You are wrong, Firedart. If you provide me with a reliable source that contradicts the sources I have used, such as an EA press release, financial report, or even another article from an equally reputable source as CBS News and Fortune, I will definitely consider it and correct any errors; in a world of few guarantees, I promise.
So far, none have been provided.
I find it entertaining how anonymous users of a gaming forum, like AgtSmith and ianubisi, believe their mere opinions and speculations are more important and valid than anything else, even published reports from world renowned news organizations.
As far as the quote goes, you are also wrong, Firedart. By adding anything to the sentence you are changing the meaning (see the many numerous posts previous to your incorrect interpretation).
"A big, troll." This literally means that the troll IS big.
"Despite a $300 million investment, "The Sims Online"..." This literally means, despite a $300 million investment IN The Sims Online.
Originally posted by sempiternal I find it entertaining how anonymous users of a gaming forum, like AgtSmith and ianubisi, believe their mere opinions and speculations are more important and valid than anything else, even published reports from world renowned news organizations.
I find it sad that someone such as yourself can be so naive as to think that just because something appears in a news article it must be true.
I recall back during the Hurricane Katrina news media feeding frenzy a reporter for one of the mourning shows (Good Morning America or Today show type thing) was doing a report from a canoe talking about how terrible things where. As he was live on the air, reporting from his canoe floating through the flooded area you could see in the near background someone walking across the camera shot and the water only came up to his ankles (or thereabouts). It was a blatant example of how inaccurate and outright false media coverage can be. While I doubt any such nefarious actions in the case of the figures talked about here it is EASY to see some staff reporter who knows NOTHING about the game industry reading some press release and either mistakenly reporting the figures or just taking them out of context unintentionally. Anyone with half a brain can see that there is no way in hell EA spent $300 million developing a single game title - yet because it is put in some article somewhere and quoted again elsewhere (probably from that original article) idiots who cannot think for themselves take it as fact. Then they are stupid enough to suggest that short of another article stating that the first is false it has to be true. What a sad demonstration of human stupidity.
You are wrong, AgtSmith, I don't think that just because something appears in a news article it must be true.
However, as I stated before, your anonymous opinion means very little against a report published by professional journalists at CBS News, Fortune magazine and the Associated Press.
If you provide me with a reliable source that contradicts the sources I have used, such as an EA press release, financial report, or even another article from an equally reputable source as CBS News and Fortune, I will consider it and correct any errors.
Otherwise, why are you still wasting your time trying to prove the worth of your opinions to me?
And where would someone find a reliable source commenting on some obscure, and incorrect, statistic in a 3 year old news article? It is the same as asking someone to prove a negative - it cannot be done.
FYI, read the full paragraph from the article and try to apply logic to what it says. "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. " According to this, EA spent $300 million in hopes of selling the game to 1 million subscribers, lets add that up as it proves that the quote must be in error. $50 x 1,000,000 sold = $50,000,000 in revenue and that is what you get from what the article says was the companies goal. So to believe this is totally accurate we have to believe that EA spent $300 million in hopes of making $50 million. Subscriptions you say? OK, to break even and make up the other $250,000,000 at a subscriber population of 1,000,000 at $15 per month it would take 16+ years just to BREAK even, not counting the costs of running servers and all the other associated expenses and such those 16 years. Still want to argue that it must be true or are you at least mildly intelligent enough to realize that the quote is improperly stating the actual investment in the game? Or perhaps EA, a very successful game company, go to the point where they had spent $200 million dollars and all the accountants and number crunchers where pointing out that it would be impossible to make any money and they just decided what the hell - lets spend another $100 million anyways. Is it really so hard to believe that a reporter somewhere totally clueless about the games industry read some press release somewhere or some annual report and misstated the figure?
Originally posted by sempiternal
However, as I stated before, your anonymous opinion means very little against a report published by professional journalists at CBS News, Fortune magazine and the Associated Press.
An again, just for the record and to try to help you seem less clueless, AP published the original report - CBS picked it up. It is ONE report not two. Just like when FOX runs a report from one of its affiliates, they do not separately investigate and interview and produce a new report they just air the tape from the affiliate. In fact, there is a practice whereby media outlets buy pre-produced news reports (in print and TV) for republication. Recently there was a huge scandal on the TV side of this as there was a company that pre-packaged such reports and sent them to all sorts of media outlets and they got stuck into local and national news broadcasts as is for years. Eventually it came out that the company sending out the pre-packaged reports as if they where a news organization was just a front for a paid actor and a group that produced plant stories to get a particular message out. As for print media, it is common practice for the "facts" of one article to be used as source material in another - so Joe's Monthly will often write its own piece on a subject with NO research or interviewing of the principals by just quoting previously published materials "facts" and quotes. And sometimes, reporters just make up stories as happened recently (more than once actually) with reporters at the NY Times who admitted totally making up various stories. Heck, anyone can send a press release and often groups or individuals make up press releases and send them to news organizations desperate to fill pages and they make it into print with NO checks on their authenticity. Speaking of CBS - recall teh forged documents that got Rather fired a couple years back? How about the Dateline NBC piece where they rigged a truck to explode on impact and then aired it without saying it was rigged? How about just human nature and making a mistake?
