"Paigeisin5;c-17911056" wrote:
In the beginning, the size of the worlds was said to be a problem because we were still using 32bit rather than 64. That was also the supposed reason why so much was missing from the base game, then it became the scapegoat again when certain game play features in new packs were buggy and lacked the depth of the same features in Sims2 and 3. When EA announced the teams would be creating new content using 64bit, I was hopeful. But then all conversations about it stopped, and we had no idea when the conversion would actually happen. If I remember correctly, one to two years passed before the conversion was finalized just before DU was released, and players with lower end devices were given the Legacy Edition but could not purchase new packs or update the base game in the future. But at least they were able to play Sims4.
Fast forward to now and we are still being given the same excuses about world size as were given three years ago: Performance issues may arise for players running PCs with lower specs. EA is trying to paint itself as a hero for making the game playable for everyone no matter what kind of PC a player owns. But 64bit games have been the norm for several years, and those of us who have kept up with the advances in technology are the ones being fed excuses for Sims4's shortcomings. Sims4 is still lacking, it's buggy and the worlds have become smaller and filled with empty unusable buildings. One of my biggest gripes about all of this is the fact EA lied to us. It painted the conversion as something that would help the teams create new content that was more in line with what we saw in Sims2 and 3. The conversion was supposed to open the game up to new possibilities. But it didn't happen that way at all. Sims4 is flailing because it's more profitable for EA to keep those players with low end PCs buying new packs. The amusing part in EA's plan? Many of us are not buying new packs, or we purchase packs in bundles or at half price because the content doesn't justify the cost of those new packs.
I realize not everyone has the funds to go out and purchase new PCs and laptops. I am not here to offend, or to demean anyone's circumstances. But after almost seven years of being told certain things can't happen with Sims4, something has to change. Fewer decorative buildings we can't use, would ease the loading time and resources used. If the teams would give us a couple of empty new worlds with larger lots that are suitable for players with high end PCs and laptops, we wouldn't be having this conversation. All we're asking for is having fewer restrictions being forced on the players fortunate enough to have the ability to utilize larger worlds. I would happily pay for a pack with a world that isn't bogged down with more CAS and BB assets. I don't need new game play features. I just want a nice big world with a view that doesn't include a phony backdrop. It's called having choices. And that would be an amazing solution at this point.
@Paigeisin5 I bet Sims 4's problem was ever the 32 bit one, but rather their plans to make it console compatible. Making SIms 4 compatible with console was equal to making Simcity an online game to the extent that it limits the game deeply (and I'm not even accounting the fact that Sims 4 itself was also supposed to be online).
So, the problem is running a lot of sims info? And loading a bunch of objects at the same time? Then give us a +/- button to delete or add which worlds we want in each file, and start giving us bigger worlds (with empty lots prepared for each pack previously added like a store plot, a restaurant plot, a spa plot, etc so we don't run in the same trouble as Sims 3 not tying all worlds with all packs). Let us manage our save sizes, let us be responsible for our amusement or downfall. Stop giving excuses for mediocrity.
