Forum Discussion
"Erpe;c-16216458" wrote:
@Deshong04 When I am talking about the graphics I am comparing CGA, EGA and early VGA graphics with more modern graphics. The differences are about more details and higher resolution.
Simplified cartoony styled graphics is very easy and fast to make for artists and therefore cheap to make. It is what still is used in many games for children and especially by new game companies who don’t have much money or skilled artists with advanced technics to make more advanced and detailed graphics that otherwise would be required to make fantasy worlds with landscapes, characters and monsters with more varying colors and many more details.
I could be wrong but just because the graphics are simplified doesn't necessarily make it easy or cheap. One thing I do know is that animation is expensive and so is game creation. However, depending on the developers there are some ways to lessen the costs but usually by doing so you end up with less in-depth gameplay and/or visuals which falls short of its best and fullest potential.
I'm also thinking in terms of different methods of animation. Regardless, it's all hard work if you want to do it right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GILQ09KFUbA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8kR7-iN8PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=levlAXk4y_o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26v_zbCVhTY
The early games only had 4 colors and quite low resolution. Therefore their graphics was primitive. But especially in the 1990s games got graphics with much higher resolution, many more details and many more colors. Then in 2000 TS1 was released with only a small neighborhood, graphics without many details and sims who looked so simplified and ugly that an artist only would need a couple of minutes to make them. This wasn’t at all what I would expect for a game at that time because it much more looked like a game made about 15 yrs earlier.
Your expectations for the game seem so far-fetched it's illogical and unreasonable. I can see if the advertising made it out to be something more than it actually was...like I heard about No Man's Sky. But as far as I know...no that wasn't the case. As far as the game not having many details please. It's more detailed than TS4...did you see the grass and the textures on objects unlike TS4, a Sims game from 2014 vs 2000? But let's just include all TS titles in the series to see each game's graphical details.
2000
https://s25.postimg.org/hhib1iqlb/20020214-vacation-5.jpg
2004
https://s25.postimg.org/msx7m8kdr/291748-screenshot_5_big.jpg
2009
https://s25.postimg.org/tzywhtkxb/Screenshot-260_2.jpg
2014
https://s25.postimg.org/m3ef9uwov/1088-1.jpg
But compare TS1’s graphics with TS2 and it should be obvious what I mean because TS2 sims have all the graphics and details which I would have expected already for TS1. It also came with 3 much bigger worlds. You can also compare the primitive looking Sims 1 pets with the pets in later Sims games because they also were simplified to suit everything else in TS1. TS1 was a cheap game to make and the reason must obvious be that EA didn’t expect it to be very successful at all. (But EA probably had an agreement with Will Wright to make it anyway as one of the conditions about EA’s purchase of Maxis.)
"Game designer Will Wright was inspired to create a "virtual doll house" after losing his home during the Oakland firestorm of 1991 and subsequently rebuilding his life. Replacing his home and his other possessions made him think about adapting that life experience into a game. When he initially took his ideas to the Maxis board of the directors, they were skeptical and gave little support or financing for the game. The directors at Electronic Arts, which bought Maxis in 1997, were more receptive—SimCity had been a great success for them, and they foresaw the possibility of building a strong Sim franchise." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims
Other interesting information.Spoiler
"While he was at home with his daughter, Wright began to turn over the idea for a new game, a kind of interactive doll house that adults would like as much as children. “I went around my house looking at all my objects, asking myself, ‘What’s the least number of motives or needs that would justify all this crap in my house?’ There should be some reason for everything in my house. What’s the reason?”
