"Like_That;c-16510647" wrote:
Also remember that EA can’t just increase the budgets without increasing the sales numbers or sales prices too unless EA wants to not have an equally profitable game anymore. But EA can’t increase the prices for the packs without sales numbers going down. So if EA must put a lot of new things into the packs then EA has to simplify and omit other things. We can’t have it both ways
Erpe you haven't read the full article yet my friend. Here it is so you can see what I really mean. It's OK disagreeing because everyone's right.
http://simscommunity.info/2018/06/03/snow-was-always-a-challenge-for-the-sims-franchise/
I have just seen some YouTube videos from TS2 Seasons and TS3 Seasons to remind myself how they looked. Your article is about how to interpretate Grann’s tweet:
https://twitter.com/simgurugrant/status/1001879462659506176?s=21
But like in other tweet he can’t go into technical details. Anyway I know enough about computers and programming to see that deep snow even more impressing than TS3’s snow would be a huge work to make, test and stabilize and to steal a lot of work from other things they wanted to make for TS4 Seasons. So yes, I agree that deep snow has always been a challenge because it isn’t something that you just make in one day. In TS2 it was clearly more simplified than it was in TS3 where they therefore must have worked very hard on it for a long time. But as I wrote about they thought it was worth it for TS3 because it would impress many simmers who likely wouldn’t decide to buy Seasons again before they saw the snow in the videos.
For TS4 it would again have been the same huge work. But this time they couldn’t really expect to be able to make the snow so much better that it could impress anybody enough to buy Sims 4 Seasons just because of the snow.
I only disagree when people ignore the fact that EA only makes the game to earn money and therefore has to concentrate on new things that can be used in the presentations and videos to convince people to buy “the same packs” once more anyway.
