony has maintained its profitability through the sale of 7000 high-margin virtual items.

That, according to PlayStation Home director Jack Buser, is big business for Sony.

"If you look at the first quarter of this calendar year, we actually tripled revenue from the same time period of the year prior," he told Gamasutra.

"The business model works, and we like it quite a bit. It's one of the reasons we're able to offer PlayStation Home as a free service."

Looking to the future, Buser said the quality of games within Home will keep it growing.

"Games are the killer app for the platform," Buser said.

"I think once gamers find out that they have hundreds of games built into PlayStation Home, most of them free-to-play, [they will try Home]."

And what kinds of games will they be? Buser expressed interest in virtual item sales and free-to-play microtransaction-based games. Microtransactions are Home's "bread and butter", he said.

"Here we are in the console space becoming very comfortable, very familiar with the latest and greatest business models of the game industry, putting us just miles ahead of the competition in this regard."

Not everyone is convinced, however. Earlier this month Microsoft described Home as a "nice chat room" and "not an awful lot more".

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (41) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Dolly #1 1 year ago

    Be nice boys and girls...

  • regmund #2 1 year ago

    Home is a nice idea. But that's it. Its not a magnetic experience, and if it closed tomorrow I'm not so sure that I would miss it.

  • Liam64 #3 1 year ago

    I don't see their point. I'm not expected to pay for the dog turds I stride over on my way to work, either.

  • AcidSnake #4 1 year ago

    Just like my local supermarket lets me enter for free when I buy stuff?

    I kid!
    I've payed home once at a mate's house and it seemed boring...But that was right after launch...I hear it's much improved...
    But for any users, would you pay for access to home?

  • daz_john_smith #5 1 year ago

    Why is PlayStation 3's virtual world Home free?

    Because nobody in their right mind would pay for it.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #6 1 year ago

    Is Home still running?
    I haven't used it for maybe a year now... its just too slow to boot and there is sod all point of going there.

  • layleeloo #7 1 year ago

    I wish Sony would stop using the term FREE to try and blind side the public. I rarely use home as no matter what they do - its still drab. I'd rather they fuck it off, and put that money into making the PS3 online service and PSN a shite site better than it is now. Hell, charge for it - id' still pay for it like I do live, I dont mind paying for excellence. I'd rather do that than have anything that is sub par, for 'free". After all, in business - few things of quality are rarely free. Enough said.
    Edited by layleeloo at 22/12/10 @ 10:53

  • lcmnick #8 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 12:48:44 14-04-2012

  • Markusdragon #9 1 year ago

    "I think once gamers find out that they have hundreds of games built into PlayStation Home, most of them free-to-play, [they will try Home]."
    That's like saying that gamers will flock to facebook gaming because of the thousands upon thousands of games there. Quite frankly, gamers don't need to connect to a social networking system and play games, because they already have more absorbing games elsewhere.

  • Onelove1867 #10 1 year ago

    What makes PSN sub par, exactly? Apart from all this talk about cross game chat.. obviously.

    You tend to see this opinion allover the place.. that Live is just better and justifies a £35 a year payout. But you very rarely see genuine reasons why that is. Im a subscriber to both services. There are aspects of both I like and aspects of both I don't like, but I certainly can't see £35 worth of difference between the tw

  • layleeloo #11 1 year ago

    @Markusdragon. Agreed. It also doesn't matter how many free games there are, if most of them are of such poor quality (which most are) you wouldn't pay 10p for them.

  • layleeloo #12 1 year ago

    @Onelove1867. This isnt a fanboyish debate here, after all, I use 7 or 8 modern gaming platforms. However I personally find live a better service because Its slicker, faster (game updates just being one), more user friendly, has demos of every store game on day of release, cross game chat, party chat, easier to connect to play friends online. (Ever try playing PES 09 online on PS3? It was a nightmare to set up - so I flogged it and bought the 360 version and was up and runing in seconds as opposed to far to many minutes).

    Also, the fact that Sony has 3 PSN (as I have an account for UK, US and Jap) and the UK one is poor even in comparison to the US version. If they perhaps had one store for all which simply has localised content which is easy to do, it may save them a heck of a lot of money which they can again, invest in making an overall better service.