Now the above are some extreme examples but they happen all the time. Media is extremely reliable and should always be taken with a grain of salt and one's own common sense, logic, and experience should always be brought to bear on any media material. I suspect that what happened here is that EA probably sent out some press release somewhere that had this huge number in it, probably talking about something surrounding the game's development but not exclusively about the game's development as an individual product - big number grab attention and grabbing attention in a press release is how you get a puff peace or two and free publicity. One staff reporter somewhere took the quote either misreading how it was put out or perhaps just not realizing it was a inflated to grab attention ad ran with it. He didn't do some Gerald Rivera undercover report to expose the true cost of the making of this game, he did what 99% of other reporters do and regurgitated what he saw somewhere (either accurately or inaccurately). Once the figure made it into print it became part of the Nexis database and other search authorities like Google and it became a "fact". the type of fact nobody would ever question in the circles of newsrooms as they are not keen enough on the realities of the industry to question it and actually investigate the truth of the face. So it gets used again and again as if it is true have NEVER been actually put to any test of accuracy or truthfulness.
As a single-player game, The Sims was ground-breaking. As a "MMO" it's an animated chat room. No way I'd pay $15 a month (or $10 a month) for an animated chat room I'd have to add TS or Vent to to get speech anyway. The concept just was wrong from the start.
EA HAD an MMO that was attracting a large audience. And they canned it after about a year. It's still remembered fondly by those who played it. But EA didn't have the resources and/or the game didn't have the design to support the numbers of players who wound up loving it. I am referring, of course, to the much-loved EnB. Even with those interminable zoning times when the game had caught on at its height, we still played. If they'd sunk a quarter of the cash into it that they wasted on The Sims Online, they'd STILL be making big money. Alas, my 3 favorite MMOs have all succumbed to corporate nonsense. EnB, SWG and Horizons. And I'm still searching for replacements.
-- Xix "I know what you're thinking: 'Why, oh WHY, didn't I take the BLUE pill?'"
And where would someone find a reliable source commenting on some obscure, and incorrect, statistic in a 3 year old news article? It is the same as asking someone to prove a negative - it cannot be done.
Where to find reliable sources? Research, that's what I did. $300 million does not dissapear easily. You are likely used to lazily posting whatever you want on forums and expecting people to believe it, but that's not going to fly with me.
As far as your speculation on the numbers, EA was banking on the The Sims Online because The Sims had sold 25 million units1, and is the #1 best selling game of all time. It's not that EA expected to only have only 1 million subscribers period, their goal was to have one million just in the first year (see initial references). EA expected The Sims Online to go live in the 3rd quarter of 2002 and have 400,000 subscriptions by the end of the year, less than six months!2
Now, if you want a better speculation on the numbers, then you need to consider not only an ongoing million units sold per year, but the revenue for a million subscibers per year going forward and growing. That is why EA invested so much, they did not invest to not make money. And today, we even have a solid example, World of Warcraft. Do you not understand that even if Blizzard had spent $300 million on WoW they would have recovered that in the first year alone?
And, here is what Electronic Arts themselves stated of The Sims Online in their own quarterly report, showing how important they felt it was:
“Our Revenues Have Been Heavily Dependent on a Single Product and Would Be Adversely Affected if That Product's Popularity Were to Decline; Our Future Success Depends on the Success of The Sims Online”3
Does the above give you the impression that the The Sims Online would be anything less than a $300 million investment in a $3,000 million per year company?
This is the same old tired information discussed pages ago, except at least someone has finally learned how to link a reference, good job on linking, but poor job on reading the thread and comprehending it. Thank you for the link anyway, I am going to use it in the original post.
The Sims Online was the flagship of the online division EA.com1 and was the main purpose of the investment and creation of the online division; that is even referenced in the the original post, "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."
Guess you missed that, and I guess you also don't realize that the game development costs alone, which I have seen reported from various sources as anywhere from $20 to $30 million are not the only costs involved. Nothing surprising here, read the rest of the thread and you will see that your ignorance is shared.
