Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sim-Dud?

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the simulated-profits dept.

Games 355

Lumpish Scholar writes ""The Sims Online" was one of the most anticipated releases of 2002; but (according to this Los Angeles Times story in the Baltimore Sun, "'The Sims Online' sold 105,000 copies, or only about a quarter of the initial shipment in December," and (as quoted in this article in the New York Times), "the company's president, John S. Riccitiello, said the number of subscribers was half what Electronic Arts expected." (Check out Google News for more articles, and a registration-free partner link to the New York Times story.) Meanwhile, the game's customer reviews at Amazon.com have an average rating of only two (out of five) stars."

cancel ×

355 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Shoes sim (-1)

Want Some Shoes (640625) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232434)

I'm still waiting for Maxis' Shoes simulator!

Re:Shoes sim (-1)

handybundler (232934) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232690)

Thursday January 03, @05:58PM

[ Add Friend [slashdot.org] | #3362 [slashdot.org] ]

TACO-SNOTTING IS DYING [slashdot.org] By J. Wipo Troll, Esq. [slashdot.org] , $Revision: 1.1 $

Netcraft has confirmed: Taco-snotting is dying.

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Taco-snotting community when recently IDC confirmed that Taco-snotting accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all homosexual acts. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Taco- snotting has lost more fag practitioners, this news serves to reinforce what weve known all along. Taco-snotting faggots are collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Faggot World comprehensive snotting test.

You dont need to be a Katz to predict Taco-snottings future. The handwriting is on the wall: Taco-snotting faces a bleak future. In fact there wont be any future at all for Taco-snotting because Taco-snotting is dying. Things are looking very bad for Taco-snotting. As many of us are already aware, Taco-snotting continues to lose faggotshare. White ink flows like a river of bubbly, thick jizz. The circle-snot is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core snotters.

Lets keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Circle-snotting leader Jeff Homos Masterbates states that there are 7000 snotters of the circle-snot. How many users of anal snot are there? Lets see. The number of circle-snotting versus anal snot posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 anal snot users. SnotOS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of anal snot posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SnotOS. A recent article put the circle-snot at about 80 percent of the Taco-snotting market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 circle-snot users. This is consistent with the number of circle-snot Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of CowboiKneels walnuts, abysmal sales and so on, the circle-snot went out of business and was taken over by SNOTi who sell another troubled Taco-snot. Now SNOTi is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another gay whorehouse.

All major surveys show that Taco-snotting has steadily declined in faggotshare. Taco-snotting is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Taco-snotting is to survive at all it will be among heterosexual hobbyist dabblers. Taco-snotting continues to decay. Nothing short of a jizz-soaked miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Taco-snotting is dead.

Fact: Taco-snotting is dead.

________________________________________

  • The URL of this document is <http://slashdot.org/journal.pl? op=display &uid=267426 &id=3362> [slashdot.org]

    $Id: snotting-is-dying.html,v 1.1 2002/01/04 00:58:23 wipo Exp $

    Copyright 2001 J. Wipo Troll, Esq. [slashdot.org] Verbatim crapflooding of this document is permitted in any medium, provided this copyright notice is preserved, and next time you take a dump, you think of the WIPO Troll and all hes done to make Slashdot a better place.

dead before it was online (3, Interesting)

NetMagi (547135) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232446)

was I the ONLY one who never played the darn thing in the first place?

Re:dead before it was online (1, Funny)

anon*127.0.0.1 (637224) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232461)

You probably had a real life. No need for a simulated one, then.

Re:dead before it was online (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232477)

was I the ONLY one who never played the darn thing in the first place?

Judging from the sales figures - yes.

Re:dead before it was online (1)

NetMagi (547135) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232492)

ohhm sorry then. . those responsible for not "marketing" me into playing it: "have been sacked"

Obligatory Monty Python.... (2, Funny)

The Notorious ASP (628859) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232605)

The directors of the firm hired to continue the marketing after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked. The marketing has now been completed in an entirely different style at great expense and at the last minute.

Re:Obligatory Monty Python.... (1, Funny)

NetMagi (547135) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232637)

AUP's and "End User Agreements" scroll slowly across the screen . . . .

Re:dead before it was online (2, Funny)

Coward the Anonymous (584745) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232486)

was I the ONLY one who never played the darn thing in the first place?

Apparently it's just you and me.

Re:dead before it was online (1)

sweetooth (21075) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232521)

I didn't play it either. I did watch a friend play it for about two minutes before I fell asleep and that was more than enough for me.

Re:dead before it was online (1)

DesiDudette (647655) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232530)

Not really!! I didn't either...

Re:dead before it was online (1)

Martok7 (634005) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232537)

I never played the game and never intend to.

Re:dead before it was online (1)

raile (610069) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232543)

Nope, never played it; the concept holds no appeal to me.

Although, I played a fair amount of Sim City back in the day. I always wondered how a city planner would do at that game (or <<insert name of your diety here>> would do at Sim Earth, for that matter...)

Re:dead before it was online (1, Funny)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232549)

You are not the only one, I never saw the point in playing it. Now mix Diablo and The Sims, then you might get me to play it.

Re:dead before it was online (2)

Triv (181010) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232691)

You are not the only one, I never saw the point in playing it. Now mix Diablo and The Sims, then you might get me to play it.

I realise you were kidding, but I'd love something like that.

Diablo gets really boring after a while - I'd love the backplot and associated stat modifiers etc. of your assassin having a family life (an odd one, but still.) Although decorating your tent in the rogue encampment would be a little much...

Triv

Boring as hell (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232561)

I played the Sims briefly when it first came out, but it was probably the most boring 'game' I've ever played; uninstalled it after a few days and wished I hadn't wasted my money...

Nope. (0)

numbski (515011) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232603)

For some reason it never really appealed to me. I've watched others play, and perhaps that's the crux. It's one of those things you can't just watch, and have to play for yourself.

