Forum Discussion
"drake_mccarty;c-16243615" wrote:
The Sims has survived on the same format since it’s creation, with successful new content lines added with each game. (Sims 2/Stuff Packs, Sims 3/DLC Store, Sims 4/Game Packs)
If EA’s analysis were that more stuff meant less money, then why exactly did they steadily release expensive Store exclusive content in addition to 2 full expansions and 2 full stuff packs every year for The Sims 3’s entire shelf life? I mean if they were losing money, then the obvious course would be to cut back on what you are spending - which did not happen. If anything the store saw expanded investment with the addition of premium objects and store exclusive worlds.
The push for a cheap investment with Sims 4 all stems from the game’s massive unpopularity when it launched, and EA’s desire to make the game a financial success by any means necessary.
EA’s policy has clearly changed a lot but graduately through the years.
TS1 was made very cheap because EA had only expected that maybe a part of the SimCity gamers would buy it. But suddenly a lot of young girls who hadn’t bought games before bought it too and the sales numbers exploded. So EA had to make a few EPs too and they became bigger and bigger.
But after 4 years EA released TS2 with a much improved basegame. EA now knew that this was about to become a very profitable series. But EA still wasn’t sure and the EPs were therefore quite big because EA doubted that smaller EPs or SPs would sell at all.
A couple of years later EA began to experiment with SPs too. The first one was made for Christmas and EA only hoped that it would sell a little before Christmas. So EA released it without copy protection. But again the sales numbers exploded. So EA released another SP as an experiment only a few months later (just before Easter) and to EA’s surprise it sold extremely well too. So after this EA began to release SPs regularly.
Then EA released TS3 and experimented with other types of expansions and with stuff sold in the store. But the conclusion apparently was that stuff was best sold in SPs and that expensive EPs didn’t sell as well as cheap SPs.
So EA released TS4 and with a modified policy. EA wanted multitasking, autonomy, partying and happiness to be in focus. But the multitasking and the autonomy wouldn’t work well with the open world if EA still wanted the minimum requirements to be low. So the open world was omitted and so was toddlers because EA didn’t think that they were important in a game with a different focus.
So TS4 was released without toddlers but with more autonomy, multitasking, partying and happiness and half of the EPs were replaced by a GP and more SPs such that simmers could buy everything for the same budget while EA could save some money by reducing the number of developers working on the game. The GPs proved to sell better than the EPs as EA had hoped. So EA later increased the number of GPs to 2 GPs each year while still only making 1 EP. But I am still sure that EA started the development of the next basegame too years ago and plans to release it in 2019 :)"Erpe;c-16243553" wrote:
"aricarai;c-16242979" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16241937" wrote:
"aricarai;c-16241905" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16241883" wrote:
"JoAnne65;c-16241871" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16240425" wrote:
"JoAnne65;c-16240287" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16240176" wrote:
"JoAnne65;c-16240153" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16240134" wrote:
"TheHavocado;c-16240016" wrote:
Well if anything, The Sims 5 should be the new era Sims 2 or a lot of people are going to be dissapointed, especially if they did the lackluster release day again. The Sims 4 Ratings shot down faster than an F-15 during it's first week release, especially when (according to wiki) you consider the fact that "...This was the most successful PC game launch the company had ever had to date".
The Sims games have always had low ratings in the reviews and among other gamers who never have understood why this game got high sales numbers at all when it in their eyes isn’t even a real game but more like a toy for mainly young girls (or a virtual dollhouse).
EA also clearly hadn’t expected TS1 to become successful at all. Therefore the budget for TS1 was very low which meant that its game world became very small and its graphics looked very simple and outdated too. The reasons was that EA only expected a part of the SimCity gamers to buy it. But what EA hadn’t foreseen was that TS1 suddenly attracted millions of young girls who never had played a game before.
TS3 may have had the most successful launch (most copies sold on its release day). But TS1 still sold almost twice as many copies. So TS1 must clearly be the most successful game that EA ever launched.
