The correction was for the sentence I was using the partial quote in. Sometimes you do this so you do not have to quote the entire phrase, as I did. That is pefectly acceptable as long as it does not alter the statement in anyway. Understand?
Anyway, where are your links? If you spent the time to find the quotes you posted, why not link them to the original documents, which would only take a couple seconds more? Don't make me do all the work, I appreciate your help.
The correction was for the sentence I was using the partial quote in. Sometimes you do this so you do not have to quote the entire phrase, as I did. That is pefectly acceptable as long as it does not alter the statement in anyway. Understand?
I'm decent with grammar -- you altered the statement. You didn't just take a partial quote; you extracted a specific phrase and then inserted your opinion with the "[in]". ( ' ;
Originally posted by sempiternal
Anyway, where are your links? If you spent the time to find the quotes you posted, why not link them to the original documents, which would only take a couple seconds more? Don't make me do all the work, I appreciate your help.
Sorry, didn't realize when I said, "According to EA's annual reports" and then cited specific years, you'd need further information to track it down. I tossed in links and even included page numbers although I hardly figure it's up to MLA standards ( ' ;
How about Fortune magazine? You know, of the famous Fortune 500 list? Is that good enough for you? "EA even tried its own version earlier this year with The Sims Online. It invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build the EA Online division and rolled out a virtual area for players to form Sims communities and socialize. The company prepared for as many as a million people to sign up. It didn't come close. Just under 10,000 are now subscribed, paying $9.99 a month." - VIDEOGAMES: The Biggest Game in Town FORTUNE, Tuesday, September 2, 2003 By Peter Lewis
ok, so what im readin, is that they spent hundreds of millions CREATING A EA ONLINE division and then useing some of that money they made the sims online. So no, not all the money went to the game. But creating a seperate division of EA for Online gameing.
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
The "[in]" did not alter the meaning of the quote, it clarified it in the context of my sentence;
"Despite a $300 million investment, "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc...."
Means exactly the same thing as;
"Despite a $300 million investment in "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc...."
A $300 million investment was made. What was it made "in?" "The Sims Online..."
Geez, that's basic sentence structure.
And, yes, you do need to link your sources, otherwise it causes more speculation and worthless posts, like these. The fact that you are going to incorrectly charge me with altering the meaning of the quote, shows that it's definately a necessary step in avoiding meaningless dribble.
ok, so what im readin, is that they spent hundreds of millions CREATING A EA ONLINE division and then useing some of that money they made the sims online. So no, not all the money went to the game. But creating a seperate division of EA for Online gameing.
No, you are showing up late to the ballgame. Did you happen to skip over the first reference in the OP in favor of the second one exclusively? It appears that way!
"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."
It is so thoroughly amusing to watch you dig a deeper and deeper hole.
That's Worthless dribble, I expect no less from you, you have not provided any references at all, just your personal opinion.
I'm not here to have a fun agreeable chat with "internet buddies," as I gain more information, I will futher substantiate the OP and update it with such information. If you don't have anything to add, then stay out of my thread, and keep your comments to yourself.
"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." - CBS NEWS (AP), AUSTIN, Texas, April 1, 2004
If you believe that figure then I have some swampland I would like to sell you. First, never believe a game developer - second, never believe CBS or any other mass media outlet in regards to such things. There is NO WAY in hell they spent $300 million developing one title - I would doubt they spent that much developing all the SIMs titles all together.
Game development cost is certainly high, but that figure is outrageously, and obviously, bogus. reading closely it looks like the 300 mil was spent on creating the EA online division, the actual game prob around the 25 mil mark ask ppl were saying earlier.
The "[in]" did not alter the meaning of the quote, it clarified it in the context of my sentence; "Despite a $300 million investment, "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc...." Means exactly the same thing as; "Despite a $300 million investment in "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc...." A $300 million investment was made. What was it made "in?" "The Sims Online..." Geez, that's basic sentence structure. And, yes, you do need to link your sources, otherwise it causes more speculation and worthless posts, like these. The fact that you are going to incorrectly charge me with altering the meaning of the quote, shows that it's definately a necessary step in avoiding meaningless dribble.
Since the other guy seems to be too busy laughing at you, I'll point it out.
