Bah personally I'd say that Dark and Light was the biggest MMO disaster so far.
At least the people who paid for and played The Sims Online got a game. All the Dark and Light players got was some sort of 'pre-beta' build that was almost impossible to play. Half of the customers had alot of trouble cancelling their subscriptions when they realised what a terrible game they had purchased and were billed repeatedly by the Click-and-Buy crooks.
I see now that DnL has dropped Click and Buy and has updated their website (a once in a blue moon event). But still, for a game that generated alot of community hype, the end product was definately the biggest failure I have seen.
Bah personally I'd say that Dark and Light was the biggest MMO disaster so far.
At least the people who paid for and played The Sims Online got a game. All the Dark and Light players got was some sort of 'pre-beta' build that was almost impossible to play. Half of the customers had alot of trouble cancelling their subscriptions when they realised what a terrible game they had purchased and were billed repeatedly by the Click-and-Buy crooks.
I see now that DnL has dropped Click and Buy and has updated their website (a once in a blue moon event). But still, for a game that generated alot of community hype, the end product was definately the biggest failure I have seen.
Yeah I was hyped for DnL, and got a key to beta, and from the start I knew it wasn't going to be all that great. The fact that their dev team was quite small from what I kept hearing, and they were not experienced apparently (from what I heard a while ago), I tried to maintain a positive outlook, but the servers in beta could barely stay online for 2 hours at a time. DnL was the ultimate let down, cause they promised everything, and came out with nothing.
Originally posted by sempiternalOriginally posted by AgtSmith
You are a fool if you believe it takes or took anywhere near $300 million...don't be so quick to believe things some idiot media outlet prints or otherwise claims.
"Idiot media outlets," like CBS News and Fortune magazine?
AgtSmith, don't put yourself in the same boat as ianubisi.
You're quick to argue semantics with AgtSmith without defending the fundamental flaw in your argument. TSO is a part of EA Online; EA Online is not TSO. Therefore, when they say the spent hundreds of millions on EA online, it does not mean they spent hundreds of millions on TSO.
Originally posted by ianubisi Do you even comprehend the statement above? "Hundreds of millions of dollars to build the EA Online division". That includes more than The Sims Online. That includes Ultima Online, the abortive UO2 (which was years in development), Motor City Online, Pogo, and numerous other titles. Nowhere in this article does it provide validation for the claims you're making. There is no operating costs + development costs + marketing costs provided for The Sims Online. The "hundreds of millions" is a vague value applied to an entire area of their effort, which also includes the online efforts of their console games, etc... Obviously you don't have the facts you're looking for. But hey, if you want to believe in the idea, go right ahead. There isn't much point in trying to convince you otherwise, you've completely drunk the koolaid here.
I suppose you conveniently forgot about the first, and most recent, reference from CBS News that clearly states $300 million was invested into The Sims Online? The second reference from Fortune, while it does not give an exact amount, it does state "hundreds of millions," which is proof that the CBS quote it is not merely a "$30 million" typo.
At this point, all you are trying to do is pull your foot out of your mouth. The online division was an investment into The Sims Online with the expectation of millions of subscribers. The reason EA invested all that money was because they expected over a million subscribers to The Sims Online, not because of the crippled old Ultima Online that had not grown for years, and that likely saw very little if any of that money, not because of a soon to be canceled Motor City Online or other insignificant games, the articles clearly state that EA was expecting a million subscribers to The Sims Online, and that is why they invested $300 million.
Just because you are in disbelief, don't tell me that people should accept your opinions or interpretations, over two reputable news sources.
If you need to be burned more, then I will dig into the financial reports personally.
So a company that spent $431 million in total on marketing and sales in 2006, including all their console titles, non-mmorpg titles etc spent $275 million in marketing on one title alone?
No, reading problem? Is marketing the only aspect? In fact, one of the articles clearly states that they created an online division and Sims community does it not? Don't you think that cost some money?
No, reading problem? Is marketing the only aspect? In fact, one of the articles clearly states that they created an online division and Sims community does it not? Don't you think that cost some money?
You can look at articles if you like or you could just go and look at the EA accounts which they are required to publish by law.
