Now the question is: will The Sims Online (TSO)'s, now dubbed EA-Land, bid to become the next big simolean come up "a day late and a (linden) dollar short?"
TSO arrived at the virtual gate just a bit before Second Life. Unlike the new runner, it came with an impressive pedigree, having been a No. 1 computer game with millions of sales and, presumably, users. A lot of good money was probably expecting that to translate well to the MMO field. The bets were on. But at first go, TSO's eyes weren't on that skinny new horse, Second Life, saddled with the rather odd notion of a non-gaming virtual world, but on the lead thoroughbred, the one with all the derby crowns and the prize money to boot: Blizzard's World of Warcraft (WoW). As it turned out, TSO failed to win, place, or even show. Second Life continued to run just happy to be in the race, and would eventually come to dominate the non-gaming track. TSO could still be seen on the field, but in time, it became obvious its running days were over. Those who wanted to remember it fondly from its game incarnations kindly said it was in semi-retirement. Others looked to TSO's lack of motion, the cloud of bad buzz hovering around it, and the stench of failure permeating from it's direction and concluded that it was, in fact, a dead horse.
As it turned out, TSO was running the wrong race. The strengths of the computer and console game: the ability to craft a personal environment, meddle in virtual lives with god-like powers, and hone one's stable of sims to better or worse ends, were best enjoyed as a solo venture. These sorts of activities did not translate well to a multi-player environment. The attempts to instill some sort of multiplayer gaming activity overlay were said to be non-productive and boring. And one of the core strengths of The Sims game, the ability to create objects, houses, neighbourhoods and share them with other players, was not allowed for in its online incarnation, essentially alienating this core and beneficial group of users who enjoyed creation more than "playing." By the time user-created content was somewhat allowed, TSO was already a non-entity, nearly abandoned by its owners, and populated only by small cadre of hard-core users. As an MMO game, it had failed.
Had the owners of TSO and The Sims seen the growing interest and potential in social virtual worlds and the Social Web, and had they not been so fixated on the gaming and monthly revenue model, they might have taken similar steps as Linden Lab. They might have fostered a game economy that tied to real currency, the concept of personal space in virtual land ownership, and the notion of the sim avatar not as a gaming construct but as a personal extension of self. Had they done those things, they might have shifted gears, providing more avenues for social venture as the main raison d'etre for TSO. They might have reopened the flood gates for uploading user-generated content. After all, having dedicated modelers (modders) who actually like to make content to share is like having a club where the patrons bring the booze, food, and music and are happy to pay for the privilege. Looking back, imagine the what-if had TSO done all these things and to boot offered a free downloadable client and access, realizing that their "game" was never going to be another WoW, but that it had the chance for a successful niche nonetheless for social users and modders. What if they had also made each install and supplement of the game function as well as an online client and as a bonus come with both game and online objects, homes, and neighbourhood access that could only be found by buying the supplements? On start-up, one could have had the option to log into personal space or into the communal grid. I mean, as virtual worlds of all sorts have shown, there's a passion for virtual kitsch hoarding. With the ability to use registered product keys for existing customers to get their online goodies retroactively, and the notion of fostering the communal online grid as a means of collecting even more objects and additions, even if the sole intention was just to use them in the installed version, owner, Electronic Arts (EA) would have seen existing players enticed to at least try out the online version and likely return. Online players would have been eager to buy the next install supplement, if only to get the proprietary additions that such offered. The installed versions could even have been marketed as good modder tools, a way to actually create and share new content. Online and install, each would aid the other.