*shrugs*

Dunno, but it never made it onto my radar screen.

Re:dead before it was online (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232720)

I tried it when it came out and never saw the point. I mean you simulate a guy making toast, taking a leak, and all the other boring minutae of our everyday lives.

They dont go on crazy adventures, fight dinosaurs with shoulder launch missles, get in swordfights, nothing. None of the escapism of gaming here. It just reminded me how boring and pathetic day-to-day life can be.

Re:dead before it was online (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232737)

What I want to know is what all the "Iraq has no chemical weapons" slashdot idiots are thinking right now. Tres@europe.com? Care to pipe in? You made a particular fool of yourself defending Iraq a while back.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232449)

FRISST POST!!!!!!!!!1111

not even close . . . (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232454)

to getting first post.

Must be somewhat successful.. (1)

bmalia (583394) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232456)

Because my wife plays the darn thing non-stop!

Re:Must be somewhat successful.. (2, Funny)

The AtomicPunk (450829) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232638)

You must be one seriously boring dude. :)

Pay per use game? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232459)

Perhaps the business model of 'pay per use' really isnt that popluar..

"join our gaming network. .bla bla bla" no thanks..

Re:Pay per use game? (1)

program21 (469995) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232552)

This is more like...Spend $50 to buy the game, and then $x per month to be able to play it.

Re:Pay per use game? (1)

KludgeGrrl (630396) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232569)

As an addict of SimCity I have to say, if I wanted to interact with other people I would hardly be sitting for days in a dark room in front of my computer now, would I?

I think part of the appeal of simulations is that they bestow the user with a -- what would you call it..?

I know! A *simulated* reality.

(It's not like those shoot-em up games, where some people like the idea that there really is another carbon-based life form at the other end of the gun...)

So let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232586)

I have to pay $10 a month to play a simulation about real life? Is that pathetic or what?

Re:Pay per use game? (2, Insightful)

neverkevin (601884) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232679)

It is not the business model, it is that the game just sucks. MMORPGs like everquest and doac are making a killing using the same business model because their games are mildly interesting.

Re:Pay per use game? (4, Insightful)

dead sun (104217) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232683)

This is why I will never buy a game like The Sims Online, Ultima Online, Everquest, whatever. I refuse to pay a fee monthly to ensure that I'm able to play a game that I already shelled out for, for a couple reasons.

First, I don't have hours and hours to play games in the first place. I've got homework to do, college to pay for, and then afterwards a little time to unwind. Even at say $10 a month for a single online subscription game I might play at most a few hours of it a month. That's about all the more I get to play most games now. The hourly cost isn't that high, but the total cost over a year is obscene, $170 including purchase cost for maybe 36 hours of gameplay. Sorry.

Second, I can find an abundance of quality entertainment, online multiplayer even, other places for free, or included in the purchase cost of the game. Battle.Net seems to be working out alright, though I'm not a huge fan of playing with some of the jerks on there. I'd rather set up a LAN and play that way, or prearrange an Battle.Net room. Otherwise there are tons of MUDs and other free games out there as well. Those have kept me entertained for longer periods of time than some games I've purchased.

Maybe when I'm making more money than I currently am trapped in college I'll feel differently. Right now, however, I don't even toss subscription games a second look. For some reason I don't think I'm going to change my mind lightly either.

Well no shit (1, Interesting)

Macaw2000 (103146) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232462)

The demographic who play games like "ths sims" are not the same people who play MMORPGs.

People who played The Sims also play "Deer Hunter" and "Solitare" and whatever else came installed on their computers. I doubt there's much crossover to the Warcraft 3 and Everquest community.

Re:Well no shit (2, Funny)

First_In_Hell (549585) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232591)

"Deer Hunter" comes pre-installed on computers? God help us all.

Would have to agree.. -More- (4, Insightful)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232696)

My girlfriend and two of my other friends are hopelessly addicted to the Sims games. They have bought every expansion pack there is, downloaded every little add-on, talk about it non-stop. one of them would even go near the beta I offered to download for them. (I was trying it out for kicks)

Why?

Because they knew they would have to pay per month for it. Everytime I talk abotu EverQuest, they go off saying i'm an idiot for paying for a game I already payed for. They however, don't know what goes into making a MASSIVE online game and the monthly costs the developers and publishers have to keep paying to keep the servers and bandwidth alive. They could care less, they would just play it if it was free and that is it.

I have concluded that the type of people who play the Sim games, or Myst, or other simple yet addicting games are just the wrong type of people who will simply NOT pay to play these online games. MMORPGs like EverQuest, DAOC, etc have a very technical and geeky and hardcore following who will stop at nothing to slay dragons all day long. To them 10 bux is NOTHING to be a hero with a bunch of other people. Simtype people could care less, they will play a game between watching TV shows, where EQ junkies will just not ever watch TV ever again. They might even be embarrased to be seen online, where the RPG people who dress up in costumes for fan faires feel they are having a blast living their lives.

I expect to see Star Wars Galaxies to be a mixed bag. I think it will be popular because those some AD&D RPG junkies will dig into it, and that alone will be enough to support it, but on the other hand, I think overall the typical "Yah, star wars rox" people who don get into RPGs will stay very far away from it. (Also have 2 die hard Star Wars fans who refuse to even try SWG when it ships, they love online games, but again, they dont get into techincal RPG details, and most importantly, THEY REFUSE TO PAY FOR A GAME MORE THAN THE INITIAL COST.) Sales will probably be about half of what they exepect with that as well, but it will STILL be a success with the geek clubs subscribing.

Sim the sim (5, Funny)

anicklin (244316) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232464)

Maybe they should have simulated the release of the game in The Sims to see what the outcome would have been. :-)

That's because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232467)

Sims online sucks.

This explains better than I can:

Flaming Telepath Blog [blogspot.com] .

