why make improvements when you can take multiply short cuts..they know people will just buy anyways. Little effort, still make a lot of money. The sad thing is they had/have the money to make this game be the best of the best they just don't wanna use it.
I think probably two, which would take us to 2018 and then maybe kick it goodbye with some stuff packs or the last Game Pack early 2019? Who knows.
I do have to point out, that Guru's strongly believe that TS4 is not on a timer. Meaning potentially we'll never get TS5. It will just die when TS4 becomes less profitable.
They said the development costs were too high to do it right. That seems to be the canned answer for everything.[/quote]
Yeah I don't understand why they decided that should be the canned answer because blaming it on costs still doesn't make sense to me. Do their animators get paid per animation? Because I'd think they'd have animators on staff who get paid a set salary no matter how much they animate per day. That's kind of how most full-time jobs work. And given that this is a city living pack set in high-rise apartment buildings which inherently have elevators (or else residents who are in extremely good shape), I'd think 2-3 elevator animations would kind of be a given. So are they trying to say they don't have full-time animators on staff and that's why we don't get a seemingly simple animation? [/quote]
They are most likely paid per day but there's so many animations they can do in a day. In video game developpement, tasks are counted in man-hours, each task has an estimated man-hour cost (how much time it will take to make it) for each discipline. They have a budget in man-hour for each displine and they try to use it as efficiently as possible. SimGuruGraham has explained a bit more what it is, and how they are juggling all this. Most likely elevators animations were not included because the animators already had enough work to keep them busy, or it would have needed work from another discipline who were already busy too.
I keep an ongoing curated list of things we want to add to the game, and each thing on that list has man-hour estimates from 19 different development disciplines (something we thankfully streamlined down from 25 different disciplines that could potentially be working on a feature in the past). At the start of any project we work on, we have a pool of time we can use from each of those 19 different disciplines to complete the project within our schedule. If the list of planned features for a given project exceeds the available man-hours for any of those 19 disciplines then we're out of scope and need to cut something so that we're back within our schedule.
Now with that in mind, no feature touches all 19 disciplines. As you're looking through a list of features that you're considering for any project, it's a constant balancing act to figure out what to approve and what to cut so that you come as close as possible to maxing our your available time in every discipline without going over. Things change during development as well, because those estimates I mentioned earlier are just that... estimates. Once work actually begins those numbers can fluctuate, which can lead to being out of scope, which can lead to production needing to make calls to adjust accordingly so we're back on track. For example, if I recall correctly, every unique walkstyle added to the game takes two days of animation time. Thus, if we have a little animation time to spend, we can add an extra walkstyle and it has very little impact on other disciplines. When we have these holes in the schedule to fill, we look at that list of things we want to add and pull stuff in that's not only a high priority to the game experience, but also makes sense because it fits in the schedule. My list ranks both priority and man-hour estimates, and both of those things are considered when we approve a feature.
[/quote]
just like I said... some money hungry ceo said "LET'S DO LESS WITH LESS"... We got so much money we can't hire more people, and we have too much money to update our tech to minimize the amount of work and time to create good game play! Oh well, they will buy it anyway and just complain... Who cares about that, right? We sure don't. Hey, let's go spend some of that sim money... How bout an all inclusive 2 week cruise for the entire EA and Maxis team; it won't cost too much it's just pennies compared to sales and margins on production. Who will know
It sure tells a lot when packs that were released on a 6 month, consistent schedule are able to do more than packs released on a yearly schedule.
Props to Grant for being honest though. From what I've seen, EA is trying to hide the interview now.
The explanation @SimGuruDrake gave was that this was not an interview but a summary of what was said at a round table -- the text was not verbatim. Unfortunately, it's been treated as if it was actual quotation when it wasn't.
EA CREATOR NETWORK MEMBER — Want to be notified of patches, new Broken Mods threads, and urgent Sims 4 news? Follow me at https://www.patreon.com/luthienrising.
It sure tells a lot when packs that were released on a 6 month, consistent schedule are able to do more than packs released on a yearly schedule.
Props to Grant for being honest though. From what I've seen, EA is trying to hide the interview now.