"Three works helped Wright understand how he could turn these life experiences into a game. One was the book “A Pattern Language,” by Christopher Alexander and his colleagues at the Center for Environmental Structure, in Berkeley. The book identifies two hundred and fifty-three timeless ways of building, which are classified as patterns—“Stair Seats,” “Children’s Realm,” etc.—and it shows how these patterns can create satisfying living spaces. The idea is that the value of architecture can be measured by the happiness of the people who live in it. The second was the psychologist Abraham Maslow’s 1943 paper “A Theory of Human Motivation,” in which Maslow described a pyramid-shaped hierarchy of human needs, with “Physiological” at the bottom, and above it “Safety,” “Love,” “Esteem,” and, at the top, “Self-actualization.” The third inspiration was Charles Hampden-Turner’s “Maps of the Mind,” which compares more than fifty theories about how the mind works. Putting these works together, Wright formulated a model with which to “score” the happiness of the people in his doll house by their status, popularity, and success, and by the quality of the environment the player designs for them—the more comfortable the house, the happier the people. Wright told me, “I don’t believe any one theory of human psychology is correct. The Sims just ended up being a mishmash of stuff that worked in the game.”
"The original Sims had eight motives or needs—hunger, hygiene, bladder, comfort, energy, social, fun, and room—all of which are affected by objects in the world around them. Life for a Sim is the pursuit of happiness, but happiness depends on social interaction and consumption, and consumption requires money. For example, the cheapest bed in The Sims 2, which costs three hundred “simoleons,” brings your Sim one point of comfort and two points of energy; a three-thousand-simoleon bed carries seven points of comfort and six of energy. Wright has said that he intended the game as a parody of consumerism, because “if you sit there and build a big mansion that’s all full of stuff, without cheating, you realize that all these objects end up sucking up all your time, when they had been promising to save you time.”
"Almost no dedicated Sims player, Wright included, actually follows the rules of the game, which force you to spend many hours working in menial jobs in order to be able to afford nicer stuff. Most players use the “cheats” that are widely available on the Internet and have been built into the game by the programmers. Cheats are short pieces of code you can type into the game that let you get around the rules. Typing “motherlode” into The Sims 2, for example, endows your Sims with fifty thousand simoleons. But using cheats doesn’t really feel like cheating, because playing The Sims doesn’t really feel like a game. It seems more like gardening, or fixing up your house. One of the game’s small triumphs is to make work seem like fun. As my fourteen-year-old niece exclaimed recently, when I asked her what she liked about playing The Sims, “You’ve got one Sim who you’ve got to get to school, and another who needs to get to his job, and their kid has been up all night and is in a bad mood, and the house is dirty—I mean, there’s a ton of things to do!”
"When Wright took his idea to the Maxis board of directors, Jeff Braun says, “The board looked at The Sims and said, ‘What is this? He wants to do an interactive doll house? The guy is out of his mind.’ ” Doll houses were for girls, and girls didn’t play video games. Maxis gave little support or financing for the game. Electronic Arts, which bought Maxis in 1997, was more enthusiastic. (Wright received seventeen million dollars in E.A. stock for his share of the company.) Wright’s games are so different from E.A.’s other releases that it was hard to imagine the two being united in the same enterprise. But the success of SimCity had already established Sim as a strong brand, and E.A., which by then, fifteen years after its founding, was becoming a Procter & Gamble-style brand-management company, foresaw the possibility of building a Sim franchise. Released in 2000, The Sims was an immediate hit; it went on to become the best-selling P.C. game of all time. E.A. has since licensed it to many other playing platforms, and issues regular Sims “expansion packs,” featuring new content, like Livin’ Large, House Party, and Hot Date. (Wright worked on The Sims 2, which was a major redesign, but he has had nothing to do with the expansion packs.) The Sims franchise has earned E.A. more than a billion dollars so far. E.A.’s only misstep was The Sims Online, the multiplayer version released in 2002, which failed to attract the masses of players drawn to other multiplayer games, such as World of Warcraft and Runescape."
"The Sims brought a huge new population to gaming—girls. That did not come as a complete surprise to Wright, since women made up forty per cent of his Sims development team, and his daughter Cassidy, then fourteen years old, had helped him tinker with the prototypes. When he was a kid, Wright told me, “I never played with dolls, which is more of a social thing than playing with trains—it’s about the people in the house. Cassidy helped me see that. She and her friends got into the purely creative side of the game, rather than the goal-oriented side, which really influenced me a lot.” Cassidy was traumatized to discover that the Sims could burn down their house, and die in the fire, if they weren’t careful around the stove. Wright left that feature in the game.
