"SimChi;c-17101085" wrote:
"JoAnne65;c-17099594" wrote:
Wait, so, ... we’re all cool and understanding about bugs now? *pinches herself* *nope, not dreaming*
As far as understanding- I am still not sure who this was directed at, are you agreeing that the amount of bugs is unacceptable, and the product is not ready for release to the paying public? My comment stands. And when I said " I am also able to discuss the issues that I find unethical, and make comments so that other (potential) purchasers are aware of what, exactly, they are to expect." I meant that (potential) purchasers should be aware of what to expect (meaning: Expect, at the price these packs cost, expect far better quality, and far less bugs).
Yes, sorry for the confusion but my somewhat startled utterance was based on what came after your OP. I'm with you.
"EowynCarter;c-17101399" wrote:
Sims 4 was enjoyable at the start because it was (mostly) bug free. Now there are more issues, I have to use reset sim once in a while.
So yeah would be nice the the higher up would give a bit of "stabilization time".
Must add that this for me isn't true either. Sims 4's basegame was a complete bore. Way too empty. If I have to choose I prefer a temperamental game that I love to play (well, I am choosing, I've been doing that for 9,5 years now) to a smooth experience that's so somnolent that I close after 15 minutes, regretting the wasted time. That not an excuse for way too many bugs in any game though, making sure it's fun and rich.
Wild thought perhaps, but could the fact they develop this game based on one foundation and then all those packs that keep piling up be the actual problem? That sure is something we can blame on EA, because it's a strategy with just one goal: making more money and keep the fans stay tuned and spending.
