They are not just interested in keeping the old players buying because players become older and buy less the older they become
How exactly do you mean this? Because it's my experience it's the older simmers who buy easier than young players. For the simple reason they have more money.
What is your experience about that?
How many teen children do you have?
And what do you do when they ask for your accept to buy something "cheap" for one of their games?
I tell them to get a job. They're teens. They can work. Buying them everything they want because it's cheap isn't teaching them anything.
I don't actually know any parents who would do that. Instead they prefer to let them concentrate on their school or education. So they just give them money for games, sports or similar things they can do in their freetime. No parents who I know would tell them to take a job instead of focusing on their education and school.
I don't know, when I was younger I got pocket money for helping out on my parents farm. By time I was 16 I was encouraged to get a part time job either outside or work in the farm and get paid at the weekends. Nothing wrong with a Saturday job in addition to education.
Times have changed and at least here in Denmark parents have much more money then they had a few decades ago. I remember a time too when parents sometimes didn't care about their children's educations and preferred that they left school as soon as possible to get a job instead. But I don't believe that this kind of parents even exist anymore.
Also downloads for games are now very cheap compared to the costs of everything else. So parents who prefer to see sour faces and to argue with their children about very few dollars instead of seeing happy faces and have peace in their family - have become very rare
Oh no it wasn't for financial reasons or because my parents didn't want me to get a good education. I had a great education. It was simply my parents wanted to encourage me to be independent and have a good work ethic.
Oh no it wasn't for financial reasons or because my parents didn't want me to get a good education. I had a great education. It was simply my parents wanted to encourage me to be independent and have a good work ethic.
That's exactly why we do it. Responsibility is a great lesson to teach and learn. Living off of others and giving everything only teaches the receiver to take. There's already enough of that in this world.
There are many definitions of education, and the best lessons are taught at home when the parent (educator) takes the responsibility to teach the child (student) to be the best they can be.
Leaving all that responsibility to the schools (educational system) is nothing but irresponsible in itself. Children often learn their greatest strengths and weaknesses from the teachers who've influenced them the longest—the parents (and guardians). If the parent will leave it to others, the child will too. If the parent won't take responsibility, the child won't either.
So yeah. I'm not going to, and didn't, buy my child everything they asked for. I don't consider myself an irresponsible parent. I provided the necessities and a little extra. The rest, they were taught to attain on their own.
Not providing a game and telling my child the way to attain it on their own is not taking away from their education. It's teaching them a lesson. Things don't come easy and not everything falls into your lap simply because you wish it. That's how the world works--the real world. That is education. It's the best lesson you can teach your child.
Special snowflakes will always have the world against them when they step out the door. In the end, you've done them no favour if that's what you've produced.
Dissatisfied with Sims 4 and hoping for a better Sims 5
Oh no it wasn't for financial reasons or because my parents didn't want me to get a good education. I had a great education. It was simply my parents wanted to encourage me to be independent and have a good work ethic.
That's exactly why we do it. Responsibility is a great lesson to teach and learn. Living off of others and giving everything only teaches the receiver to take. There's already enough of that in this world.
There are many definitions of education, and the best lessons are taught at home when the parent (educator) takes the responsibility to teach the child (student) to be the best they can be.
Leaving all that responsibility to the schools (educational system) is nothing but irresponsible in itself. Children often learn their greatest strengths and weaknesses from the teachers who've influenced them the longest—the parents (and guardians). If the parent will leave it to others, the child will too. If the parent won't take responsibility, the child won't either.
So yeah. I'm not going to, and didn't, buy my child everything they asked for. I don't consider myself an irresponsible parent. I provided the necessities and a little extra. The rest, they were taught to attain on their own.
Not providing a game and telling my child the way to attain it on their own is not taking away from their education. It's teaching them a lesson. Things don't come easy and not everything falls into your lap simply because you wish it. That's how the world works--the real world. That is education. It's the best lesson you can teach your child.
Special snowflakes will always have the world against them when they step out the door. In the end, you've done them no favour if that's what you've produced.
I can see that there is a big difference between my country and yours here because in Denmark children often stay in school after the teaching has ended and do their homework there too. So they are often in school as many hours as their parents are at work. Therefore sending them to a second job when their parents aren't at work would be like forcing them to work many more hours each week than their parents do. Parents see their children's schoolwork as just as important as their own jobs. The children can of course help their parents when they are home too. But children very rarely have real jobs. Therefore their parents have to pay for their gaming, sports, bus tickets and so on.
@Writin_Reg I guess EA feels like watering down creativity in this version of the sims for the new vision and new players. It takes guts to make cuts..
I'm just wondering, if they have make this for TS4, why they would do TS5 better? I'm sure now, TS will be always like this, not creativity, never like the previous...
I think enough Simmers have voiced their frustrations and given enough feedback that if they ever released an unfinished base game where the player doesn't rule again, it could really be the beginning of the end of The Sims.
THIS exactly! Game companies do often learn from their mistakes - seeing they learned to give up on the Sims Online the minute Sims City online bombed - and they could have avoided the blast had they listened to all the players saying they did not want an online Sim City - but they didn't listen and the game bombed. So then they do one of two things they fix it and try to not follow that path again or they end it. They ended it. But when they made a bad mistake with ME they did not end it - they put the studio back to work and made an ME the players came back to , well not all, but many did. So there is no telling which way something might go - but either way they will not repeat the same mistake - it will either be the result of the players revolt and better, or it will end.
Players always just want an improved version of the previous version of a game. But the game companies know that this almost always will give lower sales numbers because many players won't just pay for the same game again even if it is improved a little. The game companies also know that improving old games significantly isn't easy. Therefore the game companies almost always attempt to just make a new game instead. Of course it will usually be a game in the same genre. But it will usually always be more different from the previous game than the fans ever expected.
So I don't know if TS5 will be a better game than TS4 - just that TS5 will be different. This gives me hope. Just not as much as I would have liked.
I disagree with this analysis. Game franchises thrive off of new installments that follow the same formula while adding and improving features. Making subsequent sequels 'different' to the literal point where it's not the same gaming experience as what it's based on is not a good way to keep players buying your stuff.
They are not just interested in keeping the old players buying because players become older and buy less the older they become. Many players also stop playing the games completely. Therefore the important thing for the game companies always is to attract new players. They do that mainly by combining two things:
1. To keep a few core concepts from the previous games such that they still can claim that it is a game in the same series.
2. To have a long list of new things and "improvements" which can be used to impress both new and more experienced players. Some older players may not like all the new things. But they are good to impress new players and attract them to the game.
When you are making another installment you typically have a select set of key features that are the improvements over the previous game. That is how you sell your new game. The Sims 4 had an underwhelming set of key features (emotions, multitasking, vibrant worlds). There was no progression or improvement because they dropped every key feature of The Sims
4. That more than likely resulted in fewer sales with players noticing the obvious lack of substance to the game at launch compared to Sims 3. The game did go on sale pretty quickly after it hit the market, a product that is selling just fine won't get marked down.
I think that the sales numbers for TS4 are much higher than people here believe. The reason is that TS4 is still able to attract the same types of young teens which TS1 attracted so successfully 17 yrs ago. It is only the older simmers who missed the open world and the toddlers. For newcomers those things don't matter just like they didn't matter when they weren't in TS1.
EA's strategy is clearly to target young teens who usually don't pay for their games themselves. Therefore it is important to have low prices for downloads because the prices are the only thing parents care about when their young teens ask for permission to download the game or the expansions. If the basegame was too expensive for some parents then it is also a good idea to give a 50% discount occasionally such that the remaining young teens also maybe will buy the game (and later its many expansions too).
I play several MMO games and the high prices for each decorative object which we are offered to buy in such games wondered me because why pay as much as the Sims 4 basegame costed just for maybe 5 decorative objects in a MMO game? Those objects aren't necessary at all and they don't change the game. But just one such object often cost as much as the price for a new SP for TS4. After some considerations it suddenly hid me: parents don't care if they pay for just one object or a full SP. They are only interested in the price when their young teen asks for permission to download something. Therefore all game companies have found out that it is most profitable to just offer downloads that cost something between $5 and $20 and it doesn't really matter that it is only stuff.
They have the capacity to make The Sims 4 different, just as they did for Sims 2 and Sims
4. Do people think Sims 3 is a copy of Sims 2? Labeling The Sims 4 'different' is more or less their fallback excuse for failing to improve upon features they have developed multiple times already.
EA has no goal about making the game better - only more profitable
Do you even know what you're talking about?
Of course the unit sales numbers are high, EA marked down the selling price almost immediately after it released and kept it that way for a long time. That is the reason the 5 million isn't significant, because they lost a considerable amount of money using discounts to get the game into as many players' hands as possible and hope to make up the loss through the sale of additional DLC. Notice how infrequently the expansion packs, and stuff packs go on sale?
EA has a lot of other games which never have been on the top 10 best selling lists. The Sims 4 basegame was number one on that list in 2015. So why is it so extremely important for you if the basegame still is number one on the list?
We can guess about this as much as we want and also if the GPs and EPs reached the top 10 list too like they did for both TS2 and TS3. But it doesn't really matter because the game is still more profitable than any of EA's other games.
It has absolutely nothing to do with young teens, I don't know what your fascination is with young teens. Enough with that, it's irrelevant to almost ever situation you use it for, especially this one. The game continued to sell because it was discounted, and I would guess they sold it to a lot of new players as well as old which is why they have such a mess on their hands now and too many different demographics to cater to.
You can believe that if you want. But if the Sims games didn't sell extremely well especially to young teens then they wouldn't ever have been able to top the lists as the best selling games ever
The only Top 10 list Sims 4 has made was for PC games. It made it to number one, which is an accomplishment The Sims 3 also achieved, as well as Sims 2. The Sims is primarily a PC exclusive market, especially now where there are no modern Sims games being sold outside of the PC arena.
Even poor sales probably wouldn't affect the sales charts, because PC is slowly eroding away in favor of console and portable gaming, The Sims is pretty much guaranteed to sell enough to top that chart. There's hardly any other major PC games releasing now, let alone in 2014. Back then The Sims 3 was The Sims 4's biggest competiton, that should give you a pretty good idea at the PC gaming market.
I can see that there is a big difference between my country and yours here because in Denmark children often stay in school after the teaching has ended and do their homework there too. So they are often in school as many hours as their parents are at work. Therefore sending them to a second job when their parents aren't at work would be like forcing them to work many more hours each week than their parents do. Parents see their children's schoolwork as just as important as their own jobs. The children can of course help their parents when they are home too. But children very rarely have real jobs. Therefore their parents have to pay for their gaming, sports, bus tickets and so on.
I will pay for their bus tickets, necessities, and a few extras as I implied. The rest is up to them. You will twist things around to suit you no matter what. That's fine. Whatever helps you sleep at night is no skin off my back.
Dissatisfied with Sims 4 and hoping for a better Sims 5
sIM 4 gARDENERS COME TO YOUR HOUSE. mY GARDENERS PRACTICALLY LIVE AT MY SIms houses their gardens are so big. In one house I have a Freelance Botanists and a Gardener was not enough so I hired a live in Butler as the Butler helps with the gardening as well. I don't see the maid though in my other houses but everything is done usually. The butler is good though.