The problem with changing it to 'in' under this circumstance is that with the ',' instead of the 'in' , the remark that EA spent $300 mil isn't specifically tied to Sims and Sims alone. It still could be viably referenced towards many other parts of development that in one way or another influenced the Sims even though not directly related.
When the remark is changed to 'in', the meaning is clearly chosen as meaning that the $300 mil was directly tied to the Sims and not just the things that may be made around the Sims as well.
As well...I was gonna post a link to some financial records, but it seems iunno where to look, or EA is tricky at hiding that kinda stuff...
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I don't expect many of you to be English majors, hell, half of you can barely even type. But, there is a common comprehension problem here. So, let's look at the exact statement again:
"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."
This is real simple, the subject here is, "The Sims Online." Therefore, the only subject that, "Despite a $300 million investment," modifies is, "The Sims Online." In other words, the $300 million was invested IN "The Sims Online," nothing else. That is perfectly clear. It does not matter if you don't believe it, that changes nothing.
The sentence does not mean, "Despite a $300 million investment, in-something-else-I-would-like-to-assume-because-I-cannot-believe-the-sentence-is-accurate, and "The Sims Online." It's just, "The Sims Online."
The only way to refute it is to provide some alternate references, without them you are only providing opinion. So, if you don't believe it, then provide some facts to show that it is wrong. Nobody cares if your opinion is that it is wrong.
Financially it's most likely what big EA and SOE bombs in their daily ventures... but I believe a number of people would feel that the infamous Mourning would have been a bigger MMO failure with their amazing PR negativity and bitter-aftertaste-MMOG.
Ah, financial bombs. If only the game industry stops bloating the development costs and stop trying to go for one-hit wonders blindfolded.
EA games bought westwood studios and the earth and beyond game, which was my favorite mmo, they then took the devs, closed down the game and put them elsewhere, yep eagames sucks.
"Despite a $US300 million ($A393 million) investment, The Sims Online from Electronic Arts only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release, far short of the company's stated goal of one million."
Originally posted by sempiternal A third reference: "Despite a $US300 million ($A393 million) investment, The Sims Online from Electronic Arts only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release, far short of the company's stated goal of one million." - PCs stumble in video game world, The Age, Austin, Texas, April 12, 2004
It's not a third reference, it's the same article. Don't you even recognize the multiple sentences with the exact same language? If it weren't for the fact that the article you've just linked indicates it's an AP (meaning Associated Press) feed it would be blatant plagiarism.
Yet another few feet in the massive hole of denial and fantasy you're digging. Keep going, pal.
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.
Uhm, yes - CBS and Fortune and CNN and Fox - in short, mass media, is about as trustworthy as a used car salesman. This is not the place for such a discussion but relying on mass media outlets for real journalism is foolish, they are agenda driven biased and typically ill-informed due to laziness or activistism. Most 'journaliusts' today are little more than experts at regurgitating things others have said, so quite often a "fact" gets put out in the media consciousness (often by an interested party) and then it begins its life cycle as a "fact" being quoted and quoted over and over again without the truth ever having been vetted in the first place.
Originally posted by sempiternal
The only way to refute it is to provide some alternate references, without them you are only providing opinion. So, if you don't believe it, then provide some facts to show that it is wrong. Nobody cares if your opinion is that it is wrong.
So if I post here that aliens from the fourth dimension have invaded and are taking over the Earth someone else would have to provide a link to an article proving what I said was wrong? In what world do you live where all that is said or written is assumed accurate despite being outlandish. I suggest that you consider logic and skepticism or you are in for a tough life believing everything in the media just because nothing else exists in the media to the contrary.
Again I suggest you consider the statement - to invest 300 million in a single video game one would have to convince the execs at EA (who are pretty well educated in terms of their industry) that you could recoup that money from box sales as the standard in the industry for an MMO is to recoup development from box sales (plus a profit) and then recoup ongoing costs form subs (plus a profit). So to get $330 to build Sims Online the experts at EA would have had to think they would sell at the least 6 million boxes just to cover development costs. Even if you believe any game company would authorize a $300 million investment knowing it would take 6 million units sold at retail to recoup costs do you think they would risk that $330 million just to break even? No, they want a profit meaning sales at retail would have to be well over 8 million just to get a moderate return on the investment.
