7 years ago
What the heck?
Waaaaay to go, Sims Team. Sims 4 isn't popular already, and now you guys just made a bunch of people mad. In June of 2019, Sims 4 will no longer support 32-Bit systems, meaning those who have the game...
"Writin_Reg;c-17000512" wrote:"Triplis;c-17000476" wrote:"Writin_Reg;c-16997576" wrote:
They had to do it - with the way this game is dependent on Video card updates and the video card companies like Nvidia - etc that stopped support of 32 bit computer last year - never mind Apple stopping support of 32 bit computers - you could no longer get security updates nor Video game updates - so EA, like many of the other studios had no choice but also drop 32 bit support seeing the machines could no longer be updated or made secure. They are technically viruses ready to happen and no decent company could or should support that. When machines become a hazard because they cannot have updates then they need to get the machines to stop using the game.
I would never suggest anyone who can no longer get proper updates to run that computer - not ever.
If a game needs updated video cards like this one does on a regular bases - and can't get them - then that computer has done it's time and needs to be retired.
EA is even making a Legacy system for the people who just can't afford an update - to keep them having the abilty to play the games they paid for - for FREE. Say what you will about EA and greed but if you ask me that is a very nice and ungreedy thing to do of EA, when they do not have too. I have a trunk full of games from over many years of gaming that are no longer playable unless one has older pcs and not one of the companies I have these games from ever gave me a legacy system to use so I could play the old games on my always newer pcs (I frequently rebuild my pcs every 3 years so I never have an old system) - I am just flat out of luck if I want to play any of my old games.
EA is also the only company that gave me a new complete download of my Sims 2 after Windows made it impossible for me to play that game any longer. When window 10 came out - they scurried to give us an update on that free version of Sims 2 - as well as an update for Sims 3 and Sims 3 CAW - again something they did not have to do, but they did. A few years ago they also made it possible for me to play my old Scrabble game that would not even play on Windows 7 as EA owns Hasbro which owned my scrabble game. Not once did EA have to do these things - never mind for free - and very few companies I know of has ever done this - other wise I would not have a trunk full of unplayable games today - now would I?
Perhaps many of you misjudge EA more times than you notice and ignore the times they prove they are not as greedy as you think. Not support 32 bit - as it has no support from it's OS and many video cards is actually a kindness - giving you a Legacy system for free is even kinder - and something no publisher has to do, and I guarantee you many do not even try. I have a trunk of games that prove that.
Most likely they are making the Legacy version available because the alternative would be having nothing available for those people whose PCs are no longer good enough, which might open them up to iffy issues, along the lines of "I bought this game and now no longer have access to it, despite owning it." (With a physical disk, even if it stops working on a new machine, you still own the disk. This virtual 'live service' stuff doesn't have quite the same setup.) It also may just be one of those things where they are trying not to lose long-time fans of the series; they probably have some numbers on how many people are going to be affected by this.
That said, yes, my impression as well is that this is about the overall operations of the tech world and the messiness of trying to support 32-bit with updates while others are not. On a marketing/business level, they probably don't like doing this at all. I don't see how opening up a bit more performance, maybe, for a portion of the fanbase is a motivating business goal if it's going to cut out existing customers in the process.
I don't see any reason to believe this move is greedy or generous in any way. It just seems like a pragmatic, boxed-into-a-corner thing.
I have plenty of games that I could no longer play because companies (or microsoft) update their systems - and never gave us a way to use the older games - in fact even updating our own systems did not make these games playable because the companies did not update the game itself. You were just flat out of luck.
I don't have an issue with companies updating - it is always a benefit for the games they produce. My issues are with companies who update and don't even try to help players be able to play the games. All of them need to make Legacy systems to play their games - but most never do.
I will say EA has offered ways to play many of their outdated games though over the years - some of which were even made by other companies that EA took over long after these games were out there, and EA was able to give me a game update to make that game work. I have not had the same help from many of the other big game companies though. So having faced this experience many times - I do think they are being a lot more generous than many other game companies. Not all mind you - I have had good luck with a few companies - like the one who first took over Sierra games they were good at making the games work - then Activision/Blizzard took them over and they wouldn't help at all. So they ended up in my trunk of hundreds of unplayable games - which proves a lot of companies don't make it possible to even play the games you paid for.