EA Forums - Banner

Mapple Store & Springfield Falls

Replies

  • bradyc79
    1379 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    I think the Springfield Falls will be released again eventually. After they re released the Duff Racer, then any limited time items became possible again. That was the true original premium item that signaled a day one player. The best part about the Duff Racer is that it has always been a premium item, with a multiplier, but has never been for sale for donuts. I believe they just gave it away initially, and then I know I only paid in game cash for it when it was released the 2nd time, and hopefully will remain the same the next time. Mapple Store is a completely different situation because at the time, Apple was the only platform the game was available on. So I doubt the Mapple Store will ever be released again. But I'll never say never.

    Personally, I would love to have another chance to purchase Fruit Batman skin for Burns and the Limo for Respectable Moe. I wish I had not passed on them when I had the opportunity.
  • Linkwick
    956 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    bradyc79 wrote:
    After they re released the Duff Racer, then any limited time items became possible again. That was the true original premium item that signaled a day one player. The best part about the Duff Racer is that it has always been a premium item, with a multiplier, but has never been for sale for donuts.
    Unforunately not true - it doesn't give a % bonus - it only adds to Vanity rating.

    However, it was the hallmark of an original payer. I was very surprised when they made it available for all.
  • wagondriver4
    310 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    I like how my "limited time" characters become "premium" when they are rereleased.

    Edit - yes Barry, even though I have the original CBH, I am still in need of in game cash. Also, I think everyone should have the falls, cause it's pretty. And then they should rerelease Fruit Bat Man skin.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • barryriddl474
    4855 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    I understand that the Mapple Store was only initially released on Apple devices, but the building was on a Simpsons episode, so I don't see where this should be an issue to re release it. Or, make an Android vendor available.
    I have waaay more than I could ever put out, so I'm good either way. :D
  • mcduck90
    940 posts
    edited December 2014
    Blahhh2014 wrote:
    mcduck90 wrote:
    In conclusion the Mapple Store and the Springfield Falls must stay where they are and that’s in the old files. Otherwise what’s the point?

    The point is to show some consideration for newer players. Unfortunately, some only consider themselves...*cough, cough.*

    Exactly. Surprisingly, my game plays exactly the same, regardless of who has what. If a day one player popped in and paid for everything ever released on the first day, what do I care?

    But, for those who already have many older items, you/we received them for free or virtually nothing. The newer players have to pay a premium. THIS would be what I disagree with.

    Sorry, not fond of the elitist attitude. :roll:

    I don’t think that there is an elitist attitude. More like anti-EA attitude at the moment by me. I know that there are new players out there who want decorations and buildings which were available only for a certain time but I find it unfair to read every time for an episode tie in or an event's limited decoration and building that they will be available only for a short time and then they reappear.

    Also what I really dislike is how I see new players going premium, in a year and after they have bought everything available I have to delete 20 neighbours because they lost interest. I don’t like this mostly because they never put effort to make something special out of what they got.

    Finally, certain things make it possible to know for sure which player has played for how long and that’s how I can see how they have designed their towns after each addition which happened at the same time for my town. So I believe that certain items should not be re-released. That doesn’t show a bad attitude towards anyone but it’s what I would prefer. If someone around here is a serious collector of something will probably feel the same, as this kind of thinking is extended to other areas as well but not with maliciousness.
  • lynnmckenz82
    2611 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    Well, as someone who began playing in February, I'd like to have Springfield Falls simply because it looks so gorgeous. I don't care about the rarity of an item, just its appearance.

    BTW, I love it that you call it SFF. Springfield Falls Forever. :wink:
    Imagine there's a signature image here.--Lynn McKenzie
  • barryriddl474
    4855 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    I like how my "limited time" characters become "premium" when they are rereleased.


    I hope everyone understands what "limited time" literally means versus a "one time only ever ever ever" item.

    Limited time only means it's available for a limited time. There is a restaurant chain near me called McDonald's. They promote limited time items that return for, you guessed it, a limited time.
  • Linkwick
    956 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    I understand that the Mapple Store was only initially released on Apple devices, but the building was on a Simpsons episode, so I don't see where this should be an issue to re release it. Or, make an Android vendor available.
    I have waaay more than I could ever put out, so I'm good either way. :D

    Yeah, re-release Mapple Store and release a new Fandroid store for each OS. I won't jump on both devices to get 'em... never... :P :lol:
  • barryriddl474
    4855 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    mcduck90 wrote:
    Blahhh2014 wrote:
    mcduck90 wrote:
    In conclusion the Mapple Store and the Springfield Falls must stay where they are and that’s in the old files. Otherwise what’s the point?