I have not yet been able to hire a gardener! (The option is always closed out for some reason) but I hire maids that I never see and never seem to get paid. I liked it when you could see them at work! (I hired a Butler once but she seemed to always behave in a very personal manner, I found it too weird and never hired an other) I have spent far more on expansion packs and stuff packs on Sims 4 than I ever dreamed I would but for all that, it has not become more satisfying than 1 was for me. I almost never "Play" the Sims, I just create houses and buildings. Playing is to frustrating with constant reloading needed even to visit a bar across the street! and again to get home. There are constant lags and momentary freezes that irritate and when I do take a Sim out somewhere, the problems seem much worse. I only play them at home now and then only to test builds. I have everything they have put out except for spooky stuff. Yet, I was content with the first Sims game and never added to it at all. I find 4 frustrating in many ways. I never tried 2 or 3 so I can not comment on those.
"Practice kindness all day to everybody and you will realize you’re already in heaven now." Jack Kerouac
@Writin_Reg I guess EA feels like watering down creativity in this version of the sims for the new vision and new players. It takes guts to make cuts..
I'm just wondering, if they have make this for TS4, why they would do TS5 better? I'm sure now, TS will be always like this, not creativity, never like the previous...
I think enough Simmers have voiced their frustrations and given enough feedback that if they ever released an unfinished base game where the player doesn't rule again, it could really be the beginning of the end of The Sims.
THIS exactly! Game companies do often learn from their mistakes - seeing they learned to give up on the Sims Online the minute Sims City online bombed - and they could have avoided the blast had they listened to all the players saying they did not want an online Sim City - but they didn't listen and the game bombed. So then they do one of two things they fix it and try to not follow that path again or they end it. They ended it. But when they made a bad mistake with ME they did not end it - they put the studio back to work and made an ME the players came back to , well not all, but many did. So there is no telling which way something might go - but either way they will not repeat the same mistake - it will either be the result of the players revolt and better, or it will end.
Players always just want an improved version of the previous version of a game. But the game companies know that this almost always will give lower sales numbers because many players won't just pay for the same game again even if it is improved a little. The game companies also know that improving old games significantly isn't easy. Therefore the game companies almost always attempt to just make a new game instead. Of course it will usually be a game in the same genre. But it will usually always be more different from the previous game than the fans ever expected.
So I don't know if TS5 will be a better game than TS4 - just that TS5 will be different. This gives me hope. Just not as much as I would have liked.
I disagree with this analysis. Game franchises thrive off of new installments that follow the same formula while adding and improving features. Making subsequent sequels 'different' to the literal point where it's not the same gaming experience as what it's based on is not a good way to keep players buying your stuff.
They are not just interested in keeping the old players buying because players become older and buy less the older they become. Many players also stop playing the games completely. Therefore the important thing for the game companies always is to attract new players. They do that mainly by combining two things:
1. To keep a few core concepts from the previous games such that they still can claim that it is a game in the same series.
2. To have a long list of new things and "improvements" which can be used to impress both new and more experienced players. Some older players may not like all the new things. But they are good to impress new players and attract them to the game.
When you are making another installment you typically have a select set of key features that are the improvements over the previous game. That is how you sell your new game. The Sims 4 had an underwhelming set of key features (emotions, multitasking, vibrant worlds). There was no progression or improvement because they dropped every key feature of The Sims
4. That more than likely resulted in fewer sales with players noticing the obvious lack of substance to the game at launch compared to Sims 3. The game did go on sale pretty quickly after it hit the market, a product that is selling just fine won't get marked down.
I think that the sales numbers for TS4 are much higher than people here believe. The reason is that TS4 is still able to attract the same types of young teens which TS1 attracted so successfully 17 yrs ago. It is only the older simmers who missed the open world and the toddlers. For newcomers those things don't matter just like they didn't matter when they weren't in TS1.
EA's strategy is clearly to target young teens who usually don't pay for their games themselves. Therefore it is important to have low prices for downloads because the prices are the only thing parents care about when their young teens ask for permission to download the game or the expansions. If the basegame was too expensive for some parents then it is also a good idea to give a 50% discount occasionally such that the remaining young teens also maybe will buy the game (and later its many expansions too).
I play several MMO games and the high prices for each decorative object which we are offered to buy in such games wondered me because why pay as much as the Sims 4 basegame costed just for maybe 5 decorative objects in a MMO game? Those objects aren't necessary at all and they don't change the game. But just one such object often cost as much as the price for a new SP for TS4. After some considerations it suddenly hid me: parents don't care if they pay for just one object or a full SP. They are only interested in the price when their young teen asks for permission to download something. Therefore all game companies have found out that it is most profitable to just offer downloads that cost something between $5 and $20 and it doesn't really matter that it is only stuff.
They have the capacity to make The Sims 4 different, just as they did for Sims 2 and Sims
4. Do people think Sims 3 is a copy of Sims 2? Labeling The Sims 4 'different' is more or less their fallback excuse for failing to improve upon features they have developed multiple times already.
EA has no goal about making the game better - only more profitable
Do you even know what you're talking about?
Of course the unit sales numbers are high, EA marked down the selling price almost immediately after it released and kept it that way for a long time. That is the reason the 5 million isn't significant, because they lost a considerable amount of money using discounts to get the game into as many players' hands as possible and hope to make up the loss through the sale of additional DLC. Notice how infrequently the expansion packs, and stuff packs go on sale?
EA has a lot of other games which never have been on the top 10 best selling lists. The Sims 4 basegame was number one on that list in 2015. So why is it so extremely important for you if the basegame still is number one on the list?
We can guess about this as much as we want and also if the GPs and EPs reached the top 10 list too like they did for both TS2 and TS3. But it doesn't really matter because the game is still more profitable than any of EA's other games.
It has absolutely nothing to do with young teens, I don't know what your fascination is with young teens. Enough with that, it's irrelevant to almost ever situation you use it for, especially this one. The game continued to sell because it was discounted, and I would guess they sold it to a lot of new players as well as old which is why they have such a mess on their hands now and too many different demographics to cater to.
You can believe that if you want. But if the Sims games didn't sell extremely well especially to young teens then they wouldn't ever have been able to top the lists as the best selling games ever
The only Top 10 list Sims 4 has made was for PC games. It made it to number one, which is an accomplishment The Sims 3 also achieved, as well as Sims 2. The Sims is primarily a PC exclusive market, especially now where there are no modern Sims games being sold outside of the PC arena.
Except for the Sims Freeplay
Even poor sales probably wouldn't affect the sales charts, because PC is slowly eroding away in favor of console and portable gaming,
Consoles are only really good for action games. Games for mobile platforms are mostly free MMO games and there still aren't very many big paid games available. This may change though. But PCs are still used both for free MMO games, casual games and big paid games.
[/quote]The Sims is pretty much guaranteed to sell enough to top that chart. There's hardly any other major PC games releasing now, let alone in 2014. Back then The Sims 3 was The Sims 4's biggest competiton, that should give you a pretty good idea at the PC gaming market. [/quote]
The Sims 3 still sells very well. But the reason clearly is that TS4 isn't really an improvement. It even doesn't have the open world or CASt. So many simmers prefer TS3 over TS4.
I can see that there is a big difference between my country and yours here because in Denmark children often stay in school after the teaching has ended and do their homework there too. So they are often in school as many hours as their parents are at work. Therefore sending them to a second job when their parents aren't at work would be like forcing them to work many more hours each week than their parents do. Parents see their children's schoolwork as just as important as their own jobs. The children can of course help their parents when they are home too. But children very rarely have real jobs. Therefore their parents have to pay for their gaming, sports, bus tickets and so on.
I will pay for their bus tickets, necessities, and a few extras as I implied. The rest is up to them. You will twist things around to suit you no matter what. That's fine. Whatever helps you sleep at night is no skin off my back.
No, I don't really have more comments. The only one should be that my experience now is limited to children where at least one of the parents has a long education. So maybe the attitude is also different here if both parents only have a short education or no education at all. (My parents were like that but they don't live anymore and it doesn't really make sense to compare my childhood home there with current families because it was way too long ago. Much have changed since those days
@Writin_Reg I guess EA feels like watering down creativity in this version of the sims for the new vision and new players. It takes guts to make cuts..
I'm just wondering, if they have make this for TS4, why they would do TS5 better? I'm sure now, TS will be always like this, not creativity, never like the previous...
I think enough Simmers have voiced their frustrations and given enough feedback that if they ever released an unfinished base game where the player doesn't rule again, it could really be the beginning of the end of The Sims.
THIS exactly! Game companies do often learn from their mistakes - seeing they learned to give up on the Sims Online the minute Sims City online bombed - and they could have avoided the blast had they listened to all the players saying they did not want an online Sim City - but they didn't listen and the game bombed. So then they do one of two things they fix it and try to not follow that path again or they end it. They ended it. But when they made a bad mistake with ME they did not end it - they put the studio back to work and made an ME the players came back to , well not all, but many did. So there is no telling which way something might go - but either way they will not repeat the same mistake - it will either be the result of the players revolt and better, or it will end.
Players always just want an improved version of the previous version of a game. But the game companies know that this almost always will give lower sales numbers because many players won't just pay for the same game again even if it is improved a little. The game companies also know that improving old games significantly isn't easy. Therefore the game companies almost always attempt to just make a new game instead. Of course it will usually be a game in the same genre. But it will usually always be more different from the previous game than the fans ever expected.
So I don't know if TS5 will be a better game than TS4 - just that TS5 will be different. This gives me hope. Just not as much as I would have liked.
I disagree with this analysis. Game franchises thrive off of new installments that follow the same formula while adding and improving features. Making subsequent sequels 'different' to the literal point where it's not the same gaming experience as what it's based on is not a good way to keep players buying your stuff.
They are not just interested in keeping the old players buying because players become older and buy less the older they become. Many players also stop playing the games completely. Therefore the important thing for the game companies always is to attract new players. They do that mainly by combining two things:
1. To keep a few core concepts from the previous games such that they still can claim that it is a game in the same series.
2. To have a long list of new things and "improvements" which can be used to impress both new and more experienced players. Some older players may not like all the new things. But they are good to impress new players and attract them to the game.
When you are making another installment you typically have a select set of key features that are the improvements over the previous game. That is how you sell your new game. The Sims 4 had an underwhelming set of key features (emotions, multitasking, vibrant worlds). There was no progression or improvement because they dropped every key feature of The Sims
4. That more than likely resulted in fewer sales with players noticing the obvious lack of substance to the game at launch compared to Sims 3. The game did go on sale pretty quickly after it hit the market, a product that is selling just fine won't get marked down.
I think that the sales numbers for TS4 are much higher than people here believe. The reason is that TS4 is still able to attract the same types of young teens which TS1 attracted so successfully 17 yrs ago. It is only the older simmers who missed the open world and the toddlers. For newcomers those things don't matter just like they didn't matter when they weren't in TS1.
EA's strategy is clearly to target young teens who usually don't pay for their games themselves. Therefore it is important to have low prices for downloads because the prices are the only thing parents care about when their young teens ask for permission to download the game or the expansions. If the basegame was too expensive for some parents then it is also a good idea to give a 50% discount occasionally such that the remaining young teens also maybe will buy the game (and later its many expansions too).