    Whether you see the difference being worth of the price is of course, personal opinion. My opinion is simply that I do not mind paying for a service if it makes it better - and PSN's "plus" service is hardly that either. its another distraction from the point that they still have a lot of work to do.
    Edited by layleeloo at 22/12/10 @ 11:01

  • makeamazing #13 1 year ago

    @layleeloo, I am not bothered by Home, but some people like it, and Sony make money from it, so whats the problem... that you have an icon on the XMB that you feel shouldnt be there, its not like they are ramming it down your throat. I appreciate you dont like it, but if they are making money from it, then there must be some people who do... who cares if its crap to you...

  • menage #14 1 year ago

    If it didn't take up so much drivespace I might have given it a shot, but the way it works now it's a no go for me.
    I also never really had an incentive to really go there. Don't see the appeal at all.

  • tomjoadsghost #15 1 year ago

    @onelove1867 I've only just got my Ps3 so i couldnt tell you everything thats different but downloading games, demos and patches is about a trillion times slower on psn than live.

    Free to play multiplayer must make up for it though, i don't actually do the multiplayer thing but i do like the way it kind of bleeds into singleplayer on some games like modnation and demons souls though.

  • layleeloo #16 1 year ago

    @makeamazing. I dont have an issue with Home being on my machine - I have an issue with Sony blowing money on something which the majority of PS3 users don't care about (no offence, like you say - plenty do) when they could better use that money elsewhere.

    They say the virtual items pay for it, which is fine. So if its a profit maker for them fair enough, however I can't help feel that even without the money issue, the man power and development could be better used elsewhere making an overall better PSN service, as opposed to this tiny portion of it.

  • Murton #17 1 year ago

    I've got a bit of a soft spot for Home but I rarely ever go there. I love the idea and there's a shitload of untapped potential there, but I generally only log in when I hear of something that catches my interest. Last year Home got a load of exclusive movie trailers and stuff, so I logged on and went to the cinema to watch them and that was it and this years E3 coverage in Home wsa interesting, but beyond that I just didn't visit.

    It's a shame that Sony can't make Home a sort of alternative OS. If you could set your PS3 to boot straight into Home and access all of the XMB features using items in your personal space, give everyone a free virtual bravia, stereo, walkman etc to access their media, a virtual PS3 to access their games then more people might make use of Home simply because they're already there, a feature for PS4 perhaps.

  • mkreku #18 1 year ago

    layleeloo: Also, the fact that Sony has 3 PSN (as I have an account for UK, US and Jap) and the UK one is poor even in comparison to the US version. If they perhaps had one store for all which simply has localised content which is easy to do, it may save them a heck of a lot of money which they can again, invest in making an overall better service.

    Funny you should mention this as a disadvantage for the PSN, because Xbox Live has exactly the same thing, except.. we're not allowed to have three Xbox Live accounts! So for me, living in Sweden, there are like 17 movies to rent (Poltergeist 2 for the win..), there are two web videos to watch (I'm not kidding) and I have, perhaps, 10% of the content that US Xbox Live users have.

    My PS3-owning cousin has a shitload more content on offer, for free. And that's with ONE PSN account. At least he has a choice of making more accounts if he feels screwed over by Sony. What can I do, being screwed over by Microsoft?

  • paulf #19 1 year ago

    as if anyone would pay to use home, mind you people pay to buy things that don't exist so what do I know

  • layleeloo #20 1 year ago

    @mkreku. That is an excellent point - but like you say, as we can't access other MS accounts we don't know if we are being screwed or not. However as I am happy with an excellent service as it is in the UK, I wouldn't go looking for other 360 stores like I do with PSN. However what you mention is an excellent point - there is no reason for any nation to have such a poor service in comparison. After all, EU is EU, all they need to do is translate. The issues come with licensing in digital content which of course, it to do with each nations law so who knows a way around that one...

  • lockload #21 1 year ago

    Like anyone would pay for it

    If the money from home was put in party chat, cross game invites we would have a psn worth paying for by now
    Edited by lockload at 22/12/10 @ 11:27

  • layleeloo #22 1 year ago

    @TSB. Erm, said better than I could.

  • djed #23 1 year ago

    "They should add more shits and faggots to make it more like our chat room", Microsoft's VP of Marketing Eric Greenberg did not say in a statement he almost made.

  • jag10 #24 1 year ago

    free poker FTW:

    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xL_NsdNVbQ
    ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xL_NsdNVbQ
    [/link]

  • slickster #25 1 year ago

    How can people bash home and psn its FREE people. lol ive had a 360 well 4 360 because of rod and yes xboxlive is good but i cant see the point in paying £40 a year to play my games online and you never get FREE stuff on xbox its all about the money with MS.