The high sales numbers for TS3 on day one was caused by the open seamless world. But EA can’t ever get a similar success just by advertising the next Sims game as ”The return of the open world” anyway because the simmers who loved it then most likely will just stay with TS3 instead. So EA needs something new to use in the advertising instead. Maybe it will be something about ”the option to play and cooperate with your friends in the game”.
Why on earth should I continue playing Sims 3 when there would be a new great Sims game with new content and improvements and open world? I’d jump over to that new game immediately. It’s not open world (or CASt) that keeps me playing Sims 3. It’s the lack of a better alternative. I’ve tried the alternative and then returned. There was only one reason for that: while Sims 4 made me constantly go ‘what shal I do now..., oh what shall I do next’, then closing the game after two hours tops, my Sims 3 game sort of plays itself and I only quit because I have to go to bed. If they’d deliver a new game that does that, open world or not, Sims 3 could retire.
I didn’t write that to you and you seem to have misunderstood me.
The reason that I don’t play TS4 isn’t about the missing open world either and we seem to agree about what is wrong with TS4. That wasn’t my point.
But if TS5 is marketed as “a new Sims game similar to Sims 3 and with the open world returning” then it will get low sales numbers and especially if the EPs are just repetions too. Not because you won’t buy it because I am sure that you actually would :) But because most young teens would reject the game. Partly because they won’t like an attempt from EA to revive an old game - and partly because they would have wanted something new instead and think that EA must have run out of ideas :)
For us here in the forum such things aren’t really so important because we are the hardcore fans who most likely will buy almost anything. But for new young simmers without much money and with a lot of other interests too in their lives things are different. They won’t just throw out their sparce money on a game that doesn’t seem to have anything new to offer to them.
I know you didn't directly adress me but regardless, the statement
"But EA can’t ever get a similar success just by advertising the next Sims game as ”The return of the open world” anyway because the simmers who loved it then most likely will just stay with TS3 instead. So EA needs something new to use in the advertising instead."
begged for a reaction, because any simmer who's playing Sims 3 right now will probably confirm what I said. It's your theory EA has to have a brand new selling point to be able to sell the game and heck, for all we know EA agrees with you and thinks so too. I don't agree with that theory though, I don't think that's how it works for simmers. As long as they give us an immersive game that allows us to play with little people in a creative way, we're happy. In fact one of Sims 4's most popular selling claims among fans was 'back to its roots'.
Your theory (and who knows EA's theory) denies the fact that a community and sharing is highly important for simmers. The TS3 section is great, with lovely/sweet people sharing both information and experiences, but we're also sharing history. There is the occasional "Did you know that..." - "No, I didn't! Wow, got to try that!" but for the rest we're all stuck in the past. It's a beautiful past, I love that past, but that doesn't mean I - or anyone else - wouldn't rather move on. Playing Sims 3 has become a shelter, a place to turn to in absence of something better. Suggesting people who play the old games (regardless the version) do so out of lack of a will to move on/adjust/change, means you're shortchanging them and don't understand what they're coming from and it even denies their actual issues in a way.
And that's us oldies. When they'll announce Sims 5 it will be like 2020 earliest. Those young teens you're referring to will be kids who never played Sims 3, nor know the game. Open world will be a brand new concept for them.
The reason why we see things differently is mainly that you concentrate on what the forum here thinks. But by doing this you completely ignore the fact that if only the forum (or even 10 times as many simmers) bought the game then EA wouldn’t be able to support the game anymore without losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
So what EA concentrates about is of course instead the about 6 million other simmers all over the world. Most of those simmers aren’t hardcore simmers at all but instead mostly young experimenting new simmers who just bought the game because they found something in the advertising interesting. They usually play much less then people here do and they only buy something if it looks interesting.