An unintended result of The Sims’ success is that Wright transformed the tactile experience of playing with dolls, which has been a part of children’s development for thousands of years, into a virtual experience. The enormous success of The Sims means that children today can grow up without having the hands-on model-making experiences that Wright enjoyed as a child, and that inspired him to make games in the first place."-https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/11/06/game-master
But TS2 got all the money it needed because EA then knew that young girls loved Sims games and EA probably expected TS2 to sell even much better than TS1 had done. But probably to EA’s disappointment this wasn’t the case anyway for some reason. It surprised me too. But maybe the main reason was that many girls refused to switch from TS1 to TS2 anyway?
You mean to tell me, that the reason was because "young girls" loved Sims when it's evident the game was targeted at EVERYONE, teen and up regardless of gender. There's no way it was because TS2 is the sequel, therefore, greatly improved and advanced over the first entry of the series? Also, where are you getting that TS2 was a disappointment for EA?
"The Sims was first released on February 4, 2000. By March 2002, The Sims had sold more than 6.3 million copies worldwide; and by February 2005, the game has shipped 16 million copies worldwide. By March 2015, The Sims had sold more than 11.24 million copies for PC, making it one of the best-selling PC game in history. Since its initial release, seven expansion packs have been released, as have sequels The Sims 2, The Sims 3 and The Sims 4. The Sims has won numerous awards, including GameSpot's "Game of the Year Award" for 2000.
In 2012, the game was one of 14 video games selected by the Museum of Modern Art as the basis for an intended collection of 40 games."
"The Sims 2 was a commercial success, selling one million copies in its first ten days, a record at the time. During April 2008, The Sims 2 website announced that 100 million copies of The Sims series had been sold. The Sims 2 was well received by critics, gaining a 90% score from aggregators Metacritic and GameRankings. By March 2012, The Sims 2 had sold over six million PC copies, and 13 million over all platforms, making it one of the best-selling PC games of all-time."-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims_2
The higher sales numbers for TS1 compared to the sales numbers for TS2, TS3 and TS4 also makes me wonder if EA really was right about making the games easier and with a less challenging than TS1 was just because EA now knew that most customers for Sims games were young girls? I am not at all sure that most girls really prefer easy and trivial games over more challenging games anyway?
The only game that dumbed down what a true Sims life simulator is, is TS4. Have you tried playing with Darren and Dirk Dreamer? And even in TS3 the player has the choice to make it difficult, easy or anywhere in-between based on how they choose to play.
For TS4 EA has gone even farther by making the game even more about the looks and less about the gameplay. But even though some simmers seem to love this it seems to me like the majority don’t? So I think that EA likely should revise this strategy about making the Sims games easy and mostly just about the graphics and the looks because I don’t think that the young girls (who loved TS1) really agree. My experience as a teacher for both boys and girls indicates otherwise too.
No, TS4 is the only game that cut out major gameplay elements to the point there is no real point or advantage to move on when the predecessors far succeed what this newest so-called sequel can do. The only downfall of TS3 excluding poor game optimization and leftover glitches, is not taking a full advantage of the open world. In base game there is no open shopping and dining like TS1 and TS2. Also, no subhoods like TS2. Those are my major pet peeves besides wanting the best stable gaming experience with each and every EP/SP/All Store Content. Oh, and one more thing, the coding can be overbearing when Sims get way too attracted to something but I suppose all Sims games have this issue just like routing. But it seems by now it should have been dealt with or solved by allowing the player to fine tune every single feature possible to their liking. Such is the case with NRass Retuner.- @Deshong04 It wasn’t my intention to talk down about the Sims games at all and some of your quotes are just rationalizations after the fact pretending that all the many expansions and later versions of the game were planned already when the Sims 1 basegame was released. They weren’t! ;)
Also you are mixing the technical problems about making the games with what you like or don’t like. But just because you don’t like a thing it doesn’t mean that it was easy to make or vice versa.