The explanation @SimGuruDrake gave was that this was not an interview but a summary of what was said at a round table -- the text was not verbatim. Unfortunately, it's been treated as if it was actual quotation when it wasn't.
Only because some people are angry and disappointed and are looking for answers.
I'm a girl who likes to play with boys, what can I say...
“Instead of putting players in the role of Luke Skywalker, or Frodo Baggins, I'd rather put them in the role of George Lucas.”Will Wright.
It sure tells a lot when packs that were released on a 6 month, consistent schedule are able to do more than packs released on a yearly schedule.
Props to Grant for being honest though. From what I've seen, EA is trying to hide the interview now.
The explanation @SimGuruDrake gave was that this was not an interview but a summary of what was said at a round table -- the text was not verbatim. Unfortunately, it's been treated as if it was actual quotation when it wasn't.
Only because some people are angry and disappointed and are looking for answers.
It sure tells a lot when packs that were released on a 6 month, consistent schedule are able to do more than packs released on a yearly schedule.
Props to Grant for being honest though. From what I've seen, EA is trying to hide the interview now.
The explanation @SimGuruDrake gave was that this was not an interview but a summary of what was said at a round table -- the text was not verbatim. Unfortunately, it's been treated as if it was actual quotation when it wasn't.
Only because some people are angry and disappointed and are looking for answers.
No, I mean the original post at the site made it seem like it was quotation when it wasn't. (But as a follow-up, that means people are getting angry at words that aren't the same as those that were actually said.)
EA CREATOR NETWORK MEMBER — Want to be notified of patches, new Broken Mods threads, and urgent Sims 4 news? Follow me at https://www.patreon.com/luthienrising.
It sure tells a lot when packs that were released on a 6 month, consistent schedule are able to do more than packs released on a yearly schedule.
Props to Grant for being honest though. From what I've seen, EA is trying to hide the interview now.
The explanation @SimGuruDrake gave was that this was not an interview but a summary of what was said at a round table -- the text was not verbatim. Unfortunately, it's been treated as if it was actual quotation when it wasn't.
Only because some people are angry and disappointed and are looking for answers.
No, I mean the original post at the site made it seem like it was quotation when it wasn't. (But as a follow-up, that means people are getting angry at words that aren't the same as those that were actually said.)
I know, I understood you the first time.
*edited: let me add some more to explain. It's the same old, right? Some people are disappointed, they want answers, devs sometimes don't quite make their statements clear or other people misquote them. Next things it's gospel. It's happened a million times before and will continue to happen.
I'm a girl who likes to play with boys, what can I say...
“Instead of putting players in the role of Luke Skywalker, or Frodo Baggins, I'd rather put them in the role of George Lucas.”Will Wright.
It sure tells a lot when packs that were released on a 6 month, consistent schedule are able to do more than packs released on a yearly schedule.
Props to Grant for being honest though. From what I've seen, EA is trying to hide the interview now.
The explanation @SimGuruDrake gave was that this was not an interview but a summary of what was said at a round table -- the text was not verbatim. Unfortunately, it's been treated as if it was actual quotation when it wasn't.
Only because some people are angry and disappointed and are looking for answers.
No, I mean the original post at the site made it seem like it was quotation when it wasn't. (But as a follow-up, that means people are getting angry at words that aren't the same as those that were actually said.)
The exact words, at least to me, aren't really important. Those 'quotes' are the same answers we have gotten about everything since pre-release. Too hard, too much time, too much money, too many resources, players too plum to figure it out. Whether those were his exact words or not its still the same responses we've been getting for over two years now.
As much money as the series and this iteration of the game have made over the years the whole 'woe is me we just don't have enough resources for that' refrain has grown from simply being insulting to just tiresome. Kinda like the potty humor. A talking toilet? Really?
It sure tells a lot when packs that were released on a 6 month, consistent schedule are able to do more than packs released on a yearly schedule.
Props to Grant for being honest though. From what I've seen, EA is trying to hide the interview now.
The explanation @SimGuruDrake gave was that this was not an interview but a summary of what was said at a round table -- the text was not verbatim. Unfortunately, it's been treated as if it was actual quotation when it wasn't.
