Sims 4 is the best selling base game of the franchise.

"Elliandre;c-17386640" wrote:


So the Sims 4 has made over a billion dollars? I'm not very good at math. Does this report mean the murphy bed cost something like 999 million dollars to make and there was just nothing left over in the budget for a ladder?

Revenue is not the same as cost... but still, the revenue that Maxis seems to generate does not really seem to reflect the scope they have for their packs. Especially stuff packs which apparently do not even have game engineers assigned (which was one reason they said they could not do bunk beds or ladders for tiny living).

There was a rumor going around towards the end of the Sims 3 reign that money from Sims 3 sales and (store) sales went to fund another EA game.

If true, that is the right of EA to allocate their money where they see fit. However while I do believe the Sims franchise brings them in a nice chunk of change, I don't believe that change gets put back into the Sims franchise as much as it should or could.

I think EA sees the Sims as that game that doesn't need a huge budget but will pull in big cash.
Perhaps that is why the devs talk of a tight/small budget.

This is all theory based on rumor I heard once upon a time but I do think it's something to consider.

Unfortunately this out of the developers hands if so.

"Trashmagic;c-17386665" wrote:
There was a rumor going around towards the end of the Sims 3 reign that money from Sims 3 sales and (store) sales went to fund another EA game.

If true, that is the right of EA to allocate their money where they see fit. However while I do believe the Sims franchise brings them in a nice chunk of change, I don't believe that change gets put back into the Sims franchise as much as it should or could.

I think EA sees the Sims as that game that doesn't need a huge budget but will pull in big cash.
Perhaps that is why the devs talk of a tight/small budget.

This is all theory based on rumor I heard once upon a time but I do think it's something to consider.

Unfortunately this out of the developers hands if so.

EA are still paying for 200 developers, so that's no small sum to pay every month. But I get the impression that either Maxis or EA do not want to invest too much into the sims4. They would rather that the game is a live-service which provides smaller updates consistently. They would rather release bunk beds or ladders over a year, than release them all with one pack.

I was exaggerating the amount tremendously it's true, sorry about that, but I have a hard time believing either object was so expensive that they couldn't include it. Maybe it's true, but I just can't believe it. I feel like they chose to save money on what they considered a cheap stuff pack that they felt didn't deserve two great objects. Maybe the objects that feel "missing" are being held for future costlier game or expansion packs, which is what has been hinted at by comments made by simgurufrost and others, that they may come in the future. Six months to two years in the future for all we know, or with a future online store where they can sell them individually and then those objects that feel "missing" are going to perform like "hero sales". This is what I personally think is the case.

If you compare object stuff packs in other games, there is no "one hero object" rule and the packs are designed to be cohesive based on the content theme in order to fulfill customer satisfaction. I really think their problem is that they create rules that don't need to exist and that they undervalue the stuff packs deliberately because they are only $10. Maybe they already know at some point they might want an in-demand object as a selling feature for a more expensive pack. Or maybe they just want to unleash an online store on us, and so are holding objects back that clearly belong with the themes already released.

Overall I think Sims 4 was amazing with the graphics and gameplay and there's no reason they couldn't have made double what they made in sales. Players are rejecting to buy as many expansion, game and stuff packs based on the quality of what's being included and the objects that they feel are missing. Quality is important. Also, someone told me that the FIFA games for EA make almost a billion dollars a year with in-app sales alone and I have a hard time believing someone is not eyeing the objects we want the most as little pots of gold for a future online store. I guess only time will tell.

"Trashmagic;c-17386665" wrote:
There was a rumor going around towards the end of the Sims 3 reign that money from Sims 3 sales and (store) sales went to fund another EA game.

If true, that is the right of EA to allocate their money where they see fit. However while I do believe the Sims franchise brings them in a nice chunk of change, I don't believe that change gets put back into the Sims franchise as much as it should or could.

I think EA sees the Sims as that game that doesn't need a huge budget but will pull in big cash.
Perhaps that is why the devs talk of a tight/small budget.

This is all theory based on rumor I heard once upon a time but I do think it's something to consider.

Unfortunately this out of the developers hands if so.

Having worked for 20 years in a department that is consistently profitable but got no IT or product support from the company, I can totally believe this. Companies don't always allocate the most resources to the areas that earn a predictable return. And money gets siphoned off for projects that are ultimately abandonned or that reach the market and flop.

"Trashmagic;c-17386665" wrote:
There was a rumor going around towards the end of the Sims 3 reign that money from Sims 3 sales and (store) sales went to fund another EA game.

If true, that is the right of EA to allocate their money where they see fit. However while I do believe the Sims franchise brings them in a nice chunk of change, I don't believe that change gets put back into the Sims franchise as much as it should or could.

I think EA sees the Sims as that game that doesn't need a huge budget but will pull in big cash.
Perhaps that is why the devs talk of a tight/small budget.

This is all theory based on rumor I heard once upon a time but I do think it's something to consider.

Unfortunately this out of the developers hands if so.

I wish more people realised this too, instead of trashing the developers because they didn't get what they want.

Anyway, nice to see the Sims 4 doing well though. A lot of people are really enjoying it so it's good to see that it's one of the best sellers <3 Probably also goes to explain why they're keeping it going :)

"MissyHissy;c-17386730" wrote:
I wish more people realised this too, instead of trashing the developers because they didn't get what they want.

Anyway, nice to see the Sims 4 doing well though. A lot of people are really enjoying it so it's good to see that it's one of the best sellers <3 Probably also goes to explain why they're keeping it going :)

^^This, one million times this. There are things I want added to the game, and there are various ideas that I've had pop up in my head that I think would improve the game. But I've had lots of fun with Sims 4 thus far, and the addition of the gallery to consoles has really helped in that these past two weeks.

Trust me, I get having critiques of the game and wanting it to be better. But some folks it seems want to hate-play the game. Of course, being a wrestling fan and having visited numerous wrestling related message boards and comments sections, I'm kind of used to that train of thought by now.

Congrats to the team! You guys made a game that is loved by many, and has helped many through their rough patches!

Here's hoping that EA gives the team a bit of a bigger budget, and maybe a bonus ;)

"logion;c-17386680" wrote:

"Trashmagic;c-17386665" wrote:
There was a rumor going around towards the end of the Sims 3 reign that money from Sims 3 sales and (store) sales went to fund another EA game.

If true, that is the right of EA to allocate their money where they see fit. However while I do believe the Sims franchise brings them in a nice chunk of change, I don't believe that change gets put back into the Sims franchise as much as it should or could.

I think EA sees the Sims as that game that doesn't need a huge budget but will pull in big cash.
Perhaps that is why the devs talk of a tight/small budget.

This is all theory based on rumor I heard once upon a time but I do think it's something to consider.

Unfortunately this out of the developers hands if so.

EA are still paying for 200 developers, so that's no small sum to pay every month. But I get the impression that either Maxis or EA do not want to invest too much into the sims4. They would rather that the game is a live-service which provides smaller updates consistently. They would rather release bunk beds or ladders over a year, than release them all with one pack.

Yeah, it's called Less For More.

Thing is IMO these days EA sees Maxis like EA Sports, a division where they can extract the maximum of profit for the absolute minimum of investment, but better as there are no franchises involved who get shirty when things get long in the tooth. And it won't change when for every person who complains about lack of features and bug on the forums, YouTube, reddit and Twitter there are 20 who will buy everything on release day. And the Game Changers program is still structured to make the game changers (many of who are young and impressionable themselves) think they are obliged to be unpaid publicists for EA (despite their claims to have revised it), which is despicable.