My interest in this discussion about Grant’s talk about the game’s future is also about what we can expect. But to have any chance to guess just a little about this we need to understand EA’s way of thinking and not just what we would like if we could get what we want and EA didn’t care about money, sales numbers and the game’s biggest customer group. Alas we don’t live in a perfect fantasy world where we can get just what we dream about and I don’t like to get my expections up to something that won’t ever happen anyway!
But I think that I have already said about all in my mind in this discussion. So I won’t repeat it. - GoodywoodNew Traveler
"MidnightAura;c-16201607" wrote:
"Deshong04;c-16201572" wrote:
"Yoko2112;c-16199135" wrote:
>says we get awesome, free stuff
>mentions pools and toddlers as examples, failing to realize that they are core features for a Sims game
>says they used to do only one expansion per year and a few stuff packs during TS3 times
https://i.imgur.com/hm57sV5.png
>fails to mention ( although divisive ) frequent store sets
>says they avoid crunch ( which is healthy ) but when you look at the half baked content riddled with bugs that they release you wonder if they take 3 spa breaks a week and let their inexperienced interns handle the coding
>says how well packs work combined with each other and conveniently mentions retail as the only feature that heavily makes use of that ( because otherwise the feature would be useless )
>retail is still broken as of this moment
>other similarly combinable features like GT clubs have seen less and less support over the year
Golly gee, I can't wait to see what the future holds.
If TS4 is doing so well, then why lie about TS3? To attempt to falsely justify the new less is more business model?
TS1(7 Expansion Packs)
https://s25.postimg.org/hrn0ovoqn/TS1_Exp.png
TS2 (8 Expansions Packs)
https://s25.postimg.org/b16jfgh0f/TS2_Exp.png
TS3 (11 Expansion Packs)
TS4 (4 Expansion Packs)
https://s25.postimg.org/diiamrycv/TS4_Exp.png"MidnightAura;c-16199307" wrote:
I wish they would stop talking about toddlers and pools and act like giving them free was the most generous act ever. It isn't. As said already it's base game content that should have been there at launch. As already mentioned the Sims 3 had more than one expansion a year and it shows. From the interview Grant implies they are making more content for this game then previously. All I see is expansions being served on a smaller plate with key features being served as separate dishes.
The only way for game companies to learn is to hit them where it hurts...no quality game = no profit. Unfortunately, TS4 must be that grand for some to refuse standing up for their own consumer rights and demand what they deserve or goodbye. It doesn't matter though, just as long it's not me. I've already accepted the future of The Sims is dead. Will Wright's legacy was amazing while it lasted through the years 2000-2013. What an amazing ride it's been. :mrgreen: <3
Yup I completely agree. This is part of the problem, people are happy to pay ridiculous prices for minimal. And of course minimal is subjective but had someone told me 5 years ago one day people would happily pay for laundry in a video game? I can only scratch my head in disbelief. The sims is the only community happy to pay for crumbs when previously we got the full loaf. Sim Guru Graham said they once considered doing a stuff pack based around pool toys. If people want to pay for every little thing then more power to them but I don't understand it.
The biggest problem the sims 4 has it's the 4th. Not the first. The problem it will always have is the previous games exist.
I agree, but I'm concerned that if we don't support Sims 4 there will not be a Sims 5. However if we do support Sims 4 then that means Sims 5 will likely be even more lacking and unfinished than Sims 4. It's like, what do you do? :( "Erpe;c-16217968" wrote:
@Deshong04 It wasn’t my intention to talk down about the Sims games at all and some of your quotes are just rationalizations after the fact pretending that all the many expansions and later versions of the game were planned already when the Sims 1 basegame was released. They weren’t! ;)
Though I may often be passionate when I write or even in my feelings, I don't care to take it personally if someone has a differing opinion, doesn't like any game for whatever reason. I'm in it for the fun of the debate and improve, challenge my logic and reasoning.
I'm not sure where you even get "pretending that all the many expansions and later versions of the game were planned already when the Sims 1 basegame was released." That didn't even cross my mind nor something I was trying to convey. I never said that and if you interpreted something wrong, oh well.