Had this been done, the existing user-base and modder community already existing in The Sims could have provided both an overwhelming head-start in numbers, and a defined activity in the form of modding environments and objects, and an active core user base, who were willing to add content on their own time with no cost to EA. Second Life had the same thing I suppose but they were just getting started. The thousands upon thousands of existing Sim objects, landscapes, buildings, already in existence, most of them free, would create a tsunami-like inundation of rich content comparison that would swamp any challengers. Even the fact that Second Life was a fully realized three-dimensional space compared to TSO's 2d/3d rendering I think would have worked in TSO's favor since mainstream computers then lacked a lot of the graphical power to work well with something like Second Life, whereas they would function just fine, or certainly better, with a graphic rendering already tested and applied in the desktop version. And a focus on social activity but keeping and expanding on the gaming functions of the failed version, adding things like maybe How to Host a Murder sharded "dungeons" etc, would have given TSO as a social world something still today very lacking in Second Life, more fun activities to help embellish and support the social function. Increased sales of games and supplements by online players as well as increased use of the online version by installed players, finally add to that a modest surcharge for uploading user-generated content and EA would have seen a healthy revenue stream. I doubt Second Life would have survived such competition and I suspect that the virtual landscape would have seen TSO as the WoW equivalent to the non-gaming set.
But hindsight is 20/20. And the leap of faith taken by Linden Lab and Philip Rosedale in establishing Second Life in the face of conventional wisdom is to their credit and it is the reason why Second Life, not TSO, is synonymous with virtual worlds in the minds of the general public. EA was only dabbling in online gaming, though I suspect with high hopes. I imagine the focus of developer, Maxis, and parent company, EA, was always more on development for the next Sims incarnation, The Sims 2. And that was the smart move. Game sales were a proven success and The Sims 2 went on to foster a whole new set of users and aficionados (my niece for example) as well as keeping the franchise healthy and active. Success is proven by the never-ending, it seems, list of supplements that can be purchased. And there are rumours of a Sims 3 on the way. So there's nothing to really fault Maxis/EA for dropping TSO. I can conjecture the "what if" and they might be thinking the same. But, a censured world like TSO would have been, and that EA-Land will be, for modded material would not have satisfied those who sought more adult activities, like gambling, etc. Those activities underscored much of the initial growth of Second Life, just as they did on a much larger scale for the Internet in general. Even the Sims enjoyed a fair bit of risque modding judging by some downloads. It was not the issue for the Sims because each install was a "world" unto itself. Having the desire for more "exposure" in a communal setting and not having an outlet might lead to dissatisfaction if such users turn out to be significant in numbers. And as far as the dress code, if one were to judge by a lot of the stuff one sees in Second Life, perhaps social worlds have to at least allow for King Crap and Queen Skank strutting their stuff as there seems to be a significant number of users who seem to enjoy the expressive freedom for this kind of display. Freedom of expression, I propose, will ultimately be more attractive and lack of censorship is one of the reasons for Web growth and adoption in general among adults. And this equates also to scripting and construction. Second Life constructs have the potential to be much more powerful, having nearly limitless underlying functional properties, whereas those embedded in Sims objects seem to be purely for manipulating game parameters: useless in a broader social sense beyond their cosmetic features. To say that a TSO that undertook some of the popular conventions of Second Life, as EA-Land proposes to adopt now, would have made TSO the dominant social virtual world (or least a successful venture as opposed to an outright failure) is not the same as saying that TSO would be either the most successful non-gaming virtual world ultimately (not even Second Life can knowingly claim that) or by extension, some sort of 3d incarnation of the next Web.
So given these realities, how does this new old version of a virtual world shape up now that it's found itself, supposedly? Well, I won't be able to judge until I'm able to get in. But on the surface, I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to have created a version of the Sims 2 (or 3) that mimicked an online version of that incarnation, which as I understand it, is a fully realized 3d space. Since user content was essentially denied for most practical purposes, it would have been a lot easier to make this migration for existing TSO users (just translate the existing objects) before opening the floodgates to user mods. Once they happen, it will be much harder, akin to impossible, to make the migration to a new graphical look, ala Sims 2/3, without abandoning some user content. People apparently think that the 2d/3d graphical use, being as it is popular in worlds like Habbo, which has users in the millions, means that there is nothing to worry about in the lack of graphic panache - and they could very well be right. But an online Sims 2 would be more akin to existing virtual worlds that EA-Land will be compared to by users first trying it out. Again, just my gut feeling that a more realistic virtual space will have the legs for the final race to who ultimately succeeds as a virtual worlds vendor for adults.