This claim of spending $300 million on Sims Online development is just ludicrous and no matter how many outlets reprint the original comment it simply is beyond belief that it is a true statement. Most likely it is misquoted in the original appearance and has simply been regurgitated over and over since then by other outlets. Modern journalists/reporters are notoriously lazy and often will quote prior reports in lieu of investigating their own facts. So one guy writes their piece and possibly accidentally misquotes something from EA (probably a comment or report where they invested not in just Sims Online but maybe a new division whose first project was Sims online) and then it gets out there in the Nexus database where it gets re-quoted over and over and becomes a common fact, incorrect as it may be.
AgtSmith and ianubisis, both your posts are again nothing but trolls. You are upset that the references that I have posted disagree with what you believe, and rather than post anything of substance or your own references, you would rather attack the thread and me personally with your opinions. Sorry, both your posts are unacceptable as evidence of anything.
Anything of substance? You post someone else's "fact" with NO backup and despite the fact that it defies common logic you take it as unassailable truth. Just because something is written somewhere doesn't mean it holds any truth and when you fail to use your own mind to asses the value of wild claims it is truly a sad thing.
Yes, I have three references all stating that EA invested hundreds of millions on The Sims Online. All you have provided is your opinion, which is nothing but that of an anonymous Internet poster on a gaming forum. At this point you are both truly laughable. You expect readers to believe your forum opinions, without a single reference, over that of CBS News, Fortune Magazine, and the Associated Press.
I don't think I've seen such a laborious argument over a game that none of the involved parties actually care about. You're arguing about a statistic, and a meaningless one at that. At this point, I don't think anyone really cares if the $300 million is correct or not, this is aboue a few people trying to walk away saying, "I told you so."
Can we go back to arguing about Vanguard at least?
Yes, I have three references all stating that EA invested hundreds of millions on The Sims Online. All you have provided is your opinion, which is nothing but that of an anonymous Internet poster on a gaming forum. At this point you are both truly laughable. You expect readers to believe your forum opinions, without a single reference, over that of CBS News, Fortune Magazine, and the Associated Press.
FYI - the original article that statement appears in is an AP article so it is re-printed under license in many publications, so quoting re-pubs isn't providing confirmation as it is the same comment not confirmation. And it appears teh actual comment, probably from EA quarterly reports, was regarding establishment of EA's Online division not the one title - I suspect the AP story simply misquoted that fact.
Anyways, just because a statement is repeated in multiple places doesn't make it true. Suggesting that it is true because nobody has posted another media article discounting it is even more ascending than believing it in the first place - do you honestly expect there to be an article on the varsity of some obscure comment in some obscure article? Suggesting something is true because nobody can show where someone says it is not is just bad logic and not worth arguing about. Believe what you want, I choose to rely on my own knowledge and logic rather the taking what some staff writer who likely know nothing about the industry has to say.
If you really want this question answered - go to the source and ask EA. Sims Online was done by Redwood Shores I believe, their contact info is listed below:
After reading this thread, I have come to the conclusion that Sempiternal will never admit he is wrong, regardless of the facts you provide. You could provide a voice recording of the president of EA saying this information is false and still Sempiternal would cling to some article he found somewhere that he misinterpreted.
The reality is the article he posts is likely to be a true statement. Tthey never state where the 300mil was invested. Technically you can almost put any number instead of 300mil and the article would still be correct. The only real facts are that there was a $300 mil investment into something and that Sims Online only has 80k subs after a year.
Here are a few examples:
Despite a $300 million investment [into every game EA owns except for Sims Online], "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc. only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release
Despite a $300 million investment [by Blizzard into its Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo franchises], "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc. only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release
Despite a $300 million investment [into extra large clothes from fat girls worldwide], "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc. only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release
Comments
The correction was for the sentence I was using the partial quote in. Sometimes you do this so you do not have to quote the entire phrase, as I did. That is pefectly acceptable as long as it does not alter the statement in anyway. Understand?
Anyway, where are your links? If you spent the time to find the quotes you posted, why not link them to the original documents, which would only take a couple seconds more? Don't make me do all the work, I appreciate your help.
I'm decent with grammar -- you altered the statement. You didn't just take a partial quote; you extracted a specific phrase and then inserted your opinion with the "[in]". ( ' ;
Sorry, didn't realize when I said, "According to EA's annual reports" and then cited specific years, you'd need further information to track it down. I tossed in links and even included page numbers although I hardly figure it's up to MLA standards ( ' ;
ok, so what im readin, is that they spent hundreds of millions CREATING A EA ONLINE division and then useing some of that money they made the sims online. So no, not all the money went to the game. But creating a seperate division of EA for Online gameing.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
The "[in]" did not alter the meaning of the quote, it clarified it in the context of my sentence;
"Despite a $300 million investment, "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc...."