Those simmers are also the reason why EA now regularly releases new content in the free updates because the reason for this clearly is to get lost simmers back to playing the game (and hopefully also buy a little more expansions). EA surely doesn’t use money on such things just to be kind to the few hardcore simmers in this forum ;)
We can guess about the the release day of TS5 all we want. Simmers have always thought that the next Sims game was many years out in the future and become very surprised when EA announced it years before they expected. The reason of course is that simmers always want the current Sims game to be “complete” before EA moves on. But EA has never agreed with this idea and instead just announced the next big Sims game to avoid that sales numbers for new expansion become too low and then released the new game 15 months after the announcement. So I expect EA to announce TS5 in the middle of this year and then release it next year anyway. But you are welcome to believe that EA just will go on releasing 4 SPs, 2 GPs and an EP each year forever until new simmers will have to buy hundreds of such expansions just to get a “complete” Sims 4 game :)
No, I'm concentrating on what I, a Sims 3 player, thinks ;) You were speaking for a group of simmers you don't belong to (people who love and play Sims 3), filling in for them what they would do. I'm one of those players and I can assure you, you are mistaken with your analysis of us. And we may differ in our expectation of the release of the next title, I sure hope you are right and I am not.
I made no analysis of your way of thinking. But you pretend to be able to speak for all the millions of TS3 players who never visited this forum at all. You can’t!
What you still won’t accept is that the few hundred simmers in this forum aren’t just like the millions of simmers who got the game too but rarely (or for most of them likely never) visited a game forum. The simmers in the forum like to speak about their game all the time. But the huge majority of the customers for Sims games don’t and they usually have several other interests too. Therefore they don’t just buy any new Sims game just like you do - and they sure won’t buy a new Sims game if it seems to be just the same as the old Sims game they maybe played less and less a couple of years ago! They need something new in the new game to bring them back - or they won’t buy the new game at all!
EA knows this and therefore always concentrated on bringing something new into the advertising for each new Sims game and EA has during the years cared less and less about the opinions in the forum because the hardcore fans here always seem to just want the same game again and again (in slightly improved versions) because EA disagrees with the forum.
But you're doing the exact that you're accusing @JoAnne65 of doing. You're making assumptions for a large group of people. You can't possibly say a huge majority of whatever group does this or that or will buy this or that, unless you've conducted some sort of poll...of which results I would be interested to see.
I have known a lot of young gamers through the years and they usually aren’t at all like most of the simmers in this forum because they don’t just go on and playing the same game as they did 5 or 10 years ago. They also wouldn’t just go on and on buying expansions for the same game. So the game companies never released a lot of expansions for their games.
Besides that I am different myself too because I have tried hundreds of games and a few of them were my favorites which I played all the time for a year or two. But even so I don’t miss them and I won’t go back to playing them. I need new games instead.
But of course this wouldn’t prove anything if EA followed the forum and just released slightly modified versions of the previous Sims games and with just slightly improved versions of the same EPs. At a time EA actually had the policy to switch between new EPs and remakes of previous EPs all the time. But EA clearly has dropped that idea completely for TS4 and now attempts to only release new expansions and no repetitions. So EA seems to know that repetions generally sell worse than new types of expansions do because otherwise EA sure wouldn’t do it this way! ;)
@Erpe - you're talking in circles here. You cannot make assumptions for a large group of people unless of course these are backed up by facts. So this group of young gamers, are they Simmers too?
You do realise that all of these young teenage girls that you constantly talk about won't be in that age range by the time the next game is dropped.
I completely agree with @JoAnne65 that if Sims 5 came out and it was an improved version of Sims 3, I'll be moving on. Why would I stick with something that I love when I can have an improved version of what I love? Why would anyone? If that was the case, iPhones and Androids wouldn't sell like they do.
We need to stop this discussion because you accuse me of talking in circles and not giving you 100% proof while I am talking to people who don’t prove anything but just stubbornly repeat their own wishful thinking about EA releasing expansions for TS4 forever - just like the Sims 1 simmers, the Sims 2 simmers and the Sims 3 simmers did until EA after at most 5 years released the next basegame anyway! Dream on! But I am out of this discussion.