But maybe trying to capture the adult virtual landscape isn't what EA is really after. If EA is just, like so many companies with a wealth of media titles to offer, trying to establish it's own virtual gateway for its products and test the virtual waters, then I think the reincarnation of TSO as EA-Land could be a great success and is a wise move given the cost to reinvigorate an existing property rather than create it anew. EA has a lot of titles and the course of advertising and trying to entice users of EA land to explore some of these could be a bridge to offering what a lot of social virtual worlds lack, fun activities beyond the scope of social, shopping, and roleplaying. Many EA titles are going to appeal more to a younger crowd. A Sims-like incarnation, sharing as it does, the 2d/3d aspect of worlds popular with young children, might find a good niche in that space in-between when children are older than the Habbo Hotel, Club Penguin set, but younger than MTV Virtual Worlds users, say ages 9 - 13 years old. I think that could be a recipe for success. EA-Land looks more like worlds they're coming from but more sophisticated. It's a safe environment; it's social; it has more options for them to contribute, and hopefully will have some fun activities to keep them engaged. Thing is, I think if EA-Land can capture this market demographic and offer activities that would appeal to them as they got older, they'd have the adult crowd of tomorrow and younger users today just might stick with something like EA-Land as they got older, rather than trekking over to another offering en masse. But to achieve this, there must be a realization that the same steps that might have made The Sims Online a raging success when there was hardly any competition years ago are not going to have the same impact today. Couple to that the likely reality that many fans of the original The Sims game have probably migrated and cannot be considered to still offer the overwhelming figure they might once have been, both as users and contributors. Considering that children's virtual worlds are the most successful to date, the retro appearance of EA-Land can play to its favor if it were to be rethought of in terms of whom it is intended to target.
This is all good conjecture. But I'm still a little confused though who EA-Land is actually intended to appeal to for the here-and-now. The Play-doh logo makes me think children. EA games tie-ins, if they even exist, would appeal to a broad range but shifting more to the younger demographics. But the demographic of the original game, and any TSO returnees, are going to be older. Also the notions of a real currency equation, virtual real estate market, and Facebook tie-ins make me think of adult users.
So can TSO make a successful go of it in this crowded list of virtual worlds? Again, I really need at some point to get into the sim to see for myself, and that will need some precious weekend time for that, but on the surface, my list of pros and cons to offer for consideration toward answering that question are as follows:
Pros
Cons
So can they make a go of it? Can a dead horse be flogged to life? (/shrug)
You tell me.
TSO arrived at the virtual gate just a bit before Second Life. Unlike the new runner, it came with an impressive pedigree, having been a No. 1 computer game with millions of sales and, presumably, users. A lot of good money was probably expecting that to translate well to the MMO field. The bets were on. But at first go, TSO's eyes weren't on that skinny new horse, Second Life, saddled with the rather odd notion of a non-gaming virtual world, but on the lead thoroughbred, the one with all the derby crowns and the prize money to boot: Blizzard's World of Warcraft (WoW). As it turned out, TSO failed to win, place, or even show. Second Life continued to run just happy to be in the race, and would eventually come to dominate the non-gaming track. TSO could still be seen on the field, but in time, it became obvious its running days were over. Those who wanted to remember it fondly from its game incarnations kindly said it was in semi-retirement. Others looked to TSO's lack of motion, the cloud of bad buzz hovering around it, and the stench of failure permeating from it's direction and concluded that it was, in fact, a dead horse.
As it turned out, TSO was running the wrong race. The strengths of the computer and console game: the ability to craft a personal environment, meddle in virtual lives with god-like powers, and hone one's stable of sims to better or worse ends, were best enjoyed as a solo venture. These sorts of activities did not translate well to a multi-player environment. The attempts to instill some sort of multiplayer gaming activity overlay were said to be non-productive and boring. And one of the core strengths of The Sims game, the ability to create objects, houses, neighbourhoods and share them with other players, was not allowed for in its online incarnation, essentially alienating this core and beneficial group of users who enjoyed creation more than "playing." By the time user-created content was somewhat allowed, TSO was already a non-entity, nearly abandoned by its owners, and populated only by small cadre of hard-core users. As an MMO game, it had failed.