It is apparent to anyone with half a brain that Sims Online did not cost $300 million to make as the original quote suggests. I mentioned long ago in this thread that, at best, that it might refer to a division's losses but you even argued that going to great lengths to say Sins Online, one title, cost $300 million to make. you further insisted that because it was in an article somewhere that it had to be true unless it said in another article somewhere else that it wasn't. You still persist in making an absolutely moronic argument ignoring the most basic logic to the contrary. I don't care what it says ANYWHERE, my brain and my experience and my knowledge are enough to tell me that the claim is false, period.
Originally posted by sempiternal Does the above give you the impression that the The Sims Online would be anything less than a $300 million investment in a $3,000 million per year company?
FYI - $3,000 million is known to intelligent people as $3 billion dollars.
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.
Now:
Originally posted by sempiternal
Who is claiming that it cost $300 million to make The Sims Online? Not me. You don't seem to understand the difference between the cost of making the game itself and the total investment.
You can try now to cover your blatant stupidity by spiting semantic hairs all you want, but only one side has been accurate and consistent. I stated many pages ago that it probably cost what most large titles do upwards of $30 million and I also suggested (as did others) that the quote was probably referring to a division investment and not the game specifically. Why don't you just be a man and admit you where wrong and move on, at least you won't look like more of an ass than you already do.
From the very beginning your failure, AgtSmith, and that of several others, namely ianubisi, is that you don't seem to understand the difference between the cost of making the game itself and the total investment in bringing the game to market.
And, maybe it's because you don't even understand what the quote says. The quote you have been ignoring since first posting in the thread, states that $300 million was invested into The Sims Online. All sources I have seen estimate that the production of The Sims Online game itself only cost an estimated $20 to $30 million, but that EA did not release the exact amount. However, as you should know by now, the production of the game itself was not even the main cost. The main cost was likely the EA.com company and infrastructure that EA invested in to support their "flagship" online game The Sims Online, because once The Sims Online failed, EA.com failed. EA states this themselves in their SEC filed Quarterly report referenced below:
“Our Revenues Have Been Heavily Dependent on a Single Product and Would Be Adversely Affected if That Product's Popularity Were to Decline; Our Future Success Depends on the Success of The Sims Online”1
Let's keep it real simple? How do you lose $300 million? - Answer, you have to invest $300 million.
The quote, and people in this thread (including yourself) have been saying, implying, and otherwise suggesting that the title cost $300 million to produce. Nowhere did you try to split this hair until more people weighted in on how stupid you where sounding. I am tired of arguing with someone as obtuse as you, but as you try to save face and split this hair now consider this thought. One dollar can be spent, or invested, on only one thing (even if that one thing has many components). Either the money was spent (invested) developing a division for EA or it was spent (invested) developing the The Sims Online. It cannot be both, it isn't both, and it isn't proper to say one as if it is the same as the other. Suggesting the two statements are the same is like suggesting I 'invested' $300k in my refrigerator, after all - it was in the house I spent $300k to get.
The quote, and people in this thread including yourself have been saying and implying and otherwise suggesting that the title cost $300 million to produce.
Never, not once did I state anywhere that it cost $300 million to produce The Sims Online game itself. I challenge you to quote me on that, good luck.
It's all your problem, AgtSmith, your failure in comprehending the initial post and quoted reference given:
"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."
Where are you reading in that quote that it cost $300 million to produce The Sims Online?
It clearly states that $300 million was invested in The Sims Online. That not only involves the cost to produce the game, estimated at $20 to $30 million, which is what you are caught up on, but also a multitude of other costs such as hardware, marketing, support, manufacturing, EA.com, and numerous other costs related to the infrastructure of running the game and building the online division to support it.
P.S. That's a nice "owned" image right in the middle of your post; it's very fitting for you and your involvement in this discussion. I could not have placed it better myself.
Oh look whos at it again, arguing as always and still going even once proven wrong by a number of people.
I love semps posts so much =D.
On topic, yes EA are crap, no i dont belive that $300 mill was used on the sims online. EA do have a terrible track record and thats it.
Garrik
________________________________
"once upon a midnight dreary, while i porn surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of 'hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, "give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404."
I'm not going to get in a whole argument about who is the most cunning linguist in this thread, but just to put things in perspective the new Spider Man 3 supposedly cost between $250-300 million, making it one of the most expensive movies ever made. Last time I checked Sims Online didn't have A-list actors performing voiceovers or awe-inspiring CGI to run up the cost. I did a quick search to find out how much WOW cost to develop, and the common agreed number in news stories is around $60-70 million. Once again, I cannot see how Sims cost almost 5 times more to develop than WOW.
But getting back to why Sims Online failed, people keep mentioning the bad game mechanics but from what I've heard bad community also played a major role. From the online accounts I've read, the game's social networking mechanic was completely broken - it allowed mega-guilds to completely lock out new players who weren't willing to pay extortion or in turn become a guild member.