I play several MMO games and the high prices for each decorative object which we are offered to buy in such games wondered me because why pay as much as the Sims 4 basegame costed just for maybe 5 decorative objects in a MMO game? Those objects aren't necessary at all and they don't change the game. But just one such object often cost as much as the price for a new SP for TS4. After some considerations it suddenly hid me: parents don't care if they pay for just one object or a full SP. They are only interested in the price when their young teen asks for permission to download something. Therefore all game companies have found out that it is most profitable to just offer downloads that cost something between $5 and $20 and it doesn't really matter that it is only stuff.
They have the capacity to make The Sims 4 different, just as they did for Sims 2 and Sims
4. Do people think Sims 3 is a copy of Sims 2? Labeling The Sims 4 'different' is more or less their fallback excuse for failing to improve upon features they have developed multiple times already.
EA has no goal about making the game better - only more profitable
Do you even know what you're talking about?
Of course the unit sales numbers are high, EA marked down the selling price almost immediately after it released and kept it that way for a long time. That is the reason the 5 million isn't significant, because they lost a considerable amount of money using discounts to get the game into as many players' hands as possible and hope to make up the loss through the sale of additional DLC. Notice how infrequently the expansion packs, and stuff packs go on sale?
EA has a lot of other games which never have been on the top 10 best selling lists. The Sims 4 basegame was number one on that list in 2015. So why is it so extremely important for you if the basegame still is number one on the list?
We can guess about this as much as we want and also if the GPs and EPs reached the top 10 list too like they did for both TS2 and TS3. But it doesn't really matter because the game is still more profitable than any of EA's other games.
It has absolutely nothing to do with young teens, I don't know what your fascination is with young teens. Enough with that, it's irrelevant to almost ever situation you use it for, especially this one. The game continued to sell because it was discounted, and I would guess they sold it to a lot of new players as well as old which is why they have such a mess on their hands now and too many different demographics to cater to.
You can believe that if you want. But if the Sims games didn't sell extremely well especially to young teens then they wouldn't ever have been able to top the lists as the best selling games ever
The only Top 10 list Sims 4 has made was for PC games. It made it to number one, which is an accomplishment The Sims 3 also achieved, as well as Sims 2. The Sims is primarily a PC exclusive market, especially now where there are no modern Sims games being sold outside of the PC arena.
Except for the Sims Freeplay
Even poor sales probably wouldn't affect the sales charts, because PC is slowly eroding away in favor of console and portable gaming,
Consoles are only really good for action games. Games for mobile platforms are mostly free MMO games and there still aren't very many big paid games available. This may change though. But PCs are still used both for free MMO games, casual games and big paid games.
The Sims is pretty much guaranteed to sell enough to top that chart. There's hardly any other major PC games releasing now, let alone in 2014. Back then The Sims 3 was The Sims 4's biggest competiton, that should give you a pretty good idea at the PC gaming market.
The Sims 3 still sells very well. But the reason clearly is that TS4 isn't really an improvement. It even doesn't have the open world or CASt. So many simmers prefer TS3 over TS4.
Freeplay is not a PC title and will never make an appearance on a PC game chart.
Strong sales of Sims 3 aren't really that surprising; The Sims 2 remained a strong seller while The Sims 3 was being developed. I do agree that The Sims 4 failed to improve upon The Sims 3 in virtually every way, but I would speculate that we'd see the same purchase trend regardless.
@Writin_Reg I guess EA feels like watering down creativity in this version of the sims for the new vision and new players. It takes guts to make cuts..
I'm just wondering, if they have make this for TS4, why they would do TS5 better? I'm sure now, TS will be always like this, not creativity, never like the previous...
I think enough Simmers have voiced their frustrations and given enough feedback that if they ever released an unfinished base game where the player doesn't rule again, it could really be the beginning of the end of The Sims.
THIS exactly! Game companies do often learn from their mistakes - seeing they learned to give up on the Sims Online the minute Sims City online bombed - and they could have avoided the blast had they listened to all the players saying they did not want an online Sim City - but they didn't listen and the game bombed. So then they do one of two things they fix it and try to not follow that path again or they end it. They ended it. But when they made a bad mistake with ME they did not end it - they put the studio back to work and made an ME the players came back to , well not all, but many did. So there is no telling which way something might go - but either way they will not repeat the same mistake - it will either be the result of the players revolt and better, or it will end.
Players always just want an improved version of the previous version of a game. But the game companies know that this almost always will give lower sales numbers because many players won't just pay for the same game again even if it is improved a little. The game companies also know that improving old games significantly isn't easy. Therefore the game companies almost always attempt to just make a new game instead. Of course it will usually be a game in the same genre. But it will usually always be more different from the previous game than the fans ever expected.
So I don't know if TS5 will be a better game than TS4 - just that TS5 will be different. This gives me hope. Just not as much as I would have liked.
I disagree with this analysis. Game franchises thrive off of new installments that follow the same formula while adding and improving features. Making subsequent sequels 'different' to the literal point where it's not the same gaming experience as what it's based on is not a good way to keep players buying your stuff.
They are not just interested in keeping the old players buying because players become older and buy less the older they become. Many players also stop playing the games completely. Therefore the important thing for the game companies always is to attract new players. They do that mainly by combining two things:
1. To keep a few core concepts from the previous games such that they still can claim that it is a game in the same series.
2. To have a long list of new things and "improvements" which can be used to impress both new and more experienced players. Some older players may not like all the new things. But they are good to impress new players and attract them to the game.
When you are making another installment you typically have a select set of key features that are the improvements over the previous game. That is how you sell your new game. The Sims 4 had an underwhelming set of key features (emotions, multitasking, vibrant worlds). There was no progression or improvement because they dropped every key feature of The Sims
4. That more than likely resulted in fewer sales with players noticing the obvious lack of substance to the game at launch compared to Sims 3. The game did go on sale pretty quickly after it hit the market, a product that is selling just fine won't get marked down.
I think that the sales numbers for TS4 are much higher than people here believe. The reason is that TS4 is still able to attract the same types of young teens which TS1 attracted so successfully 17 yrs ago. It is only the older simmers who missed the open world and the toddlers. For newcomers those things don't matter just like they didn't matter when they weren't in TS1.
EA's strategy is clearly to target young teens who usually don't pay for their games themselves. Therefore it is important to have low prices for downloads because the prices are the only thing parents care about when their young teens ask for permission to download the game or the expansions. If the basegame was too expensive for some parents then it is also a good idea to give a 50% discount occasionally such that the remaining young teens also maybe will buy the game (and later its many expansions too).
I play several MMO games and the high prices for each decorative object which we are offered to buy in such games wondered me because why pay as much as the Sims 4 basegame costed just for maybe 5 decorative objects in a MMO game? Those objects aren't necessary at all and they don't change the game. But just one such object often cost as much as the price for a new SP for TS4. After some considerations it suddenly hid me: parents don't care if they pay for just one object or a full SP. They are only interested in the price when their young teen asks for permission to download something. Therefore all game companies have found out that it is most profitable to just offer downloads that cost something between $5 and $20 and it doesn't really matter that it is only stuff.
They have the capacity to make The Sims 4 different, just as they did for Sims 2 and Sims
4. Do people think Sims 3 is a copy of Sims 2? Labeling The Sims 4 'different' is more or less their fallback excuse for failing to improve upon features they have developed multiple times already.
EA has no goal about making the game better - only more profitable
Do you even know what you're talking about?
Of course the unit sales numbers are high, EA marked down the selling price almost immediately after it released and kept it that way for a long time. That is the reason the 5 million isn't significant, because they lost a considerable amount of money using discounts to get the game into as many players' hands as possible and hope to make up the loss through the sale of additional DLC. Notice how infrequently the expansion packs, and stuff packs go on sale?
EA has a lot of other games which never have been on the top 10 best selling lists. The Sims 4 basegame was number one on that list in 2015. So why is it so extremely important for you if the basegame still is number one on the list?
We can guess about this as much as we want and also if the GPs and EPs reached the top 10 list too like they did for both TS2 and TS3. But it doesn't really matter because the game is still more profitable than any of EA's other games.
It has absolutely nothing to do with young teens, I don't know what your fascination is with young teens. Enough with that, it's irrelevant to almost ever situation you use it for, especially this one. The game continued to sell because it was discounted, and I would guess they sold it to a lot of new players as well as old which is why they have such a mess on their hands now and too many different demographics to cater to.
You can believe that if you want. But if the Sims games didn't sell extremely well especially to young teens then they wouldn't ever have been able to top the lists as the best selling games ever
The only Top 10 list Sims 4 has made was for PC games. It made it to number one, which is an accomplishment The Sims 3 also achieved, as well as Sims 2. The Sims is primarily a PC exclusive market, especially now where there are no modern Sims games being sold outside of the PC arena.
Except for the Sims Freeplay
Even poor sales probably wouldn't affect the sales charts, because PC is slowly eroding away in favor of console and portable gaming,
Consoles are only really good for action games. Games for mobile platforms are mostly free MMO games and there still aren't very many big paid games available. This may change though. But PCs are still used both for free MMO games, casual games and big paid games.
The Sims is pretty much guaranteed to sell enough to top that chart. There's hardly any other major PC games releasing now, let alone in 2014. Back then The Sims 3 was The Sims 4's biggest competiton, that should give you a pretty good idea at the PC gaming market.
The Sims 3 still sells very well. But the reason clearly is that TS4 isn't really an improvement. It even doesn't have the open world or CASt. So many simmers prefer TS3 over TS4.
Freeplay is not a PC title and will never make an appearance on a PC game chart.
You are probably right even though most other free MMO games for mobile devices also are released for the Windows PC. Examples are The Tribez and the game I am playing mostly right now (Sunken Secrets). Some free MMO games are even PC only games.[/quote]
The Sims Freeplay has even been released for more platforms than any other free MMO games I know about because it exists for all the following platforms: iOS, Android, Blackberry, Windows Phone and even Kindle. So why won't EA release it for Windows PCs and Mac too? The only possible reason clearly is that EA feared that the Sims Freeplay then would steal too many customers from TS4. But who knows? Maybe EA will change its mind
Strong sales of Sims 3 aren't really that surprising; The Sims 2 remained a strong seller while The Sims 3 was being developed. I do agree that The Sims 4 failed to improve upon The Sims 3 in virtually every way, but I would speculate that we'd see the same purchase trend regardless.
You don't remember correctly here because the Sims 2 disappeared from the best selling lists almost immediately when the Sims 3 was released while the Sims 3 still is selling very well even now. Several Sims 3 games (basegame and EPs) were still high on the bestselling lists for 2015. Such things didn't happen for TS1 on the 2005 bestselling lists and it also didn't happen for TS2 on the 2010 bestselling lists. Those games had just disappeared completely on the bestselling lists for the year after the next big Sims game had been released.
All the people in my family have college educations - as do I and my hubby. as do my children. In USA you don't get very far without a BA or Masters degree at the very least. It makes me a bit nuts that Sims 4 still does not have University - yet they offer careers that are only possible with a college education. All my sims kids go to college in the Sims 2 and 3.