Why don't you do that and save me some time. With two corroborating articles from two reputable news sources, I see no reason doubt they are inaccurate.
Why don't you do that and save me some time. With two corroborating articles from two reputable news sources, I see no reason doubt they are inaccurate.
I already did.
One of your 'corroborating' sources has already been shown to be inaccurate. The EA accounts have to be accurate due to stock market regulations and federal law.
No you didn't. All you did was post a marketing figure from the wrong year and with no reference.
I posted a fiigure from 2006. How much do you think that will change in 2007? When was Sims Online released?
It's not hard information to find, i'll give you a hint, I used Google.
2007!?! Ok, it's clear you are ignorant about the Sims Online and even the original post. I provided dated articles in the original post and you are asking when it was released? Come back when you have some pertinent facts.
Hmmmm I think $300M was to put up the entire EA Online Gaming or whatever its called . . . thats just too much to put into one title alone, even if it does include marketing and even if is the most important company project.
No I don't have any facts to back myself up, its just my humble opinion and personal experience. For example I DO know how much Microsoft spent on advertising for all its products in the Asia-Pacific region last year, and its nowhere near 300 million.
On-topic and budgets aside, I do agree Sims Online is probably the largest MMO failure. Such a failure that most gamers today have completely forgotten about it, at least DnL continues to live on in infamy.
I don''t really know when Humankind will die out but i''m guessing about 6 years before WOW. -BarCrow
According to EA's annual reports, they spent over 300 million in R&D in 2002 and 2003 -- in 2002 they attribute this primarily to development of Earth and Beyond as well as the Sims Online. IMHO, they paint the numbers with very broad brushstrokes -- after reading it, I certainly don't have the that warm fuzzy confidence that TSO cost over 300 million--the two news articles should have offered proper citations for their numbers.
And that's the point, "...a $300 million investment, [in] "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc.," does not just mean marketing costs and production costs alone; EA built an entire company and infrastructure to support what they projected would be a million Sims Online subscribers; that never showed up.
According to EA's annual reports, they spent over 300 million in R&D in 2002 and 2003 -- in 2002 they attribute this primarily to development of Earth and Beyond as well as the Sims Online.
Well, I doubt much of that $300 million in R&D went into the short-lived Earth and Beyond, when the Sims Online was the most important project. Nice way to write it off, "R&D." Please provide a link.
My opinion from the volley of flames and facts is they set up ea's online department with 300 million....and the top game was sims online. So they did waste a ton on sims....but the 300 million was also setting up an infrastructure that other online games could use even if it was made for sims online.
Im just glad that it flopped cause really I dont want to see anyone else wasting money developing "sim style" mmos.
And that's the point, "...a $300 million investment, [in] "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc.," does not just mean marketing costs and production costs alone; EA built an entire company and infrastructure to support what they projected would be a million Sims Online subscribers; that never showed up. Biggest MMO failure ever.
Dude, "[in]" is your assumption based on a very ambiguous statement. That 300 million number is the total cost of R&D for EA, with ea.com a wholly separate entity from EA core defined as :
"EA.com, a division of Electronic Arts Inc., represents Electronic Arts’ online and e-Commerce businesses. EA.com’s business includes subscription revenues collected for Internet gameplay on our websites, website advertising, sales of packaged goods for Internet-only based games and sales of Electronic Arts games sold through the EA.com web store. The Consolidated Statement of Operations includes all revenues and costs directly attributable to EA.com, including charges for shared facilities, functions and services used by EA.com and provided by Electronic Arts. Certain costs and expenses have been allocated based on management’s estimates of the cost of services provided to EA.com by Electronic Arts."