Err... (4, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232478)

Maybe it's because no one wants to pay what you'd expect to pay for a full-fledged RPG when all you get is IRC and a set of meaningless stats that don't actually effect gameplay?
They should be trying to get sales, not subscriptions. If it were like Battle.net, people would be stepping over eachother to get a copy. Pay for Chat? Not bloody likely. Remember Alpha World?

Ahhh Alpha World (4, Interesting)

Christopher Bibbs (14) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232717)

Execellent point. Alpha world blew because you had to walk around to find someone to chat with (more work than IRC) and there wasn't any interesting or useful interaction with the world around you. Sims Online seems to be just a better implementation of the same sucky idea.

And yes, I'm bitter that no one ever enjoyed the house I had built out of rectangular blue blocks.

Surprising. (1)

handsomepete (561396) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232479)

I don't think I could bring myself to pay 5 bucks a month to use a chat room.

Re:Surprising. (0)

santajon (22325) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232566)

$5?? It's a bit more than that, try $9.97

Re:Surprising.-Type dirty to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232713)

" I don't think I could bring myself to pay 5 bucks a month to use a chat room."

Why not? People pay $1.25 the first minute, and $2.50/min after, to talk dirty to each other,on the phone.

Re:Surprising. (4, Interesting)

dasmegabyte (267018) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232746)

I dunno. A lot of people pay $23 per month just to use AOL's chat rooms, and $5-$15 fees for online dating services. If Sims Online gets big enough for a lot of people to forge relationships, they will maintain a subsistance subscription level. The "boring" skill system would be less boring if you're chatting while doing it (think online spelling bee). And it might entice people to get an alternate internet provider...$10 for juno and then $10 for Sims Online is still less than $23 for AOL. EA should forge a relationship with one of the sub-$20 providers and offer a "sims internet service," the Sims being a more successful franchise than even AOL last year.

It seems like Sims Online's biggest mistake isn't the online engine so much as the speed. You can build a sim up really quickly in the original game, getting a two or more promotions in an hour and plenty of dough. If I had to take a few days to do the same...well, I wouldn't.

As a friend once remarked (4, Funny)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232485)

When I told him about "The Sims":

"Great, a simulated life for people with no real life."

Kinda summed it all up right then and there.

Re:As a friend once remarked (5, Funny)

efatapo (567889) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232598)

When I told him about "The Sims":
"Great, a simulated life for people with no real life."


Kind of like an animated form of the slashdot community...

This is a typical example... (1)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232488)

... of a rush job capitalizing on customer loyalty from a previous product.

hmm (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232491)

I am suprised. It seems fanatsy, mutliplayer action, as well as regular IM chat is quite hot. I myself love the pc over the game console because I can interact with real people. If I worked at Maxis I would probably have pushed this sort of game because thats what the demand is in the market.

I guess people want a fantasy to interact in like Everquest or Ultima online. Not something modeled after the real world. Or the people who are addicted to irc and IM chat are probably not game players and would not buy this. The web has tons of chat rooms and communities that are free. No need for sims.

Re:hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232581)

Perhaps they should add a Guns'n'Booze store to the game?

Vote To Impeach The Dud-In-Command: +1, Patriotic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232493)

Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States, has filed
articles of impeachment for Ashcroft, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

The articles will be delivered to the U.S. Senate and the Judicial Committee.

For more information, go to Impeach Bush et al. [votetoimpeach.org]

Thank you and have a nice day,
W00t

Broadband overestimation (4, Insightful)

cenonce (597067) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232499)

I think EA (and Microsoft) probably overestimated the number of broadband users.

At 40 bucks a month (at a minimum), Broadband ain't cheap. And though Sims Online is quite fun, it would suck without a highspeed connection. And anyway, The Sims is pretty fun on its own... without dealing with virtual SimTrolls.

-Anthony

Ask Dr. Fuck (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232507)

Hi, I'm The_Fire_Horse - you might remember me from such postings as "Fuck the world" and "Here comes another wanker".

My program today discusses the ancient art of having a wank on a public transport vehicle (bus, train, boat - it doesnt matter)

You will need :

  • a large newspaper
  • at least 2 magazines
  • a dick
  1. When you board the bus/train/boat; sit right across from a really hot chick with a short skirt and no bra - leer at her for a while. Ask her to show you her tits - women like it when men take the initiative to say this
  2. Take out a newspaper and a couple of magazines and place the magazines open on either sides of you - try and make them 'trade' type mags and not Playboy or Penthouse.
  3. Ok, now your sides are now covered - now get the newspaper and open it wide to the middle and place the bottom between your knees and lap - you should now be completely 'invisible'.
  4. Unzip your fly and start wanking furiously to the image of the short skirted chick in front of you while yelling "DO IT BABY - DO IT NNNOOOOOWWWW !!!!!!". Dont worry, she and the other passengers cant hear you because you're surrounded by the 'newspapers of invisibility'.
  5. Explain to the police that you got your advice from some dickhead on slashdot and they will understand, and just let you go.
    Just remember to give them the secret handshake - which is of course, a hand full of the results of your wank.
    They will have a really good laugh about it and you will be the best of friends.

This has been a community service announcement to the fellow horny students of the world.
Bad news... it didn't work. But I decided to use my "one phone call" by going to the station-computer to post here at /. and let you know I'm in jail now. Thanks a lot, asshole!
Sorry to say this... but the only possible explanation is.. THE POLICE WHO ARRESTED YOU ARE ALIENS FROM MARS!!

Now dont be alarmed, its happened before. The fact that this highly instructive and foolproof method failed you and got you arrested, can only mean that they are not human police.

There is a way though! - Here is what you need to do...

Ring your local MP and say :

I was wanking on a bus and I got arrested, but I was using a foolproof method, so that proves that the police who arrested me are Aliens from Mars.
You can now relax, because the special "Anti Alien Task Force which stop honest citizens wanking on buses" will save you.