My parents live quite comfortably. Sorry you don't have your parents around any more Erpe. I am glad mine are still around and pretty healthy. Mom has some dementia so they don't travel like they used to - they traveled a lot for many years - to Italy, UK, France - where ever the notion beckoned them to go. Without a good education in the USA you don't live well like my parents have unless you are extremely lucky and fortunate somehow. LOL. It is like a part of ordinary life for many of us. The day each of my kids were born we started their college fund as it is quite expensive and like it was for me and my brother - I also did not want my kids to start off higher learning with a college loan on their heads.
Post edited by Writin_Reg on
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
@Writin_Reg Both I, my daughter and my youngest brother have master degrees. But my other brother actually got the highest wages He was first only educated to serve customers in a bank. But he didn't really like that job. So he left the bank and got a job as a salesman in a company that build and sold houses. He earned good money there. But the company went bankrupt. So he got a job in an insurance company instead. He switched job in that business a couple of times too. But he ended up in a very high position as one of the directors in a very big company.
So you actually don't need a high education to earn money. One of the richest men in Denmark has even less education than my brother and his parents were very poor. But now he has his own company with departments all over the world (except in the US). He still expands and now especially in China. His fortune is about $4.2 billion (2015) and his company has about 2,400 departments (stores).
But to simulate all such things in a game like TS4 would of course be much more than EA ever would plan to do
Well they could start by including private school and University before they add careers that do require a college education. They did it right in Sims2 education wise and really needed to keep that formula - otherwise they should have stuck to more menial work in the games and maybe home businesses and farms. It is a bit skewered to have the careers before the education is established fully and properly. At least to me anyway.
Also keep in mind Maxis decides these things- not EA actually.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
Well they could start by including private school and University before they add careers that do require a college education. They did it right in Sims2 education wise and really needed to keep that formula - otherwise they should have stuck to more menial work in the games and maybe home businesses and farms. It is a bit skewered to have the careers before the education is established fully and properly. At least to me anyway.
Also keep in mind Maxis decides these things- not EA actually.
Maxis of course decides most of the smaller details. But Maxis is just an EA department that makes the games for EA. So in a way it is like when you order some craftsmen to fix your house. They decide the details about how to do it. But they have to follow your directions and can't just do it in other ways.
I think that EA's directions to the developers are much more detailed than anyone here imagines. And like you wouldn't expect your craftsmen to fix other things than you told them I also don't think that the developers are allowed to add or change major things in the game without getting EA's approval before they do it.
To be more explicit: You wouldn't blame the hired painter for choosing an ugly color when he painted your neighbor's house because you know that this color hardly was chosen by the painter (who at most could have suggested it to your neighbor before he used it). But nevertheless people here automatically blame the developers (who only are hired craftsmen) for choosing a wrong "color" for TS4 even though the "color" almost certainly was chosen by EA
I don't believe that the developers could have changed the focus of the game without approval from EA. So I believe that the following things were EA's choices:
1. Should the game be T rated or M rated?
2. The target group for the game?
3. Should the game focus more on babies and toddlers?
4. Should the game be harder or easier than the previous games?
5. Should the game have more quests like World Adventures had?
6. Should the world be open or closed?
7. Should the game be more about family play? Or should it be more of a time management game?
8. How big should the budget for the game be?
9. Should the game still have 2 EPs each year? Or should it instead have more but smaller expansions (like the new GPs and all the SPs)?
And there are probably even more things like that which were decided by EA and not by the developers.
All the people in my family have college educations - as do I and my hubby. as do my children. In USA you don't get very far without a BA or Masters degree at the very least. It makes me a bit nuts that Sims 4 still does not have University - yet they offer careers that are only possible with a college education. All my sims kids go to college in the Sims 2 and 3.
My parents live quite comfortably. Sorry you don't have your parents around any more Erpe. I am glad mine are still around and pretty healthy. Mom has some dementia so they don't travel like they used to - they traveled a lot for many years - to Italy, UK, France - where ever the notion beckoned them to go. Without a good education in the USA you don't live well like my parents have unless you are extremely lucky and fortunate somehow. LOL. It is like a part of ordinary life for many of us. The day each of my kids were born we started their college fund as it is quite expensive and like it was for me and my brother - I also did not want my kids to start off higher learning with a college loan on their heads.
My parents are from small towns in MT and now they are business owners of a company that my momma started from the ground up. They do pretty darn well. I s'pose it is rare @Writin_Reg, but then you only have to look at people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg...they didn't finish their educations. So it does happen.
I agree though, I think private school and university should be in all iterations early on. They add a realistic element to the game.
The biggest mistake is the Sims themselves they have no awareness to the world around them. Leaving out toddlers cars and a way to edit worlds was also a huge mistake.
Huge error with all of these features not being available in the most recent version of the game. Agreed.
Thinking that EA actually cared about its customers and then creating this disappointing monstrosity, that delivered a two finger salute to all the loyal people that loved and bought the Sims over the years.
They are not just interested in keeping the old players buying because players become older and buy less the older they become
How exactly do you mean this? Because it's my experience it's the older simmers who buy easier than young players. For the simple reason they have more money.
What is your experience about that?
How many teen children do you have?
And what do you do when they ask for your accept to buy something "cheap" for one of their games?
I tell them to get a job. They're teens. They can work. Buying them everything they want because it's cheap isn't teaching them anything.
I don't actually know any parents who would do that. Instead they prefer to let them concentrate on their school or education. So they just give them money for games, sports or similar things they can do in their freetime. No parents who I know would tell them to take a job instead of focusing on their education and school.
I don't know, when I was younger I got pocket money for helping out on my parents farm. By time I was 16 I was encouraged to get a part time job either outside or work in the farm and get paid at the weekends. Nothing wrong with a Saturday job in addition to education.
Times have changed and at least here in Denmark parents have much more money then they had a few decades ago. I remember a time too when parents sometimes didn't care about their children's educations and preferred that they left school as soon as possible to get a job instead. But I don't believe that this kind of parents even exist anymore.
Also downloads for games are now very cheap compared to the costs of everything else. So parents who prefer to see sour faces and to argue with their children about very few dollars instead of seeing happy faces and have peace in their family - have become very rare
Ok, I will take the bait!
Hello from Denmark here. My oldest child is 22, half way through med school and has had a part time job since she was 13 (and actually has 2 now). The same goes for her 17 year old brother, while my 11 year old can't wait until he turns 13, so he can earn his own money, and not have to put up with the meager gaming allowance he has. The 8 year old still only has plans of becoming a you tube star when she is old enough *shrug*.
Money has nothing to do with why I encourage my children to have part time jobs (well, not MY money anyway). Work ethic does. Being responsible and dependable is way easier to teach them the younger they are. Learning how to manage finances is important, and they get way more responsible with their money, when they have to work for it, rather than when they just receive allowances (I don't make them do chores for their allowance. Chores is something the whole family does, so we can all have time to spend together in a clean home. I have nothing against using allowances for chores, we just use them to teach a different lesson). And their initial dislike of taxes has taught them a lot about what our taxes actually pay for as well (oh, someone actually has to pay for that free education and free healthcare you are getting???).
Education doesn't have to suffer, because you have a part time job, but a job does take time away from something - and that isn't always a bad thing. They have to learn to manage their time wisely, and prioritize. They are good at it - I am not. Which is why I still play TS4... I never learned to give up on things. They played it for a couple of hours, then decided it wasn't worth their time.
The oldest 2 have played sims 2 and 3, alone and with their friends, while no one they know plays TS4. TS4 didn't entertain the youngest 2 for more than a couple of hours, so EA doesn't get any money from any of my children. The 11 yo got really excited a couple of months ago, when he realized I had TS3 though, as he had seen some youtubers he liked playing it, and he has been playing it since. TS4 is simply too easy for my kids (even pre-teens), and to them easy=boring. No risk, means no reward.
The Sims 4 has received a lot of backlash, and it seems like lots of players are unhappy with the game.
So, my question is, what has been the biggest mistake TS4 team has made so far?
These are all related to one another and gameplay. Traits don't matter as much as other games, emotions are not that consequential, and a lack of real consequences. Such as Sims should remember who they hate, as in older games just as a teeny example. All three of the things I mentioned are important to how someone views if the game is fun or not. Happy, happy and no memory at all for the Sim isn't much of a challenge. Nor does it endear a Sim to a player. (People were vested in their Sims) Without consequences of life and death decisions it's hardly that endearing.
I have been trying to figure out what it is exactly that makes 4 a step down from 3 and 2 and you hit it on the head, we are not as invested in our sims 4 characters for some reason. I know I'm not. I had this one family in 3 and after a lovely patch they broke. I could not fix them and had no back up. It had never happened before, I stopped playing for months as I mourned that loss. If I lose a sims 4 family I just shrug and make another one. Weird.
They are not just interested in keeping the old players buying because players become older and buy less the older they become
How exactly do you mean this? Because it's my experience it's the older simmers who buy easier than young players. For the simple reason they have more money.
What is your experience about that?
How many teen children do you have?
And what do you do when they ask for your accept to buy something "cheap" for one of their games?
I tell them to get a job. They're teens. They can work. Buying them everything they want because it's cheap isn't teaching them anything.
I don't actually know any parents who would do that. Instead they prefer to let them concentrate on their school or education. So they just give them money for games, sports or similar things they can do in their freetime. No parents who I know would tell them to take a job instead of focusing on their education and school.
I don't know, when I was younger I got pocket money for helping out on my parents farm. By time I was 16 I was encouraged to get a part time job either outside or work in the farm and get paid at the weekends. Nothing wrong with a Saturday job in addition to education.
Times have changed and at least here in Denmark parents have much more money then they had a few decades ago. I remember a time too when parents sometimes didn't care about their children's educations and preferred that they left school as soon as possible to get a job instead. But I don't believe that this kind of parents even exist anymore.
Also downloads for games are now very cheap compared to the costs of everything else. So parents who prefer to see sour faces and to argue with their children about very few dollars instead of seeing happy faces and have peace in their family - have become very rare
Ok, I will take the bait!
Hello from Denmark here. My oldest child is 22, half way through med school and has had a part time job since she was 13 (and actually has 2 now). The same goes for her 17 year old brother, while my 11 year old can't wait until he turns 13, so he can earn his own money, and not have to put up with the meager gaming allowance he has. The 8 year old still only has plans of becoming a you tube star when she is old enough *shrug*.
Money has nothing to do with why I encourage my children to have part time jobs (well, not MY money anyway). Work ethic does. Being responsible and dependable is way easier to teach them the younger they are. Learning how to manage finances is important, and they get way more responsible with their money, when they have to work for it, rather than when they just receive allowances (I don't make them do chores for their allowance. Chores is something the whole family does, so we can all have time to spend together in a clean home. I have nothing against using allowances for chores, we just use them to teach a different lesson). And their initial dislike of taxes has taught them a lot about what our taxes actually pay for as well (oh, someone actually has to pay for that free education and free healthcare you are getting???).
Education doesn't have to suffer, because you have a part time job, but a job does take time away from something - and that isn't always a bad thing. They have to learn to manage their time wisely, and prioritize. They are good at it - I am not. Which is why I still play TS4... I never learned to give up on things. They played it for a couple of hours, then decided it wasn't worth their time.