From Wired July 2004
The game's raison d'etre is socializing; barely a half year old, it's the biggest game yet whose rewards come from making friends and being popular.
One mob tactic is gathering the foot-soldiers to stigmatize someone else with several so-called "red links" -- a sort of demerit that shows others how many enemies a player has.
For gamers who have spent hours building a reputation, red links can be devastating. The platform may be virtual, but the attack isn't.
The article goes on to discuss how easy it was for certain players to hack accounts and cause all kind of havoc.
Yes, some of this problem lies with the game's mechanics, but an even greater responsibility lies with EA for not doing a better job in policing griefers and ensuring security.
$70 million for WoW? Hrm, that is surprising - curious what accounts for the extra costs as I don't recall WoW having a protracted development cycle in terms of an HL2 type scenario. I wonder if they are adding in costs for the huge infrastructure that the popularity added in to that figure - running a MMO for a couple hundred thousand is one thing but for millions, quite another.
Anyways, certainly the EA.com fiasco is worthy of consideration in terms of being the biggest flop but I think the issue with that is that it would be a bit of an apples/oranges comparison to pit EA.com and its "$300 million" in losses against SWG or VG or whatever. Lots of entities over the years have been brought down by a mainline product going south, but that is a bit of a different issue in terms of discussing which MMO is the biggest flop.
Originally posted by BattleFelon
but an even greater responsibility lies with EA for not doing a better job
As an old time (and current) FPS gamer I can tell you that is ALWAYS the case. EA is like the SoE of the non MMO world. One thing is for certain, despite the argument in this thread I find it absolutely pleasurable to hear how EA took it on the chin regarding this, it couldn't happen to a worse publisher/developer.
Clearly EA is not the biggest MMO Failure company, they pretty much started the MMO industry with UO.
Maybe the thread should have a different title if its what "company" has screwed up more Game launches or whatever?
The term failure is quite vage as well, 100k people paying you 10 bux a month,over a mil a year isnt exactly the "Waterworld" of computer games... and whos to say they can not come up with a marketing strategy to improve the subscription rates.
I wouldnt count out any MMO until its servers are taken down and the game is literally dead. Just my opinion, but I think a lot of companies like EA and even Sony will weather the storms of some bad management decesions because they are in it for the long run. If they were just going to stick with one title or console ect we would all still be playing pong.
Seriously how upset can a MMO gamer be that Sims Online isnt a popular game to masses? It certainly doesnt appeal to me in any form. Might as well be a pet rock MMO with fancy colors.
Ea will have mega hits and flops in the future just like Walmart, and any big Movie company will have good and bad years, its a business. There will always be a MMO equivalent to Waterworld. Good or bad it got made, and some people made a ton of cash.
The problem with The Sims Online is there's nothing really there to do once you build up your character to max and has amassed millions of billions of simoleons and bought all the best things (furnitures) and expand your land to the size of the grand canyon. I guess what keeps the game going is the small community. However most players play mmorpgs with a competitve mindstate, unless they are killing something and collecting loot they aren't considered doing anything (I guess past mmorpg formulas and human nature has induced our minds to become like that) this leaves to boredom and eventually the urge to quit the game.
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?
Not only that but it's all to figure out "how big" a failure this game was, not even IF it was one.
Makes for good reading though
EDIT: I like the part in their 10-Q a few years ago how they say this: Going forward, the success of The Sims Online is critical to the success of EA.com. In hindsight, no matter what they spent initially....ouch!
Originally posted by CaleSentari EDIT: I like the part in their 10-Q a few years ago how they say this: Going forward, the success of The Sims Online is critical to the success of EA.com. In hindsight, no matter what they spent initially....ouch!
Yeah, I saw that one too, it's a good one, but did not get around to referencing it yet. I still find this quote from EA regarding The Sims Online to be the most striking though:
“Our Revenues Have Been Heavily Dependent on a Single Product and Would Be Adversely Affected if That Product's Popularity Were to Decline; Our Future Success Depends on the Success of The Sims Online”
It's clear EA was betting big on The Sims Online, speculating it would blossum into their online division, EA.com, expecting millions of sales and subscribers. When The Sims Online failed, EA rolled the EA.com company back into EA corporate and absorbed the losses. In one of the financials I noticed a mention of an accounting change of $67 million, probably for "other" costs associated with The Sims Online and EA.com after it failed, I'll have to take another look to see exactly what it was.
And, this is fun to look at, here is one of the actual "amazing" The Sims Online powerpoint presentations that was likely used to sell the EA suits, sitting around a large board-room executive table, into investing hundreds of millions into The Sims Online. While you are looking at it, pretend you are one of them. Would you have been sold? Or would you have recommended an Ultima Online 2?:
The original post has been updated, if you find anything in error, please point it out and provide references and it will be corrected.