  • layleeloo #26 1 year ago

    @slickster. READ ALL THE ABOVE POSTS ^ ^

    "You never get free stuff on Live?" Is that why they have given a couple of games away for free recently? :S What items does PSN give you for free apart from the odd wallpaper or theme, which lets face it - you can make yourself for free anyway. Same on 360 (wallpaper wise)?

    You are not just paying £40 to play online either. You are paying for an overall better experience. Besides, anyone with half a brain will get it for £32 a year, not MS's £40. So 62p a week is hardly an issue for a great service is it. Just like I would pay that, and more to have one with Sony.

    The point of it being free is the issue! Free often means shit in business, and PSN (and I am on it most days) is exactly that. It doesn't matter if something is free! Who wants crap because its free? You telling me you'd appreciate and condone any game you were given because it was free - regardless whether it was shit or not? If you were given Fracture for free, you wouldn't knock it despite the fact you paid for Killzone 2 and Halo Reach which you love? You saying wouldn't dislike it because its free? I doubt it. And a console online service is the same principle. If you want something good - be prepared to pay for it - just like games. If you want something that is simply OK, or functional - then sure, have this for free. Its a bit shit, but it works. Just about....

    Id rather have something good and pay for it
    Edited by layleeloo at 22/12/10 @ 12:02

  • JBlokeUK #27 1 year ago

    @TSB

    Stop using the SDF thrase, it makes you look more biased and pushes your head that little bit more up Microsoft's arse.

    This has nothing to do with Live, it's about PLAYSTATION Home.

    Speaking of which, I remember really enjoying Home during the very early days of beta testing, but the novelty soon wore off and I haven't used it for over 2 years.

  • toy_brain #28 1 year ago

    Oh it's 'lets bash Home day' again is it? Seems to come around every couple months doesn't it?
    Home has its moments, you just have to look for them.
    Betting on the Penguin Races in the LocoRoco area is quite fun - as a crowd of you all race around the island to watch how your penguin is doing. Xi was a great community-building puzzle game, though it was a bit inpenetrable to casual onlookers. Sodium One Salt Shooter is just a decent game, and the only thing really worth spending money on (£3.99 for the full thing).
    There are other odds and sods I've wasted time on - the Buzz Quiz thing, the Hustle Kings table, and various treasure hunt style games.

    It still needs a lot of work, but its free, its there, and its great for when you can't quite be arsed to play a propper game.

  • funkateer #29 1 year ago

    @layleeloo
    "I dont have an issue with Home being on my machine - I have an issue with Sony blowing money on something which the majority of PS3 users don't care about (no offence, like you say - plenty do) when they could better use that money elsewhere. "

    You're missing the point completely: Sony is not blowing money on Home, they're making money from it!

  • makeamazing #30 1 year ago

    - I have an issue with Sony blowing money on something which the majority of PS3 users don't care about (no offence, like you say - plenty do) when they could better use that money elsewhere.

    Sony are making money from it, didnt you read the article, ah thats right, some PS3 hate was all that you wanted to do right? I mean seriously as long as they make their dev costs back and alittle more besides, who cares if you hate it, there seems to be enough other people who have a different opinion than you... oh right i forgot it seems your opinion is fact. I dont like home, but i wont be a little child complaining that other people like something i dont.

    You need to grow up alittle as you dont seem to have any business/common sense at all.... i dont see you complaining about MS selling t-Shirts or hats for Avatars, cause i dont see how anyone can complain about Home and not say something negative about that.

  • Quak #31 1 year ago

    I dare Sony to try charging for Home.

  • makeamazing #32 1 year ago

    Thrase? lol. As if the SDF don't jump into every thread about MS waffling shit. Have you never read any Kinect threads? It's 90% SDF twats whining and bashing something they've never even used.

    So what are you saying, because some other posts get derailed, its good to derail these posts too? That would make you just as bad as the Sony fanboys.

  • Onelove1867 #33 1 year ago

    @TSB

    I asked for some reasons as to why PSN was sub par, and fair play, I got some, so thanks for that. It's nice to ask a simple question and get a simple answer around here for a change. I don't particularly agree with what you put about "SDF" (come on, let's not pretend that sort of thing doesn't work both ways) but cheers for the rest of your feedback.