The problem here is, that you’re taking people to task for something you’re doing yourself constantly. In fact the reason you get irritated (I think) is that one of your own generalizations is questioned by a small group of people of the large group you are trying to frame. All we are doing is counterposing to that: no, that group of simmers you are trying to generalize, predicting how they will act, is most probably not going to act in that way. And though we can’t speak for millions either (the way you’re doing yourself), at least we are arguing from their perspective, being Sims 3 fans ourselves.
(the idea of EA endlessly releasing packs for Sims 4 for the years to come is hardly wishful thinking for many of us, rather unwishful fearing)- @Erpe I think most simmers here know your opinions, I don’t think you’re being ignored? I see people reacting to what you say all the time. But when your response to any form of counterposing and disagreeing is 'you live in a dreamworld', people stop reacting I can imagine, because that's not very constructive and leads nowhere. You'll have to accept you don't have the monopoly on the truth, nobody does.
It’s not true I’m not interested in how the game industry works, I in fact very much am (which is why I know for example the amount of money EA makes with DLC for Sims games is very unique in this industry). I also know giant EA’s SimCity was wiped out by a small company that created a similar game built on a more idealistic foundation ("let's put in there what we'd want in there ourselves when we'd play this"). Gamers turned away from the 'big business' approach and embraced the small-scaled approach. Because it was more fun and they felt listened to and taken seriously for a change. Who knows that got big companies thinking. I hope so.
I'm not hoping that EA will release expansions for Sims 4 for years to come because I play Sims 3? If that were an ingredient I couldn't care less (like I don't care other companies are busy making other games I'm not interested in). The reason I hope Sims 4 won't last years and years to come in fact is because it's keeping them from creating a next game. I in fact agree with you that for EA it's big business, it's just our conclusions that differ. It's exactly why I think they're gonna milk this cow till it's dry. Because it's much more lucrative and effective than jumping into an entirely new project. Especially when simmers are buying everything they deliver (like you confirmed yourself earlier), calling the game cheap even. When you can make money doing this:
https://www.cynthiaqueen.com/A_PHOTOGRAPH/AnimatedHorses/2014JanAnimations/enclipart/fish/animated_gif_animals_0543.gif
... why bother. I think our reasoning isn't that far apart, only the conclusions we attach to it are. - I think that it would be kinda cool if they added a new stage of life kinda like a preteen because the transition from child to teenager is a little drastic :#
"JoAnne65;c-16243911" wrote:
@Erpe I think most simmers here know your opinions, I don’t think you’re being ignored? I see people reacting to what you say all the time. But when your response to any form of counterposing and disagreeing is 'you live in a dreamworld', people stop reacting I can imagine, because that's not very constructive and leads nowhere. You'll have to accept you don't have the monopoly on the truth, nobody does.
I think that the problem here is that we all love the Sims games exactly because they are creating a dreamworld for us and because we can control that dreamworld in way that we can’t control our real lives. In the Sims games we decide everything and we always succeed. We can just let the sim who we see as our “self” flirt with anybody and take whatever job the game offers and we never get a no from the sim we want to date or marry and we can always be promoted to the top level in our chosen career. We even decide who our neighbors and our children should marry and again we always succeed. So when we are playing we leave the real world and all our problems and failures to just live in a perfect dreamworld. But when we then enter this forum we easily attempt to stay in such a dreamworld and imagine that EA also just wants to let our dreams come true.
But then I sometimes break the bubble because I don’t play the game anymore. A lot of simmers just don’t like that. So I have become more careful to at least not answer people’s dreaming comments in a personal way which they clearly don’t like.