Research and development expenses consist of personnel-related costs, consulting and equipment depreciation, customer relationship management expenses associated with Electronic Arts’ product and online games and write-offs of prepaid royalties. EA.com has research and development expenses incurred by Electronic Arts’ studios consisting of direct development costs and related overhead costs (facilities, network and development management and supervision) in connection with the development and production of EA.com online games. Research and development expenses also include product development expenses incurred directly by EA.com. (page 24, Annual report FY02)
That means it covers the spectrum of EnB, Ultima Online, TSO, Pogo Game, EA network games, etc. FURTHERMORE, I have a correction to my previous post -- they break out results of the 2 separate entities --
in 2002 EA Core spent 257million, EA.com spent 60 million in R&D (page 21, Annual report FY02) in 2003 EA Core spent 300 million, EA.com spent 100 million in R&D (page 33, http://ccbn26.mobular.net/ccbn/7/266/277/)
I'll leave it to you to read the granular details but, suffice it to say, without proper sourcing in the news articles, they're misleading. EDIT @1:15 for links
If the Research and Development (R&D) alone for just the two games, Earth and Beyond and The Sims Online, was $300 million, as therain93 posted, then the total investment for The Sims Online and the online division EA.com is likely to be even greater than $300 million.
If the Research and Development (R&D) alone for just the two games, Earth and Beyond and The Sims Online, was $300 million, as therain93 posted, then the total investment for The Sims Online and the online division EA.com is likely to be even greater than $300 million.
Actually, i misquoted that, double check the post. Sorry!
Dude, "[in]" is your assumption based on a very ambiguous statement.
No, when quoting something that may not be gramatically correct or clear, you clarify the statement with brackets. The complete quote is not ambiguous at all:
"Despite a $300 million investment, "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc. only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release, far short of the company's stated goal of 1 million."
Dude, "[in]" is your assumption based on a very ambiguous statement.
No, when quoting something that may not be gramatically correct or clear, you clarify the statement with brackets. The complete quote is not ambiguous at all:
"Despite a $300 million investment, "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc. only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release, far short of the company's stated goal of 1 million."
That's cut and dry.
Spelling and grammar nazis really annoy me and I'm not trying to be one here but while your definition is correct, you aren't justified in using it...you're not in a position to clarify that statement further (otherwise we would have rock solid, irrefutable citations : ' ). If an EA executive made that statement, it would be sensible that the author of the news report would add the "[in]". You weren't there and you didn't make the original citation, therefore it would be presumptuous of you to supply your interpretation as fact.
Comments
Bah personally I'd say that Dark and Light was the biggest MMO disaster so far.
At least the people who paid for and played The Sims Online got a game. All the Dark and Light players got was some sort of 'pre-beta' build that was almost impossible to play. Half of the customers had alot of trouble cancelling their subscriptions when they realised what a terrible game they had purchased and were billed repeatedly by the Click-and-Buy crooks.
I see now that DnL has dropped Click and Buy and has updated their website (a once in a blue moon event). But still, for a game that generated alot of community hype, the end product was definately the biggest failure I have seen.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Yeah I was hyped for DnL, and got a key to beta, and from the start I knew it wasn't going to be all that great. The fact that their dev team was quite small from what I kept hearing, and they were not experienced apparently (from what I heard a while ago), I tried to maintain a positive outlook, but the servers in beta could barely stay online for 2 hours at a time. DnL was the ultimate let down, cause they promised everything, and came out with nothing.
"Idiot media outlets," like CBS News and Fortune magazine?
AgtSmith, don't put yourself in the same boat as ianubisi.
You're quick to argue semantics with AgtSmith without defending the fundamental flaw in your argument. TSO is a part of EA Online; EA Online is not TSO. Therefore, when they say the spent hundreds of millions on EA online, it does not mean they spent hundreds of millions on TSO.
I suppose you conveniently forgot about the first, and most recent, reference from CBS News that clearly states $300 million was invested into The Sims Online? The second reference from Fortune, while it does not give an exact amount, it does state "hundreds of millions," which is proof that the CBS quote it is not merely a "$30 million" typo.
At this point, all you are trying to do is pull your foot out of your mouth. The online division was an investment into The Sims Online with the expectation of millions of subscribers. The reason EA invested all that money was because they expected over a million subscribers to The Sims Online, not because of the crippled old Ultima Online that had not grown for years, and that likely saw very little if any of that money, not because of a soon to be canceled Motor City Online or other insignificant games, the articles clearly state that EA was expecting a million subscribers to The Sims Online, and that is why they invested $300 million.
Just because you are in disbelief, don't tell me that people should accept your opinions or interpretations, over two reputable news sources.