Had the owners of TSO and The Sims seen the growing interest and potential in social virtual worlds and the Social Web, and had they not been so fixated on the gaming and monthly revenue model, they might have taken similar steps as Linden Lab. They might have fostered a game economy that tied to real currency, the concept of personal space in virtual land ownership, and the notion of the sim avatar not as a gaming construct but as a personal extension of self. Had they done those things, they might have shifted gears, providing more avenues for social venture as the main raison d'etre for TSO. They might have reopened the flood gates for uploading user-generated content. After all, having dedicated modelers (modders) who actually like to make content to share is like having a club where the patrons bring the booze, food, and music and are happy to pay for the privilege. Looking back, imagine the what-if had TSO done all these things and to boot offered a free downloadable client and access, realizing that their "game" was never going to be another WoW, but that it had the chance for a successful niche nonetheless for social users and modders. What if they had also made each install and supplement of the game function as well as an online client and as a bonus come with both game and online objects, homes, and neighbourhood access that could only be found by buying the supplements? On start-up, one could have had the option to log into personal space or into the communal grid. I mean, as virtual worlds of all sorts have shown, there's a passion for virtual kitsch hoarding. With the ability to use registered product keys for existing customers to get their online goodies retroactively, and the notion of fostering the communal online grid as a means of collecting even more objects and additions, even if the sole intention was just to use them in the installed version, owner, Electronic Arts (EA) would have seen existing players enticed to at least try out the online version and likely return. Online players would have been eager to buy the next install supplement, if only to get the proprietary additions that such offered. The installed versions could even have been marketed as good modder tools, a way to actually create and share new content. Online and install, each would aid the other.
Had this been done, the existing user-base and modder community already existing in The Sims could have provided both an overwhelming head-start in numbers, and a defined activity in the form of modding environments and objects, and an active core user base, who were willing to add content on their own time with no cost to EA. Second Life had the same thing I suppose but they were just getting started. The thousands upon thousands of existing Sim objects, landscapes, buildings, already in existence, most of them free, would create a tsunami-like inundation of rich content comparison that would swamp any challengers. Even the fact that Second Life was a fully realized three-dimensional space compared to TSO's 2d/3d rendering I think would have worked in TSO's favor since mainstream computers then lacked a lot of the graphical power to work well with something like Second Life, whereas they would function just fine, or certainly better, with a graphic rendering already tested and applied in the desktop version. And a focus on social activity but keeping and expanding on the gaming functions of the failed version, adding things like maybe How to Host a Murder sharded "dungeons" etc, would have given TSO as a social world something still today very lacking in Second Life, more fun activities to help embellish and support the social function. Increased sales of games and supplements by online players as well as increased use of the online version by installed players, finally add to that a modest surcharge for uploading user-generated content and EA would have seen a healthy revenue stream. I doubt Second Life would have survived such competition and I suspect that the virtual landscape would have seen TSO as the WoW equivalent to the non-gaming set.
But hindsight is 20/20. And the leap of faith taken by Linden Lab and Philip Rosedale in establishing Second Life in the face of conventional wisdom is to their credit and it is the reason why Second Life, not TSO, is synonymous with virtual worlds in the minds of the general public. EA was only dabbling in online gaming, though I suspect with high hopes. I imagine the focus of developer, Maxis, and parent company, EA, was always more on development for the next Sims incarnation, The Sims 2. And that was the smart move. Game sales were a proven success and The Sims 2 went on to foster a whole new set of users and aficionados (my niece for example) as well as keeping the franchise healthy and active. Success is proven by the never-ending, it seems, list of supplements that can be purchased. And there are rumours of a Sims 3 on the way. So there's nothing to really fault Maxis/EA for dropping TSO. I can conjecture the "what if" and they might be thinking the same. But, a censured world like TSO would have been, and that EA-Land will be, for modded material would not have satisfied those who sought more adult activities, like gambling, etc. Those activities underscored much of the initial growth of Second Life, just as they did on a much larger scale for the Internet in general. Even the Sims enjoyed a fair bit of risque modding judging by some downloads. It was not the issue for the Sims because each install was a "world" unto itself. Having the desire for more "exposure" in a communal setting and not having an outlet might lead to dissatisfaction if such users turn out to be significant in numbers. And as far as the dress code, if one were to judge by a lot of the stuff one sees in Second Life, perhaps social worlds have to at least allow for King Crap and Queen Skank strutting their stuff as there seems to be a significant number of users who seem to enjoy the expressive freedom for this kind of display. Freedom of expression, I propose, will ultimately be more attractive and lack of censorship is one of the reasons for Web growth and adoption in general among adults. And this equates also to scripting and construction. Second Life constructs have the potential to be much more powerful, having nearly limitless underlying functional properties, whereas those embedded in Sims objects seem to be purely for manipulating game parameters: useless in a broader social sense beyond their cosmetic features. To say that a TSO that undertook some of the popular conventions of Second Life, as EA-Land proposes to adopt now, would have made TSO the dominant social virtual world (or least a successful venture as opposed to an outright failure) is not the same as saying that TSO would be either the most successful non-gaming virtual world ultimately (not even Second Life can knowingly claim that) or by extension, some sort of 3d incarnation of the next Web.