    The point is to show some consideration for newer players. Unfortunately, some only consider themselves...*cough, cough.*

    Exactly. Surprisingly, my game plays exactly the same, regardless of who has what. If a day one player popped in and paid for everything ever released on the first day, what do I care?

    But, for those who already have many older items, you/we received them for free or virtually nothing. The newer players have to pay a premium. THIS would be what I disagree with.

    Sorry, not fond of the elitist attitude. :roll:

    I don’t think that there is an elitist attitude. More like anti-EA attitude at the moment by me. I know that there are new players out there who want decorations and buildings which were available only for a certain time but I find it unfair to read every time for an episode tie in or an event's limited decoration and building that they will be available only for a short time and then they reappear.

    Also what I really dislike is how I see new players going premium, in a year and after they have bought everything available I have to delete 20 neighbours because they lost interest. I don’t like this mostly because they never put effort to make something special out of what they got.

    Finally, certain things make it possible to know for sure which player has played for how long and that’s how I can see how they have designed their towns after each addition which happened at the same time for my town. So I believe that certain items should not be re-released. That doesn’t show a bad attitude towards anyone but it’s what I would prefer. If someone around here is a serious collector of something will probably feel the same, as this kind of thinking is extended to other areas as well but not with maliciousness.

    It's funny that you mentioned that if someone were a serious collector of something, then they would see your line of thinking. I say that because I am, in fact, a serious collector of something. I have arguably one of the largest Star Wars toy collections in my part of the world, and I honestly can not, for a moment, understand. If a new toy collector walked by and bought every single Star Wars item they could, my collection remains the same. But, the bright side is that it doesn't matter if I understand or not. I'm not here to judge. I was just making an observation about the elitist mindset.

  • KillaSqirl
    1763 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    I've been playing since Nov 2012 and have all of the old stuff I want. I hope EA re-releases it all and keeps updating and supporting the game for a long time. Donut sales are key to keeping it going so why not give the noobs what they want? :)
  • mcduck90
    940 posts
    edited December 2014
    It's funny that you mentioned that if someone were a serious collector of something, then they would see your line of thinking. I say that because I am, in fact, a serious collector of something. I have arguably one of the largest Star Wars toy collections in my part of the world, and I honestly can not, for a moment, understand. If a new toy collector walked by and bought every single Star Wars item they could, my collection remains the same. But, the bright side is that it doesn't matter if I understand or not. I'm not here to judge. I was just making an observation about the elitist mindset.

    My thinking is based not on what I have as a collection but to the process of acquiring the said collection. It is a different thing entirely. I've tried to approach this matter delicately numerous times but I’ve failed so for tonight I’ll just say this. I love books and I adore rare books. My family owns a few thousands of them but very few of those are part of my painstalking hunting. If I need a decade to complete a series and someone finds the whole seriesthe first year they decided to become collectors, good for them. But if they buy a whole library just for the kicks of it without reading them and leave them to gather dust then I’m certainly not ok. It’s the mentality of why you get something and how you use it afterwards. Perhaps I’m tired of players who hoard these items when they become available for the second or the third time. In any case it doesn’t matter as this thread falls under the category of “more land”.
  • barryriddl474
    4855 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    mcduck90 wrote:
    It's funny that you mentioned that if someone were a serious collector of something, then they would see your line of thinking. I say that because I am, in fact, a serious collector of something. I have arguably one of the largest Star Wars toy collections in my part of the world, and I honestly can not, for a moment, understand. If a new toy collector walked by and bought every single Star Wars item they could, my collection remains the same. But, the bright side is that it doesn't matter if I understand or not. I'm not here to judge. I was just making an observation about the elitist mindset.

