What the heck?

"FairyGodMother;c-17005108" wrote:
Since StrangerVille is the last pack we get until it changes over to 64 bit, I think they should have just ended sims4 for everyone. It already has ran 4-5 years now, let it die!

I would be content with it ending and waiting till sims5 came out. That would give them time to fix some bugs for people, even though I never had many at all.

I am tired of people saying the one's that wanted the players on low end computers to enjoy the game also, only to say that they aren't sincere now? Well, you changed my mind..............buy a new computer or upgrade if you want to play.

If I can't play it, I have other games I can play.

Sims 5 definitely won't support 32-bit, so how would that solve the problem for people with very old computers? It's not necessarily low-end computers that are the problem - you can get some fairly inexpensive laptops these days, and they won't have the processing speed or capacity of an expensive gaming rig, but they will be 64-bit.

It doesn't make sense to spend time fixing bugs that affect an increasingly smaller group of Simmers. You're dealing with outdated graphics cards (because the card makers no longer support 32-bit) and operating systems that are given minimal support. I do appreciate that they've tried to make the game accessible to people who can't buy an expensive gaming computer every couple of years to keep up, and I think they're still doing that.

Who didn't see this coming?

EA should have known better. It was unreasonable for them to believe that they could keep piling content onto a system that could not support more than 4GBs of RAM. Good grief, didn't they learn that lesson with TS3?

EA should have started with 64-bit from the get go. But since they didn't, they should live with their mistake instead of forcing paying customers to upgrade or be left behind. Dropping 32-bit now is really terrible public relations.

I'm sorry to those of you who won't be able to 'make the jump'. EA should have never made promises that they couldn't keep. Unfortunately, though, it's nothing new.

"drake_mccarty;c-16998981" wrote:

"ClarionOfJoy;c-16998867" wrote:
All the people saying this doesn't matter and that it's great are the same people who said before that it's great that this game can work on lower end computers. Smh....

What a sweeping generalization, and frankly I disagree. The decision to not only support, but actively tailor the game to low end machines has never made any sense. Seriously. It made even less sense when they upgraded the base game to 64bit and did virtually nothing with that for the longest time.

Just because they sold this game on the mindset that it could run on a modded toaster doesn’t mean they actually snatched up a bunch of players who fit into that market. Even if they did, there’s no guarantee that they’ve been buying content regularly. Let’s not forget the “excuse” that’s tossed around for having such old hardware is the “high” cost of buying a new one or upgrading; if they can’t find money to better their machine I don’t suppose the money for Sims packs comes along any easier.

This whole thing seems to be being blown out of proportion by people who frankly have hated on the game being 32bit for years and are now suddenly speaking up for the little guy when it’s being dropped. This is not a big deal, if the game had a huge pool of 32bit players then that would be different, but clearly if they can drop support for that in mid-2019 they clearly don’t stand to lose much. As someone who is NOT a huge fan of Sims 4, or virtually anything they have done with the game thus far, this is a good thing. Doesn’t mean they’re going to take the game in a better direction, but at least what they make now won’t be tailored to near-obsolete hardware.

You're dead on that EA should never have released the game for 32-bit systems in the first place. Executives at EA have demonstrated a consistent lack of foresight.

Nevertheless, on principle, they shouldn't change to 64-bit only. Not now. It would be just one more promise that EA has broken.

It doesn't matter if only a handful of people are affecting by this, they're still paying customers, just like anyone else. They also happen to be customers that EA purposely courted with promises that the game would be able to work on their computers.

No matter which side of this coin a customer lands on, it sets a bad precedent.

"Cynna;c-17039064" wrote:
Who didn't see this coming?

EA should have known better. It was unreasonable for them to believe that they could keep piling content onto a system that could not support more than 4GBs of RAM. Good grief, didn't they learn that lesson with TS3?

EA should have started with 64-bit from the get go. But since they didn't, they should live with their mistake instead of forcing paying customers to upgrade or be left behind. Dropping 32-bit now is really terrible public relations.

I'm sorry to those of you who won't be able to 'make the jump'. EA should have never made promises that they couldn't keep. Unfortunately, though, it's nothing new.

"drake_mccarty;c-16998981" wrote:

"ClarionOfJoy;c-16998867" wrote:
All the people saying this doesn't matter and that it's great are the same people who said before that it's great that this game can work on lower end computers. Smh....

What a sweeping generalization, and frankly I disagree. The decision to not only support, but actively tailor the game to low end machines has never made any sense. Seriously. It made even less sense when they upgraded the base game to 64bit and did virtually nothing with that for the longest time.