I have actually recently also attempted to play the opposite type of games which is how I see survival games where you often will die unless you do everything right. They can be set in a post nuclear world where you can die of hunger or because you don’t make weapons to defend yourself against wild animals fast enough. But even though I like the challenge I can’t really play such games anymore because they are too hard and I feel too old to return to such a hard life even in a game :)It’s not true I’m not interested in how the game industry works, I in fact very much am (which is why I know for example the amount of money EA makes with DLC for Sims games is very unique in this industry). I also know giant EA’s SimCity was wiped out by a small company that created a similar game built on a more idealistic foundation ("let's put in there what we'd want in there ourselves when we'd play this"). Gamers turned away from the 'big business' approach and embraced the small-scaled approach. Because it was more fun and they felt listened to and taken seriously for a change. Who knows that got big companies thinking. I hope so.
It isn’t so clear cut as you can see if you read the article on https://www.polygon.com/features/2015/4/8/8340665/cities-skylines-simcityI'm not hoping that EA will release expansions for Sims 4 for years to come because I play Sims 3? If that were an ingredient I couldn't care less (like I don't care other companies are busy making other games I'm not interested in). The reason I hope Sims 4 won't last years and years to come in fact is because it's keeping them from creating a next game. I in fact agree with you that for EA it's big business, it's just our conclusions that differ. It's exactly why I think they're gonna milk this cow till it's dry. Because it's much more lucrative and effective than jumping into an entirely new project. Especially when simmers are buying everything they deliver (like you confirmed yourself earlier), calling the game cheap even. When you can make money doing this:
https://www.cynthiaqueen.com/A_PHOTOGRAPH/AnimatedHorses/2014JanAnimations/enclipart/fish/animated_gif_animals_0543.gif
... why bother. I think our reasoning isn't that far apart, only the conclusions we attach to it are.
If EA thought like this then EA wouldn’t have released TS3 or TS4 either but just released more SPs and EPs for TS2 or TS3 instead. But if EA had done this then sales numbers would have gone down and EA would then have had doubts about continuing the Sims franchise at all. So therefore EA has always begun to develop the next basegame about the same time as when EA released the previous basegame and always with the plan to release this new basegame 5 years later.
We agree about wanting TS5 because at least there is a chance that we will like this game more. But I don’t care too much because I know that I have to be lucky for this to happen. EA doesn’t target the games at a simmer like me and therefore the chance that I will like them anyway is limited."Erpe;c-16243649" wrote:
"drake_mccarty;c-16243615" wrote:
The Sims has survived on the same format since it’s creation, with successful new content lines added with each game. (Sims 2/Stuff Packs, Sims 3/DLC Store, Sims 4/Game Packs)
If EA’s analysis were that more stuff meant less money, then why exactly did they steadily release expensive Store exclusive content in addition to 2 full expansions and 2 full stuff packs every year for The Sims 3’s entire shelf life? I mean if they were losing money, then the obvious course would be to cut back on what you are spending - which did not happen. If anything the store saw expanded investment with the addition of premium objects and store exclusive worlds.
The push for a cheap investment with Sims 4 all stems from the game’s massive unpopularity when it launched, and EA’s desire to make the game a financial success by any means necessary.
EA’s policy has clearly changed a lot but graduately through the years.
TS1 was made very cheap because EA had only expected that maybe a part of the SimCity gamers would buy it. But suddenly a lot of young girls who hadn’t bought games before bought it too and the sales numbers exploded. So EA had to make a few EPs too and they became bigger and bigger.
But after 4 years EA released TS2 with a much improved basegame. EA now knew that this was about to become a very profitable series. But EA still wasn’t sure and the EPs were therefore quite big because EA doubted that smaller EPs or SPs would sell at all.
A couple of years later EA began to experiment with SPs too. The first one was made for Christmas and EA only hoped that it would sell a little before Christmas. So EA released it without copy protection. But again the sales numbers exploded. So EA released another SP as an experiment only a few months later (just before Easter) and to EA’s surprise it sold extremely well too. So after this EA began to release SPs regularly.
Then EA released TS3 and experimented with other types of expansions and with stuff sold in the store. But the conclusion apparently was that stuff was best sold in SPs and that expensive EPs didn’t sell as well as cheap SPs.