    My thinking is based not on what I have as a collection but to the process of acquiring the said collection. It is a different thing entirely. I've tried to approach this matter delicately numerous times but I’ve failed so for tonight I’ll just say this. I love books and I adore rare books. My family owns a few thousands of them but very few of those are part of my painstalking hunting. If I need a decade to complete a series and someone finds the whole seriesthe first year they decided to become collectors, good for them. But if they buy a whole library just for the kicks of it without reading them and leave them to gather dust then I’m certainly not ok. It’s the mentality of why you get something and how you use it afterwards. Perhaps I’m tired of players who hoard these items when they become available for the second or the third time. In any case it doesn’t matter as this thread falls under the category of “more land”.

    If you don't mind me asking, do you read these books? I ask, because in Star Wars toys, there are people that open their toys and there are people who would cringe if they heard me mention the words "open" and "toys" in the same breath, unless I was saying "Toys R Us is open!"
  • mcduck90
    940 posts
    edited December 2014
    A bit out of topic but I'll answer. We aim more for out of print and /or limited printed books than early editions so if I didn't actually read them, they would lose their purpose.
  • lauriegator
    306 posts
    edited December 2014
    Blahhh2014 wrote:
    mcduck90 wrote:
    In conclusion the Mapple Store and the Springfield Falls must stay where they are and that’s in the old files. Otherwise what’s the point?

    The point is to show some consideration for newer players. Unfortunately, some only consider themselves...*cough, cough.*

    Exactly. Surprisingly, my game plays exactly the same, regardless of who has what. If a day one player popped in and paid for everything ever released on the first day, what do I care?

    But, for those who already have many older items, you/we received them for free or virtually nothing. The newer players have to pay a premium. THIS would be what I disagree with.

    Sorry, not fond of the elitist attitude. :roll:

    I disagree. I really don't feel that name calling is appropriate here...

    I am not elitist nor a complete collector nor a premium player. I can see the point of the player who poured lots of time and real world money into the game and did get Sherri Bobbins, then someone comes along and is able to purchase it later. I know I would not be happy, especially if it is offered for less than they spent to get it during the time frame when it was offered. I remember some people putting out a ton of money (some over $100). I was not lucky enough to get Sherri and I did put in lots of time and some money to try to get her and Father Sean.

    I feel like maybe there are things that can be kept in files and not offered again.
  • suetopia
    4232 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    This is a video game. It is not a rare book or collectors item. I worked extremely hard to get Sharry Bobbins, but I wouldnt be upset if they brought her back for people who would like her - it makes the game more enjoyable for them, and gives people who were unable to get her during the event a chance to get her. I think that is a good thing. Making gameplay enjoyable for everyone is important.
  • lauriegator
    306 posts
    edited December 2014
    suetopia wrote:
    This is a video game. It is not a rare book or collectors item. I worked extremely hard to get Sharry Bobbins, but I wouldnt be upset if they brought her back for people who would like her - it makes the game more enjoyable for them, and gives people who were unable to get her during the event a chance to get her. I think that is a good thing. Making gameplay enjoyable for everyone is important.

    Yes, I agree that this a video game. With many different people with many different gameplay styles.

    Some people like to have house farms while others may only have one of each item and may have elaborate landscape designs. They are very different styles of gameplay and neither one is "bad" or "wrong".

    I like the reasoning that you have in wanting other players to have the opportunity to have a character that you have. There are other people who believe that they worked hard for it and put A LOT of money into getting that building/character/skin and that it should not be available. Again, different styles of gameplay and neither one is "bad" or "wrong".

    I have a hard time with a theme that I have seen in many topics that "if you don't play the same way that I play, then you are..." (Fill in the blank) I have seen people called names because someone does not have the same viewpoint. I have seen people being criticized for not having the same game playing style.

    I would like to see people being able to express an idea or viewpoint that is not in agreement and not get called names or told that they are wrong or any other type of shaming. Right now, that is not happening. Just read the posts on this topic and you will see this in action.
  • neuroheart
    8132 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    suetopia wrote:
    This is a video game. It is not a rare book or collectors item. I worked extremely hard to get Sharry Bobbins, but I wouldnt be upset if they brought her back for people who would like her - it makes the game more enjoyable for them, and gives people who were unable to get her during the event a chance to get her. I think that is a good thing. Making gameplay enjoyable for everyone is important.

    Yes, I agree that this a video game. With many different people with many different gameplay styles.