Means exactly the same thing as;
"Despite a $300 million investment in "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc...."
A $300 million investment was made. What was it made "in?" "The Sims Online..."
Geez, that's basic sentence structure.
And, yes, you do need to link your sources, otherwise it causes more speculation and worthless posts, like these. The fact that you are going to incorrectly charge me with altering the meaning of the quote, shows that it's definately a necessary step in avoiding meaningless dribble.
It is so thoroughly amusing to watch you dig a deeper and deeper hole.
No, you are showing up late to the ballgame. Did you happen to skip over the first reference in the OP in favor of the second one exclusively? It appears that way!
"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 Worthless dribble, I expect no less from you, you have not provided any references at all, just your personal opinion.
I'm not here to have a fun agreeable chat with "internet buddies," as I gain more information, I will futher substantiate the OP and update it with such information. If you don't have anything to add, then stay out of my thread, and keep your comments to yourself.
Back to burning my dvds...
One little comma, and a bad bit of reporting, and this poor slob goes on to make nearly mythical status in blowhard sophistry.
I applaud you. No doubt you can explain to me why day is night.
I second that!
"If we don't attack them, they will attack us first. So we'd better retaliate before they have a chance to strike"
Game development cost is certainly high, but that figure is outrageously, and obviously, bogus. reading closely it looks like the 300 mil was spent on creating the EA online division, the actual game prob around the 25 mil mark ask ppl were saying earlier.
die.
EnB 4 life!
The problem with changing it to 'in' under this circumstance is that with the ',' instead of the 'in' , the remark that EA spent $300 mil isn't specifically tied to Sims and Sims alone. It still could be viably referenced towards many other parts of development that in one way or another influenced the Sims even though not directly related.
When the remark is changed to 'in', the meaning is clearly chosen as meaning that the $300 mil was directly tied to the Sims and not just the things that may be made around the Sims as well.
As well...I was gonna post a link to some financial records, but it seems iunno where to look, or EA is tricky at hiding that kinda stuff...
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I don't expect many of you to be English majors, hell, half of you can barely even type. But, there is a common comprehension problem here. So, let's look at the exact statement again:
"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."
This is real simple, the subject here is, "The Sims Online." Therefore, the only subject that, "Despite a $300 million investment," modifies is, "The Sims Online." In other words, the $300 million was invested IN "The Sims Online," nothing else. That is perfectly clear. It does not matter if you don't believe it, that changes nothing.
The sentence does not mean, "Despite a $300 million investment, in-something-else-I-would-like-to-assume-because-I-cannot-believe-the-sentence-is-accurate, and "The Sims Online." It's just, "The Sims Online."
The only way to refute it is to provide some alternate references, without them you are only providing opinion. So, if you don't believe it, then provide some facts to show that it is wrong. Nobody cares if your opinion is that it is wrong.
Financially it's most likely what big EA and SOE bombs in their daily ventures... but I believe a number of people would feel that the infamous Mourning would have been a bigger MMO failure with their amazing PR negativity and bitter-aftertaste-MMOG.
Ah, financial bombs. If only the game industry stops bloating the development costs and stop trying to go for one-hit wonders blindfolded.
playing eq2 and two worlds
A third reference:
"Despite a $US300 million ($A393 million) investment, The Sims Online from Electronic Arts only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release, far short of the company's stated goal of one million."
- PCs stumble in video game world, The Age, Austin, Texas, April 12, 2004
It's not a third reference, it's the same article. Don't you even recognize the multiple sentences with the exact same language? If it weren't for the fact that the article you've just linked indicates it's an AP (meaning Associated Press) feed it would be blatant plagiarism.
Yet another few feet in the massive hole of denial and fantasy you're digging. Keep going, pal.
"Idiot media outlets," like CBS News and Fortune magazine?
AgtSmith, don't put yourself in the same boat as ianubisi.