So EA released TS4 and with a modified policy. EA wanted multitasking, autonomy, partying and happiness to be in focus. But the multitasking and the autonomy wouldn’t work well with the open world if EA still wanted the minimum requirements to be low. So the open world was omitted and so was toddlers because EA didn’t think that they were important in a game with a different focus.
So TS4 was released without toddlers but with more autonomy, multitasking, partying and happiness and half of the EPs were replaced by a GP and more SPs such that simmers could buy everything for the same budget while EA could save some money by reducing the number of developers working on the game. The GPs proved to sell better than the EPs as EA had hoped. So EA later increased the number of GPs to 2 GPs each year while still only making 1 EP. But I am still sure that EA started the development of the next basegame too years ago and plans to release it in 2019 :)
What numbers do you have to prove EA didn't spend any money on The Sims? and it was produced cheaply? Do you realize that in 1998 2D games were the thing and not 3D, as not all that many people or home had a pc in their home like they do today. Cheap is subjective, when you are trying to equate 'cheap' to 2D gaming. That doesn't mean any less (the value of a dollar at the time) was any less. What would it equal today? Just because it was 2D doesn't mean it was cheap. I agree EA found a cash cow, as Will Wright and many others have said EA said great now make ten more of this...that's a fact. But going around and saying it was young teen girls who bought the game is complete bogus, it was never teen girls it was housewives and middle aged women. That is also a fact. But in almost every thread you keep saying their biggest demographic was teen girls that simply isn't true. They used to tell their demographics to the public. EA no longer does that publicly since they try to stay ahead of the competition like those other soical game companies they have sued in the past.
ETA: And reading the rest of your comments, where does it say EA didn't plan on SPs but it was an experiement. I sure would like to know where you get your info..from @jackjack_k ?Because most of this is nonsense. ETA: To date TS3 remains the most successful cash cow, bringing in over 24 million in less than five years in the store. That's no small change and has outsold any SP releases. ETA: From Will Wright's mouth, they hoped to bring in $200,000 for The Sims but was surprised when it sold in the millions.- > @Erpe said:
> In those years I visited the game stores about twice a week to see if they had got new games and to read a little on the boxes for most of their games. I never saw any adult women look at the Sims boxes unless they were in company with very young girls. But I saw a lot of very young girls studying those boxes and discuss them with huge interest.
You do realize that what you've observed in shops and the gaming habits of your younger associates (from one of your previous postings) does not represent the true Simming demographic, right? The first two Simmers I knew and who got me hooked on the game back in 2001 were otherwise hard-core first-person-shooting console-gaming *males*. I recall the quote from one of them that sold me into trying the game for myself is "The Sims is addicting ..." If I went by my own limited observations, I'd be generalizing that console-gaming young men make up the majority of Simmers. - @Erpe I think that can be part of the problem with the Sims 4 is that it is being used to create a total perfect dream world. The problem with that is not everyone dreams the same or even want to play a game about a dream world. One person's dream isn't the same as someone else's dream. A dream of perfection is a nightmare in my book. I tend to make stories with a realistic aspect with a fantasy twist, so it is a mix of both which used to be what the Sims was about was a nice blend of fantasy and reality. That is what I loved most about the Sims 2 is it had a really good failure and consequence system to it which I think has been watered down with both the Sims 3 and the Sims 4. The Sims 1 had a nice dark and realistic side to it too. I guess for the future of Sims games I want a better balance. I don't want to see another Sims 3 Into the Future Utopian world like I did with the Sims 4. I want to see stories and a base that have a broader more relatable aspects to them using versatile tools to bring it about. I do have to agree that it does seem like majority of the people who work on the Sims 4 don't play the actual game itself so it can make it challenging to even to mention bugs to them and having it appear like we are talking a foreign language to them whenever the Sims 4 is even mentioned beyond just sharing pictures. It is helping that they have actually been streaming playing the game which just started last year. Besides the QA Gurus though, the ones that probably know a bit about playing the game itself just from talking to them, watching streams, and reading articles are SimGuruDrake, SimGuruSteve, SimGuruGraham, and SimGuruGrant. I mean Grant can be off-putting with public speaking with this iteration, but the guy knows his stuff generally. He is very easy to talk to when asking questions with when I interacted with him on Twitch which isn't an easy feat when there are over 2 to 3 thousand people in chat. He was able to keep up even with the repeated questions that were asked at least seven times. I think if anything I've learned from interacting with the Sims community is I can't pass judgement on someone else's word about anything, but I have to experience it myself and do my own research at times to get to the real facts about something. I guess when it comes to life or even the internet for that matter I like to reach my own conclusions about matters.