So given these realities, how does this new old version of a virtual world shape up now that it's found itself, supposedly? Well, I won't be able to judge until I'm able to get in. But on the surface, I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to have created a version of the Sims 2 (or 3) that mimicked an online version of that incarnation, which as I understand it, is a fully realized 3d space. Since user content was essentially denied for most practical purposes, it would have been a lot easier to make this migration for existing TSO users (just translate the existing objects) before opening the floodgates to user mods. Once they happen, it will be much harder, akin to impossible, to make the migration to a new graphical look, ala Sims 2/3, without abandoning some user content. People apparently think that the 2d/3d graphical use, being as it is popular in worlds like Habbo, which has users in the millions, means that there is nothing to worry about in the lack of graphic panache - and they could very well be right. But an online Sims 2 would be more akin to existing virtual worlds that EA-Land will be compared to by users first trying it out. Again, just my gut feeling that a more realistic virtual space will have the legs for the final race to who ultimately succeeds as a virtual worlds vendor for adults.
But maybe trying to capture the adult virtual landscape isn't what EA is really after. If EA is just, like so many companies with a wealth of media titles to offer, trying to establish it's own virtual gateway for its products and test the virtual waters, then I think the reincarnation of TSO as EA-Land could be a great success and is a wise move given the cost to reinvigorate an existing property rather than create it anew. EA has a lot of titles and the course of advertising and trying to entice users of EA land to explore some of these could be a bridge to offering what a lot of social virtual worlds lack, fun activities beyond the scope of social, shopping, and roleplaying. Many EA titles are going to appeal more to a younger crowd. A Sims-like incarnation, sharing as it does, the 2d/3d aspect of worlds popular with young children, might find a good niche in that space in-between when children are older than the Habbo Hotel, Club Penguin set, but younger than MTV Virtual Worlds users, say ages 9 - 13 years old. I think that could be a recipe for success. EA-Land looks more like worlds they're coming from but more sophisticated. It's a safe environment; it's social; it has more options for them to contribute, and hopefully will have some fun activities to keep them engaged. Thing is, I think if EA-Land can capture this market demographic and offer activities that would appeal to them as they got older, they'd have the adult crowd of tomorrow and younger users today just might stick with something like EA-Land as they got older, rather than trekking over to another offering en masse. But to achieve this, there must be a realization that the same steps that might have made The Sims Online a raging success when there was hardly any competition years ago are not going to have the same impact today. Couple to that the likely reality that many fans of the original The Sims game have probably migrated and cannot be considered to still offer the overwhelming figure they might once have been, both as users and contributors. Considering that children's virtual worlds are the most successful to date, the retro appearance of EA-Land can play to its favor if it were to be rethought of in terms of whom it is intended to target.
This is all good conjecture. But I'm still a little confused though who EA-Land is actually intended to appeal to for the here-and-now. The Play-doh logo makes me think children. EA games tie-ins, if they even exist, would appeal to a broad range but shifting more to the younger demographics. But the demographic of the original game, and any TSO returnees, are going to be older. Also the notions of a real currency equation, virtual real estate market, and Facebook tie-ins make me think of adult users.