Just because they sold this game on the mindset that it could run on a modded toaster doesn’t mean they actually snatched up a bunch of players who fit into that market. Even if they did, there’s no guarantee that they’ve been buying content regularly. Let’s not forget the “excuse” that’s tossed around for having such old hardware is the “high” cost of buying a new one or upgrading; if they can’t find money to better their machine I don’t suppose the money for Sims packs comes along any easier.

This whole thing seems to be being blown out of proportion by people who frankly have hated on the game being 32bit for years and are now suddenly speaking up for the little guy when it’s being dropped. This is not a big deal, if the game had a huge pool of 32bit players then that would be different, but clearly if they can drop support for that in mid-2019 they clearly don’t stand to lose much. As someone who is NOT a huge fan of Sims 4, or virtually anything they have done with the game thus far, this is a good thing. Doesn’t mean they’re going to take the game in a better direction, but at least what they make now won’t be tailored to near-obsolete hardware.

You're dead on that EA should never have released the game for 32-bit systems in the first place. Executives at EA have demonstrated a consistent lack of foresight.

Nevertheless, on principle, they shouldn't change to 64-bit only. Not now. It would be just one more promise that EA has broken.

It doesn't matter if only a handful of people are affecting by this, they're still paying customers, just like anyone else. They also happen to be customers that EA purposely courted with promises that the game would be able to work on their computers.

No matter which side of this coin a customer lands on, it sets a bad precedent.

When did EA promise that they wouldn't make the game 64-bit only in the future? Where did explicitly come out and promise people who bought the game that it would work on their computer when they can't know what computers people own?


The game will still work on their computers, they aren't taking away their ability to play the content that they've already paid for.

So what promise have they broken?

And then by your words any of their EP's that raised the minimum specs also broke their promise. Were you up in arms then about them breaking that promise?

"Seera1024;c-17039437" wrote:

The game will still work on their computers, they aren't taking away their ability to play the content that they've already paid for.

I think this is an important point for people upset about the change to keep in mind. They aren't losing anything they bought already. And nowhere, in no business ever, is it expected to halt progress to keep old customers. They always move forward with the aim of bringing in new ones, and hope some old ones come along. It's on the customer to either move forward too or not.
The only thing odd about this whole situation is that it's happening mid-game production stream. But, that's because EA made the mistake of not starting out as they should have with it, and now everyone else is dumping 32 bit support and forcing their hand.

"ApparentlyAwesome;c-17040089" wrote:

"Seera1024;c-17039437" wrote:

"Cynna;c-17039064" wrote:
Who didn't see this coming?

EA should have known better. It was unreasonable for them to believe that they could keep piling content onto a system that could not support more than 4GBs of RAM. Good grief, didn't they learn that lesson with TS3?

EA should have started with 64-bit from the get go. But since they didn't, they should live with their mistake instead of forcing paying customers to upgrade or be left behind. Dropping 32-bit now is really terrible public relations.

I'm sorry to those of you who won't be able to 'make the jump'. EA should have never made promises that they couldn't keep. Unfortunately, though, it's nothing new.

"drake_mccarty;c-16998981" wrote:

"ClarionOfJoy;c-16998867" wrote:
All the people saying this doesn't matter and that it's great are the same people who said before that it's great that this game can work on lower end computers. Smh....

What a sweeping generalization, and frankly I disagree. The decision to not only support, but actively tailor the game to low end machines has never made any sense. Seriously. It made even less sense when they upgraded the base game to 64bit and did virtually nothing with that for the longest time.

Just because they sold this game on the mindset that it could run on a modded toaster doesn’t mean they actually snatched up a bunch of players who fit into that market. Even if they did, there’s no guarantee that they’ve been buying content regularly. Let’s not forget the “excuse” that’s tossed around for having such old hardware is the “high” cost of buying a new one or upgrading; if they can’t find money to better their machine I don’t suppose the money for Sims packs comes along any easier.

This whole thing seems to be being blown out of proportion by people who frankly have hated on the game being 32bit for years and are now suddenly speaking up for the little guy when it’s being dropped. This is not a big deal, if the game had a huge pool of 32bit players then that would be different, but clearly if they can drop support for that in mid-2019 they clearly don’t stand to lose much. As someone who is NOT a huge fan of Sims 4, or virtually anything they have done with the game thus far, this is a good thing. Doesn’t mean they’re going to take the game in a better direction, but at least what they make now won’t be tailored to near-obsolete hardware.