If you need to be burned more, then I will dig into the financial reports personally.
Yeah, ok.
No, reading problem? Is marketing the only aspect? In fact, one of the articles clearly states that they created an online division and Sims community does it not? Don't you think that cost some money?
One of your 'corroborating' sources has already been shown to be inaccurate. The EA accounts have to be accurate due to stock market regulations and federal law.
It's not hard information to find, i'll give you a hint, I used Google.
It's not hard information to find, i'll give you a hint, I used Google.
2007!?! Ok, it's clear you are ignorant about the Sims Online and even the original post. I provided dated articles in the original post and you are asking when it was released? Come back when you have some pertinent facts.
No I don't have any facts to back myself up, its just my humble opinion
On-topic and budgets aside, I do agree Sims Online is probably the largest MMO failure. Such a failure that most gamers today have completely forgotten about it, at least DnL continues to live on in infamy.
I don''t really know when Humankind will die out but i''m guessing about 6 years before WOW.
-BarCrow
According to EA's annual reports, they spent over 300 million in R&D in 2002 and 2003 -- in 2002 they attribute this primarily to development of Earth and Beyond as well as the Sims Online. IMHO, they paint the numbers with very broad brushstrokes -- after reading it, I certainly don't have the that warm fuzzy confidence that TSO cost over 300 million--the two news articles should have offered proper citations for their numbers.
NOTE: revision to figures below
And that's the point, "...a $300 million investment, [in] "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc.," does not just mean marketing costs and production costs alone; EA built an entire company and infrastructure to support what they projected would be a million Sims Online subscribers; that never showed up.
Biggest MMO failure ever.
Well we all agree that sims was a HUGE flop.....
My opinion from the volley of flames and facts is they set up ea's online department with 300 million....and the top game was sims online. So they did waste a ton on sims....but the 300 million was also setting up an infrastructure that other online games could use even if it was made for sims online.
Im just glad that it flopped cause really I dont want to see anyone else wasting money developing "sim style" mmos.
Own, Mine, Defend, Attack, 24/7
Dude, "[in]" is your assumption based on a very ambiguous statement. That 300 million number is the total cost of R&D for EA, with ea.com a wholly separate entity from EA core defined as :
with R&D defined as:
Research and development expenses consist of personnel-related costs, consulting and equipment depreciation, customer relationship management expenses associated with Electronic Arts’ product and online games and write-offs of prepaid royalties. EA.com has research and development expenses incurred by Electronic Arts’ studios consisting of direct development costs and related overhead costs (facilities, network and development management and supervision) in connection with the development and production of EA.com online games. Research and development expenses also include product development expenses incurred directly by EA.com.
(page 24, Annual report FY02)
That means it covers the spectrum of EnB, Ultima Online, TSO, Pogo Game, EA network games, etc. FURTHERMORE, I have a correction to my previous post -- they break out results of the 2 separate entities --
in 2002 EA Core spent 257million, EA.com spent 60 million in R&D (page 21, Annual report FY02)
in 2003 EA Core spent 300 million, EA.com spent 100 million in R&D (page 33, http://ccbn26.mobular.net/ccbn/7/266/277/)
I'll leave it to you to read the granular details but, suffice it to say, without proper sourcing in the news articles, they're misleading.
EDIT @1:15 for links
No, when quoting something that may not be gramatically correct or clear, you clarify the statement with brackets. The complete quote is not ambiguous at all:
"Despite a $300 million investment, "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc. only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release, far short of the company's stated goal of 1 million."
That's cut and dry.
No, when quoting something that may not be gramatically correct or clear, you clarify the statement with brackets. The complete quote is not ambiguous at all:
"Despite a $300 million investment, "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc. only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release, far short of the company's stated goal of 1 million."
That's cut and dry.
Spelling and grammar nazis really annoy me and I'm not trying to be one here but while your definition is correct, you aren't justified in using it...you're not in a position to clarify that statement further (otherwise we would have rock solid, irrefutable citations : ' ). If an EA executive made that statement, it would be sensible that the author of the news report would add the "[in]". You weren't there and you didn't make the original citation, therefore it would be presumptuous of you to supply your interpretation as fact.