Case closed!

In Soviet SBC (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232512)

The Internet logs onto you!

NYT quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232518)

"What I ended up doing, before giving up and playing my offline Sims games, was leaving the game running while I went off to do other things around the house," the reviewer wrote. "This game has all the fun of watching your screen saver over and over again."

But what if you have a REALLY cool screensaver.

Color me #surprised (1)

theGreater (596196) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232522)

Real life sucks largely due to the negative influence of other people. Without those other people, you could do what you like. WITH them, you can do what you like only so long as it doesn't offend them. That is why TSO sucked. It mirorred reality a little _too_ closely. -theGreater.

Its a better one player game (5, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232523)

When you play "The Sims" you get multiple people you control, and a whole environment you have a decent amount of control over. You garner people, make two seperate people and make them fall in love, introduce a third to start a fight.

When you add the 'multiplayer' experience, you add in two things that are negative to this style of game.
Loss of Control
and Competition

Now this simple game has become Everquest when that isn't the whole point of the game.

Well, no wonder.... (4, Insightful)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232525)

Interact with thousands of real people, doing everyday, real life things.

If I wanted to do that, I would go to work. And then Dinner and a movie.

I'd like to believe it's because ... (1)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232527)

people are actually living their lives. But the continued existence of Evercrack et. al. would seem to support the interviewed individuals who complain that it is currently boring and repetitive. I'm sure they'll work on it and in three to six months it'll be Simscrack.

Re:I'd like to believe it's because ... (2, Interesting)

rudiger (35571) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232672)


nterviewed individuals who complain that it is currently boring and repetitive.

i think that about sums it up. the people who play everquest do so to escape what they perceive as a boring and repetitive life, so of course a simulation of the same will be found equally boring. for those of us who enjoy real life and all that goes with it, the idea of paying for a simulation of something we already enjoy seems incredibly redundant.

so essentially, there is really no market for TSO. those who like their MMORPGs want fantasy, and those who like real life... already have it.

The Sims Online Promotes Communism! (1, Funny)

egg troll (515396) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232528)

This article is taken from this site [blogspot.com] . Perhaps this explains its failure to achieve success in our Capitalist society? :)

Until December Stalin's dream of socialism in one country had only been realized in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Late last year the theory took off, spreading into heretofore undiscovered nations named Alphaville, Calvin's Creek, Interhogan and Mount Fuji.

The Sims are now online. It's not just an irritating commercial.

The Sims, in its offline version, is an amusing little simulation of life in which you get to be the star, meeting new digital people, improving yourself and your job, accumulating wealth and a family, building a home and eventually a small community. If you always wanted to be an astronaut with a movie star wife and two kids, you can here. It was pokemon for adults, elegant and surprisingly fun. It's the best-selling video game of all time.

The online version is superficially similar. It looks the same, it sounds the same, it has neighborhoods, housebuilding, social interaction, and skills to improve. But it also has . . . other people. There's where the problems start.

The Sims is a solipsist's game. It has no multiplayer component and needs none, because the "people" who make up the game are really objects, to be moved around at will and cast in a story the player writes. With thousands of other people, some things (chattting, social interaction moves) have been gained, but more has been lost. With a crowd comes a need for the game's creators to control people, and the result is a collectivist's dream. But the Sims Online proves that socialism doesn't work.

Want proof that the Simcity flag is red? Try this: In the Sims Online, your Sim spends her entire life in one city. She is never allowed to leave it. While the promise of building a home is given with one hand, it is taken away with the other. Your Sim starts with a pathetic amount of cash and no ready means of acquiring more. If she builds, her home will be a postage-stamp sized hovel, with insufficient space, poor lighting, no entertainment, bad food, inadequate plumbing, cheap furniture (and not much of it), and little means for the Sim to grow her skills to improve her lot. To have a nice home, she must join a collective. She has to squat on a vacant lot with up to 7 strangers, and only then will the State provide sufficient land on which to build, and enough money pooled to build something worthwhile. If the Sim ever tries to escape this collective, she must leave her investments behind.

You never see a child here. The nuclear family is dead. Online Sims seem to be grown in vats a la Brave New World or The Matrix. They enter the game as fully formed adults. Fully formed in body, but not in mind. Most of these vat-grown Sims are bred to be idiots (perfect proles for the all-powerful state), unable to make adult conversation. My Sim has searched the city for a commons where intelligent discussions can be had, and came up dry in all but two places. But if you want witty banter like "i think U R hot!" or "This place is gay!" or "sucky my meat!" well, you're in luck. In the Sims Online, spelling classes are taught by Prince, and conversational style is dictated by Cartman.

The economy is a basket case. The money, called by the dubious name of simoleans, is worthless. It can't be converted to dollars any hard currency, and there's not much on which it can be spent (a lot of the objects from the original Sims aren't here yet).

There are no real jobs. Where offline Sims could climb the ladder from office boy to mogul of finance, their online cousins are given makework jobs no different from digging and filling holes. To earn their keep they have to carve wooden gnomes, paint portraits of purple zombie women, make telemarketing calls, bake pizza after pizza, solve pointless codes, or bash open pinatas for no apparent reason. Once again, the collective is the model. Sims get more money for carrying out these degrading tasks together. It's not uncommon to see a dozen Sims at identical workstations, filling jar after jar with apple jelly that no one will ever eat. This "cottage industry" model was tried during the Great Leap Forward, when millions of Chinese peasants were ordered to smelt steel in backyard furnaces. The result, as in the Sims Online, was a vast national effort to produce piles of useless scrap.