Also you are mixing the technical problems about making the games with what you like or don’t like. But just because you don’t like a thing it doesn’t mean that it was easy to make or vice versa.
If you say so.
My interest in this discussion about Grant’s talk about the game’s future is also about what we can expect. But to have any chance to guess just a little about this we need to understand EA’s way of thinking and not just what we would like if we could get what we want and EA didn’t care about money, sales numbers and the game’s biggest customer group. Alas we don’t live in a perfect fantasy world where we can get just what we dream about and I don’t like to get my expections up to something that won’t ever happen anyway!
It's clear to understand EA's way of thinking. The evidence has been shown again and again. Many already know how EA run things. A little something called history and paying attention to what the CEO and any other influential people in the top ranks say or have said.
When TS4 finally showed a sneak peek, the majority wasn't fond of it but hey maybe that was just the early development stage right? No. Despite that, some continued to support for whatever reason even though they were not overall satisfied with TS4. Expectations the lowest when it's the fourth entry of a continuous popular and beloved, one-of-a-kind franchise. The Sims 4 and any future Sims games, if it continues, will most likely resemble a glorified mobile/console version of a goal-orientated game that plays on a PC. It has support so why wouldn't that be the most probable future when it's a whole lot cheaper to make with less resources and less development team members.
You can have false hope if you want. But me, after TS4...no more. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
But I think that I have already said about all in my mind in this discussion. So I won’t repeat it.- @Deshong04 We mainly agree. But what I usually have a problem with in all such discussions is:
1. Most simmers stubbornly thinks that EA and Maxis just make the games at random and almost on purpose try to make the games bad. I don’t at all agree with this.
2. In my opinion EA makes the games just to earn money and EA tells Maxis who the target group is, what the budget is and what EA thinks is important to get high sales numbers for as little money as possible. The games aren’t targeted at experienced simmers at all and they are only meant to be played rarely and shortly just like children and young teens usually do. EA focuses on SPs because they are cheap to make and sell best because young simmers more easily can persuade their parents to let them have them.
So no. I don’t have high expectations for TS5 either because TS5 will have the same target group and likely focus even more on SPs than TS4 has done. "Erpe;c-16218295" wrote:
@Deshong04 We mainly agree. But what I usually have a problem with in all such discussions is:
1. Most simmers stubbornly thinks that EA and Maxis just make the games at random and almost on purpose try to make the games bad. I don’t at all agree with this.
2. In my opinion EA makes the games just to earn money and EA tells Maxis who the target group is, what the budget is and what EA thinks is important to get high sales numbers for as little money as possible. The games aren’t targeted at experienced simmers at all and they are only meant to be played rarely and shortly just like children and young teens usually do. EA focuses on SPs because they are cheap to make and sell best because young simmers more easily can persuade their parents to let them have them.
So no. I don’t have high expectations for TS5 either because TS5 will have the same target group and likely focus even more on SPs than TS4 has done.
BULL!"Writin_Reg;c-16218508" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16218295" wrote:
@Deshong04 We mainly agree. But what I usually have a problem with in all such discussions is:
1. Most simmers stubbornly thinks that EA and Maxis just make the games at random and almost on purpose try to make the games bad. I don’t at all agree with this.
2. In my opinion EA makes the games just to earn money and EA tells Maxis who the target group is, what the budget is and what EA thinks is important to get high sales numbers for as little money as possible. The games aren’t targeted at experienced simmers at all and they are only meant to be played rarely and shortly just like children and young teens usually do. EA focuses on SPs because they are cheap to make and sell best because young simmers more easily can persuade their parents to let them have them.
So no. I don’t have high expectations for TS5 either because TS5 will have the same target group and likely focus even more on SPs than TS4 has done.
BULL!
Why? Don’t you agree that TS4 focuses more on SPs than the previous games ever did? And less on EPs?