A common misunderstanding among people involved has been the difference between the cost of developing The Sims Online game itself, an estimated $20-30 million, and the total investment of $300 million that EA made in bringing the game to market. EA created an entirely separate entity with it's own stock named EA.com in order to showcase and support their self-described "flagship," The Sims Online. EA also stated in financial reports that The Sims Online was critical to their success, and that their success depended upon The Sims Online alone. Just as EA had stated, when The Sims Online failed, EA.com failed and was rolled back into EA Inc. It costs much more to set up and run a separate online division, than the development costs of any game. Unfortunately, EA did so with the expectations that The Sims Online alone would make EA.com a success and lost everything invested when The Sims Online failed.
Therefore, please do not not make any more posts ignorantly arguing that The Sims Online did not cost $300 million to develop; nowhere has this been claimed. What has been quoted in references is that EA invested a total of $300 million into The Sims Online, that includes the EA.com company, which was created to support it, and all the losses along the way until it was shut down.
Comments
You are wrong, Firedart. If you provide me with a reliable source that contradicts the sources I have used, such as an EA press release, financial report, or even another article from an equally reputable source as CBS News and Fortune, I will definitely consider it and correct any errors; in a world of few guarantees, I promise.
So far, none have been provided.
I find it entertaining how anonymous users of a gaming forum, like AgtSmith and ianubisi, believe their mere opinions and speculations are more important and valid than anything else, even published reports from world renowned news organizations.
As far as the quote goes, you are also wrong, Firedart. By adding anything to the sentence you are changing the meaning (see the many numerous posts previous to your incorrect interpretation).
"A big, troll." This literally means that the troll IS big.
"Despite a $300 million investment, "The Sims Online"..." This literally means, despite a $300 million investment IN The Sims Online.
I recall back during the Hurricane Katrina news media feeding frenzy a reporter for one of the mourning shows (Good Morning America or Today show type thing) was doing a report from a canoe talking about how terrible things where. As he was live on the air, reporting from his canoe floating through the flooded area you could see in the near background someone walking across the camera shot and the water only came up to his ankles (or thereabouts). It was a blatant example of how inaccurate and outright false media coverage can be. While I doubt any such nefarious actions in the case of the figures talked about here it is EASY to see some staff reporter who knows NOTHING about the game industry reading some press release and either mistakenly reporting the figures or just taking them out of context unintentionally. Anyone with half a brain can see that there is no way in hell EA spent $300 million developing a single game title - yet because it is put in some article somewhere and quoted again elsewhere (probably from that original article) idiots who cannot think for themselves take it as fact. Then they are stupid enough to suggest that short of another article stating that the first is false it has to be true. What a sad demonstration of human stupidity.
--------------------------------
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
You are wrong, AgtSmith, I don't think that just because something appears in a news article it must be true.
However, as I stated before, your anonymous opinion means very little against a report published by professional journalists at CBS News, Fortune magazine and the Associated Press.
If you provide me with a reliable source that contradicts the sources I have used, such as an EA press release, financial report, or even another article from an equally reputable source as CBS News and Fortune, I will consider it and correct any errors.
Otherwise, why are you still wasting your time trying to prove the worth of your opinions to me?
FYI, read the full paragraph from the article and try to apply logic to what it says. "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. " According to this, EA spent $300 million in hopes of selling the game to 1 million subscribers, lets add that up as it proves that the quote must be in error. $50 x 1,000,000 sold = $50,000,000 in revenue and that is what you get from what the article says was the companies goal. So to believe this is totally accurate we have to believe that EA spent $300 million in hopes of making $50 million. Subscriptions you say? OK, to break even and make up the other $250,000,000 at a subscriber population of 1,000,000 at $15 per month it would take 16+ years just to BREAK even, not counting the costs of running servers and all the other associated expenses and such those 16 years. Still want to argue that it must be true or are you at least mildly intelligent enough to realize that the quote is improperly stating the actual investment in the game? Or perhaps EA, a very successful game company, go to the point where they had spent $200 million dollars and all the accountants and number crunchers where pointing out that it would be impossible to make any money and they just decided what the hell - lets spend another $100 million anyways. Is it really so hard to believe that a reporter somewhere totally clueless about the games industry read some press release somewhere or some annual report and misstated the figure?