- @Erpe Thanks for that article, that was an interesting read! I love this citation:
"It was a lesson to us that it's very important for the community to be able to bring their own things to the games. It was important to the fans and it's important to us to bring options to the players. Because I don't think the mods take anything away from us. It just enriches the game and the players."
Oh, p.s., I think each and everyone interested enough in this franchise to share their thoughts here matters, regardless what version they're playing or none at all at the moment. Because it's the collection of all those different perspectives that will provide EA a cross-section of 'the simmer'. Not playing this game at the moment can be as telling as playing it. Whether they'll see it that way and do something with it is another thing ;) "Erpe;c-16244058" wrote:
"Cinebar;c-16244017" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16243649" wrote:
"drake_mccarty;c-16243615" wrote:
The Sims has survived on the same format since it’s creation, with successful new content lines added with each game. (Sims 2/Stuff Packs, Sims 3/DLC Store, Sims 4/Game Packs)
If EA’s analysis were that more stuff meant less money, then why exactly did they steadily release expensive Store exclusive content in addition to 2 full expansions and 2 full stuff packs every year for The Sims 3’s entire shelf life? I mean if they were losing money, then the obvious course would be to cut back on what you are spending - which did not happen. If anything the store saw expanded investment with the addition of premium objects and store exclusive worlds.
The push for a cheap investment with Sims 4 all stems from the game’s massive unpopularity when it launched, and EA’s desire to make the game a financial success by any means necessary.
EA’s policy has clearly changed a lot but graduately through the years.
TS1 was made very cheap because EA had only expected that maybe a part of the SimCity gamers would buy it. But suddenly a lot of young girls who hadn’t bought games before bought it too and the sales numbers exploded. So EA had to make a few EPs too and they became bigger and bigger.
But after 4 years EA released TS2 with a much improved basegame. EA now knew that this was about to become a very profitable series. But EA still wasn’t sure and the EPs were therefore quite big because EA doubted that smaller EPs or SPs would sell at all.
A couple of years later EA began to experiment with SPs too. The first one was made for Christmas and EA only hoped that it would sell a little before Christmas. So EA released it without copy protection. But again the sales numbers exploded. So EA released another SP as an experiment only a few months later (just before Easter) and to EA’s surprise it sold extremely well too. So after this EA began to release SPs regularly.
Then EA released TS3 and experimented with other types of expansions and with stuff sold in the store. But the conclusion apparently was that stuff was best sold in SPs and that expensive EPs didn’t sell as well as cheap SPs.
So EA released TS4 and with a modified policy. EA wanted multitasking, autonomy, partying and happiness to be in focus. But the multitasking and the autonomy wouldn’t work well with the open world if EA still wanted the minimum requirements to be low. So the open world was omitted and so was toddlers because EA didn’t think that they were important in a game with a different focus.
