We require 64-bit binaries

FordGT90Concept wrote:

TanyaRubirose wrote:
Actually, going by what he said, their engineers don't create the binaries or write the development tools (in fact, he's mentioned a couple of third-party development tools they use in the past), but instead write code; it seems what would normally be a programmer elsewhere is an engineer in EA, so it's likely the only title that doesn't shift from its normal meaning is Artists. So, to be honest, it seems like EA has a very weird internal setup.

Plus, IIRC, they've mentioned before that Sims 3 was developed using an existing proprietary game engine, but I'm not certain enough of my memory to state it as an absolute fact.

Then they're software engineers at third-party developers. The point remains: he isn't one. For example, Visual Studio is made by software engineers at Microsoft. Just because someone uses a 32-bit version of Visual Studio doesn't mean a 64-bit version doesn't exist (because it does). Microsoft's software engineers most likely are running 64-bit operating systems so they can test the 64-bit facets of their software.

Also keep in mind that a 32-bit program can compile a 64-bit binary. It is possible to develop 64-bit tools on a 32-bit platform. Doing so complicates testing.

It is possible that The Sims engine was outsourced. In which case, EA would need to get on the engine developer to make a 64-bit version available. Unreal Engine is popular, for example. It was used in the Mass Effect titles. 64-bit binaries are available for the Unreal Engine but few use them.

I can't fault what you say on him not being an engineer, but at the same time, he is considered one of EA's developers, even if he's a producer. That they use tools from elsewhere (and I know the graphics one, at least, is capable of 64-bit, meaning they had to choose the 32-bit one on purpose) doesn't change what EA considers them.

It might be interesting to see if they will, but at this point, I don't know if they're even willing to try. That's the crux of the problem.

TanyaRubirose wrote:
I'm relying on nearly 30 years of observing the video game industry, which did not fully phase out new 16-bit games until almost this decade. They still rerelease 16-bit games from time to time, so 16-bit gaming is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

Keeping in mind they're still producing 16-bit games, even if they're just rereleases, what makes you think the video game industry will follow the rest of the computer industry and even begin to shift away from 32-bit gaming any time soon?

67% of computers running Steam can't run 16-bit games. 16-bit has been dead since the 1990s.

The transition from 16-bit to 32-bit was rapid because 16-bit is extremely limiting. The transition from 32-bit to 64-bit is slower because there's more means to get around the shortcomings of 32-bit (like reducing polygon count, decreasing the number of assets cached, etc.). If you haven't heard, Windows Server 2008 R2 is only available in 64-bit. The transition began seven years ago and it's starting to rapidly accelerate. It's going to happen at an exponential rate soon especially with consoles having 8 GiB of RAM.

People said that the conversion to 64-bit only gaming would happen rapidly when the N64 was released, with it being the first gaming console of its kind to use a 64-bit processor. That was 1996, and when the transition first began towards 64-bit among video game companies.

It's 17 years later, and they've barely even budged. Whether or not it happens rapidly elsewhere is pretty much irrelevant; it's not happening in the video game industry.

TanyaRubirose wrote:
That's your viewpoint. EA's? The best solution is to release an entirely new game. Why? Because the graphics of Sims 3 were outdated at time of release, the engine is restrictive enough that even the developers occasionally openly complain about it, a number of bugs simply can't be fixed without a complete rebuild of the source code (again, this is according to the developers), and there's a number of features that remain constant sources of complaint that cannot be fixed (babies being a prime example).

And, when they're releasing a new game, they'll be releasing it with a different engine, probably better graphics, and tighter coding... given they won't have any evidence that the new engine will require a 64-bit version, whats to say they won't simply decide that they don't need the support and release it only as 32-bit?

EA will have to make the decision on whether or not releasing 64-bit binaries for The Sims 3 makes sense. As I said previously, even if they don't but this thread causes them to make it available in a future Sim title, this thread was successful.

Personally, I want to see which way they go on this one; else, I would have just repeatedly pointed out the common computer user end until you gave up. Keeping this up near the top is pretty much why I've been arguing with you so much; after all, I could be wrong about Sims 4 (doubt I am about Sims 3)... and I wouldn't be unpleasantly surprised if I was ;)

Also, to highlight something: The first video game console to use a 64-bit processor was the N64, released in 1996. At the time, everyone thought it was going to change gaming on all systems. Fast forward 17 years...

Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and Wii all use 64-bit processors of IBM design. Wii U uses the same 64-bit architecture as its predecessor while Xbox and PlayStation 4 change to AMD64--the 64-bit extension to x86 (what is in your computer and mine).

Consoles used 64-bit processors for the performance advantage. Game developers on Windows only use 64-bit processors for the memory advantage. It's a crying shame. :(

I've noticed on that. Then again, I've also noticed the processors they actually use are stuff not even more dirt-cheap computer makers will touch; these processors are so old and out of date they don't even rate a performance rating for computer gamers.

Yet, on consoles, they do extremely well.