An again, just for the record and to try to help you seem less clueless, AP published the original report - CBS picked it up. It is ONE report not two. Just like when FOX runs a report from one of its affiliates, they do not separately investigate and interview and produce a new report they just air the tape from the affiliate. In fact, there is a practice whereby media outlets buy pre-produced news reports (in print and TV) for republication. Recently there was a huge scandal on the TV side of this as there was a company that pre-packaged such reports and sent them to all sorts of media outlets and they got stuck into local and national news broadcasts as is for years. Eventually it came out that the company sending out the pre-packaged reports as if they where a news organization was just a front for a paid actor and a group that produced plant stories to get a particular message out. As for print media, it is common practice for the "facts" of one article to be used as source material in another - so Joe's Monthly will often write its own piece on a subject with NO research or interviewing of the principals by just quoting previously published materials "facts" and quotes. And sometimes, reporters just make up stories as happened recently (more than once actually) with reporters at the NY Times who admitted totally making up various stories. Heck, anyone can send a press release and often groups or individuals make up press releases and send them to news organizations desperate to fill pages and they make it into print with NO checks on their authenticity. Speaking of CBS - recall teh forged documents that got Rather fired a couple years back? How about the Dateline NBC piece where they rigged a truck to explode on impact and then aired it without saying it was rigged? How about just human nature and making a mistake?
Now the above are some extreme examples but they happen all the time. Media is extremely reliable and should always be taken with a grain of salt and one's own common sense, logic, and experience should always be brought to bear on any media material. I suspect that what happened here is that EA probably sent out some press release somewhere that had this huge number in it, probably talking about something surrounding the game's development but not exclusively about the game's development as an individual product - big number grab attention and grabbing attention in a press release is how you get a puff peace or two and free publicity. One staff reporter somewhere took the quote either misreading how it was put out or perhaps just not realizing it was a inflated to grab attention ad ran with it. He didn't do some Gerald Rivera undercover report to expose the true cost of the making of this game, he did what 99% of other reporters do and regurgitated what he saw somewhere (either accurately or inaccurately). Once the figure made it into print it became part of the Nexis database and other search authorities like Google and it became a "fact". the type of fact nobody would ever question in the circles of newsrooms as they are not keen enough on the realities of the industry to question it and actually investigate the truth of the face. So it gets used again and again as if it is true have NEVER been actually put to any test of accuracy or truthfulness.
--------------------------------
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
www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2003/05/58749
As a single-player game, The Sims was ground-breaking. As a "MMO" it's an animated chat room. No way I'd pay $15 a month (or $10 a month) for an animated chat room I'd have to add TS or Vent to to get speech anyway. The concept just was wrong from the start.
EA HAD an MMO that was attracting a large audience. And they canned it after about a year. It's still remembered fondly by those who played it. But EA didn't have the resources and/or the game didn't have the design to support the numbers of players who wound up loving it. I am referring, of course, to the much-loved EnB. Even with those interminable zoning times when the game had caught on at its height, we still played. If they'd sunk a quarter of the cash into it that they wasted on The Sims Online, they'd STILL be making big money. Alas, my 3 favorite MMOs have all succumbed to corporate nonsense. EnB, SWG and Horizons. And I'm still searching for replacements.
-- Xix
"I know what you're thinking: 'Why, oh WHY, didn't I take the BLUE pill?'"
Where to find reliable sources? Research, that's what I did. $300 million does not dissapear easily. You are likely used to lazily posting whatever you want on forums and expecting people to believe it, but that's not going to fly with me.
As far as your speculation on the numbers, EA was banking on the The Sims Online because The Sims had sold 25 million units1, and is the #1 best selling game of all time. It's not that EA expected to only have only 1 million subscribers period, their goal was to have one million just in the first year (see initial references). EA expected The Sims Online to go live in the 3rd quarter of 2002 and have 400,000 subscriptions by the end of the year, less than six months!2
Now, if you want a better speculation on the numbers, then you need to consider not only an ongoing million units sold per year, but the revenue for a million subscibers per year going forward and growing. That is why EA invested so much, they did not invest to not make money. And today, we even have a solid example, World of Warcraft. Do you not understand that even if Blizzard had spent $300 million on WoW they would have recovered that in the first year alone?
And, here is what Electronic Arts themselves stated of The Sims Online in their own quarterly report, showing how important they felt it was:
“Our Revenues Have Been Heavily Dependent on a Single Product and Would Be Adversely Affected if That Product's Popularity Were to Decline; Our Future Success Depends on the Success of The Sims Online”3
Does the above give you the impression that the The Sims Online would be anything less than a $300 million investment in a $3,000 million per year company?
1 Electronic Arts 2003 Annual Report, Chairman's Letter, p. 11
2 Electronic Arts Posts Record Annual Sales, C|net News, May 9, 2002
3 Electronic Arts Inc Form 10-Q, Feb 11, 2003, p. 57
This is the same old tired information discussed pages ago, except at least someone has finally learned how to link a reference, good job on linking, but poor job on reading the thread and comprehending it. Thank you for the link anyway, I am going to use it in the original post.
The Sims Online was the flagship of the online division EA.com1 and was the main purpose of the investment and creation of the online division; that is even referenced in the the original post, "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."