Have you seen any simmers ask for that? Or am I right that EA made that change on its own just because SPs are so cheap to make and sell so surprisingly well?"Erpe;c-16218511" wrote:
"Writin_Reg;c-16218508" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16218295" wrote:
@Deshong04 We mainly agree. But what I usually have a problem with in all such discussions is:
1. Most simmers stubbornly thinks that EA and Maxis just make the games at random and almost on purpose try to make the games bad. I don’t at all agree with this.
2. In my opinion EA makes the games just to earn money and EA tells Maxis who the target group is, what the budget is and what EA thinks is important to get high sales numbers for as little money as possible. The games aren’t targeted at experienced simmers at all and they are only meant to be played rarely and shortly just like children and young teens usually do. EA focuses on SPs because they are cheap to make and sell best because young simmers more easily can persuade their parents to let them have them.
So no. I don’t have high expectations for TS5 either because TS5 will have the same target group and likely focus even more on SPs than TS4 has done.
BULL!
Why? Don’t you agree that TS4 focuses more on SPs than the previous games ever did? And less on EPs?
Have you seen any simmers ask for that? Or am I right that EA made that change on its own just because SPs are so cheap to make and sell so surprisingly well?
Yes I have seen simmers ask repeatedly since Sims 2 and we first got stuff packs to have some animated objects in them and make them even cheaper priced. In sims 3 - not everyone could afford the high prices of the Sims 3 store - and did not like using CC in their game so their only content came from eps and sps - only people with less money to spend on gaming also could not afford 20 dollars for a stuff pack with nothing but a few items - none of which added any game play in most packs. Many of these same simmers are still here. Many of these simmers can sometimes afford a cheaper 10 dollar stuff pack - and with having each one contain new game play - the sps do expand their games - give them new stuff - when many of these same simmer cannot buy eps at 40 bucks a pop (same price most were usually in Sims 3 too) so at least they can add to their games now and not just be stuck with a base game.
So yes for many years some players did ask for them and now they got what they asked for - stuff packs they can afford that gives them some new game play. As someone who buys everything for sims - I can still be very happy for simmers who by no fault of their own can't be like me, and now they have a chance to actually get some game play - and more often than every before - at a price they can sometimes afford. How can you want to deny these players - by demanding they cut down on sps or get rid of them or demand they stop putting game play in an sp because you would rather all that be in more eps a year? Why so these people I am talking about get no new game play at all.
You have a choice to buy or not buy what ever from the way you talk all the time- not every one has your advantage. Think outside your own box and yourself. I am very glad we have 10 dollar stuff packs with added game play. Pardon me for loving things that make others happy too.
Hey if you don't like sps - don't buy them - but don't deny folks finally getting something they have been begging for - for over 10 years."Erpe;c-16218295" wrote:
@Deshong04 We mainly agree. But what I usually have a problem with in all such discussions is:
1. Most simmers stubbornly thinks that EA and Maxis just make the games at random and almost on purpose try to make the games bad. I don’t at all agree with this.
2. In my opinion EA makes the games just to earn money and EA tells Maxis who the target group is, what the budget is and what EA thinks is important to get high sales numbers for as little money as possible. The games aren’t targeted at experienced simmers at all and they are only meant to be played rarely and shortly just like children and young teens usually do. EA focuses on SPs because they are cheap to make and sell best because young simmers more easily can persuade their parents to let them have them.
So no. I don’t have high expectations for TS5 either because TS5 will have the same target group and likely focus even more on SPs than TS4 has done.
1. I think EA just like some other companies know how to work the system to their benefit while taking an advantage of the consumers who choose to buy their product(s) that is not worth the asking price because of its low quality or whatever else ill business practices. But that's the consumers fault for allowing it. And the complaints mean nothing when they still support it because all a company needs is to continue to make a profit and who cares what they want? Just throw them a bone here and there and let them think the company cares. Some of them won't know the difference.
2. Stuff packs are a nice addition because it adds more variety of objects in-game and usually has unique themes as usually is the case also in EP's. The option of having more stuff is not a bad thing. Especially, for those who love to build or interior design but is great for anyone who wants a bigger selection than what the base game and expansion packs offers.
