"invisiblgirl;c-17115920" wrote:
"drake_mccarty;c-17114422" wrote:
"@invisiblgirl;c-17114296" wrote:
"EnjoyfulSimmer;c-17112564" wrote:
Okay, so here's something. Just because you have no desire to see sims swim, or work, or do anything at all, does not mean that is acceptable for the next player. For me, its absolutely crucial. What each player desires and considers of importance will be different. However, the thing is, it's 2019. Rabbit holes should be OPTIONAL . NOT mandatory. And I stand firm by that.
Optional or not, building an active experience takes more programming than building a rabbit hole, which means that something else has to be curtailed (or the game would be too expensive to sell - even those of us who can afford it might balk at the price, if only because S4 was such a disaster when it was first released.)
I'd rather they focus on the Sims themselves - there are loads of games in which you can manage hotels and drive cars, but only one game in which you can direct and nurture simulated life from birth to death and generations beyond. In virtual reality, you're experiencing the game from a first-person context, whereas the Sims was intended more as a third-person context. (One poster has a great quote from Will Wright to that effect - the idea was not for the player to be Frodo, but to be his director.) There are times when I see my Sims as virtual pets, others when they're more like a science experiment (hmm - what will happen if I do this to my Sim? >:) ), and still others when they are playing out a story I've created for them.
That said, I think there's a good chance they'll do both in S5 - there will be more active careers and experiences (because they are popular with many Simmers), and smarter Sims.
I don’t understand why people have this strange idea that more development costs mean a higher priced game? That is so far from reality. Here’s a good example, Grand Theft Auto 5 is the most expensive video game - ever, with a development cost of roughly $265 million dollars. Upon release it still cost $59.99 for the standard edition, which ALL brand new AAA games cost.
I doubt Sims 4 cost a fraction of that, and I also doubt any sequel will cost nearly that much, so I don’t think anyone should be concerned about affording the game. It doesn’t work like how you describe, I know Maxis has suggested that a time or two but that’s misleading and clearly it was said to put players under a false impression. It’s called grooming and it’s a real problem with this studio.
Yes, development costs money. Programmers like to eat, too. There's a sweet spot at which you have enough buyers at a high enough price to cover the costs of production, overhead and generate maximum profit. (They have a fiduciary duty to make a profit for their shareholders, who gave them their money in return for partial ownership.) For games and other forms of entertainment, the price is already set because consumers will generally balk at a higher price. (Movies are generally the same for new releases, no matter how big and flashy the movie might be.)
If you sell 100 million copies of your game (GTA5) at $59.99, you've made your production costs, your overhead, and an obscene rate of return for your shareholders. Sims 4 sold 10 million (depending on your source), which probably means that the shareholders are quite happy. However, it took a lot of time to get to that 10M, and a lot of those sales actually happened, often at a discount, after 'free' updates, such as toddlers. (And of course, nothing is free - the developers got paid, as they should.) Moreover, you've got to cover games that flop. Some of the profit generated by successful games goes to pay for development costs that will never be recouped because the game sold so poorly or never made it to market.
The point is, they do have to work within a budget, both time-wise and money-wise, and that means that they have to make some choices - do we do lots of small pets or do we create an active veterinarian career? Mermaids or hotels? I've sat in development meetings for business software, and I've seen how user impact and profitability determine what gets done. More often than not, it's my stuff that gets the short end, because there aren't enough users or business share. I might not be happy about it, but I understand the reasoning. We're in a similar position with The Sims - FIFA 18 sold more than twice as many copies in just a couple of years, so it's going to get a bit more love from EA.
Starting off with the dramatics is not exactly helping your case. Absolutely NO ONE working at Maxis is making money on a commission basis. They like to eat? Then they should go eat, because they are getting their paycheck regardless of whether they release anything or not.
My point was that even if they spend an outrageous amount of money developing a sequel no one should be concerned about affording it because the standard price for AAA video games is capped at $59.99 USD. You even agree with this, so I’m not exactly sure why you chose to say otherwise in your first post?
Lastly, it is entirely on Maxis to put forth a case for a decent budget. Do you think they aren’t afforded such an opportunity? Of course they are, they have people who’s job is literally to make the case for upper management to green light expenditures on various projects. If they feel a larger budget that can accommodate better staffing would benefit the game they are making, then it is on THEM to get that out of the parent company. I am not someone who buys into corporate nonsense especially from a studio that historically has not had these budget-based problems. EA slashed the dev budget because this game has A LOT of problems, and barely sells without a discount. That’s entirely based on what they did with the budget they had. Is it too late for Sims 4? Yeah absolutely, but a successor title could absolutely be given a decent budget to avoid the MULTITUDE of problems Sims 4 has faced.