There is no rule of law, but Sims cannot defend themselves. They are a disarmed populace who cannot own guns. A Sim who builds his "body" skill can bully other Sims mercilessly, performing "piledriver" after "piledriver" on his smarter but scrawnier peers. The victims of these steroid-monsters cannot call on courts or police, as they are unreliable and never respond. The only choice is to run away and be cornered, or to leave the property. It's no wonder there are houses full of Sims working on Nautilus machines in team exercise drills. It took Colonel Colt to make all men equal, but he never heard of Simcity.

Finally, the government endlessly promises that our sacrifices will be rewarded in the future, but it never delivers in the present. The game's creators issue pronouncements that in the future we will have casinos, more land and bigger lots, better clothes, and new ways to enjoy ourselves. But in the here and now, we must continue with mass gnome-carving, collective bodybuilding, and living with strangers in cramped quarters, lest utopia never come.

Wow... big surprise... (1)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232531)

Sheesh, who wants to play a game that simulates real life? Real life is boring enough without having a boring emulation of it...jeez...It's kind of pathetic having virtual parties,,, why not have a real life party and get drunk? OK OK, not my idea of fun, but still....I don't see why anyone would want to play this game, and pay for it....It's like paying for a graphical chat room.

Take it from me... (5, Interesting)

Geekenstein (199041) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232535)

This game is fun for about 10 minutes. With the orignal (offline) Sims, the novelty aspect of the game was great. It was new, it was unseen before.

With The Sims Online, you basically end up with a graphical chat room. The tasks you perform are repetitive and dull. Each involves clicking on something and staring at the screen until that task finishes or your happiness levels go down far enough to finish it for you. Fix that up, rinse and repeat. All in all, the game ends up being a glorified IRC chat room that you pay for.

The only partly redeemed quality is that you can build your own houses and have people come over, but that is severely hampered by a silly limit on the number of objects you can put in your house, so in the end you end up with lots of money you can't spend after doing all those boring tasks.

Finally, the biggest pet peeve I have with Maxis over this one is the fact that instead of fixing the bugs and finding ways to increase the limits and make things more interesting, they take a sack full o' money from McDonald's to advertise their products and waste development time throwing it in.

That being said, all MMORPG's have problems at startup, and hopefully they can get their act together and make it a decent product. As it is now, I'll stick to IRC.

Re:Take it from me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232725)

WRONG, it was done before in 1985.

DO YOURE RESEARCH [retrogames.com]

Re:Take it from me... (1)

captainstupid (247628) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232738)

Finally a reply from someone who has actually played the game and formed an opinion backed up by experience.

There is too much of this "Well, I've never played before, but whoever wants to pay $10 a month to simulate a life online is a loser without friends."

If I had any points, I'd mod you up.

It's Dead... (4, Insightful)

Deathlizard (115856) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232536)

...Because you had to Pay to Play. Especially when McDonalds and Pepsi was Buying Ad's on it.

If they would have made the thing free but then used the sims game design to sell product placements they probably would have been more sucessful and probably could have demanded more money from advertisers because of the huge turnout of players to the game.

BOOM! Told ya so! (1)

TerryAtWork (598364) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232541)

Sooner or later the live-online thing had to max out. Remember, the people who do this can only do one at a time. No one spends 60 hrs a week on UO and ANOTHER 60 hpw on EQ...

Fact is - most of the people who do this are already doing it. The land rush is over. (Excepting Internet growth which is still pretty good, but the land rush is over.)

Karma Whore - Cut and paste (-1, Redundant)

numbski (515011) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232544)

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 2 -- In announcing stellar quarterly earnings last week, Electronic Arts reported knockout performances from virtually all its big-name video games. The notable exception to the hit list was the game that may have the most bearing on the company's future.


Over the holidays, Electronic Arts rolled out the Sims Online, an Internet-based game that the company has invested in heavily and that industry analysts have touted as crucial to the company to sustain its stock performance. But during its earnings call last Wednesday, the company said its subscriber base for the Sims Online is 82,000, a figure the company deemed notably disappointing.


A day later in an interview, the company's president, John S. Riccitiello, said the number of subscribers was half what Electronic Arts expected. And he disclosed that some seasoned video game players were giving very low ratings to the Sims Online, a game in which players buy the software for about $40 and then pay $10 a month to interact over the Internet in a two-dimensional world, chatting and building virtual homes and businesses. It is based on the three-year-old line of Sims games that have sold nine million copies, becoming one of the best-selling games ever.


The slow momentum for the online version appears to be leading to a reassessment -- both by analysts and the company itself -- about the game's prospects. Mr. Riccitiello, who, in fairness, has for months preached caution about how long it would take to build the online business, said he was optimistic over the long run, but he also seemed to raise the possibility the game might flounder.


"We wanted this to grow into a `third arm,' " he said of the Sims Online, referring to Electronic Art's dominance in PC-based games and in console games as its first "two arms." But, he said that if it did not work out for the company, "as a problem, it's only a hangnail."


To even suggest the Sims Online could fail is a far cry from the way it has been heralded -- by industry analysts and video game and mainstream news media. For example, it appeared last year on the cover of Newsweek with the headline: The New World of Internet Games.


Disclosure of the game's early returns came on the same day Electronic Arts announced its exceptional third-quarter results. The company reported that its earnings per share beat analyst estimates by 12 cents, and that it sold more than a million copies of 11 different games, including Madden N.F.L. 2003, Medal of Honor Frontline and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.


"They had a positive perfect storm," said John G. Taylor, a analyst of the video-game industry for Arcadia Investment, asserting the company had an exceptional portfolio of games, good movie licenses, including Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, and strong execution. The biggest challenge, he said, is "What do they do for an encore?"


Mr. Taylor said he believed that the company could overcome the slow start on the Sims Online and that "from an investor standpoint, most people are willing to let E.A. play this thing out."


"If it works, it'll be a massive positive," he said. "If it doesn't, it'll be a neutral."


Jeff Goverman, managing director of Pacific Crest Securities, said the upside still remained strong for the company because subscription-based online games "are a better business" than regular video games because they have "recurring revenue, are less seasonal and have higher margins." But he said that if the business "continues to underperform, it's a drag on earnings."


