Forum Discussion
"JoAnne65;c-16242034" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16242008" wrote:
"MidnightAura;c-16241939" 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budget for TS1 was very low which meant that its game world became very small and its graphics looked very simple and outdated too.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 disagree with this. Open world is a standard In so many games now it’s normal. It’s an expectation if you will. My niece who is 9 plays the Sims now. She has just started getting into it. She has played my sims 3 game and she’s she’s played the sims 4. (I bought her her own sims 4 copy on Console for Christmas) but having said that she prefers the sims 3.
She prefers it because of horses and the fact that she can move around the world swithout loading screens. She gets frustrated at all the loading screens in the sims 4 but you have to remember she is growing up playing many an open world game. She also says all the sims 4 sims Do is talk lol
If EA brought out a sims game and said it was similar to the sims 3 with an open world I think it would do incredibly well and as a sims 3 fan it would pique my interest for sure it’s probably the only thing that would as right now I’m not hopeful for a sims 5.
Plus what is “new”for the series by this point anyway? Four series in and so much has already been covered. That’s one of the reasons every time a “new feature” comes to the sims 4 it has already been done at some point in the series and the sims 4 version tends to be more watered down in some capacity, take cats and dogs and not being able to view any information about them.
There will be teens out there who won’t have played the sims 3. The only reason my niece has is because I have it, had she become a Simmer under her own steam she would never have had the chance.
Your daughter isn’t typical for two reasons:
1. She already has TS3 and TS4 and therefore doesn’t need to convince her parents (who usually aren’t simmers) to let her get the games. She already has them and knows them.
2. The target group is mainly 10 to 14 years olds who already are quite good readers and therefore can read the texts in the game. But your daughter is likely a little too young for this.
EA has attempted to renew the game and its expansions. But mostly for the sales videos which now are happier than earlier and show a lot of funny behavior. This is intended to sell the game and it seems to work quite well such that TS4 and its expansions now seem to sell as well as TS3 and its expansions did. But we know that the forum users can’t be the reason because a lot of them have stopped playing or returned to TS3. Therefore the reason must be that the young (mainly girls) in the target group wants the game and all its expansions just to try them out and to see all this funny behavior in their own game. They likely just don’t play the game long enough to become bored with all the repetions like most of us here do. Instead they just stop playing for a while when they have seen the things that amuses them and wait for the next free update or expansion. If this wasn’t true then how would you otherwise explain the high sales numbers for TS4 which now even have motivated EA to release two GPs each year instead of only one yearly GP like EA did in the beginning?
Might be me but you are in no way reacting to what @MidnightAura is saying. You even turned her niece into a daughter (9 year olds are good readers in general by the way, though I miss how that's relevant here). I read her comment, then yours, and I don't see any connection between the two.
The Sims games aren’t targeted at 9 years olds. But yes some of them are sometimes good readers but most usually they still read a little slow and have problems with long or unknown words. So in a game like this they will usually attempt to avoid reading more than necessary. But still there are always exceptions - and in both directions. I still remember boys who had problems with reading even when they were a couple of years older.
8-9 years olds can of course play the game with a little help from their parents or from older siblings. But I doubt that many 9 years olds ever will get the game if they don’t have any simmers in their own family because the game is T rated (or 12+ in Europe) and most parents won’t allow their 9 years old to get such a game unless the parents know the game themselves."Writin_Reg;c-16242321" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16242129" wrote:
"JoAnne65;c-16242034" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16242008" wrote:
"MidnightAura;c-16241939" 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 disagree with this. Open world is a standard In so many games now it’s normal. It’s an expectation if you will. My niece who is 9 plays the Sims now. She has just started getting into it. She has played my sims 3 game and she’s she’s played the sims 4. (I bought her her own sims 4 copy on Console for Christmas) but having said that she prefers the sims 3.
She prefers it because of horses and the fact that she can move around the world swithout loading screens. She gets frustrated at all the loading screens in the sims 4 but you have to remember she is growing up playing many an open world game. She also says all the sims 4 sims Do is talk lol
If EA brought out a sims game and said it was similar to the sims 3 with an open world I think it would do incredibly well and as a sims 3 fan it would pique my interest for sure it’s probably the only thing that would as right now I’m not hopeful for a sims 5.