Uhm, yes - CBS and Fortune and CNN and Fox - in short, mass media, is about as trustworthy as a used car salesman. This is not the place for such a discussion but relying on mass media outlets for real journalism is foolish, they are agenda driven biased and typically ill-informed due to laziness or activistism. Most 'journaliusts' today are little more than experts at regurgitating things others have said, so quite often a "fact" gets put out in the media consciousness (often by an interested party) and then it begins its life cycle as a "fact" being quoted and quoted over and over again without the truth ever having been vetted in the first place.So if I post here that aliens from the fourth dimension have invaded and are taking over the Earth someone else would have to provide a link to an article proving what I said was wrong? In what world do you live where all that is said or written is assumed accurate despite being outlandish. I suggest that you consider logic and skepticism or you are in for a tough life believing everything in the media just because nothing else exists in the media to the contrary.
Again I suggest you consider the statement - to invest 300 million in a single video game one would have to convince the execs at EA (who are pretty well educated in terms of their industry) that you could recoup that money from box sales as the standard in the industry for an MMO is to recoup development from box sales (plus a profit) and then recoup ongoing costs form subs (plus a profit). So to get $330 to build Sims Online the experts at EA would have had to think they would sell at the least 6 million boxes just to cover development costs. Even if you believe any game company would authorize a $300 million investment knowing it would take 6 million units sold at retail to recoup costs do you think they would risk that $330 million just to break even? No, they want a profit meaning sales at retail would have to be well over 8 million just to get a moderate return on the investment.
This claim of spending $300 million on Sims Online development is just ludicrous and no matter how many outlets reprint the original comment it simply is beyond belief that it is a true statement. Most likely it is misquoted in the original appearance and has simply been regurgitated over and over since then by other outlets. Modern journalists/reporters are notoriously lazy and often will quote prior reports in lieu of investigating their own facts. So one guy writes their piece and possibly accidentally misquotes something from EA (probably a comment or report where they invested not in just Sims Online but maybe a new division whose first project was Sims online) and then it gets out there in the Nexus database where it gets re-quoted over and over and becomes a common fact, incorrect as it may be.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
AgtSmith and ianubisis, both your posts are again nothing but trolls. You are upset that the references that I have posted disagree with what you believe, and rather than post anything of substance or your own references, you would rather attack the thread and me personally with your opinions. Sorry, both your posts are unacceptable as evidence of anything.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Yes, I have three references all stating that EA invested hundreds of millions on The Sims Online. All you have provided is your opinion, which is nothing but that of an anonymous Internet poster on a gaming forum. At this point you are both truly laughable. You expect readers to believe your forum opinions, without a single reference, over that of CBS News, Fortune Magazine, and the Associated Press.
I don't think I've seen such a laborious argument over a game that none of the involved parties actually care about. You're arguing about a statistic, and a meaningless one at that. At this point, I don't think anyone really cares if the $300 million is correct or not, this is aboue a few people trying to walk away saying, "I told you so."
Can we go back to arguing about Vanguard at least?
Anyways, just because a statement is repeated in multiple places doesn't make it true. Suggesting that it is true because nobody has posted another media article discounting it is even more ascending than believing it in the first place - do you honestly expect there to be an article on the varsity of some obscure comment in some obscure article? Suggesting something is true because nobody can show where someone says it is not is just bad logic and not worth arguing about. Believe what you want, I choose to rely on my own knowledge and logic rather the taking what some staff writer who likely know nothing about the industry has to say.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Jino Talens - PR Coordinator
Keith Mutzman - Sr. Publicist
Scott Gamel - PR Manager
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
After reading this thread, I have come to the conclusion that Sempiternal will never admit he is wrong, regardless of the facts you provide. You could provide a voice recording of the president of EA saying this information is false and still Sempiternal would cling to some article he found somewhere that he misinterpreted.
The reality is the article he posts is likely to be a true statement. Tthey never state where the 300mil was invested. Technically you can almost put any number instead of 300mil and the article would still be correct. The only real facts are that there was a $300 mil investment into something and that Sims Online only has 80k subs after a year.
Here are a few examples:
Despite a $300 million investment [into every game EA owns except for Sims Online], "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc. only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release
Despite a $300 million investment [by Blizzard into its Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo franchises], "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc. only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release
Despite a $300 million investment [into extra large clothes from fat girls worldwide], "The Sims Online" from Electronic Arts Inc. only has about 80,000 subscribers more than a year after its release