In its earnings call, Electronic Arts said that for its fiscal year 2003, which ends March 31, it expected to lose $70 million on its ea.com division, which includes the Sims Online.


Warren C. Jenson, the company's chief financial officer, said in the call that the loss was a result of higher than anticipated marketing costs, a slower than expected increase in purchasers and subscribers and other factors. He added, "This financial performance is not acceptable for us and we are committed to aggressively minimizing these losses."


As to what it will take to spur momentum for the Sims Online, Mr. Riccitiello said the company was drawing on research from its current user base. He said in general players are rating the game a "7" on a scale of 1 to 10, with the strongest reviews coming from mainstream players, as opposed to people deeply immersed in the online game culture. But he said that compares to a rating of "mid-8's" that is typically garnered by the offline version of the Sims.


And Mr. Riccitiello said that many of the lowest ratings were coming from the game's beta testers -- typically hard-core game players. Some "are rating it exceedingly low," he said. He did not specify the concerns, but postings on some consumer Web sites give an idea of the criticisms. For instance, on Amazon.com, a consumer named Deana Morss from Casper, Wyo., wrote in a review posted last week that she was "bored to tears" and that there was not much for her character to do in the online world.


"What I ended up doing, before giving up and playing my offline Sims games, was leaving the game running while I went off to do other things around the house," the reviewer wrote. "This game has all the fun of watching your screen saver over and over again."


Mr. Riccitiello said the company was planning in April to address the concerns with several improvements, including upgrading the chat capabilities, introducing casino games, like blackjack, and making it easier for users to trade virtual commodities. The changes "should address what the hard-core gamer needs and massively improve what the mass market needs."


The company is projecting that it will have from 300,000 to 400,000 subscribers by the end of the calendar year.


He said that online gaming would eventually be a huge market, and the Sims Online would be a leader. "We've learned more about the online market and have more technology in place than anyone else." But, he said, "I don't think it's going to pay out for us in the very, very near term."

Expansion (0)

56ksucks (516942) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232558)

Well not only do you have to pay $5 a month or whatever, you also have to have every single expansion pack that has ever been release for the sims before it will work. How many owners of the sims when out and actually bought every expansion pack there is? I'm sure there are many different combinations of expansion packs used. So before you buy the sims online you also have to shell out the cash, or download from KaZaA, ever other expansion pack there is. So I'm sure people are unwilling to pay $60 or $90 on other expansion packs just so they can add another and make it work.

Re:Expansion (1)

Mean_Nishka (543399) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232587)

I don't think this is the case. The Sims online is a separate, stand alone piece of software.

Re:Expansion (0)

56ksucks (516942) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232666)

I do seem to remember it saying you needed the sims with several other expansion packs before it would work. I could be mistaken.

It's boring! (2, Insightful)

Mean_Nishka (543399) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232562)

I tried out the trial edition of this software and it's just plain boring. My stupid sim couldn't hold its bladder half the time and was peeing all over the place.. So most of your time is spent making the stupid avatar eat, shit, and sleep.

Why should I pay $10 a month for something I do now in real life for free? And I can even get laid in the real world!

Re:It's boring!-Unrealistic expectations. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232620)

"Why should I pay $10 a month for something I do now in real life for free? And I can even get laid in the real world!"

You hope. :)

Re:It's boring! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232680)

And I can even get laid in the real world!

And another slashdotter realizes the tragic difference between theory and practice.

Perhaps subscriptions were the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232563)

The only reason I didn't buy the Sims Online was because I couldn't justify another monthly bill for a computer game. If the server was free, then I probably would have purchased it (at a higher price even.)

Pointless concept (4, Interesting)

RedX (71326) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232570)

I downloaded the free public beta version of Sims Online a few months ago for my wife as she was an avid Sims player but was becoming bored with the offline versions. After a couple of days of Sims Online, she just stopped playing the Online version because there really was no new concept to the game. It was basically the same offline version with the added chat features, and the chat features really added nothing to gameplay and certainly aren't worth a montly fee.

Re:Pointless concept (4, Insightful)

mcjulio (68237) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232705)

I can't figure out why EA ever thought this was a good idea. For me, 9/10ths of the appeal of a subscription game is being someone, and being somewhere, that I can't be in real life. Spending 3 hours to earn another bar in my "Strength" meter in order to keep up with my friends is completely worthless, unless I can take that extra bar and do something cool with it.

If the only cool thing I can do is get a slightly better job as a 3rd string linebacker and bring home $10 more/week to flush away on virtual McDs, there's no way I'd waste the time.

That's the irony of the Sims Online: in order to be fun, they'd have to do away with all the things that made the Sims (offline) a success.

Actual Losses... (1)

happers (647249) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232571)

It would be interesting to know just how bad their losses are (or could have been) given the embedded ads of Intel and McDonalds in the game.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232578)

You ARE the sim!

Gengis Khan Said It Best... (5, Funny)

Kibo (256105) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232582)

The greatest joy a man could have is victory; to conquer one's enemies armies, to pursue them, to deprive them of their possessions, to reduce their famillies to tears, to ride their horses, and to make love their wives and daughters.


How do you kill people and steal all their stuff in the Sims online again?

Wrong legendary warrior..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5232621)

I thought all that was said by Conan the Barbarian!

Does this mean that (1)

wondafucka (621502) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232583)

internet dorks find simulating meatspace interaction with other internet dorks unappealing? The Matrix won't need full fledged VR. It just needs a place to post text bitching.

Re:Does this mean that (1)

Kibo (256105) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232685)

The Matrix won't need full fledged VR. It just needs a place to post text bitching.

You're thinking of the first attempt at the matrix that was too perfect.

