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

The devs didn’t say that bunk beds were too expensive to have period, only too expensive to add to a stuff pack. Because they generally do send that stuff to a third party subcontractor to be animated. They have never said that bunk beds are dead and will never be available either. Since it’s been an uproar I fully expect they will appear at some point just like toddlers and university because since I have joined the community I have seen that once everyone is like a dog with a bone about something it eventually happens.

To my mind, this explains that big survey several days ago about improved relationships for sims, and winter sports and the like. If this series is selling so well still and now that they’re no longer anchored to 32 bit machines, perhaps they’re looking to ways to make the game deeper and to start adding some of the things people have been clamoring for because they can see the potential for a long life expectancy for this iteration. I for one truly hope so after yesterday’s less than stellar news about an online version. ?

Congratulations! ? agreeing with most post in this discussion. They have always sold more in the sims franchise. It was a hit since day one. The populous of the world is growing so should a video game with a golden name.

So this is basically telling us the franchise is steady. So what’s next? Game packs or re-haul?

"Elliandre;c-17386688" wrote:
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.

It's all a matter of budgets. Yes, Sims 4 has made a lot of money, but that doesnt' mean EA has given Maxis the budget they need to give us the developments we want.

I look at it this way (Note all hypothetical values are for illustrative purposes only and are in no way intended to reflect the actual numbers, as I don't have the requisite knowledge to make good educated guesses for those)

Okay, we have 20 million unique users, of which we'll say half are still active (defined as buying expansions) to some degree, and a quarter of those are immediate completionists - so 2.5 million users actually buy every pack on release or close there to. Let's say this is what they use to figure out projected sales numbers. This means, $100 million per Expansion pack, $50 million per Game pack, and $25 million per stuff pack. And we'll say they get 10% of projected sales for each pack's total budget - Concept work, contracted work, payroll, art, etc - each with their allotted percentage of that budget.

They also have a certain time frame that each project must be delivered in. We'll go with 3 months for a stuff pack, 9 months for a game pack, and 18 months for an expansion pack (I'm sure those numbers aren't even close) so we have something to work with.

So bunk beds - they require a specialty employee to be assigned to the task (per the gurus), and the fine tuning will take, let's say, two and a half months to work out. And they still have to contract out the modeling work, which will take another month of back and forth. So bunk beds are already over on time requirements. The specialty employee also requires more money be allotted to payroll, which means that they'll have to reduce the amount of items in the pack to cover it. So we end up with a smaller pack that's got less overall gameplay for the sake of one element - that's also going to be late because the time required is simply greater than the time allotted for development.

And that's how bunk beds are "too expensive" for a stuff pack.

(It does not explain why they, and Loft beds, weren't in DU - I'd have gladly given up those sprites for Bunk/Loft beds.)

Minor edits for clarity

Does this include the zillions they gave away for free?

I feel like the Sims 4 has been the current game for longer than the previous versions were. I might be imagining it though. If I'm right then surely it would make sense for it to have sold more copies than the previous versions.

Buying Sims 1’s basegame stopped making sense for new potential players in 2003, buying Sims 2’s basegame stopped making sense in 2008 and buying Sims 3’s basegame stopped making sense in 2013. While not only is Sims 4 much older than those games were at that point, they’re still making it clear they’re far from done developing for it yet and there is no successor in sight. So if you want to start playing Sims, the latest version is where you turn to. I’m actually surprised it took this long. Apart from the fact the earlier basegames were never on sale, let alone for free for a while.

Anyway, unfortunately it still doesn’t mean it’s the best basegame of them all.

"Sharonia;c-17387033" wrote:
I feel like the Sims 4 has been the current game for longer than the previous versions were. I might be imagining it though. If I'm right then surely it would make sense for it to have sold more copies than the previous versions.

That’s correct. The sims 4 is now the longest running sims game. It also has two console ports that I’m presuming are doing well as they have ported over all dlc bar the stuff pack that shall not be named since 2017. It’s also on sale regularly on pc and console and was given away free on pc.

If anything I wonder how they didn’t reach this land mark sooner.

"Elliandre;c-17386640" wrote:
I love the Sims 4, but I'm actually really surprised by this financial report. I thought they weren't doing as well as Sims 2 and Sims 3. Didn't the gurus say during the Tiny Living Livestream that they couldn't make bunk beds AND a murphy bed because it would be too expensive? I'm pretty sure I heard them say that bunk beds would be really expensive to add. Or maybe it was ladders. I can't remember exactly. But anyway, it sounded like they were in dire straights, and that's why they only made a murphy bed, just like they only made a camping tent without sleeping bags.

***

Oh yes, it was bunk beds. From what I understand from the video, after investigation, bunk beds were found to be MORE expensive than murphy beds, like really expensive, and we couldn't have both, because they might have had to teleport Sims into the bunk beds or something to cut down on the cost.

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?

Don't get me wrong, I love the game and I plan to buy the tiny living pack this week, but if they're doing so well, financially, then they should stop acting like starving street orphans straight out of a Charles Dickens novel and splurge a little on the objects they know we want. Just saying.

Simple. Because it's a Stuff Pack. They are not meant to have so many content in the first place.

To offer a little perspective: there are also a LOT more gamers now than in 2000, and they're playing across three platforms instead of one. More importantly, though, the frequent origin sales lure in a LOT of people -- myself included, who tried it for $10 in June '18 -- who might not give it a chance otherwise. For my own personal playstyle, TS4 is awesome. Sure, I miss some things about TS3, but it NEVER held my time and attention the way TS4 does.

"Pamtastic72;d-972029" wrote:
https://twitter.com/thesimcommunity/status/1223008032189296646?s=21

Of course it has. My goodness, it's out on three platforms as opposed to being PC only and has been given away/reduced to <$10 more times than I can count. I would be shocked if it weren't. Especially since it's also had the longest lifespan of any sims game. What really strikes me about this is that it took them over 6 years to accomplish this. I'm not sure I'd be waving that flag around if I were them.