So can TSO make a successful go of it in this crowded list of virtual worlds? Again, I really need at some point to get into the sim to see for myself, and that will need some precious weekend time for that, but on the surface, my list of pros and cons to offer for consideration toward answering that question are as follows:
Pros
- Product recognition - people are generally aware of The Sims, even if they didn't play it
- Adopting conventions of virtual land "ownership," currency, user-generated content, and other Second Life conventions should help make EA-Land what TSO could/should have been
- Continued thriving user-base that can be tapped into (The Sims is still sold, supported, and used by fans of the game)
- EA has an impressive list of titles and could/should expand EA-Land to be a springboard for all of these - hopefully with free content that could not only further interest and sales but as well, help provide activity content.
- Online version could stimulate games sales and vice versa (they really need to think about how to bridge these products, if not my suggestions above, some way)
- Thousands of mods online, some better than the original content, potentially to make their way into the online version (rich content area ready to be tapped into)
- Millions of former users don't need to be sold on the concept and can get up and running if they find their way to EA-Land.
- Predominately female demographic of the original game represents a key market focus group as yet unavailable to most virtual worlds and MMOs, which could attract investors, corporate participation and use
- Some game functions existed in the older version, so there's a promise they still might exist (though poor from what I heard. Still, they could represent an activity function lacking in many social worlds, though they should be improved/expanded upon - especially if more EA titles are brought into the mix.)
- 2d/3d diametric graphic display works wonderfully for many popular children's virtual worlds and is a natural bridge to adoption
- Display requirements a lot less than other virtual worlds (I can really see EA-Land translating well for mobile use say and with mobile use projected to increase, this could be a key factor)
- Censorship - given user content oversight, a much "safer" environment potentially than other virtual worlds
- Facebook/Social Web tie-ins (Nice! Very good idea, IMHO and one of the best features).
Cons
- Product recognition - Can former users of TSO especially, but anyone, trust that EA can deliver the goods to be worthy of the time and emotional investment to get involved in personal space and avatars in EA-Land when they failed the first time?
- Is abandoning The Sims name in re-dubbing the offering going to make it harder for current and former The Sims aficionados to find or realize that it exists?
- In some ways, Maxis/EA are their own competitors. The Sims 2 has probably wooed many away from the original The Sims and adopters of Sims 2 aren't necessarily going to like the function and environment of EA-Land, which is essentially more like the original.
- If there's no tie-in between online and installed products, success of one will have less impact on the other. (As far as I know, there are no plans to say offer unique "goodies" for online use from purchasing installed expansions nor any mechanism to bring installed users gracefully into the online fold. If this continues, I see this as a lost opportunity).
- Just because there are thousands and thousands of mods online for The Sims doesn't mean the creators of that content will ever bother to have it offered for EA-Land. Many will likely have gotten bored with the Sims concept and moved onto other games, or will have adopted successors like Sims 2, or even Second Life, or some other virtual world, and enjoy more making objects for those spaces instead. This would lessen the resource potential for fast object growth from users to enrich the experience.
- Demographic target still seems to be adults. Realizing that the virtual world market has changed and focusing on young teens might see better results.
- Activity space still an unknown; original game did not translate well to multiplayer (Prior versions obviously failed to inspire people to stay with TSO. Will there even be any attempt at gaming functions within EA-Land?)
- Graphic display dated, lacking the panache of many competitors (but this could actually be a plus if EA intends to target a younger demographic used to a similar display format)
- Censorship (it imposes overhead on the part of the space owner and it could turn people away Eg. Branded objects are highly desirable to create a realistic living space since they populate real homes and lives: Coca-Cola, Apple, Mercedes). But when "officially" reviewed and approved, they present copyright problems. Censored worlds will probably decline to see these uploaded, which can lead to some dissatisfaction perceiving a lack user control I'm not saying it's right but it is reality. In fact, I read an article that suggested that such "pirated" virtual goods actually helped promote brand recognition and were still a positive force for the brand owner).
- Censorship will also turn away adult users unless some form of zoning or demarcation (combat zones, etc) is provided for, which doesn't sound like will be the case.
So can they make a go of it? Can a dead horse be flogged to life? (/shrug)
You tell me.