Guess you missed that, and I guess you also don't realize that the game development costs alone, which I have seen reported from various sources as anywhere from $20 to $30 million are not the only costs involved. Nothing surprising here, read the rest of the thread and you will see that your ignorance is shared.
1 Electronic Arts Annual Report 2003, p. 28
FYI - $3,000 million is known to intelligent people as $3 billion dollars.
--------------------------------
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
Who is claiming that it cost $300 million to make The Sims Online? Please quote it. It was not me.
Back a couple pages:
Now: You can try now to cover your blatant stupidity by spiting semantic hairs all you want, but only one side has been accurate and consistent. I stated many pages ago that it probably cost what most large titles do upwards of $30 million and I also suggested (as did others) that the quote was probably referring to a division investment and not the game specifically. Why don't you just be a man and admit you where wrong and move on, at least you won't look like more of an ass than you already do.
--------------------------------
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
From the very beginning your failure, AgtSmith, and that of several others, namely ianubisi, is that you don't seem to understand the difference between the cost of making the game itself and the total investment in bringing the game to market.
And, maybe it's because you don't even understand what the quote says. The quote you have been ignoring since first posting in the thread, states that $300 million was invested into The Sims Online. All sources I have seen estimate that the production of The Sims Online game itself only cost an estimated $20 to $30 million, but that EA did not release the exact amount. However, as you should know by now, the production of the game itself was not even the main cost. The main cost was likely the EA.com company and infrastructure that EA invested in to support their "flagship" online game The Sims Online, because once The Sims Online failed, EA.com failed. EA states this themselves in their SEC filed Quarterly report referenced below:
“Our Revenues Have Been Heavily Dependent on a Single Product and Would Be Adversely Affected if That Product's Popularity Were to Decline; Our Future Success Depends on the Success of The Sims Online”1
Let's keep it real simple? How do you lose $300 million? - Answer, you have to invest $300 million.
1 Electronic Arts Inc Form 10-Q, Feb 11, 2003, p. 57
Face it man, you are wrong - just move on.
--------------------------------
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
Never, not once did I state anywhere that it cost $300 million to produce The Sims Online game itself. I challenge you to quote me on that, good luck.
It's all your problem, AgtSmith, your failure in comprehending the initial post and quoted reference given:
"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."
Where are you reading in that quote that it cost $300 million to produce The Sims Online?
It clearly states that $300 million was invested in The Sims Online. That not only involves the cost to produce the game, estimated at $20 to $30 million, which is what you are caught up on, but also a multitude of other costs such as hardware, marketing, support, manufacturing, EA.com, and numerous other costs related to the infrastructure of running the game and building the online division to support it.
P.S. That's a nice "owned" image right in the middle of your post; it's very fitting for you and your involvement in this discussion. I could not have placed it better myself.
Oh look whos at it again, arguing as always and still going even once proven wrong by a number of people.
I love semps posts so much =D.
On topic, yes EA are crap, no i dont belive that $300 mill was used on the sims online. EA do have a terrible track record and thats it.
Garrik
________________________________
"once upon a midnight dreary, while i porn surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of 'hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, "give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404."
--------------------------------
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
That $300 million figure is just total BS. The most expensive mmo in history was WOW, and that was $70 million. Next was Vanguard at $30,000,000.
I'm not going to get in a whole argument about who is the most cunning linguist in this thread, but just to put things in perspective the new Spider Man 3 supposedly cost between $250-300 million, making it one of the most expensive movies ever made. Last time I checked Sims Online didn't have A-list actors performing voiceovers or awe-inspiring CGI to run up the cost. I did a quick search to find out how much WOW cost to develop, and the common agreed number in news stories is around $60-70 million. Once again, I cannot see how Sims cost almost 5 times more to develop than WOW.
But getting back to why Sims Online failed, people keep mentioning the bad game mechanics but from what I've heard bad community also played a major role. From the online accounts I've read, the game's social networking mechanic was completely broken - it allowed mega-guilds to completely lock out new players who weren't willing to pay extortion or in turn become a guild member.
From Wired July 2004
The game's raison d'etre is socializing; barely a half year old, it's the biggest game yet whose rewards come from making friends and being popular.
One mob tactic is gathering the foot-soldiers to stigmatize someone else with several so-called "red links" -- a sort of demerit that shows others how many enemies a player has.
For gamers who have spent hours building a reputation, red links can be devastating. The platform may be virtual, but the attack isn't.
The article goes on to discuss how easy it was for certain players to hack accounts and cause all kind of havoc.