    Like I said, I use both services, and there are aspects of both that I do like and dislike. Not all of the things you listed about Live are personally relevant to me or things I would say justify a cost vs no cost, but to other people they are. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of online gaming anyway, so for the limited amount of time I do play games online, PSN works fine for me at zero cost. I'm happy to pay for Live because it works well when I need it and I can afford it, but there's not an awful lot about Live that I'd miss if I didn't have my Xbox and was forced to use just PSN. As a free service and as a service that allows users to play against each other online for no cost, I think PSN works fine. Perhaps not as well as XBL in some instances, but then not every player demands or requires the features that others use to justify XBL's cost.

    Horses for courses. I'm happy with both (although I'm also happy NOT paying for PS ) and my question was a simple, open question.

  • makeamazing #34 1 year ago

    I play lots of online and dont have any problems using PSN, and I am not using PS+, so i guess your opinion doesnt equal fact ;)

  • chuck_bone #35 1 year ago

    Home would be OK if it was a cohesive and streamlined service, but It's jarring going into each new area and waiting minutes for it to download. It removes the web-like click ability and discourages you from being curious!

    Cant say I see the appeal of wandering around with a virtual wardrobe of some obscure fashion lable that I have had to pay a tenner for, but some people clearly see it is worthwhile. The same that pay for Farmville in-game stuff and the like?

  • RESIDENT_nEVILe #36 1 year ago

    @TSB

    As a multi-format gamer I agree with every one of your points regarding service. And the price of Live doesn't break the bank.

    Thing is, Microsoft is (arguably) the best integrated software developer in the world with massive experience in operating system development. In contrast, Sony has always done things arse about face when it comes to front ends :)

    Would Live be that different without the constant revenue stream from gamers? 41,000,000 xboxes sold, over 20,000,000 Live subs generating around $980,000,000 per year (and they are hiking the price from $49 to $59 annually next year) all for maintaining a peer to peer online service?? Likewise, I'm pretty sure Sony would still have a clunky PSN service no matter how much money they could collect in subs.

    Hardware manufacturers want consumers to have a comfortable experience with their product and I love Live, my first online console experience, but I am not going to actively defend levying a charge to play (multi-format) games against other gamers - peer to peer. Xbox Live set a precedent (regarding monetisation of your internet connection) that I am very glad Sony and Nintendo didn't follow when they so easily could have.

    Coming from online PC gaming it seems to me that Microsoft just jumped on an easy chance to make fucktonnes of money because they could rely on the masses general apathy towards a tariff when weighed against playing and having fun online. We are basically paying to use our bandwidth twice: once to your ISP and then again to Microsoft.

    I can afford to pay for Live and I do, no problem. In principle I think its a bit of a rip off and if every console manufacturer followed the Live business model next generation (arbitrarily MS, Ninty, Sony £40 x3 = £120) - would you pay for all or would you choose one to subscribe to?

  • old_skool #37 1 year ago

    @TSB
    While Microsoft does many things right with Live it doesn't mean that it's perfect. They still have a size llimit on the downloadable games, you won't see a service line BBC iplayer on it because of Microsoft's policy for charging for everything and you don't have anything that compares to 128-128 player online. Then there's Microsoft Points and the Marketplace . Those things I mentioned might not matter to you they do matter to other people that includes publishers, devs and gamers.

    And besides, this flippin article is about Home.

  • Pedrolot #38 1 year ago

    Ive got a 360 and a PS3, Which one do i like more? The PS3. It's has more potential in my eyes in not just a games console but also as a media and download hub.

    Ok, the 360 has some gimmicks but tbh..i can live without them.

  • MadSnip #39 1 year ago

    I tried it today. Gave it a fair chance. Then deleted it later wondering what is wrong with me, or with the people who do like Home.

  • MDL199 #40 1 year ago

    All hail TSB Microsofts number 1 ass licker!

    When people bang on about how much better Live is than PSN I scratch my head I really do. I own both consoles and the simple truth is when it comes to the gaming side of thing's there's hardly any difference with the exception of party chat which i've never even used as I only want to talk to people i'm playing against.

    Away from gaming PSN is better than Live beyond any question with iPlayer, ITV Catch Up, 4oD, LoveFilm, YouTube support, Home and VidZone which I really love. The only non gaming feature I use on Live is Last FM which is nice but not a patch on VidZone.

    I suspect most of those bashing PSN don't really own a PS3 and had a go at it on someone else's console a long time back when it was nowhere near as good as it is today.

    Another thing that's better about PSN is that it used a proper currency and not the deliberately confusing Microsoft Points. Oh and of course it's free!

  • Lucodeath #41 1 year ago

    I cant beleive people buy virtual furniture and cloths, thats so sad.