Could Sims 4 have more neighborhoods in worlds?

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.

They need to go back into the packs & had more lots, especially for:
Forgotten Hollow, Glimmerbrook & Promenade.

Also they need to make the following worlds liveable & more lots:
Sylan Glade, Cave, Sixam, Salvadora, Granite Falls & Batuu.

And finally unlock all thoughts Special Lots so they can be residental lots.

Yes they can add more neighborhoods (for example Mt. Komorebi technically has 6 neighborhoods, as the base camps are their own neighborhoods). However, there is no point in adding more neighborhoods if their goal is keeping the total number of lots down. That will just result in less lots per neighborhood.

Asking why the number of lots affect performance (when only lots in the current neighborhood are loaded) is like asking why Sims culling and Max Sim Count are a thing (when only Sims in the current neighborhood are loaded). It's not about what you SEE. It's about what the game needs to track behind the scene. It's like asking why open neighborhoods are not a thing when all lots are already loaded. Again it's not about what you SEE. The other lots in the neighborhood are only loaded physically for rendering purposes; logically the other lots are not loaded at all (i.e. things like object state/stats, routing/pathing info, autonomy graph, etc. are not loaded at all and thus these lots do not function at all).

Moreover, all Sims data, Lot data, Object data, etc. are serialized and then saved to a single save file. When you load the game everything is then deserialized. Your loading time will significantly worsen as your save file gets bigger.

"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.

I have trouble buying the affordability excuse. Im on disability, cant work and are as broke as they come and i still managed to build a PC that can run better than TS4 is giving us.

At this point EA is just making excuses for people who quite frankly just have better things to do with their money and time than play video games. They just dont like games enough to save up for such things, so we are basically being sold out for people who arent even gamers imo.

If you're that broke you probably wouldnt be spending money on all the packs EA spits out anyway. All of them together costs almost as much as a new computer at this point. If you managed to get even close to a complete Sims collection you coulda gotten yourself a decent computer. I doubt a silly video game like The Sims would be the *only* leisure purchase in your budget if you're just a casual gamer.

The community has long said EA wants it to appeal to casual gamers but the term casual gamer implies they choose to spend their money on other things rather than they *have* to spend their money on other things. People spend money on what they prioritize whether they are broke or not.

The fact people would rather scapegoat poor people than just admit EA actively chooses to make a bad game for profit reasons is kinda... gross actually.

Part of the reason for limiting the total number of lots is to limit the total number of sims placed in the world.

Housed sims are not culled. Favourite Sims are not culled. Played Sims are not culled. Only homeless, unfavourited, unplayed Sims are culled (to the max number in Options.)

Every Sim has info/stats/personal inventory. Every household has info/stats/household inventory.

All this sim info slows down the game as it needs to be accessed when those Sims spawn in each neighbourhood, when they are contacted off screen, met/socialised with at school/work, gifted items/cash and when any time an action changes their info in any way.

By limiting the number of lots, the devs are limiting the number of uncullable sims/sims relationships/sim inventories etc.

It's purely performance related.

In my opinion we should have any choice how mamy random townies we want to have in each savefile or how many sims we want to have per loading screen instead of small number of lots.

"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.

"EmmaVane;c-17916706" wrote:
Part of the reason for limiting the total number of lots is to limit the total number of sims placed in the world.

Housed sims are not culled. Favourite Sims are not culled. Played Sims are not culled. Only homeless, unfavourited, unplayed Sims are culled (to the max number in Options.)

Every Sim has info/stats/personal inventory. Every household has info/stats/household inventory.

All this sim info slows down the game as it needs to be accessed when those Sims spawn in each neighbourhood, when they are contacted off screen, met/socialised with at school/work, gifted items/cash and when any time an action changes their info in any way.

By limiting the number of lots, the devs are limiting the number of uncullable sims/sims relationships/sim inventories etc.

It's purely performance related.

@EmmaVane then they should let us manage which worlds we want in each save, just like they gave us the "favourite household" and "sim limit" so our families didn't get culled. My life playing SIms 4 would change with a simple warning saying "You're passing the limit of worlds supported by your device in your save file. Do you wish to proceed?".

I agree with you on the fact it wasn't about 32bit vs 64bit. It was an excuse the gurus fell back to whenever we questioned why certain features weren't being added to the game.

"@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.

They never blamed 32-bit for any of the game's limitations. You're literally making things up.

In fact, quite the opposite, when the game first launched, they insisted that updating the game to 64-bit will not provide any benefit, justifying their decision of making the game 32-bit. Their reasoning was that the entire game was designed to run on PCs with only 2GB RAM; it would be pointless to make a 64-bit version as the only difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is how much RAM it can use (32-bit applications can only use a max of 4GB RAM). The game was never going to need more than 4GB RAM and it was pointless to make a 64-bit version.