The oldest 2 have played sims 2 and 3, alone and with their friends, while no one they know plays TS4. TS4 didn't entertain the youngest 2 for more than a couple of hours, so EA doesn't get any money from any of my children. The 11 yo got really excited a couple of months ago, when he realized I had TS3 though, as he had seen some youtubers he liked playing it, and he has been playing it since. TS4 is simply too easy for my kids (even pre-teens), and to them easy=boring. No risk, means no reward.
Getting a responsible attitude to money isn't about that to my experience because my daughter and my brothers have always been very good at saving money for later. But I still remember my cousins who were my mother's older sister's children. She had a much more severe attitude about raising children than my parents and was quite tough. But the result was that when my cousin and his younger sister got their weekly money they always hurried down to the toy store because they wanted to use it all immediately. I still remember because I would never do such a thing.
So why did they do that? What was my aunt's mistake? I am in no doubt because her children surely had just discovered that if they had money and needed it for something they were always told to pay themselves. But if they didn't have money because they had used all their pocket money and if their parents approved about a thing that cost money then the parents paid for them anyway. So they learned that they could be punished for saving money and therefore never did it. I think that this still influenced their attitude to saving money quite a bit even after they became adults. So I would never have done such a thing to my daughter and she never got that attitude about using all her money as fast as possible
Raising children is much more complicated than what we can learn from the Sims games.
They are not just interested in keeping the old players buying because players become older and buy less the older they become
How exactly do you mean this? Because it's my experience it's the older simmers who buy easier than young players. For the simple reason they have more money.
What is your experience about that?
How many teen children do you have?
And what do you do when they ask for your accept to buy something "cheap" for one of their games?
I tell them to get a job. They're teens. They can work. Buying them everything they want because it's cheap isn't teaching them anything.
I don't actually know any parents who would do that. Instead they prefer to let them concentrate on their school or education. So they just give them money for games, sports or similar things they can do in their freetime. No parents who I know would tell them to take a job instead of focusing on their education and school.
I don't know, when I was younger I got pocket money for helping out on my parents farm. By time I was 16 I was encouraged to get a part time job either outside or work in the farm and get paid at the weekends. Nothing wrong with a Saturday job in addition to education.
Times have changed and at least here in Denmark parents have much more money then they had a few decades ago. I remember a time too when parents sometimes didn't care about their children's educations and preferred that they left school as soon as possible to get a job instead. But I don't believe that this kind of parents even exist anymore.
Also downloads for games are now very cheap compared to the costs of everything else. So parents who prefer to see sour faces and to argue with their children about very few dollars instead of seeing happy faces and have peace in their family - have become very rare
Ok, I will take the bait!
Hello from Denmark here. My oldest child is 22, half way through med school and has had a part time job since she was 13 (and actually has 2 now). The same goes for her 17 year old brother, while my 11 year old can't wait until he turns 13, so he can earn his own money, and not have to put up with the meager gaming allowance he has. The 8 year old still only has plans of becoming a you tube star when she is old enough *shrug*.
Money has nothing to do with why I encourage my children to have part time jobs (well, not MY money anyway). Work ethic does. Being responsible and dependable is way easier to teach them the younger they are. Learning how to manage finances is important, and they get way more responsible with their money, when they have to work for it, rather than when they just receive allowances (I don't make them do chores for their allowance. Chores is something the whole family does, so we can all have time to spend together in a clean home. I have nothing against using allowances for chores, we just use them to teach a different lesson). And their initial dislike of taxes has taught them a lot about what our taxes actually pay for as well (oh, someone actually has to pay for that free education and free healthcare you are getting???).
Education doesn't have to suffer, because you have a part time job, but a job does take time away from something - and that isn't always a bad thing. They have to learn to manage their time wisely, and prioritize. They are good at it - I am not. Which is why I still play TS4... I never learned to give up on things. They played it for a couple of hours, then decided it wasn't worth their time.
The oldest 2 have played sims 2 and 3, alone and with their friends, while no one they know plays TS4. TS4 didn't entertain the youngest 2 for more than a couple of hours, so EA doesn't get any money from any of my children. The 11 yo got really excited a couple of months ago, when he realized I had TS3 though, as he had seen some youtubers he liked playing it, and he has been playing it since. TS4 is simply too easy for my kids (even pre-teens), and to them easy=boring. No risk, means no reward.
Getting a responsible attitude to money isn't about that to my experience because my daughter and my brothers have always been very good at saving money for later. But I still remember my cousins who were my mother's older sister's children. She had a much more severe attitude about raising children than my parents and was quite tough. But the result was that when my cousin and his younger sister got their weekly money they always hurried down to the toy store because they wanted to use it all immediately. I still remember because I would never do such a thing.
So why did they do that? What was my aunt's mistake? I am in no doubt because her children surely had just discovered that if they had money and needed it for something they were always told to pay themselves. But if they didn't have money because they had used all their pocket money and if their parents approved about a thing that cost money then the parents paid for them anyway. So they learned that they could be punished for saving money and therefore never did it. I think that this still influenced their attitude to saving money quite a bit even after they became adults. So I would never have done such a thing to my daughter and she never got that attitude about using all her money as fast as possible
Raising children is much more complicated than what we can learn from the Sims games.
Who said anything about children not being complicated to raise?
You said you didn't know anyone in Denmark who would tell their children "to take a job instead of focusing on their education and school.". I don't know anyone who would do that either, but I just pointed out that I do live in Denmark, and don't think that it is one or the other. You can do both. And it is not rare at all.
But there is no point in me telling you how many of my childrens' friends work (hint, it is every single one of them), I'd rather you don't take my word for it. Instead of just thinking about your (apparently very unusual) social circle, or my very unscientific observation, you could look up some statistics. The problem with that is that after-school jobs are defined differently in every single study, and are often part of bigger studies (on how teenagers spend their free time). But the lowest frequency reported that I could find (on a national basis) is 63% of the 13-17 year olds have (or have had) a part time job within the last year. The number is 80% for 17 year olds. And that is with the strictest definition of a "job", which requires being employed and paid by a company. So babysitting, mowing lawns, or home-cleaning jobs don't count in that study. Other studies show that the frequency is highest for children in middle class families, in families where the parents have at least a 3 year university education and that the benefits of having a part-time job includes a much higher chance of finishing a university education (80%), than those who didn't have part time jobs (50%).
Have fun educating yourself on this area, and not to be condescending, but remember to consider the sources when looking up the statistics (so don't come back and tell me about the numbers reported by the job-site for teens who reports that every 4th after-school job has disappeared since the year 2000, "but here at xxxx we can help you find the one that is perfect for you!").
Personally, I think that amount of teens who work is a declining number (and the school reform in 2014 most certainly will have had a negative effect on the number), but most of them still work, and will continue to work, and pay for their own games.
They are not just interested in keeping the old players buying because players become older and buy less the older they become
How exactly do you mean this? Because it's my experience it's the older simmers who buy easier than young players. For the simple reason they have more money.
What is your experience about that?
How many teen children do you have?
And what do you do when they ask for your accept to buy something "cheap" for one of their games?
I tell them to get a job. They're teens. They can work. Buying them everything they want because it's cheap isn't teaching them anything.
I don't actually know any parents who would do that. Instead they prefer to let them concentrate on their school or education. So they just give them money for games, sports or similar things they can do in their freetime. No parents who I know would tell them to take a job instead of focusing on their education and school.
I don't know, when I was younger I got pocket money for helping out on my parents farm. By time I was 16 I was encouraged to get a part time job either outside or work in the farm and get paid at the weekends. Nothing wrong with a Saturday job in addition to education.
Times have changed and at least here in Denmark parents have much more money then they had a few decades ago. I remember a time too when parents sometimes didn't care about their children's educations and preferred that they left school as soon as possible to get a job instead. But I don't believe that this kind of parents even exist anymore.
Also downloads for games are now very cheap compared to the costs of everything else. So parents who prefer to see sour faces and to argue with their children about very few dollars instead of seeing happy faces and have peace in their family - have become very rare
Ok, I will take the bait!
Hello from Denmark here. My oldest child is 22, half way through med school and has had a part time job since she was 13 (and actually has 2 now). The same goes for her 17 year old brother, while my 11 year old can't wait until he turns 13, so he can earn his own money, and not have to put up with the meager gaming allowance he has. The 8 year old still only has plans of becoming a you tube star when she is old enough *shrug*.
Money has nothing to do with why I encourage my children to have part time jobs (well, not MY money anyway). Work ethic does. Being responsible and dependable is way easier to teach them the younger they are. Learning how to manage finances is important, and they get way more responsible with their money, when they have to work for it, rather than when they just receive allowances (I don't make them do chores for their allowance. Chores is something the whole family does, so we can all have time to spend together in a clean home. I have nothing against using allowances for chores, we just use them to teach a different lesson). And their initial dislike of taxes has taught them a lot about what our taxes actually pay for as well (oh, someone actually has to pay for that free education and free healthcare you are getting???).
Education doesn't have to suffer, because you have a part time job, but a job does take time away from something - and that isn't always a bad thing. They have to learn to manage their time wisely, and prioritize. They are good at it - I am not. Which is why I still play TS4... I never learned to give up on things. They played it for a couple of hours, then decided it wasn't worth their time.
The oldest 2 have played sims 2 and 3, alone and with their friends, while no one they know plays TS4. TS4 didn't entertain the youngest 2 for more than a couple of hours, so EA doesn't get any money from any of my children. The 11 yo got really excited a couple of months ago, when he realized I had TS3 though, as he had seen some youtubers he liked playing it, and he has been playing it since. TS4 is simply too easy for my kids (even pre-teens), and to them easy=boring. No risk, means no reward.
Getting a responsible attitude to money isn't about that to my experience because my daughter and my brothers have always been very good at saving money for later. But I still remember my cousins who were my mother's older sister's children. She had a much more severe attitude about raising children than my parents and was quite tough. But the result was that when my cousin and his younger sister got their weekly money they always hurried down to the toy store because they wanted to use it all immediately. I still remember because I would never do such a thing.
So why did they do that? What was my aunt's mistake? I am in no doubt because her children surely had just discovered that if they had money and needed it for something they were always told to pay themselves. But if they didn't have money because they had used all their pocket money and if their parents approved about a thing that cost money then the parents paid for them anyway. So they learned that they could be punished for saving money and therefore never did it. I think that this still influenced their attitude to saving money quite a bit even after they became adults. So I would never have done such a thing to my daughter and she never got that attitude about using all her money as fast as possible
Raising children is much more complicated than what we can learn from the Sims games.
Who said anything about children not being complicated to raise?
You said you didn't know anyone in Denmark who would tell their children "to take a job instead of focusing on their education and school.". I don't know anyone who would do that either, but I just pointed out that I do live in Denmark, and don't think that it is one or the other. You can do both. And it is not rare at all.
But there is no point in me telling you how many of my childrens' friends work (hint, it is every single one of them), I'd rather you don't take my word for it. Instead of just thinking about your (apparently very unusual) social circle, or my very unscientific observation, you could look up some statistics. The problem with that is that after-school jobs are defined differently in every single study, and are often part of bigger studies (on how teenagers spend their free time). But the lowest frequency reported that I could find (on a national basis) is 63% of the 13-17 year olds have (or have had) a part time job within the last year. The number is 80% for 17 year olds. And that is with the strictest definition of a "job", which requires being employed and paid by a company. So babysitting, mowing lawns, or home-cleaning jobs don't count in that study. Other studies show that the frequency is highest for children in middle class families, in families where the parents have at least a 3 year university education and that the benefits of having a part-time job includes a much higher chance of finishing a university education (80%), than those who didn't have part time jobs (50%).
