I still don't understand...

[EtnaGreen]

Originally Posted by SoccerRyan

Why would a bidding war be necessary? Paramount made a licensing agreement with Habbo that allowed Habbo to create virtual items that were based on Paramount films. This agreement was made in January 2008. At that time, Sulake, the creator of Habbo, had already been doing subcontracting work for Disney for over 2 years. From this point until the closure on May 21, 2008, Habbo held the rights to create virtual items based on Paramount films while Sulake, the creator of Habbo, continued working for VMK. 5 months. Nothing happened. Then, on May 21, VMK closed and Sulake consequently stopped working for Disney. After the closing, Habbo still held the same licensing agreement with Paramount.

The point I'm trying to make is that the 2 associations are unrelated. The facts support it. If a bidding war had taken place, VMK would have closed in January 2008 immediately following the Paramount-Sulake agreement. But no, it did not.

The reason for the closing is simple. Disney didn't think VMK would benefit them financially as a pay-to-play game, so they shut it down.

If vmk wasn't benefiting them financially from the beginning, why would they wait three years to shut it down? I know Disney can be very blind sometimes, but not that blind.

[Noelle]

Originally Posted by EtnaGreen

If vmk wasn't benefiting them financially from the beginning, why would they wait three years to shut it down? I know Disney can be very blind sometimes, but not that blind.

Also, we know that there were a lot of new items yet to introduced into the game which is another reason I don't buy their anniversary explanation.

[Bobray]

Originally Posted by EtnaGreen

If vmk wasn't benefiting them financially from the beginning, why would they wait three years to shut it down? I know Disney can be very blind sometimes, but not that blind.

Didn't you notice all of the advertisement? The sci-fi drive in's screen, in-park quests. VMK advertised for Disney while we played. But as the economy has been worsening, Disney probably thought free virtual games were the first to go, or that the advertising wasn't worth it. Cuts have to be made in a company. Even workers at the parks got cuts.

[SoccerRyan]

Originally Posted by EtnaGreen

If vmk wasn't benefiting them financially from the beginning, why would they wait three years to shut it down? I know Disney can be very blind sometimes, but not that blind.

VMK was a financial success, that is why Disney kept it open beyond its original promotional timeframe. VMK got people to go to the parks. Disney made agreements with Kellogg's, Apple, and eBay during VMK's existence to make even more money. However, when VMK started to tank (at least, by their estimation), Disney had to decide between making VMK a pay-to-play or shutting it down. Ultimately, they decided that VMK was not making them money and that it did not have the potential to succeed, so they closed it down.

This was the mistake. VMK had potential. But Disney decided to look to their other online games for revenue.

[EtnaGreen]

Originally Posted by SoccerRyan

VMK was a financial success, that is why Disney kept it open beyond its original promotional timeframe. VMK got people to go to the parks. Disney made agreements with Kellogg's, Apple, and eBay during VMK's existence to make even more money. However, when VMK started to tank (at least, by their estimation), Disney had to decide between making VMK a pay-to-play or shutting it down. Ultimately, they decided that VMK was not making them money and that it did not have the potential to succeed, so they closed it down.

This was the mistake. VMK had potential. But Disney decided to look to their other online games for revenue.

I am a bit confused, so please stay with me. In this post Stitchmad and you both said that Disney closed vmk because it wasn't bringing in money directly to WDIG, but in the recent post that I quoted above you said that vmk stayed open in the beginning because it wasn't bringing in money directly to WDIG. I am a bit lost. If I misinterpreted this, I am sorry and I would appreciate it if you explained.

[SoccerRyan]

Originally Posted by EtnaGreen

I am a bit confused, so please stay with me. In this post Stitchmad and you both said that Disney closed vmk because it wasn't bringing in money directly to WDIG, but in the recent post that I quoted above you said that vmk stayed open in the beginning because it wasn't bringing in money directly to WDIG. I am a bit lost. If I misinterpreted this, I am sorry and I would appreciate it if you explained.

I can see how you would be confused, sorry about that.

WDIG never made money directly from VMK (meaning, they were not receiving x amount of dollars per month from x amount of players), so they had to use VMK as a tool to make money indirectly for themselves. WDIG achieved this through advertising and promoting other companies like the ones I mentioned earlier. It is my belief that WDIG was able to make money off of VMK, but indirectly rather than directly. This is why WDIG continued VMK after the 50th Celebration, because they were making money.

However, before the eventual April 8th announcement, it is my opinion that WDIG began to lose money from VMK. Consequently, they met with Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, who also had made money indirectly from VMK, to discuss VMK's financial potential. In that meeting is where I believe the pay-to-play option was discussed. In the end, they decided to close the game, concluding that VMK did not have financial potential.

I made the statement that WDIG did not make money directly from VMK, but I never solely attributed that to the closing or success of VMK as you said I did. What I did explain in the post that you quoted was that VMK at first succeeded because it did make money indirectly for WDIG, and what I failed to make clear in the post that you linked was that WDIG was losing money indirectly from VMK when Disney closed it.

I hope I am making sense here.