Plus what is “new”for the series by this point anyway? Four series in and so much has already been covered. That’s one of the reasons every time a “new feature” comes to the sims 4 it has already been done at some point in the series and the sims 4 version tends to be more watered down in some capacity, take cats and dogs and not being able to view any information about them.
There will be teens out there who won’t have played the sims 3. The only reason my niece has is because I have it, had she become a Simmer under her own steam she would never have had the chance.
Your daughter isn’t typical for two reasons:
1. She already has TS3 and TS4 and therefore doesn’t need to convince her parents (who usually aren’t simmers) to let her get the games. She already has them and knows them.
2. The target group is mainly 10 to 14 years olds who already are quite good readers and therefore can read the texts in the game. But your daughter is likely a little too young for this.
EA has attempted to renew the game and its expansions. But mostly for the sales videos which now are happier than earlier and show a lot of funny behavior. This is intended to sell the game and it seems to work quite well such that TS4 and its expansions now seem to sell as well as TS3 and its expansions did. But we know that the forum users can’t be the reason because a lot of them have stopped playing or returned to TS3. Therefore the reason must be that the young (mainly girls) in the target group wants the game and all its expansions just to try them out and to see all this funny behavior in their own game. They likely just don’t play the game long enough to become bored with all the repetions like most of us here do. Instead they just stop playing for a while when they have seen the things that amuses them and wait for the next free update or expansion. If this wasn’t true then how would you otherwise explain the high sales numbers for TS4 which now even have motivated EA to release two GPs each year instead of only one yearly GP like EA did in the beginning?
Might be me but you are in no way reacting to what @MidnightAura is saying. You even turned her niece into a daughter (9 year olds are good readers in general by the way, though I miss how that's relevant here). I read her comment, then yours, and I don't see any connection between the two.
The Sims games aren’t targeted at 9 years olds. But yes some of them are sometimes good readers but most usually they still read a little slow and have problems with long or unknown words. So in a game like this they will usually attempt to avoid reading more than necessary. But still there are always exceptions - and in both directions. I still remember boys who had problems with reading even when they were a couple of years older.
8-9 years olds can of course play the game with a little help from their parents or from older siblings. But I doubt that many 9 years olds ever will get the game if they don’t have any simmers in their own family because the game is T rated (or 12+ in Europe) and most parents won’t allow their 9 years old to get such a game unless the parents know the game themselves.
Not necessarily true as I give gifts of Sims games to many of the kids in my family whose parents do not play the Sims. As Matriarch of a large family no one questions my judgement and knows I will never send their kids games I feel are bad for their kids. I stand up for the sims games as wonderful teaching tools for kids - and for the point there is no bigotry or bullying in a sims game. It is a good tool for kids to learn how to behave to others, how to run a household and how being a responsible adult outside of their own family and what happens when they fail. Sims 2 was actually the best game as far as a teaching tool for kids from 8-12 even though it is rated 12+ and often the games even some school use for 4th grade Life classes. Most 4th graders are in the 8 - 9 age bracket. My Sister-in-law is a 4th grade Life Studies teacher and she has been using the Sims 2 in her class since 2006. Denise uses the Base game, the Uni game, and the pets game in class.
ETA - Denise is NOT a simmer though - the game is strictly a teaching tool for her.
We agree about this. But all the Sims games have been T rated (13+) by the ESRB because the games contained romantic interactions and woohoo which the ESRB considered to be not suitable for children. The ESRB even considered to change the T rating to M because EA had added a cheat code which could remove the blur in the bathroom.
Besides that TS2 was rated 7+ and not 12+. But PEGI later changed its rating to 12+ anyway because the UK joined PEGI and demanded this change.
I agree with PEGI’s original 7+ rating though and not at all with the ESRB’s T rating and considerations about a possible M rating.- That last paragraph made me pretty happy. Compared to the Sims 2 and 3 they are still far behind the amount of content in the game. Yes, there are about 13 stuff packs and although cool, they aren't like the expansions and stuff packs.