Have fun educating yourself on this area, and not to be condescending, but remember to consider the sources when looking up the statistics (so don't come back and tell me about the numbers reported by the job-site for teens who reports that every 4th after-school job has disappeared since the year 2000, "but here at xxxx we can help you find the one that is perfect for you!").
Personally, I think that amount of teens who work is a declining number (and the school reform in 2014 most certainly will have had a negative effect on the number), but most of them still work, and will continue to work, and pay for their own games.
You just know different people than I do.
But I have to go back to my own schooltime to find something like what you describe. One of my friends then had a father who was very lazy but quite clever. He had a farm which he expanded (mainly by using some money that his wife had inherited). But he didn't work more himself than absolutely needed. So he hired a man who was a little 🐸🐸🐸🐸 but could work quite well under his guidance and he also got his young son to do as much work as possible. The man shouldn't have very much money because he was 🐸🐸🐸🐸 and his son became the most working and diligent boy that I ever knew. He left school as soon as possible and later inherited the farm. He was the exact opposite type of person compared to his dad and probably still is.
I also knew another such pupil in my class who took over his dad's farm. But I still don't remember anybody who had jobs outside their home. Well the only exception was a boy who's job it was to deliver newspapers to people
But again: my own later experience are from families where at least one of the parents has a higher education. But I suspect that things work differently in families where both parents left school early or only got a short education themselves because I guess that it is only natural for such parents to care more about teaching their children to have jobs than to teach them about studying.
We should probably return to Sims 4 discussions instead
They are not just interested in keeping the old players buying because players become older and buy less the older they become
How exactly do you mean this? Because it's my experience it's the older simmers who buy easier than young players. For the simple reason they have more money.
What is your experience about that?
How many teen children do you have?
And what do you do when they ask for your accept to buy something "cheap" for one of their games?
I tell them to get a job. They're teens. They can work. Buying them everything they want because it's cheap isn't teaching them anything.
I don't actually know any parents who would do that. Instead they prefer to let them concentrate on their school or education. So they just give them money for games, sports or similar things they can do in their freetime. No parents who I know would tell them to take a job instead of focusing on their education and school.
I don't know, when I was younger I got pocket money for helping out on my parents farm. By time I was 16 I was encouraged to get a part time job either outside or work in the farm and get paid at the weekends. Nothing wrong with a Saturday job in addition to education.
Times have changed and at least here in Denmark parents have much more money then they had a few decades ago. I remember a time too when parents sometimes didn't care about their children's educations and preferred that they left school as soon as possible to get a job instead. But I don't believe that this kind of parents even exist anymore.
Also downloads for games are now very cheap compared to the costs of everything else. So parents who prefer to see sour faces and to argue with their children about very few dollars instead of seeing happy faces and have peace in their family - have become very rare
Ok, I will take the bait!
Hello from Denmark here. My oldest child is 22, half way through med school and has had a part time job since she was 13 (and actually has 2 now). The same goes for her 17 year old brother, while my 11 year old can't wait until he turns 13, so he can earn his own money, and not have to put up with the meager gaming allowance he has. The 8 year old still only has plans of becoming a you tube star when she is old enough *shrug*.
Money has nothing to do with why I encourage my children to have part time jobs (well, not MY money anyway). Work ethic does. Being responsible and dependable is way easier to teach them the younger they are. Learning how to manage finances is important, and they get way more responsible with their money, when they have to work for it, rather than when they just receive allowances (I don't make them do chores for their allowance. Chores is something the whole family does, so we can all have time to spend together in a clean home. I have nothing against using allowances for chores, we just use them to teach a different lesson). And their initial dislike of taxes has taught them a lot about what our taxes actually pay for as well (oh, someone actually has to pay for that free education and free healthcare you are getting???).
Education doesn't have to suffer, because you have a part time job, but a job does take time away from something - and that isn't always a bad thing. They have to learn to manage their time wisely, and prioritize. They are good at it - I am not. Which is why I still play TS4... I never learned to give up on things. They played it for a couple of hours, then decided it wasn't worth their time.
The oldest 2 have played sims 2 and 3, alone and with their friends, while no one they know plays TS4. TS4 didn't entertain the youngest 2 for more than a couple of hours, so EA doesn't get any money from any of my children. The 11 yo got really excited a couple of months ago, when he realized I had TS3 though, as he had seen some youtubers he liked playing it, and he has been playing it since. TS4 is simply too easy for my kids (even pre-teens), and to them easy=boring. No risk, means no reward.
Getting a responsible attitude to money isn't about that to my experience because my daughter and my brothers have always been very good at saving money for later. But I still remember my cousins who were my mother's older sister's children. She had a much more severe attitude about raising children than my parents and was quite tough. But the result was that when my cousin and his younger sister got their weekly money they always hurried down to the toy store because they wanted to use it all immediately. I still remember because I would never do such a thing.
So why did they do that? What was my aunt's mistake? I am in no doubt because her children surely had just discovered that if they had money and needed it for something they were always told to pay themselves. But if they didn't have money because they had used all their pocket money and if their parents approved about a thing that cost money then the parents paid for them anyway. So they learned that they could be punished for saving money and therefore never did it. I think that this still influenced their attitude to saving money quite a bit even after they became adults. So I would never have done such a thing to my daughter and she never got that attitude about using all her money as fast as possible
Raising children is much more complicated than what we can learn from the Sims games.
Who said anything about children not being complicated to raise?
You said you didn't know anyone in Denmark who would tell their children "to take a job instead of focusing on their education and school.". I don't know anyone who would do that either, but I just pointed out that I do live in Denmark, and don't think that it is one or the other. You can do both. And it is not rare at all.
But there is no point in me telling you how many of my childrens' friends work (hint, it is every single one of them), I'd rather you don't take my word for it. Instead of just thinking about your (apparently very unusual) social circle, or my very unscientific observation, you could look up some statistics. The problem with that is that after-school jobs are defined differently in every single study, and are often part of bigger studies (on how teenagers spend their free time). But the lowest frequency reported that I could find (on a national basis) is 63% of the 13-17 year olds have (or have had) a part time job within the last year. The number is 80% for 17 year olds. And that is with the strictest definition of a "job", which requires being employed and paid by a company. So babysitting, mowing lawns, or home-cleaning jobs don't count in that study. Other studies show that the frequency is highest for children in middle class families, in families where the parents have at least a 3 year university education and that the benefits of having a part-time job includes a much higher chance of finishing a university education (80%), than those who didn't have part time jobs (50%).
Have fun educating yourself on this area, and not to be condescending, but remember to consider the sources when looking up the statistics (so don't come back and tell me about the numbers reported by the job-site for teens who reports that every 4th after-school job has disappeared since the year 2000, "but here at xxxx we can help you find the one that is perfect for you!").
Personally, I think that amount of teens who work is a declining number (and the school reform in 2014 most certainly will have had a negative effect on the number), but most of them still work, and will continue to work, and pay for their own games.
You just know different people than I do.
But I have to go back to my own schooltime to find something like what you describe. One of my friends then had a father who was very lazy but quite clever. He had a farm which he expanded (mainly by using some money that his wife had inherited). But he didn't work more himself than absolutely needed. So he hired a man who was a little plum but could work quite well under his guidance and he also got his young son to do as much work as possible. The man shouldn't have very much money because he was plum and his son became the most working and diligent boy that I ever knew. He left school as soon as possible and later inherited the farm. He was the exact opposite type of person compared to his dad and probably still is.
I also knew another such pupil in my class who took over his dad's farm. But I still don't remember anybody who had jobs outside their home. Well the only exception was a boy who's job it was to deliver newspapers to people
But again: my own later experience are from families where at least one of the parents has a higher education. But I suspect that things work differently in families where both parents left school early or only got a short education themselves because I guess that it is only natural for such parents to care more about teaching their children to have jobs than to teach them about studying.
We should probably return to Sims 4 discussions instead
You are totally missing the point @TriX0099 is making. You're relying on personal remembrances from your own childhood and circle of friends and acquaintances. Which had to to be a very long time ago according to some of your other comments. Things are different now, as @TriX0099 indicated in her statistical references.
They are not just interested in keeping the old players buying because players become older and buy less the older they become
How exactly do you mean this? Because it's my experience it's the older simmers who buy easier than young players. For the simple reason they have more money.
What is your experience about that?
How many teen children do you have?
And what do you do when they ask for your accept to buy something "cheap" for one of their games?
I tell them to get a job. They're teens. They can work. Buying them everything they want because it's cheap isn't teaching them anything.
I don't actually know any parents who would do that. Instead they prefer to let them concentrate on their school or education. So they just give them money for games, sports or similar things they can do in their freetime. No parents who I know would tell them to take a job instead of focusing on their education and school.
I don't know, when I was younger I got pocket money for helping out on my parents farm. By time I was 16 I was encouraged to get a part time job either outside or work in the farm and get paid at the weekends. Nothing wrong with a Saturday job in addition to education.
Times have changed and at least here in Denmark parents have much more money then they had a few decades ago. I remember a time too when parents sometimes didn't care about their children's educations and preferred that they left school as soon as possible to get a job instead. But I don't believe that this kind of parents even exist anymore.
Also downloads for games are now very cheap compared to the costs of everything else. So parents who prefer to see sour faces and to argue with their children about very few dollars instead of seeing happy faces and have peace in their family - have become very rare
Ok, I will take the bait!
Hello from Denmark here. My oldest child is 22, half way through med school and has had a part time job since she was 13 (and actually has 2 now). The same goes for her 17 year old brother, while my 11 year old can't wait until he turns 13, so he can earn his own money, and not have to put up with the meager gaming allowance he has. The 8 year old still only has plans of becoming a you tube star when she is old enough *shrug*.
Money has nothing to do with why I encourage my children to have part time jobs (well, not MY money anyway). Work ethic does. Being responsible and dependable is way easier to teach them the younger they are. Learning how to manage finances is important, and they get way more responsible with their money, when they have to work for it, rather than when they just receive allowances (I don't make them do chores for their allowance. Chores is something the whole family does, so we can all have time to spend together in a clean home. I have nothing against using allowances for chores, we just use them to teach a different lesson). And their initial dislike of taxes has taught them a lot about what our taxes actually pay for as well (oh, someone actually has to pay for that free education and free healthcare you are getting???).
Education doesn't have to suffer, because you have a part time job, but a job does take time away from something - and that isn't always a bad thing. They have to learn to manage their time wisely, and prioritize. They are good at it - I am not. Which is why I still play TS4... I never learned to give up on things. They played it for a couple of hours, then decided it wasn't worth their time.
The oldest 2 have played sims 2 and 3, alone and with their friends, while no one they know plays TS4. TS4 didn't entertain the youngest 2 for more than a couple of hours, so EA doesn't get any money from any of my children. The 11 yo got really excited a couple of months ago, when he realized I had TS3 though, as he had seen some youtubers he liked playing it, and he has been playing it since. TS4 is simply too easy for my kids (even pre-teens), and to them easy=boring. No risk, means no reward.
