Cosplaying not welcome in PS3's Home

by Ross Miller { Jun 6th 2007 at 10:25PM }

Speaking to the Official PlayStation Magazine, Home executive producer Peter Edwards, has decided to limit the choices of costumes avatars are allowed to wear, so as to reportedly retain mass appeal for the virtual world.

"If everyone's walking around dressed as Orcs or Stormtroopers or whatever, then you lose that welcoming, accessible element that means Mum, Dad and your sister might get involved as well," he said. "The idea is to keep it as accessible, mainstream and friendly as possible."

Edward's stance puts Home in a position much more controlled than the cosplayer-driven Second Life, where looking human is more of an anomaly than a standard. And as for the other mega-popular MMO World of Warcraft, the option to be an Orc is inherent to the game. Looks like we won't be getting any in-game Ratchet suits anytime soon.

Gallery: PlayStation Home

[Via PS3 Fanboy]

Tags: home, ps home, PsHome

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

jay @ Jun 6th 2007 10:34PM

Sucking the fun right out. The number of novelty and comic Mii's outrank the "family and friend" Mii's. They should have a war. A total war.
It'll be interesting to see if any "hacks" seep out for Home.

jay @ Jun 6th 2007 10:34PM

hah. I forgot to say "on my system". It's 3:30am here I should sleep.

BPM @ Jun 6th 2007 10:42PM

Good news: you can't be a furry on Home.

CJC @ Jun 6th 2007 10:49PM

I am TOTALLY okay with no furries running around.

Evan @ Jun 6th 2007 11:14PM

Wait, wasn't Sony hyping "Game 3.0" and user generated content when they introduced Home at GDC? Didn't Phil Harrison of Sony say "It's about community, it's about collaboration. It's about customization."
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/07/joystiq-and-engadget-live-at-sonys-2007-gdc-keynote/

What's so "Game 3.0" about dressing your character from a predefined collection of clothes? We've been doing that in games for 5 years! Where's the hyped customization and user generated content?

3cubedminus3squared @ Jun 6th 2007 11:20PM

This doesn't really matter.
You should be using your PS3 time to play games, not dress up an avatar.

Cal @ Jun 6th 2007 11:42PM

@7

You don't want to know. Now if you'll excuse them, I think they want to continue writing erotic material featuring animals.

Moogle Net @ Jun 7th 2007 12:41AM

Who cares! Home sucks and its a waste of time. But i know people are going to eat this shit up. I'll pass.

Thundercizzle @ Jun 7th 2007 12:47AM

This isn't good. Sony is already chastising us before we even get started. If they want to really be revolutionary, they should give us more freedom. No one is going to be intimidated by an avatar dressed as a stormtrooper. Do they want to be different, and "better", or not?

Zantac @ Jun 7th 2007 3:04AM

This is just Sony's way of saying "We so don't want to get sued for copy right infringement lawl."

...Assuming everyone at Sony ends their sentences with "lawl".

donoho @ Jun 7th 2007 3:06AM

I call bulshit. Even though I'm not personally interested in any particular cosplay, avatars are a form of expression. The more freedom in avatar creation, the more you know about someone at first glance. If someone wants to dress up like a storm trooper @Home, more power to them and their ability to draw the attention of other forcephiles.

Sidepocket @ Jun 7th 2007 3:47AM

What are Furries? Furries are people that like the idea of Anthropomorphic Animals. Like Bugs Bunny or Micky Mouse. Many of them draw artwork with anthropomorphic animals and talk about them. Some also dress up as anthropomorphic animals at public events, think of the suited characters at Disney World. Then, you have the ones that go off the deep end and do weird shit.

Most people try to condemn the group because of said weird people. However, we all know there are loving friendly Christians and people like Jerry Falwell hateful rants are not a representative of all Christians. Same as we all know that all gamers are not the Columbine dick bags that were out for blood.

Not to mention, I would rather sit next to a guy in a suit than watch horrible losers like Jack of all Trades to spew his macho gamer feces logic all over Joystiq lets say.

But that aside, this is a horrible idea. I own a Wii, play MMO's and I am on Second Life. The reason why all the games are popular is because you get to be something you are not in real life. People send me Mii's that look like monsters, cartoon characters and animals. I cannot tell you how many people RP as Orcs and Jawas and all the crazy avatars on Second Life.

So what Home means is Sony has taken your already dull life and made it virtual. You get to pay mortgages, watch paint dry and sulk around virtually like you do in the real world.

FUN! -,-;

Bruce @ Jun 7th 2007 4:39AM

I thought Official Playstation Magazine was canceled. Is that another in a different country?

Kenofthedead @ Jun 7th 2007 7:51AM

So it's going to be a world of Gap shoppers and Chavs? I'm glad I have no interest in trying it anyroad.

Mike @ Jun 7th 2007 10:10AM

Have they ever said how many avatars you'll be allowed to have? I just think it's funny that Sony thinks the PS3 is mainstream.

GoonieGooGoo @ Jun 7th 2007 10:10AM

Great....another reason not to care about HOME.

My PS3....BEST Video Game Console I've ever bought....TO WATCH MOVIES!!!

They reallly have to fix the update process too.....I hate looking for that stupid USB cable to attach the controller.....

sheppy @ Jun 7th 2007 10:53AM

@SidePocket...

Yes, yes... we all know not everyone who is a furry is a sexual deviant. However, the most vocal of the group tends to define the crowd. Google search furries. Do it. Because even in the first few links I found information on both Yiffing and Vore trends.

You want to know why furries are often looked down upon? Your most vocal majority has sexual fantasies of simulatiously fucking and eating others. Or being eaten and raped at the same time. I'm not saying all furries are like that. Hell, I devwatch a couple people into furry artwork (and I've yet to see the disgusting stuff from them).

But you can't exactly get made at a misrepresentation of your subculture when that misrepresentation is the one that's the loudest and the most previant on furry forums. I mean, hell... want an example of how bad this section has gotten? I stumblied across a gif on 4chan once of a raccon-man having sex from Stephanie from Lazy Town.

konajinx @ Jun 7th 2007 10:54AM

Haha, there goes the entire audience for this lame idea. Now no one will be using Home. Kudos, Sony.

Jason @ Jun 7th 2007 11:29AM

But I want to dress up my virtual playa with a sideways hat, goth makeup and one pant leg rolled up, while I perform the so-kewl dance animations in front of people. Home will revolutionize gaming!! Sony has already won!!1

Flipside @ Jun 7th 2007 2:48PM

@sheppy,

I'm not a furry, but I find your attitude surprising, after all, isn't the very centre of the whole argument regarding the 'moralistic' side of video gaming based on the fact that politicians are generalising the acts of many based on the acts of a visible few?

How can we turn around and say it's ok to generalise about 'furries' when half the reason Sony and other companies are pulling stunts like this is because the average Joe generalises gamers in exactly the same manner?