Erm. I totally disagree. Not that Fallout 3 and Doodle Jump are different. But that they are in some way 'unequal'. Or that the time on one is worth less than another. Or that the sort of time we spend denotes one game as more interesting than another.

I don't imagine O'Donnell is advocating that we all start directly comparing two games from opposite ends of a Spectrum. Although we could examine how different they are - it's the classic ludology vs narrativism debate again isn't it? And how does Doodle Jump compare to platform games, for example? Yes we do tend to play these two games in different ways - something to note and maybe to celebrate, not to dismiss as an observation.

For the record, Doodle Jump actually tells you how many hours you've played it for, and my daughter's overall play-time on it is at least in some way comparable to my time on Fallout 3.

I completely accept that in your opinion Home is slow and clunky and basic and crude.

Windows Solitaire, and games like it, are quite a good example actually. A type of game that many ignored as a worthless phenomenon. Now with the iphone, and facebook, along with the Wiis massive success at reaching out to new demographics, we see that the casual game market is actually the most profitable current area for gaming. We can't ignore these phenomena anymore.

Agree with the basic sentiment. After all you 'play' music.

I also think the comparison encourages us to look away from the tiresome production values comparisons that bog down criticism. While Mass Effect 2 and Heavy Rain are comparable to cinema, the Tetris-led ludic side of gaming is left out in the cold, so clearly the comparison fails. But with music, if things are judged by flow and only by the relationship of the elements, then it's an inclusive rather than divisive comparison.

I'd prefer that we say that music can be compared to games though, rather than the other way round :).

I know exactly what Home is - it's a free-to-play social space cum MMO, the first on any console. I don't think it is half-arsed at all - it is exactly what it was meant to be. Yes, I find it a bit clunky and a bit soulless like others have said, but I feel the same about Club Penguin (sold for $350m) and Second Life - it's not going to compete for thrills with hardcore games. It was never meant to. But 11 million users tells me that it has a place.

I think we need to stop pretending that Home isn't what it is. Advertisers aren't abandoning the ship - they were never on it in the first place.

Easy to knock Home for what it isn't. The article cites good reasons why Home and PSN as a whole just can't really attract advertisers - it's just not well built for that purpose.

But, a little like the Facebook games, Home is the elephant in the room, as much as people want to line up to criticise it. More people have played it than Modern Warfare 2, and in its own way it is a revolutionary, groundbreaking title in the console space.

I think we're going to see a lot more of it and games like it, so better get used to it.