    Some people like to have house farms while others may only have one of each item and may have elaborate landscape designs. They are very different styles of gameplay and neither one is "bad" or "wrong".

    I like the reasoning that you have in wanting other players to have the opportunity to have a character that you have. There are other people who believe that they worked hard for it and put A LOT of money into getting that building/character/skin and that it should not be available. Again, different styles of gameplay and neither one is "bad" or "wrong".

    I have a hard time with a theme that I have seen in many topics that "if you don't play the same way that I play, then you are..." (Fill in the blank) I have seen people called names because someone does not have the same viewpoint. I have seen people being criticized for not having the same game playing style.

    I would like to see people being able to express an idea or viewpoint that is not in agreement and not get called names or told that they are wrong or any other type of shaming. Right now, that is not happening. Just read the posts on this topic and you will see this in action.
    Except we aren't talking about a style of gameplay, we're talking about what should and should not be available to play with. It's also extremely strange to me that you're saying we shouldn't judge play style, at the same time you seem to be judging those of us who think that limited time items can be offered more than once.

    I played for a year straight before the Cool Brown House was made available for purchase to Android and Kindle players. I had to wait for it, and I had to pay real money for it. But now I have it. And yeah, I could use that item in any "game-playing style" my little heart desires, and no one should care. They also shouldn't care that I was able to get it despite my lack of an iOS device.
  • barryriddl474
    4855 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    Blahhh2014 wrote:
    mcduck90 wrote:
    In conclusion the Mapple Store and the Springfield Falls must stay where they are and that’s in the old files. Otherwise what’s the point?

    The point is to show some consideration for newer players. Unfortunately, some only consider themselves...*cough, cough.*

    Exactly. Surprisingly, my game plays exactly the same, regardless of who has what. If a day one player popped in and paid for everything ever released on the first day, what do I care?

    But, for those who already have many older items, you/we received them for free or virtually nothing. The newer players have to pay a premium. THIS would be what I disagree with.

    Sorry, not fond of the elitist attitude. :roll:

    I disagree. I really don't feel that name calling is appropriate here...

    For clarity, I was not name calling but describing an attitude as I perceived it. I believe that there is a difference.

    Also, I have everything in the game that I could possibly want, and I would just like to see everyone be able to have anything that the game can offer. You are welcome to describe my attitude as positive and I won't interpret that as name calling. :mrgreen:

  • lauriegator
    306 posts
    edited December 2014
    Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    I was trying to say that some people may want an item to be kept unavailable for various reasons that are important to them, such as the Sheri Bobbins example. It has been presented in a way that if a person wants to make a building/character/skin unavailable then that the person is (insert name here).

    I just wanted to say that there are people who can have a valid reason for their position and that a differing viewpoint should be allowed to be presented without name calling or judgement.

    My Sherri Bobbins example was one I came up with off of the top of my head and was not applicable to me because I do not have her. I was trying to present a case where a person was presenting a differing opinion.

    I have just seen a lot of value judgements and name calling when people don't conform to an opinion or style of play. I feel like this limits people posting a differing opinion because they don't want to be called names or judged.
  • barryriddl474
    4855 posts Member
    edited December 2014
    Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    I was trying to say that some people may want an item to be kept unavailable for various reasons that are important to them, such as the Sheri Bobbins example. It has been presented in a way that if a person wants to make a building/character/skin unavailable then that the person is (insert name here).

    I just wanted to say that there are people who can have a valid reason for their position and that a differing viewpoint should be allowed to be presented without name calling or judgement.

    My Sherri Bobbins example was one I came up with off of the top of my head and was not applicable to me because I do not have her. I was trying to present a case where a person was presenting a differing opinion.

    I have just seen a lot of value judgements and name calling when people don't conform to an opinion or style of play. I feel like this limits people posting a differing opinion because they don't want to be called names or judged.


    You still seem to have the impression that I was name calling. I propose that I wasn't. I was describing an attitude that a person currently has, that's all. If you worked with someone who constantly complained, and you heard someone say that the person has a bad or negative attitude, is that name calling? To me, name calling is when you say something like, oh I don't know, someone is a selfish cry baby. That's name calling in my book.

    Now, if you think that describing a person's attitude is name calling, then I apologize that I've upset you and anyone else who may have felt slighted.
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.