Sims 4 has half the amount of expansion packs compared to 2 and it's the same for the stuff packs. The game might have been released 3.5 years ago, but I really hope they keep on adding on it. And based on these answers it looks like they will. "ElCaptain;c-16242695" wrote:
That last paragraph made me pretty happy. Compared to the Sims 2 and 3 they are still far behind the amount of content in the game. Yes, there are about 13 stuff packs and although cool, they aren't like the expansions and stuff packs.
Sims 4 has half the amount of expansion packs compared to 2 and it's the same for the stuff packs. The game might have been released 3.5 years ago, but I really hope they keep on adding on it. And based on these answers it looks like they will.
This is subjective and only your personal meaning because you (like me) don’t care much about SPs. But I am sure that EA counts in another way:
1. Imagine that you bought all SPs, GPs and EPs each year for TS4.
2. Imagine that you bought all SPs and EPs each year for TS3.
Then compare what you paid for this each year - and I am sure that your yearly expenses are about the same!
I am quite sure that this is the way EA counts because what interests EA is how much money most simmers (and not just the simmers in the forum) are ready to buy expansions for each year. Or said in another way: “How much can we (EA) release each year before sales numbers will drop because too many simmers will stop buying everything?”"JoAnne65;c-16243654" wrote:
"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)
Maybe I got a little annoyed months ago because so many simmers just ignored what I wrote and continued in their own dreamworld. But I am way over this because I have become used to it a long time ago. I just needed a little time to accept it because it never happens in my real life :)
I know that you don’t hope that EA will release expansions for TS4 forever because you play TS3 instead. But the Sims 4 simmers sure do. So your own attitude isn’t about this but instead about the fact that you don’t play other games and therefore haven’t been interested in how the game industry works just like I have. I visited sites like Gamespot and IGN already years ago and still remember how they told us that making games is big business and not something that is done by small companies just for fun. So my conclusion from the discussion here just is that this old truth hasn’t been understood among simmers yet like it has among the fans of other games :)"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."Cinebar;c-16244799" wrote:
"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.
The first SP was Holiday Party Pack released on November 17, 2015. It clearly was an experiment for Christmas and because EA didn’t believe that a pure SP would sell at all it also included 3 NPCs (Santa Claus, Father Time and Baby New Year). As mentioned it wasn’t even copyprotected because EA only hoped that it would sell a little until Christmas and not become popular enough for anybody to want to make illegal copies of it anyway.
But EA was clearly surprised by the sales numbers being many times higher than EA had expected. This motivated EA to make another SP as an experiment to see if a SP also would sell enough to be worth it when it wasn’t even Christmas? So EA told Maxis to make such a SP and Maxis managed to finish Family Fun Stuff such that it could be released already on April 13, 2006. EA still didn’t expect it to be very popular or sell enough to need copy-protection. But once again EA was surprised by the huge sales numbers. So from that day EA decided to release SPs regularly and knew that they needed to be copy-protected just like the EPs.
You seem to think that EA’s decisions are just taken at random and for no apparent reasons at all. But I can’t agree with this because I know how top managers in such big companies usually think. They will do anything to increase profit and they usually work very hard to reach their goals. In a company like EA where the top managers are headhunted from other big companies and paid many millions of dollars in yearly salaries (and with salaries which strongly depend on their results) this is even more true than it is in most other companies.
I agree with you that communication with us has decreased. But I am also quite sure about what the reason is: In the beginning EA thought that the Sims games should have the same target group as the SimCity games had which back in the 1990s mainly were young male gamers because girls usually didn’t play games in those days but instead made fun of the boys and called them nerds if they were gamers. But graduately EA through the years has become more and more sure that the target group for Sims games instead should be young girls and also become aware that the simmers in the forums aren’t the same type as the millions of simmers who get most of the Sims games.
I first noticed that they are aware of this when SimGuruDrake talked about “targeting the game more broadly” in a comment in this forum as a reason for why she didn’t just wanted to follow forum wishes. And later in an interview on another site she directly declared that the main target group for TS4 is young teen girls. This didn’t surprise me because I knew from the Danish Sims 2 forum and from my visits in the stores that young girls were the main customers (at least in Denmark). About 75-80% of the Danish forum users for TS2 were 10-14 years olds and about 15-20% were adults at least 30 years old while there only were very few 15-29 years olds. Among the 10-14 yrs olds 80-90% were girls. But again I can’t generalize to a country like the US where the game was T rated and where the ESRB even considered to change that rating to M just because EA had added a cheat code that could remove the blur in the bathroom.