Getting a responsible attitude to money isn't about that to my experience because my daughter and my brothers have always been very good at saving money for later. But I still remember my cousins who were my mother's older sister's children. She had a much more severe attitude about raising children than my parents and was quite tough. But the result was that when my cousin and his younger sister got their weekly money they always hurried down to the toy store because they wanted to use it all immediately. I still remember because I would never do such a thing.
So why did they do that? What was my aunt's mistake? I am in no doubt because her children surely had just discovered that if they had money and needed it for something they were always told to pay themselves. But if they didn't have money because they had used all their pocket money and if their parents approved about a thing that cost money then the parents paid for them anyway. So they learned that they could be punished for saving money and therefore never did it. I think that this still influenced their attitude to saving money quite a bit even after they became adults. So I would never have done such a thing to my daughter and she never got that attitude about using all her money as fast as possible
Raising children is much more complicated than what we can learn from the Sims games.
Who said anything about children not being complicated to raise?
You said you didn't know anyone in Denmark who would tell their children "to take a job instead of focusing on their education and school.". I don't know anyone who would do that either, but I just pointed out that I do live in Denmark, and don't think that it is one or the other. You can do both. And it is not rare at all.
But there is no point in me telling you how many of my childrens' friends work (hint, it is every single one of them), I'd rather you don't take my word for it. Instead of just thinking about your (apparently very unusual) social circle, or my very unscientific observation, you could look up some statistics. The problem with that is that after-school jobs are defined differently in every single study, and are often part of bigger studies (on how teenagers spend their free time). But the lowest frequency reported that I could find (on a national basis) is 63% of the 13-17 year olds have (or have had) a part time job within the last year. The number is 80% for 17 year olds. And that is with the strictest definition of a "job", which requires being employed and paid by a company. So babysitting, mowing lawns, or home-cleaning jobs don't count in that study. Other studies show that the frequency is highest for children in middle class families, in families where the parents have at least a 3 year university education and that the benefits of having a part-time job includes a much higher chance of finishing a university education (80%), than those who didn't have part time jobs (50%).
Have fun educating yourself on this area, and not to be condescending, but remember to consider the sources when looking up the statistics (so don't come back and tell me about the numbers reported by the job-site for teens who reports that every 4th after-school job has disappeared since the year 2000, "but here at xxxx we can help you find the one that is perfect for you!").
Personally, I think that amount of teens who work is a declining number (and the school reform in 2014 most certainly will have had a negative effect on the number), but most of them still work, and will continue to work, and pay for their own games.
You just know different people than I do.
But I have to go back to my own schooltime to find something like what you describe. One of my friends then had a father who was very lazy but quite clever. He had a farm which he expanded (mainly by using some money that his wife had inherited). But he didn't work more himself than absolutely needed. So he hired a man who was a little plum but could work quite well under his guidance and he also got his young son to do as much work as possible. The man shouldn't have very much money because he was plum and his son became the most working and diligent boy that I ever knew. He left school as soon as possible and later inherited the farm. He was the exact opposite type of person compared to his dad and probably still is.
I also knew another such pupil in my class who took over his dad's farm. But I still don't remember anybody who had jobs outside their home. Well the only exception was a boy who's job it was to deliver newspapers to people
But again: my own later experience are from families where at least one of the parents has a higher education. But I suspect that things work differently in families where both parents left school early or only got a short education themselves because I guess that it is only natural for such parents to care more about teaching their children to have jobs than to teach them about studying.
We should probably return to Sims 4 discussions instead
If you had actually looked up anything (and as the highly educated person, you claim to be, I would have expected you to want to base your statements on facts), you might have realized, that you could be totally wrong in your assumption that higher education, means you don't let your children work (btw, most teens WANT to work, according to the studies, they are not made to work. And the first study I mentioned was from 2011. Not as recent as I would like it to be, but not decades ago). And just for reference: I do have a higher education
But sure, lets get back to TS4. I won't be baited again... hopefully
I've tried catching up on this thread from wherever I commented at one point. It's really long though, so I'll admit that I've skipped a chunk of it. I think I already mentioned that the biggest mistake IMO was the slow release cycle of content and the limited nature of the initial base game that has then spent a lot of time having to play catch up. It's one of the reasons why it seems logical that they might stretch out this version of the series. It looks like they are going for a model where you can customize what you want and there's a variety of content at different price points. The downside of that is - as has been noted - that some content and gameplay features are being parceled out in ways that they weren't before. It seems obvious that they are trying to have regular revenue streams from this version of the game throughout the year rather than the possible feast-or-famine in terms of sales of focusing mainly on a couple of EPs a year. Obviously SPs and the TS3 store were versions of that as well, but the model of TS4's release seams to clearly be about spreading out the release and sales of content and to appeal to players at different price points.
As for the demographic of the players which is somewhat speculative for us, yes, I'm sure the game sells to teens, especially women. I wouldn't say that it is narrowly centered around teens at all. Versions of this game have been around a long time. Also, at this point, we live in a computer age. Most people in various demographics spend time on screens. Look at FB which started as a college alumni network. Its users span a wide age range and now it has many users across various generations using it (whatever one may think of that). My point in saying that is that computer-and-screen-based activities are basically part of life now for many people. I would not assume that the consumers of TS are all a bunch of teens. Are they a part of the market? Definitely. The reality of who actually buys and plays this game may surprise us though.
Personally, yes, I know of people who are not teenagers and who play this game. I've made a long-time friend when I went to lunch with someone who started talking about how much she loved the series. I was also surprised recently when I was meeting some friends a few months ago and told them that I'd recently gotten TS4. They shouted, "Yes!" excitedly. Someone else (not a teen) started telling me about how they had nearly all the content for TS4 and at the time, they were impatiently waiting for Vampires. So yes, I know non-teens who play the game. I also know of people who have said that they would play the game but worry that they would find it too addictive. (That was a recent conversation).
This series was always something that I played quietly by myself. It's a good stress reliever and it's something that I've played at various points. In winter, perhaps the weather was bad and I couldn't get out much. Maybe a summer day was stormy or overly muggy or I was tired from other activities. Maybe I was stressed out from doing something intense or I was in a transitional phase and the game would give me an outlet or a break so that I could go back to focusing on whatever important thing I was doing. (I'm in a time like that again). There are various reasons why someone, teen or beyond, might play it.
I'd say that for a clue as to who plays it, you can look at who comments on it on social media but also remember that many players never do. I myself pretty much never commented on anything until recently despite playing many versions of the game and quite a few EPs/some SPs. Women do seem to outnumber men for sure but it is great to see on here and in social media comments' sections, just how many different people play it. I will say that it really makes me happy to see that it is popular around the world and that while women are the stereotypical majority of its consumers, that men and boys do play it too. I think that should absolutely be encouraged.
Referring to it as a "toy" for teenage girls seems to belittle any players who fall outside of that demographic in anyway. It's also overly simplistic. I used to hear things like that said in a scoffing way by a few people who didn't play the game. I reiterate that teenage girls are certainly part of the customer base, nothing wrong with that, but they are clearly just one part of it.
Comments
Oh no it wasn't for financial reasons or because my parents didn't want me to get a good education. I had a great education. It was simply my parents wanted to encourage me to be independent and have a good work ethic.
That's exactly why we do it. Responsibility is a great lesson to teach and learn. Living off of others and giving everything only teaches the receiver to take. There's already enough of that in this world.
There are many definitions of education, and the best lessons are taught at home when the parent (educator) takes the responsibility to teach the child (student) to be the best they can be.
Leaving all that responsibility to the schools (educational system) is nothing but irresponsible in itself. Children often learn their greatest strengths and weaknesses from the teachers who've influenced them the longest—the parents (and guardians). If the parent will leave it to others, the child will too. If the parent won't take responsibility, the child won't either.
So yeah. I'm not going to, and didn't, buy my child everything they asked for. I don't consider myself an irresponsible parent. I provided the necessities and a little extra. The rest, they were taught to attain on their own.
Not providing a game and telling my child the way to attain it on their own is not taking away from their education. It's teaching them a lesson. Things don't come easy and not everything falls into your lap simply because you wish it. That's how the world works--the real world. That is education. It's the best lesson you can teach your child.
Special snowflakes will always have the world against them when they step out the door. In the end, you've done them no favour if that's what you've produced.
The only Top 10 list Sims 4 has made was for PC games. It made it to number one, which is an accomplishment The Sims 3 also achieved, as well as Sims 2. The Sims is primarily a PC exclusive market, especially now where there are no modern Sims games being sold outside of the PC arena.
Even poor sales probably wouldn't affect the sales charts, because PC is slowly eroding away in favor of console and portable gaming, The Sims is pretty much guaranteed to sell enough to top that chart. There's hardly any other major PC games releasing now, let alone in 2014. Back then The Sims 3 was The Sims 4's biggest competiton, that should give you a pretty good idea at the PC gaming market.
I will pay for their bus tickets, necessities, and a few extras as I implied. The rest is up to them. You will twist things around to suit you no matter what. That's fine. Whatever helps you sleep at night is no skin off my back.
@Writin_Reg I have not yet been able to hire a gardener! (The option is always closed out for some reason) but I hire maids that I never see and never seem to get paid. I liked it when you could see them at work! (I hired a Butler once but she seemed to always behave in a very personal manner, I found it too weird and never hired an other) I have spent far more on expansion packs and stuff packs on Sims 4 than I ever dreamed I would but for all that, it has not become more satisfying than 1 was for me. I almost never "Play" the Sims, I just create houses and buildings. Playing is to frustrating with constant reloading needed even to visit a bar across the street! and again to get home. There are constant lags and momentary freezes that irritate and when I do take a Sim out somewhere, the problems seem much worse. I only play them at home now and then only to test builds. I have everything they have put out except for spooky stuff. Yet, I was content with the first Sims game and never added to it at all. I find 4 frustrating in many ways. I never tried 2 or 3 so I can not comment on those.
Consoles are only really good for action games. Games for mobile platforms are mostly free MMO games and there still aren't very many big paid games available. This may change though. But PCs are still used both for free MMO games, casual games and big paid games.
[/quote]The Sims is pretty much guaranteed to sell enough to top that chart. There's hardly any other major PC games releasing now, let alone in 2014. Back then The Sims 3 was The Sims 4's biggest competiton, that should give you a pretty good idea at the PC gaming market. [/quote]
The Sims 3 still sells very well. But the reason clearly is that TS4 isn't really an improvement. It even doesn't have the open world or CASt. So many simmers prefer TS3 over TS4.
Freeplay is not a PC title and will never make an appearance on a PC game chart.
Strong sales of Sims 3 aren't really that surprising; The Sims 2 remained a strong seller while The Sims 3 was being developed. I do agree that The Sims 4 failed to improve upon The Sims 3 in virtually every way, but I would speculate that we'd see the same purchase trend regardless.