So TS4 was released without toddlers but with more autonomy, multitasking, partying and happiness and half of the EPs were replaced by a GP and more SPs such that simmers could buy everything for the same budget while EA could save some money by reducing the number of developers working on the game. The GPs proved to sell better than the EPs as EA had hoped. So EA later increased the number of GPs to 2 GPs each year while still only making 1 EP. But I am still sure that EA started the development of the next basegame too years ago and plans to release it in 2019 :)
What numbers do you have to prove EA didn't spend any money on The Sims? and it was produced cheaply? Do you realize that in 1998 2D games were the thing and not 3D, as not all that many people or home had a pc in their home like they do today. Cheap is subjective, when you are trying to equate 'cheap' to 2D gaming. That doesn't mean any less (the value of a dollar at the time) was any less. What would it equal today? Just because it was 2D doesn't mean it was cheap. I agree EA found a cash cow, as Will Wright and many others have said EA said great now make ten more of this...that's a fact.
Although we don’t know exactly how much money EA used on the Sims 1 basegame I played many other games in the 1990’s and they were all bigger. Even the first SimCity from 1989 was a bigger game. Therefore it was clear to me that the Sims 1 basegame was a very cheap game to make and the outdated primitive graphics just confirmed that. Also the first EPs (Living Large etc) we’re small. But then they suddenly became much bigger and if I remember correctly EP4 was the first of those bigger EPs.But going around and saying it was young teen girls who bought the game is complete bogus, it was never teen girls it was housewives and middle aged women. That is also a fact. But in almost every thread you keep saying their biggest demographic was teen girls that simply isn't true. They used to tell their demographics to the public. EA no longer does that publicly since they try to stay ahead of the competition like those other soical game companies they have sued in the past.
In those years I visited the game stores about twice a week to see if they had got new games and to read a little on the boxes for most of their games. I never saw any adult women look at the Sims boxes unless they were in company with very young girls. But I saw a lot of very young girls studying those boxes and discuss them with huge interest.ETA: And reading the rest of your comments, where does it say EA didn't plan on SPs but it was an experiement. I sure would like to know where you get your info..from @jackjack_k ?Because most of this is nonsense. ETA: To date TS3 remains the most successful cash cow, bringing in over 24 million in less than five years in the store. That's no small change and has outsold any SP releases. ETA: From Will Wright's mouth, they hoped to bring in $200,000 for The Sims but was surprised when it sold in the millions.
Why do you think that EA didn’t release even a single SP for nether TS1 nor in the first 2 years after the release of the Sims 2 basegame?
Why was the first 2 SPs for TS2 not copy protected like all the EPs had been?
Why did EA suddenly begin to copyprotect the SPs too starting with SP3 for TS2?
You can of course believe what you want. But personally I am in no doubt that the first 2 SPs were experiments which EA hadn’t done earlier because EA didn’t expect SPs to sell well at all. But after the surprisingly high sales numbers for both the first SP (a Christmas SP) and the next one EA knew that SPs could sell as well as EPs did. Therefore EA always since then (and even more for TS4) has released a lot of SPs too.
Let me put it this way, Maxis used to have fireside chats with us, and anyone else who had a question. It didn't matter if you saw adults buying The Sims, they told us who turned out to be their biggest customer and it was middle aged women. That is from Will Wright and other producer's mouths. Will Wright has probably made over fifty or more interviews discussing and being asked questions and he was very open about every thing. So were other producers, it's only been when it came to TS4 they closed their mouths and stopped telling the player about anything about their games or process or insider news. I go by what they told me and others at the time. There were many, many, many questions and answers from Maxis, they aren't as friendly as they used to be. And Will Wright would tell you anything you wanted to know. And EA's financial reports are open to public and the TS3 store outsold any SP making over 24 million as I said by 2013 or 2014. I would supply you with over twenty interviews I had booked marked with Will Wright answering questions but I no longer have those bookmarks as they were on an old pc. I don't just pull stuff out of thin air.
ETA: And maybe the first stuff pack (FFS) (TS2) wasn't released until April 2006 because they were busy with base game (2004) Nightlife, University, Pets, and Open For Business all released by Oct. 2006.
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: 6 minutes ago
Related Posts
Recent Discussions
- 11 minutes ago
- 19 minutes ago
- 3 hours ago