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2003/07/59539
Yes, some of this problem lies with the game's mechanics, but an even greater responsibility lies with EA for not doing a better job in policing griefers and ensuring security.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Anyways, certainly the EA.com fiasco is worthy of consideration in terms of being the biggest flop but I think the issue with that is that it would be a bit of an apples/oranges comparison to pit EA.com and its "$300 million" in losses against SWG or VG or whatever. Lots of entities over the years have been brought down by a mainline product going south, but that is a bit of a different issue in terms of discussing which MMO is the biggest flop.
As an old time (and current) FPS gamer I can tell you that is ALWAYS the case. EA is like the SoE of the non MMO world. One thing is for certain, despite the argument in this thread I find it absolutely pleasurable to hear how EA took it on the chin regarding this, it couldn't happen to a worse publisher/developer.
--------------------------------
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
Clearly EA is not the biggest MMO Failure company, they pretty much started the MMO industry with UO.
Maybe the thread should have a different title if its what "company" has screwed up more Game launches or whatever?
The term failure is quite vage as well, 100k people paying you 10 bux a month,over a mil a year isnt exactly the "Waterworld" of computer games... and whos to say they can not come up with a marketing strategy to improve the subscription rates.
I wouldnt count out any MMO until its servers are taken down and the game is literally dead. Just my opinion, but I think a lot of companies like EA and even Sony will weather the storms of some bad management decesions because they are in it for the long run. If they were just going to stick with one title or console ect we would all still be playing pong.
Seriously how upset can a MMO gamer be that Sims Online isnt a popular game to masses? It certainly doesnt appeal to me in any form. Might as well be a pet rock MMO with fancy colors.
Ea will have mega hits and flops in the future just like Walmart, and any big Movie company will have good and bad years, its a business. There will always be a MMO equivalent to Waterworld. Good or bad it got made, and some people made a ton of cash.
Rinse and repeat.
If I killed it, it must taste like chicken.
Not only that but it's all to figure out "how big" a failure this game was, not even IF it was one.
Makes for good reading though
EDIT: I like the part in their 10-Q a few years ago how they say this: Going forward, the success of The Sims Online is critical to the success of EA.com. In hindsight, no matter what they spent initially....ouch!
Yeah, I saw that one too, it's a good one, but did not get around to referencing it yet. I still find this quote from EA regarding The Sims Online to be the most striking though:
“Our Revenues Have Been Heavily Dependent on a Single Product and Would Be Adversely Affected if That Product's Popularity Were to Decline; Our Future Success Depends on the Success of The Sims Online”
- Electronic Arts Inc Form 10-Q, Feb 11, 2003, p. 57
It's clear EA was betting big on The Sims Online, speculating it would blossum into their online division, EA.com, expecting millions of sales and subscribers. When The Sims Online failed, EA rolled the EA.com company back into EA corporate and absorbed the losses. In one of the financials I noticed a mention of an accounting change of $67 million, probably for "other" costs associated with The Sims Online and EA.com after it failed, I'll have to take another look to see exactly what it was.
And, this is fun to look at, here is one of the actual "amazing" The Sims Online powerpoint presentations that was likely used to sell the EA suits, sitting around a large board-room executive table, into investing hundreds of millions into The Sims Online. While you are looking at it, pretend you are one of them. Would you have been sold? Or would you have recommended an Ultima Online 2?:
Designing for the Internet Gamer, by Bing Gordon, Electronic Arts
Created 3/08/2001, 11:42:53, John Riccitiello
Modified 3/30/2001, 20:15:58, Bing Gordon
For those that missed it in the OP, John Riccitiello was the Chief Operating Officer.
Definately worth look.
If you don't have Powerpoint (and other MS bloatware) download http://www.openoffice.org/ .
OpenOffice is an open source Microsoft Office compatible suite that is free. You can then use it to view the presentation.
Enjoy!
The original post has been updated, if you find anything in error, please point it out and provide references and it will be corrected.
A common misunderstanding among people involved has been the difference between the cost of developing The Sims Online game itself, an estimated $20-30 million, and the total investment of $300 million that EA made in bringing the game to market. EA created an entirely separate entity with it's own stock named EA.com in order to showcase and support their self-described "flagship," The Sims Online. EA also stated in financial reports that The Sims Online was critical to their success, and that their success depended upon The Sims Online alone. Just as EA had stated, when The Sims Online failed, EA.com failed and was rolled back into EA Inc. It costs much more to set up and run a separate online division, than the development costs of any game. Unfortunately, EA did so with the expectations that The Sims Online alone would make EA.com a success and lost everything invested when The Sims Online failed.
Therefore, please do not not make any more posts ignorantly arguing that The Sims Online did not cost $300 million to develop; nowhere has this been claimed. What has been quoted in references is that EA invested a total of $300 million into The Sims Online, that includes the EA.com company, which was created to support it, and all the losses along the way until it was shut down.
Thank you!