You're dead on that EA should never have released the game for 32-bit systems in the first place. Executives at EA have demonstrated a consistent lack of foresight.

Nevertheless, on principle, they shouldn't change to 64-bit only. Not now. It would be just one more promise that EA has broken.

It doesn't matter if only a handful of people are affecting by this, they're still paying customers, just like anyone else. They also happen to be customers that EA purposely courted with promises that the game would be able to work on their computers.

No matter which side of this coin a customer lands on, it sets a bad precedent.

When did EA promise that they wouldn't make the game 64-bit only in the future? Where did explicitly come out and promise people who bought the game that it would work on their computer when they can't know what computers people own?


The game will still work on their computers, they aren't taking away their ability to play the content that they've already paid for.

So what promise have they broken?

And then by your words any of their EP's that raised the minimum specs also broke their promise. Were you up in arms then about them breaking that promise?

I wouldn't say promised but they did say that people with lower end specs would have a better experience and that basically they wanted to make sure people, no matter the specs of their computer, have a great experience.

Even though I agree with this move, I wouldn't call it great that the experience of TS4 is ending if you're a 32 bit user who likes the game but the game goes on for others. They can still play but the game, but even though it hasn't actually ended it will essentially have ended for them until they upgrade. Even if it is a small minority it would've been better to not have gone this route at all and have been 64 bit from the start.

"We're really excited to say that players on lower end machines are going to have a much better experience on The Sims 4 than they did with The Sims 3," producer Ryan Vaughn told Digital Spy.

He added: "We know that our players have a wide range of different PC specs. We want to make sure that somebody playing on a lower end machine has just as great an experience as somebody on a higher end machine.

https://www.digitalspy.com/videogames/gamescom/a507006/the-sims-4-to-run-better-on-low-end-machines-than-sims-3-says-maxis/

My response was to someone saying that this move is just another promise EA has broken. I've asked them to find where EA said that promise.


As to the quote from Ryan, I would say that anything spoken regarding a game that's fixing to launch is only in regards to that specific game. Not any expansion, stuff pack, or other such add on. So they haven't really gone away from that short of them losing access to the gallery and no more patches. The latter should be expected; the former is likely due to how they chose to code the gallery - if it's not then I have no idea why they would given the game's decision to just replace anything it can't find in game.

I think when they are saying low end, they are meaning in age and megabytes not cost. 64 bit has been available for over a decade and Sims 4 has always technically been a 64 bit game, with 32 bit support. They've given people 5 years to upgrade. The 6 year old machine I replaced today was 64 bit. My husband said he thinks the last 32 bit only machine we had was 10-12 years ago. To me, and probably to EA, anything over a few years old is low end by current standards.
I don't think it's a broken promise, so much as a difference in opinion on what low end means.

"ApparentlyAwesome;c-17040246" wrote:

"Seera1024;c-17040145" wrote:

"ApparentlyAwesome;c-17040089" wrote:

"Seera1024;c-17039437" wrote:

"Cynna;c-17039064" wrote:
Who didn't see this coming?

EA should have known better. It was unreasonable for them to believe that they could keep piling content onto a system that could not support more than 4GBs of RAM. Good grief, didn't they learn that lesson with TS3?

EA should have started with 64-bit from the get go. But since they didn't, they should live with their mistake instead of forcing paying customers to upgrade or be left behind. Dropping 32-bit now is really terrible public relations.

I'm sorry to those of you who won't be able to 'make the jump'. EA should have never made promises that they couldn't keep. Unfortunately, though, it's nothing new.

"drake_mccarty;c-16998981" wrote:

"ClarionOfJoy;c-16998867" wrote:
All the people saying this doesn't matter and that it's great are the same people who said before that it's great that this game can work on lower end computers. Smh....

What a sweeping generalization, and frankly I disagree. The decision to not only support, but actively tailor the game to low end machines has never made any sense. Seriously. It made even less sense when they upgraded the base game to 64bit and did virtually nothing with that for the longest time.

Just because they sold this game on the mindset that it could run on a modded toaster doesn’t mean they actually snatched up a bunch of players who fit into that market. Even if they did, there’s no guarantee that they’ve been buying content regularly. Let’s not forget the “excuse” that’s tossed around for having such old hardware is the “high” cost of buying a new one or upgrading; if they can’t find money to better their machine I don’t suppose the money for Sims packs comes along any easier.