The Sims Freeplay has even been released for more platforms than any other free MMO games I know about because it exists for all the following platforms: iOS, Android, Blackberry, Windows Phone and even Kindle. So why won't EA release it for Windows PCs and Mac too? The only possible reason clearly is that EA feared that the Sims Freeplay then would steal too many customers from TS4. But who knows? Maybe EA will change its mind
You don't remember correctly here because the Sims 2 disappeared from the best selling lists almost immediately when the Sims 3 was released while the Sims 3 still is selling very well even now. Several Sims 3 games (basegame and EPs) were still high on the bestselling lists for 2015. Such things didn't happen for TS1 on the 2005 bestselling lists and it also didn't happen for TS2 on the 2010 bestselling lists. Those games had just disappeared completely on the bestselling lists for the year after the next big Sims game had been released.
My parents live quite comfortably. Sorry you don't have your parents around any more Erpe. I am glad mine are still around and pretty healthy. Mom has some dementia so they don't travel like they used to - they traveled a lot for many years - to Italy, UK, France - where ever the notion beckoned them to go. Without a good education in the USA you don't live well like my parents have unless you are extremely lucky and fortunate somehow. LOL. It is like a part of ordinary life for many of us. The day each of my kids were born we started their college fund as it is quite expensive and like it was for me and my brother - I also did not want my kids to start off higher learning with a college loan on their heads.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
So you actually don't need a high education to earn money. One of the richest men in Denmark has even less education than my brother and his parents were very poor. But now he has his own company with departments all over the world (except in the US). He still expands and now especially in China. His fortune is about $4.2 billion (2015) and his company has about 2,400 departments (stores).
But to simulate all such things in a game like TS4 would of course be much more than EA ever would plan to do
Also keep in mind Maxis decides these things- not EA actually.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
I think that EA's directions to the developers are much more detailed than anyone here imagines. And like you wouldn't expect your craftsmen to fix other things than you told them I also don't think that the developers are allowed to add or change major things in the game without getting EA's approval before they do it.
To be more explicit: You wouldn't blame the hired painter for choosing an ugly color when he painted your neighbor's house because you know that this color hardly was chosen by the painter (who at most could have suggested it to your neighbor before he used it). But nevertheless people here automatically blame the developers (who only are hired craftsmen) for choosing a wrong "color" for TS4 even though the "color" almost certainly was chosen by EA
I don't believe that the developers could have changed the focus of the game without approval from EA. So I believe that the following things were EA's choices:
1. Should the game be T rated or M rated?
2. The target group for the game?
3. Should the game focus more on babies and toddlers?
4. Should the game be harder or easier than the previous games?
5. Should the game have more quests like World Adventures had?
6. Should the world be open or closed?
7. Should the game be more about family play? Or should it be more of a time management game?
8. How big should the budget for the game be?
9. Should the game still have 2 EPs each year? Or should it instead have more but smaller expansions (like the new GPs and all the SPs)?
And there are probably even more things like that which were decided by EA and not by the developers.
My parents are from small towns in MT and now they are business owners of a company that my momma started from the ground up. They do pretty darn well. I s'pose it is rare @Writin_Reg, but then you only have to look at people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg...they didn't finish their educations. So it does happen.
I agree though, I think private school and university should be in all iterations early on. They add a realistic element to the game.
Huge error with all of these features not being available in the most recent version of the game. Agreed.
Ok, I will take the bait!
Hello from Denmark here. My oldest child is 22, half way through med school and has had a part time job since she was 13 (and actually has 2 now). The same goes for her 17 year old brother, while my 11 year old can't wait until he turns 13, so he can earn his own money, and not have to put up with the meager gaming allowance he has. The 8 year old still only has plans of becoming a you tube star when she is old enough *shrug*.
Money has nothing to do with why I encourage my children to have part time jobs (well, not MY money anyway). Work ethic does. Being responsible and dependable is way easier to teach them the younger they are. Learning how to manage finances is important, and they get way more responsible with their money, when they have to work for it, rather than when they just receive allowances (I don't make them do chores for their allowance. Chores is something the whole family does, so we can all have time to spend together in a clean home. I have nothing against using allowances for chores, we just use them to teach a different lesson). And their initial dislike of taxes has taught them a lot about what our taxes actually pay for as well (oh, someone actually has to pay for that free education and free healthcare you are getting???).
Education doesn't have to suffer, because you have a part time job, but a job does take time away from something - and that isn't always a bad thing. They have to learn to manage their time wisely, and prioritize. They are good at it - I am not. Which is why I still play TS4... I never learned to give up on things. They played it for a couple of hours, then decided it wasn't worth their time.
The oldest 2 have played sims 2 and 3, alone and with their friends, while no one they know plays TS4. TS4 didn't entertain the youngest 2 for more than a couple of hours, so EA doesn't get any money from any of my children. The 11 yo got really excited a couple of months ago, when he realized I had TS3 though, as he had seen some youtubers he liked playing it, and he has been playing it since. TS4 is simply too easy for my kids (even pre-teens), and to them easy=boring. No risk, means no reward.
I have been trying to figure out what it is exactly that makes 4 a step down from 3 and 2 and you hit it on the head, we are not as invested in our sims 4 characters for some reason. I know I'm not. I had this one family in 3 and after a lovely patch they broke. I could not fix them and had no back up. It had never happened before, I stopped playing for months as I mourned that loss. If I lose a sims 4 family I just shrug and make another one. Weird.
So why did they do that? What was my aunt's mistake? I am in no doubt because her children surely had just discovered that if they had money and needed it for something they were always told to pay themselves. But if they didn't have money because they had used all their pocket money and if their parents approved about a thing that cost money then the parents paid for them anyway. So they learned that they could be punished for saving money and therefore never did it. I think that this still influenced their attitude to saving money quite a bit even after they became adults. So I would never have done such a thing to my daughter and she never got that attitude about using all her money as fast as possible
Raising children is much more complicated than what we can learn from the Sims games.
Who said anything about children not being complicated to raise?
You said you didn't know anyone in Denmark who would tell their children "to take a job instead of focusing on their education and school.". I don't know anyone who would do that either, but I just pointed out that I do live in Denmark, and don't think that it is one or the other. You can do both. And it is not rare at all.
But there is no point in me telling you how many of my childrens' friends work (hint, it is every single one of them), I'd rather you don't take my word for it. Instead of just thinking about your (apparently very unusual) social circle, or my very unscientific observation, you could look up some statistics. The problem with that is that after-school jobs are defined differently in every single study, and are often part of bigger studies (on how teenagers spend their free time). But the lowest frequency reported that I could find (on a national basis) is 63% of the 13-17 year olds have (or have had) a part time job within the last year. The number is 80% for 17 year olds. And that is with the strictest definition of a "job", which requires being employed and paid by a company. So babysitting, mowing lawns, or home-cleaning jobs don't count in that study. Other studies show that the frequency is highest for children in middle class families, in families where the parents have at least a 3 year university education and that the benefits of having a part-time job includes a much higher chance of finishing a university education (80%), than those who didn't have part time jobs (50%).
Have fun educating yourself on this area, and not to be condescending, but remember to consider the sources when looking up the statistics (so don't come back and tell me about the numbers reported by the job-site for teens who reports that every 4th after-school job has disappeared since the year 2000, "but here at xxxx we can help you find the one that is perfect for you!").
Personally, I think that amount of teens who work is a declining number (and the school reform in 2014 most certainly will have had a negative effect on the number), but most of them still work, and will continue to work, and pay for their own games.
But I have to go back to my own schooltime to find something like what you describe. One of my friends then had a father who was very lazy but quite clever. He had a farm which he expanded (mainly by using some money that his wife had inherited). But he didn't work more himself than absolutely needed. So he hired a man who was a little 🐸🐸🐸🐸 but could work quite well under his guidance and he also got his young son to do as much work as possible. The man shouldn't have very much money because he was 🐸🐸🐸🐸 and his son became the most working and diligent boy that I ever knew. He left school as soon as possible and later inherited the farm. He was the exact opposite type of person compared to his dad and probably still is.
I also knew another such pupil in my class who took over his dad's farm. But I still don't remember anybody who had jobs outside their home. Well the only exception was a boy who's job it was to deliver newspapers to people
But again: my own later experience are from families where at least one of the parents has a higher education. But I suspect that things work differently in families where both parents left school early or only got a short education themselves because I guess that it is only natural for such parents to care more about teaching their children to have jobs than to teach them about studying.
We should probably return to Sims 4 discussions instead
You are totally missing the point @TriX0099 is making. You're relying on personal remembrances from your own childhood and circle of friends and acquaintances. Which had to to be a very long time ago according to some of your other comments. Things are different now, as @TriX0099 indicated in her statistical references.
If you had actually looked up anything (and as the highly educated person, you claim to be, I would have expected you to want to base your statements on facts), you might have realized, that you could be totally wrong in your assumption that higher education, means you don't let your children work (btw, most teens WANT to work, according to the studies, they are not made to work. And the first study I mentioned was from 2011. Not as recent as I would like it to be, but not decades ago). And just for reference: I do have a higher education
But sure, lets get back to TS4. I won't be baited again... hopefully
As for the demographic of the players which is somewhat speculative for us, yes, I'm sure the game sells to teens, especially women. I wouldn't say that it is narrowly centered around teens at all. Versions of this game have been around a long time. Also, at this point, we live in a computer age. Most people in various demographics spend time on screens. Look at FB which started as a college alumni network. Its users span a wide age range and now it has many users across various generations using it (whatever one may think of that). My point in saying that is that computer-and-screen-based activities are basically part of life now for many people. I would not assume that the consumers of TS are all a bunch of teens. Are they a part of the market? Definitely. The reality of who actually buys and plays this game may surprise us though.
Personally, yes, I know of people who are not teenagers and who play this game. I've made a long-time friend when I went to lunch with someone who started talking about how much she loved the series. I was also surprised recently when I was meeting some friends a few months ago and told them that I'd recently gotten TS4. They shouted, "Yes!" excitedly. Someone else (not a teen) started telling me about how they had nearly all the content for TS4 and at the time, they were impatiently waiting for Vampires. So yes, I know non-teens who play the game. I also know of people who have said that they would play the game but worry that they would find it too addictive. (That was a recent conversation).
This series was always something that I played quietly by myself. It's a good stress reliever and it's something that I've played at various points. In winter, perhaps the weather was bad and I couldn't get out much. Maybe a summer day was stormy or overly muggy or I was tired from other activities. Maybe I was stressed out from doing something intense or I was in a transitional phase and the game would give me an outlet or a break so that I could go back to focusing on whatever important thing I was doing. (I'm in a time like that again). There are various reasons why someone, teen or beyond, might play it.
I'd say that for a clue as to who plays it, you can look at who comments on it on social media but also remember that many players never do. I myself pretty much never commented on anything until recently despite playing many versions of the game and quite a few EPs/some SPs. Women do seem to outnumber men for sure but it is great to see on here and in social media comments' sections, just how many different people play it. I will say that it really makes me happy to see that it is popular around the world and that while women are the stereotypical majority of its consumers, that men and boys do play it too. I think that should absolutely be encouraged.
Referring to it as a "toy" for teenage girls seems to belittle any players who fall outside of that demographic in anyway. It's also overly simplistic. I used to hear things like that said in a scoffing way by a few people who didn't play the game. I reiterate that teenage girls are certainly part of the customer base, nothing wrong with that, but they are clearly just one part of it.