"Most anticipated releases" (1, Insightful)

ByTor-2112 (313205) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232589)

Yeah, right. Just because some game reviewer calls it "highly anticipated" does not make it so. Just because it gets 300 reviews from hard-core gamers proclaiming it the Best Thing Since Sliced Bread (tm) doesn't make it fabulous. It's just talking heads, so no one should be surprised. No one wants monthly fees.

Initial expense too high... (5, Insightful)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232600)

Why pay $30, $40, or even $50 for a game which you then have to start paying for monthly? I don't have anything against subscription-based games, but I would think that the continuous payments might somehow offset the initial purchase price of the product.

I know most of these MMORPG games give you X months free, but that price sticker on the box in the store contributes a lot to their purchasing decision. It'd be a great deal if they charged $200 for the game and gave you 40 months free, but do you think that such a package would sell?

The cost of entry for an MMORPG should be low-to-free. What about development costs, you say? Raise the monthly rate a dollar or two. Yeesh.

*sighs* (1)

piotrr (101798) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232601)

..from relief. I was seriously worried about The Sims online eating up people's lives. The ordinary Sims game already does that to some people I know, and the worst type isn't the ones who like the "Funny" post "have no life", the worst are people who DO have lives but bungle it all up because they'd rather lead ANOTHER life in a single-player game where they play a character who tends towards being so similar to themselves that it's frightening at times.

So suffice to say, I was pretty freaked at the prospect of a life-eating game of this scale becoming even more life-eating as it made its way into the online-realm, a place notorious for eating the lives of nerds and wives alike (see MMORPGs et al). Glad to see another one of my computers-eat-human-future scenarios fizzle into nothing.

Is there any room (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232611)

"'The Sims Online' sold 105,000 copies, or only about a quarter of the initial shipment in December,"

Is there any room left in that Atari E.T. cartridge landfill?

what do griefers do in that game? (1)

Stalcair (116043) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232616)

Seriously though, I do wish I knew someone who played that so I could watch over their shoulder and see how things are. I personally am unwilling to spend the money or time on it, but I have heard (from game dev's of other online games) that what is expected is an advancement in well... simulated reality and the "AI" that goes along with it. Such things would be very useful if refined and augmented for use in MMOG's of the RPG and strategy sort. I wouldn't mind seeing the technology behind it myself but I just can't bring myself to be interested in the actual game. Odd.

Amazon ratings (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232617)

Who actually pays attention to the ratings on Amazon, at least as far as DVD & games reviews go? As soon as the new title is logged in their system and way before anyone could possibly have a clue what the final product would be like, it is receiving rave reviews. Look at the assholes who rate EQ expansions months before they appear and did likewise with Lord of the Rings Special Edition DVD set. It makes a total joke of the system.


Amazon should allow reviews but clearly mark them as opinion and when the product finally comes up for sale, wipe the pre-release reviews and start over. As it is, reviews in these sections are next to useless.


Of course, in this case perhaps they were accurate... The Sims was a boring, boring game and its unfathomable why anyone would have derived any enjoyment from its predictable and reptitive nature. On online version might appeal from a IRC/chat point of view, but otherwise its the same old crap.

Their analysis (1)

LongJohnStewartMill (645597) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232618)

Manager: Jim! How come Sims Online hasn't met the expected sales?

Jim: Well, sir, there has been a decline in the number of AOL users. Must be the recession... or something...

Manager: Well Jim you do your part, I'll take the price of the game out of your pay check.

Jim: Yes, sir. *shudders*

* Jim picks up phone, dials number *

Jim: Yes, hello, I would like a subscription for your 8.0 service...

Why pay? (2, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232622)

My sister loves The Sims. She returned The Sims online when she got it for christmas though. She said "I can play the sims and run instant messanger for free. I don't need another bill to pay".

She just hits Alt-Tab like she's flipping through TV stations.

All I have to say is I hope this pay-to-play trend ends quickly. The initial cost of games is already high. I have no desire to pay per month to have access to something I don't know how often I'll have the free time to use. If Battle.net can be free, why can't The Sims online be free?

Just another one that didn't do it for EA (4, Interesting)

zeronode (513709) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232623)

EA, sadly, has a history of trying to make MMOG and failing. UO is the exception, but then again, EA bought Origin after UO was in production.

Just look at the last two MMOG's they tried to make work: Majestic (dead) and Earth and Beyond (Life support). Granted they were good ideas, but EA can't make the shift in thinking from producing box games to MMOG's. Farming out their jobs to a contractor in india effectively allowed them to get rid of a collective 150 years of online gaming knowledge (Kesmai Studios).

I just don't think they'll get it right any time soon.

Why TSO does not appeal to me (4, Interesting)

Winterblink (575267) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232630)

I'm one of those who refuses to give The Sims Online the time of day, much less monthly dues. That's not to say I'm opposed to paying monthly dues, I'm currently playing Neocron [neocron.com] (a frickin awesome game). The idea of waking up in the morning, going to work, and coming home just to load up TSO and do essentially the same thing doesn't turn my crank. I can get my socializing fix from friends, family, IRC or IM, and I don't have to put more money into EA's pocket to do it.

That being said, I do play MMOGs as I said above. Yes there's a socializing aspect there, but it's a hell of a lot more fun to battle mutants and warbots in a post-apocalyptic wasteland with Deux Ex style character management than go to the gym in the game and pedal my ass off to up stats. Better to do that IRL than in game anyway.

Syntax error! (-1, Offtopic)

altaic (559466) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232656)

Unbalanced paranthesis on line 2:
"The Sims Online" was one of the most anticipated releases of 2002; but (according to this Los Angeles Times story in the Baltimore Sun), "

This guy should have debugged his story before releasing it. I heard the Sims Online was buggy too, eh. I suppose it's only fitting.