This whole thing seems to be being blown out of proportion by people who frankly have hated on the game being 32bit for years and are now suddenly speaking up for the little guy when it’s being dropped. This is not a big deal, if the game had a huge pool of 32bit players then that would be different, but clearly if they can drop support for that in mid-2019 they clearly don’t stand to lose much. As someone who is NOT a huge fan of Sims 4, or virtually anything they have done with the game thus far, this is a good thing. Doesn’t mean they’re going to take the game in a better direction, but at least what they make now won’t be tailored to near-obsolete hardware.

You're dead on that EA should never have released the game for 32-bit systems in the first place. Executives at EA have demonstrated a consistent lack of foresight.

Nevertheless, on principle, they shouldn't change to 64-bit only. Not now. It would be just one more promise that EA has broken.

It doesn't matter if only a handful of people are affecting by this, they're still paying customers, just like anyone else. They also happen to be customers that EA purposely courted with promises that the game would be able to work on their computers.

No matter which side of this coin a customer lands on, it sets a bad precedent.

When did EA promise that they wouldn't make the game 64-bit only in the future? Where did explicitly come out and promise people who bought the game that it would work on their computer when they can't know what computers people own?


The game will still work on their computers, they aren't taking away their ability to play the content that they've already paid for.

So what promise have they broken?

And then by your words any of their EP's that raised the minimum specs also broke their promise. Were you up in arms then about them breaking that promise?

I wouldn't say promised but they did say that people with lower end specs would have a better experience and that basically they wanted to make sure people, no matter the specs of their computer, have a great experience.

Even though I agree with this move, I wouldn't call it great that the experience of TS4 is ending if you're a 32 bit user who likes the game but the game goes on for others. They can still play but the game, but even though it hasn't actually ended it will essentially have ended for them until they upgrade. Even if it is a small minority it would've been better to not have gone this route at all and have been 64 bit from the start.

"We're really excited to say that players on lower end machines are going to have a much better experience on The Sims 4 than they did with The Sims 3," producer Ryan Vaughn told Digital Spy.

He added: "We know that our players have a wide range of different PC specs. We want to make sure that somebody playing on a lower end machine has just as great an experience as somebody on a higher end machine.

https://www.digitalspy.com/videogames/gamescom/a507006/the-sims-4-to-run-better-on-low-end-machines-than-sims-3-says-maxis/

My response was to someone saying that this move is just another promise EA has broken. I've asked them to find where EA said that promise.


As to the quote from Ryan, I would say that anything spoken regarding a game that's fixing to launch is only in regards to that specific game. Not any expansion, stuff pack, or other such add on. So they haven't really gone away from that short of them losing access to the gallery and no more patches. The latter should be expected; the former is likely due to how they chose to code the gallery - if it's not then I have no idea why they would given the game's decision to just replace anything it can't find in game.

The thing is, for some people unless you specify just the base or a specific pack, when somebody says 'experience' the game they view it as the whole thing, base game and packs included. So when he said they'll experience the game better than TS3 I think that what went through some players minds was that they'll better experience the game as a whole, base and packs, because for them TS3 as a whole was rough on their computer. So to those who interpret the experience of The Sims 4 as every release with The Sims 4 in the title I could see how it would feel like them going back on their word.

I agree as with each pack is engineered as not to hurt performance and not use specs according each system does not make each release spectacular. I must say when Sims 2 and Sims 3 was in production I would get excited for each release. However with Sims 4 I find that is not the case as I know each pack does not have the power of it's predcessor and again for the reason of playing it safe and having an powerful system does not benefit the player. They cater to the lowest denominator, the users of low end systems and that is my honest opinion.

"Seera1024;c-17039437" wrote:

"Cynna;c-17039064" wrote:
Who didn't see this coming?

EA should have known better. It was unreasonable for them to believe that they could keep piling content onto a system that could not support more than 4GBs of RAM. Good grief, didn't they learn that lesson with TS3?

EA should have started with 64-bit from the get go. But since they didn't, they should live with their mistake instead of forcing paying customers to upgrade or be left behind. Dropping 32-bit now is really terrible public relations.

I'm sorry to those of you who won't be able to 'make the jump'. EA should have never made promises that they couldn't keep. Unfortunately, though, it's nothing new.

"drake_mccarty;c-16998981" wrote:

"ClarionOfJoy;c-16998867" wrote:
All the people saying this doesn't matter and that it's great are the same people who said before that it's great that this game can work on lower end computers. Smh....