I have never seen financial reports from EA that tells details about EA’s income from the different types of expansions. But I would be extremely interested if you can find such a report?"Scobre;c-16244277" wrote:
@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.
We aren’t in contact with the top producer anymore like we were in the Sims 2 days. Do you remember Sam Player (aka MaxoidSam) from the Sims 2 forum? He was a top producer for TS2 and its expansions like you can see on http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,38549/ But he left and is now Head of Product Management at Sports Illustrated Play. But even as Senior Producer and Executive Producer he was very active in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember his frustrations when the ESRB considered to change TS2’s rating from T to M. ”It is just Barbie dolls without genitals!” he wrote.
Our problem is IMO that TS4 is even more targeted at very young girls than the previous games were. But we aren’t such young girls and therefore don’t share all their dreams about an easy life with only romance, happiness, partying in focus. Therefore we can’t enjoy TS4 in the same way and I am alas also not too optimistic about future Sims games which I expect also mainly to have the same target group.- > @Scobre said:
> Erpe wrote: »
targeted at very young girls
> the safest iteration yet and honestly think the T rating is being generous with this version.
Have you checked the Vengeful Deity achievement again ? I still don't understand it's T by ESRB to this very, very day. I feel sorry for the young girls. Hope they never checked the achievement sections. "Scobre;c-16245453" wrote:
"Erpe;c-16245426" wrote:
We aren’t in contact with the top producer anymore like we were in the Sims 2 days. Do you remember Sam Player (aka MaxoidSam) from the Sims 2 forum? He was a top producer for TS2 and its expansions like you can see on http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,38549/ But he left and is now Head of Product Management at Sports Illustrated Play. But even as Senior Producer and Executive Producer he was very active in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember his frustrations when the ESRB considered to change TS2’s rating from T to M. ”It is just Barbie dolls without genitals!” he wrote.
Our problem is IMO that TS4 is even more targeted at very young girls than the previous games were. But we aren’t such young girls and therefore don’t share all their dreams about an easy life with only romance, happiness, partying in focus. Therefore we can’t enjoy TS4 in the same way and I am alas also not too optimistic about future Sims games which I expect also mainly to have the same target group.
I don't remember seeing that I didn't forums until the Sims 4, so I do have to rely on others how old forums were like. Sims 4 is actually rated M in some countries but for other reasons. I do think the Sims 4 is by far the safest iteration yet and honestly think the T rating is being generous with this version. If I had to compare it to other age appropriate games, it would be closer to E10 games.
Yes. I know that TS4 is M rated in Australia and New Zealand. But the ratings in those countries have always been tougher than the ratings in Europe and North America and Australia seems more restrictive in other areas too. But besides that Australia doesn’t have a T rating and their M rating just means: ”Content is moderate in impact. Films and video games classified M are recommended for people aged 15 years and over.” The Alternative would either have been a G (general) rating which means ”suitable for everyone”, a PG (parental guidance recommended) or a MA15+ rating which means ”Restricted category material. This means there are legal restrictions in place which limits who can be supplied with a film, DVD or video game that has a restricted classification. In regard to MA15+ (Mature Accompanied), this classification is legally restricted to people 15 years and over, because the content is considered to be strong in impact. Children under 15 years may not legally watch, buy or hire MA 15+ classified material unless they are with a parent or adult guardian. You must purchase the movie ticket or video game for the child. A person may also be asked by the cinema or retailer to show proof of age.”
But the North American M rating which the ESRB considered for TS2 instead means 17+. So it would still have been much tougher than the Australian M (15+) rating.
Still my point was that we didn’t see neither the original executive producer (Rachel Franklin) or her successor the current executive producer (Lyndsay Pearson) discussing the current Sims game in the forum every day like Sam Player did when he was the executive producer for TS2.
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: 3 months ago
Related Posts
Recent Discussions
- 9 minutes ago
- 11 minutes ago
- 39 minutes ago
- 6 hours ago