I love The Sims... (1)

nob (244898) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232657)

I'm a big Sims fan, I bought all the expansion packs, made skins, etc. But I havn't bought The Sims Online yet, and I'm not sure I will. I don't have a lot of time on my hands, since I work full time and go to school full time (and I post on Slashdot.) What I liked about the Sims is you could basically play it from beginning to "end" (meaning you got bored with the character and hit the top) in just a few hours a day for about a week. I'd do this, then stop playing for a few weeks, then create a new character and house and start over. I play way too little to pay $10 a month for something that really doesn't offer this same experience, and I think most "Sims" players are the same, casual gamers.

I think this explains a great social experiment (1)

inteller (599544) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232658)

People like to control simulations of other people, but they don't like having to interact with other real people and not be able to control them. Answer, people like to play god, so make more simgle player god games.

That's not good (4, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232668)

Meanwhile, the game's customer reviews at Amazon.com have an average rating of only two (out of five) stars.

Given that "death by Ebola virus" would probably average two stars in Amazon reviews, that's not very promising.

No point to going online (2, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232692)

The only person I know who plays the Sims is my mother. I remember mentioning Sims Online to her, and she didnt get the point. She didnt see why she needed to 'compete' against other people to see whos the best person. She kills her sims probably a half hour after bringing them to life, she just enjoys watching them run around and make toast and whatnot. She does ICQ and chats online with people who play scrabble and other mom-type stuff. She just doesnt get the point of Sims Online.

My point is, this game is popular because it's merely a good old distraction. It's completely uncompetitive and not really goal-oriented, at least to most who play it. You just screw around and watch the people do stuff. It just doesnt fit into the MMORPG genre.

Add that to the fact that it just comes off like another in the long line of Sims cash grabs (they have a whole new game/expansion pack bi-weekly it seems). After plunking down $50 on "The Sims get New Pants(tm)" people get wary. The dead horse has been beaten beyond recognition.

Plus it's just a boring game to most traditional 'gamers' in the first place.

Buyer Beware (4, Informative)

asv108 (141455) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232697)

I bought the Sim's online about a month ago, because of all the hype surrounding the release. I played it for about 2 days, and came to the conclusion that it is just too time consuming except for the die-hard Sim's fan. Another problem with the game is the replay-ability factor. The secret to any online game is replay-ability. The Sims online gets boring real quick and I can't imagine only having one computer to play this game. If you only have on computer, Sim's online prevents you from web surfing, iming, or any other activity while playing the game.

BUYER BEWARE, I purchased the Sim's online under the notion that I could try it out, cancel my account, and sell the game used on ebay or amazon. Even after canceling my account, the person who bought the game told me that EA said the game was registered to another user. EA is trying to strongarm the used market, and force everyone to buy the game new.

"Let's make pizzas for 5 hours straight!" (2, Funny)

WileyWiggins (622087) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232698)

Maxis managed to take the few things that were fun about the original game, (customizability, being able to wreak havok with a large group of Sims 'lives'), and remove any trace of them from the Sims online. A game where you have to spend days of real-world time doing telemarketing and making pizzas to try and save up to buy a virtual refrigerator? This game isn't just dumb or boring, it's sadistic.

Give the People what they Want (1)

tbmaddux (145207) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232732)

From the Amazon reviews:
Parents - take my advise PLEASE do not buy this game for your children. Prostitution, runs rampid! It is NOT and I repeat NOT for anyone under the age of 18!

From the NYTimes article, quoting Riccitiello the president of EA:

We wanted this to grow into a `third arm,' " he said of the Sims Online

People complain about the tasks of the Sims Online being repetitive and dull. So make them repetitive and exciting. I think I can cum up with a solution.

Developer Chat (4, Informative)

Bruha (412869) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232745)

We had a devloper Chat over on www.warcry.com You can find the transcript right here. [warcry.com]

For the amount of people that attended it they did ask some good questions and the team that's working on SO are a good fun bunch and answered a lot of questions I was surprised they skipped over like other publishers tend to do. Ala Microsoft on any hard question about Asheron's Call or Asheron's Call 2 during their dev chats.

Beating a dead horse (1)

GoRK (10018) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232747)

Maxis just can't get it together with online games. By the time they get something workable, they have already milked the games fans for all they can. The online stuff available in The Sims Online should have been available in the original game.

It's kind of like how they released Simcity 4 with online features that don't work -- Is it just me or are there other people who dig and dig for Maxis' promised online features just to find nothing -- not even a decently designed and coherent website?

~GoRK

EA doesnt care (2, Interesting)

SurgeonGeneral (212572) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232748)

Sure we can attribute the Sims' decline to the pay-for-play model or the lack of any moderation in a game played largely by teens, but I think there is a greater, overarching reason for this:

EA simply doesnt care about their customers, and they have no interest in maintaining the loyalty of them.

Anyone who has ever played one of their games knows this. They destroy every multiplayer enviroment by allowing cheats to be used, thus ruining the integrity and playability of their games. They refuse to do anything about cheats, thus cheating paying customers out of money. They outright refuse to help customers who have problems with their software. Many of their gaming environments have been taken over by hackers to which they REFUSE TO RESPOND! (In fact when logging on to multiplayer Red Alert one is met with a hacked ad for the site www.fuckea.com, set up by disgruntled players). They have discontinued the Westwood branch of their corporation in order stop maintainence of their games. Basically they simply refuse to help their paying customers enjoy their game, and in some cases ruin it for them.

I'm not surprised TSO failed, not am I that they used false advertising tactics in order to sell the game (apparently some features such as running a business or a casino are not available to users, yet this is advertised on the game box). This Christmas cash grab just goes on to prove to me how poor the company is, and I for one will not be supporting them at all in the future.

I demand morals and integrity from people, so why should I expect any less from a group of people?

Too bad (1)

aufecht (163961) | more than 11 years ago | (#5232749)

I know my girlfriend played The Sims and every expansion that came out. She was a Sim fanatic. When she saw the online version her response was: What's the point?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?