What a sweeping generalization, and frankly I disagree. The decision to not only support, but actively tailor the game to low end machines has never made any sense. Seriously. It made even less sense when they upgraded the base game to 64bit and did virtually nothing with that for the longest time.

Just because they sold this game on the mindset that it could run on a modded toaster doesn’t mean they actually snatched up a bunch of players who fit into that market. Even if they did, there’s no guarantee that they’ve been buying content regularly. Let’s not forget the “excuse” that’s tossed around for having such old hardware is the “high” cost of buying a new one or upgrading; if they can’t find money to better their machine I don’t suppose the money for Sims packs comes along any easier.

This whole thing seems to be being blown out of proportion by people who frankly have hated on the game being 32bit for years and are now suddenly speaking up for the little guy when it’s being dropped. This is not a big deal, if the game had a huge pool of 32bit players then that would be different, but clearly if they can drop support for that in mid-2019 they clearly don’t stand to lose much. As someone who is NOT a huge fan of Sims 4, or virtually anything they have done with the game thus far, this is a good thing. Doesn’t mean they’re going to take the game in a better direction, but at least what they make now won’t be tailored to near-obsolete hardware.

You're dead on that EA should never have released the game for 32-bit systems in the first place. Executives at EA have demonstrated a consistent lack of foresight.

Nevertheless, on principle, they shouldn't change to 64-bit only. Not now. It would be just one more promise that EA has broken.

It doesn't matter if only a handful of people are affecting by this, they're still paying customers, just like anyone else. They also happen to be customers that EA purposely courted with promises that the game would be able to work on their computers.

No matter which side of this coin a customer lands on, it sets a bad precedent.

When did EA promise that they wouldn't make the game 64-bit only in the future? Where did explicitly come out and promise people who bought the game that it would work on their computer when they can't know what computers people own?


The game will still work on their computers, they aren't taking away their ability to play the content that they've already paid for.

So what promise have they broken?

And then by your words any of their EP's that raised the minimum specs also broke their promise. Were you up in arms then about them breaking that promise?

When you launch a game in 32-bit, it's implied that the game will remain 32-bit, don't you think? Those with 32-bit systems purchased with the idea that they would be able to play the game and its expansions.

I don't recall any version of the series where the underpinnings of the actual game were changed like this. Not RAM or video requirements, but the actual underpinnings of the game. How is that not breaking faith with the consumer?

"ApparentlyAwesome;c-17040246" wrote:

The thing is, for some people unless you specify just the base or a specific pack, when somebody says 'experience' the game they view it as the whole thing, base game and packs included. So when he said they'll experience the game better than TS3 I think that what went through some players minds was that they'll better experience the game as a whole, base and packs, because for them TS3 as a whole was rough on their computer. So to those who interpret the experience of The Sims 4 as every release with The Sims 4 in the title I could see how it would feel like them going back on their word.

Exactly.

"Cynna;c-17041070" wrote:

"Seera1024;c-17039437" wrote:

"Cynna;c-17039064" wrote:
Who didn't see this coming?

EA should have known better. It was unreasonable for them to believe that they could keep piling content onto a system that could not support more than 4GBs of RAM. Good grief, didn't they learn that lesson with TS3?

EA should have started with 64-bit from the get go. But since they didn't, they should live with their mistake instead of forcing paying customers to upgrade or be left behind. Dropping 32-bit now is really terrible public relations.

I'm sorry to those of you who won't be able to 'make the jump'. EA should have never made promises that they couldn't keep. Unfortunately, though, it's nothing new.

"drake_mccarty;c-16998981" wrote:

"ClarionOfJoy;c-16998867" wrote:
All the people saying this doesn't matter and that it's great are the same people who said before that it's great that this game can work on lower end computers. Smh....

What a sweeping generalization, and frankly I disagree. The decision to not only support, but actively tailor the game to low end machines has never made any sense. Seriously. It made even less sense when they upgraded the base game to 64bit and did virtually nothing with that for the longest time.

Just because they sold this game on the mindset that it could run on a modded toaster doesn’t mean they actually snatched up a bunch of players who fit into that market. Even if they did, there’s no guarantee that they’ve been buying content regularly. Let’s not forget the “excuse” that’s tossed around for having such old hardware is the “high” cost of buying a new one or upgrading; if they can’t find money to better their machine I don’t suppose the money for Sims packs comes along any easier.