TS4 issues has nothing to do with stuff packs. It has everything to do with labeling a game to intentionally mislead people into thinking that it is a continuous sequel of TS1, TS2 and TS3 that worked so hard to continue that growing, improved and advanced foundation. When in fact, TS4 is more of a reboot that lost its roots as The Sims and in the genre it is supposed to represent as a people/life simulator where a sandbox experience remains adamant in the main PC series."Erpe;c-16219012" wrote:
"Deshong04;c-16218976" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16218295" wrote:
@Deshong04 We mainly agree. But what I usually have a problem with in all such discussions is:
1. Most simmers stubbornly thinks that EA and Maxis just make the games at random and almost on purpose try to make the games bad. I don’t at all agree with this.
2. In my opinion EA makes the games just to earn money and EA tells Maxis who the target group is, what the budget is and what EA thinks is important to get high sales numbers for as little money as possible. The games aren’t targeted at experienced simmers at all and they are only meant to be played rarely and shortly just like children and young teens usually do. EA focuses on SPs because they are cheap to make and sell best because young simmers more easily can persuade their parents to let them have them.
So no. I don’t have high expectations for TS5 either because TS5 will have the same target group and likely focus even more on SPs than TS4 has done.
1. I think EA just like some other companies know how to work the system to their benefit while taking an advantage of the consumers who choose to buy their product(s) that is not worth the asking price because of its low quality or whatever else ill business practices. But that's the consumers fault for allowing it. And the complaints mean nothing when they still support it because all a company needs is to continue to make a profit and who cares what they want? Just throw them a bone here and there and let them think the company cares. Some of them won't know the difference.
2. Stuff packs are a nice addition because it adds more variety of objects in-game and usually has unique themes as usually is the case also in EP's. The option of having more stuff is not a bad thing. Especially, for those who love to build or interior design but is great for anyone who wants a bigger selection than what the base game and expansion packs offers.
TS4 issues has nothing to do with stuff packs. It has everything to do with labeling a game to intentionally mislead people into thinking that it is a continuous sequel of TS1, TS2 and TS3 that worked so hard to continue that growing, improved and advanced foundation. When in fact, TS4 is more of a reboot that lost its roots as The Sims and in the genre it is supposed to represent as a people/life simulator where a sandbox experience remains adamant in the main PC series.
Stuff packs were introduced in TS2 as a Christmas stuff pack which also had just a little gameplay with Father Christmas. Until then EA hadn’t believed that SPs would sell at all and the first SP was just an experiment. It wasn’t even copy protected like all other expansions because EA thought that it would at most sell a little in the month before Christmas. But to EA’s huge surprise it sold extremely well.
So EA decided to repeat the experiment about Easter and again released a SP as an experiment and without copy protection to see if it would sell at all when it wasn’t even Christmas. It sure did!
So after that SPs were released on a regular basis and from now on always with copy protection!
I never liked the high sales numbers for SPs because I knew that those high sales numbers would mean that EA would focus more on stuff and less on the gameplay that I wanted instead. EA attempted to sell stuff instead through the Sims 3 store. But it only made EA realize that stuff sell better in SPs than it sells when it is sold as single items.
So we see the result for TS4 which was the first big Sims game that mainly concentrate on SPs and to an extent where EA decided to make the EPs smaller and to replace half of the EPs with GPs. Grant’s remarks about the big expansions now out of the way shows that the next EP now is so far out in the future that they don’t even really start working on it yet.
Read his blog on http://hyperbolegames.com/blog/journal-10282017 btw. It shows that the developers play very different games when they only play for fun ;)
Are you sure you played the Sims 2?There was no Easter stuff pack in Sims 2.
About The Sims 4 General Discussion
Join lively discussions, share tips, and exchange experiences on Sims 4 Expansion Packs, Game Packs, Stuff Packs & Kits.33,080 PostsLatest Activity: 2 hours ago
Related Posts
Recent Discussions
- 40 minutes ago
- 43 minutes ago