This whole thing seems to be being blown out of proportion by people who frankly have hated on the game being 32bit for years and are now suddenly speaking up for the little guy when it’s being dropped. This is not a big deal, if the game had a huge pool of 32bit players then that would be different, but clearly if they can drop support for that in mid-2019 they clearly don’t stand to lose much. As someone who is NOT a huge fan of Sims 4, or virtually anything they have done with the game thus far, this is a good thing. Doesn’t mean they’re going to take the game in a better direction, but at least what they make now won’t be tailored to near-obsolete hardware.

You're dead on that EA should never have released the game for 32-bit systems in the first place. Executives at EA have demonstrated a consistent lack of foresight.

Nevertheless, on principle, they shouldn't change to 64-bit only. Not now. It would be just one more promise that EA has broken.

It doesn't matter if only a handful of people are affecting by this, they're still paying customers, just like anyone else. They also happen to be customers that EA purposely courted with promises that the game would be able to work on their computers.

No matter which side of this coin a customer lands on, it sets a bad precedent.

When did EA promise that they wouldn't make the game 64-bit only in the future? Where did explicitly come out and promise people who bought the game that it would work on their computer when they can't know what computers people own?


The game will still work on their computers, they aren't taking away their ability to play the content that they've already paid for.

So what promise have they broken?

And then by your words any of their EP's that raised the minimum specs also broke their promise. Were you up in arms then about them breaking that promise?

When you launch a game in 32-bit, it's implied that the game will remain 32-bit, don't you think? Those with 32-bit systems purchased with the idea that they would be able to play the game and its expansions.

I don't recall any version of the series where the underpinnings of the actual game were changed like this. Not RAM or video requirements, but the actual underpinnings of the game. How is that not breaking faith with the consumer?

"ApparentlyAwesome;c-17040246" wrote:

The thing is, for some people unless you specify just the base or a specific pack, when somebody says 'experience' the game they view it as the whole thing, base game and packs included. So when he said they'll experience the game better than TS3 I think that what went through some players minds was that they'll better experience the game as a whole, base and packs, because for them TS3 as a whole was rough on their computer. So to those who interpret the experience of The Sims 4 as every release with The Sims 4 in the title I could see how it would feel like them going back on their word.

Exactly.

Sims 2 with Securom. And they didn't even announce it until we had bought the pack with it. People with CD/DVD burning software on their computer suddenly found themselves unable to play the game even though they wouldn't use that software to pirate the game. Just because actual pirates used that software to pirate games.

And this change is likely not up to the Sims team and they may have thought when they launched the game that they would be fine until Sims 5 with 32 bit, but technology is ever evolving and EA probably forced their hand. Or they made the change after looking at the numbers and what bugs they could likely fix by going 64 bit only and what they could add that would not be able to if they continued to keep 32 bit support.

And trust me, if a large number of players were affected, trust me this would not be happening. There's probably a small percentage of players who are affected by this decision and chances are those players will be forced to upgrade their computer sooner rather than later just due to the age of the computer that they are likely playing on.

It's not breaking any kind of faith or going back on any kind of word.

And again you're talking of people thinking like that EA promised that they would be able to play the game and all of it's EP's. Did you get upset when EA raised the minimum requirements with Seasons and Pets? That meant that some players were no longer able to play all EP's. This is all it is, EA raising the minimum requirements to 64 bit.


You really need to try not to treat everything a game company says about things that have not been released as a promise or something set in stone. How willing would you be to share information about upcoming releases if something about what you said was changed before the game launched and now people out there are accusing you of lying or breaking a promise?

Stuff happens. Especially at game companies. Management changes. Priorities shift. Technology changes. Things that sounded possible on paper turn out to not be possible or not feasible given budget. Holding game companies to the letter of what they said is just asking for disappointment. Always treat what they are talking about as only related to what they are about to release and with a grain of salt if it isn't set to launch within the week.

"Cynna;c-17041070" wrote:

When you launch a game in 32-bit, it's implied that the game will remain 32-bit, don't you think? Those with 32-bit systems purchased with the idea that they would be able to play the game and its expansions.

Except, they didn't, not really. Sims 4 was always 64 bit for Macs. There were/are 64 bit and 32 bit versions for windows, but their page discussing the specs clearly lays out why 64 bit is better, how it's been available since Windows 7, how much memory the game typically uses, when it might use more, and why 32 bit systems crash because the game is trying to use more. It even states plainly: The Sims 4 is more stable when running on 64 bit Windows.

Basically, even they said, you CAN run the game on a 32 bit system, and we'll let you, but you shouldn't. And now they've finally decided it's time to stop even trying.