Only because some people are angry and disappointed and are looking for answers.
No, I mean the original post at the site made it seem like it was quotation when it wasn't. (But as a follow-up, that means people are getting angry at words that aren't the same as those that were actually said.)
Even though that it might not had been originally a quotation. NZsimm3r is correct, some people are angry and disappointed, and are looking for straight up answers. The people that are angry and disappointed don't want to hear blah blah this or that. They want a straight answer!
At the end of the day if communications are getting mixed up then it is up to the provider to correct the misinterpretations, not the consumer. Our part of the bargain is simply to fork the money over. If we can be convinced to that it. Nothing is a given in an environment of disgruntled consumers I'd imagine.
I'm a girl who likes to play with boys, what can I say...
“Instead of putting players in the role of Luke Skywalker, or Frodo Baggins, I'd rather put them in the role of George Lucas.”Will Wright.
At the end of the day if communications are getting mixed up then it is up to the provider to correct the misinterpretations, not the consumer. Our part of the bargain is simply to fork the money over. If we can be convinced to that it. Nothing is a given in an environment of disgruntled consumers I'd imagine.
lol @sunman502 if you keep agreeing with me you're going to freak me out!
Because I understand what you are saying, and you are correct!
I know you 'get me' and my antipodean humor. lol. Not many do.
Which is sad that they don't get that kind of humor. What's even more sad than them not getting that kind of humor is that Comedians use this kind of humor a lot in their comedy routine and they see and hear that.
At the end of the day if communications are getting mixed up then it is up to the provider to correct the misinterpretations, not the consumer. Our part of the bargain is simply to fork the money over. If we can be convinced to that it. Nothing is a given in an environment of disgruntled consumers I'd imagine.
In this instance the provider was a fan site and it was their job to provide the responses in full not paraphrasing them for their convenience to avoid this very scenario.
Granted not everyone is going to like the answers we have to provide. People can shout at the top of their lungs that they think they are excuses, etc but they are our reality and there are many boundaries we have to work in. So yes, some things get cut in favor of other things that may be better for the overall pack - it isn't done because we "hate" the players or think they are "stupid" or any other thing stated in threads like these.
Again, people may not like the answers we provide but they are provided just the same and if anyone has something constructive to add (even including their own ideas of how they would like to see something that was omitted be implemented in the future to favor all parties) then they are welcome to provide it. That can be done without insults to either the team or other members of the community.
In this instance the provider was a fan site and it was their job to provide the responses in full not paraphrasing them for their convenience to avoid this very scenario.
Granted not everyone is going to like the answers we have to provide. People can shout at the top of their lungs that they think they are excuses, etc but they are our reality and there are many boundaries we have to work in. So yes, some things get cut in favor of other things that may be better for the overall pack - it isn't done because we "hate" the players or think they are "plum" or any other thing stated in threads like these.
Again, people may not like the answers we provide but they are provided just the same and if anyone has something constructive to add (even including their own ideas of how they would like to see something that was omitted be implemented in the future to favor all parties) then they are welcome to provide it. That can be done without insults to either the team or other members of the community.
1. How do you expect a polish site to provide an exact quote? If it is their duty to provide exact quotes, then non English speaking sites might as well not exist, as their readers will not understand said quotes.
2. If you're going to provide an answer that will seem outright demeaning, do not. "We think multiple transportation systems would be too confusing for the new players" reads as "we think our new players are idiots". "We think this was not necessary as there's already a well established way of commuting in TS4, however if there's enough audience for it, we might reconsider it" is an answer that reads far better.
Edit: if you think a journalist is lying, best thing to do is to provide the recorded conversation yourself. It's a fairly bad PR move to take down the conversation AND to close topics surrounding it.
At the end of the day if communications are getting mixed up then it is up to the provider to correct the misinterpretations, not the consumer. Our part of the bargain is simply to fork the money over. If we can be convinced to that it. Nothing is a given in an environment of disgruntled consumers I'd imagine.
In this instance the provider was a fan site and it was their job to provide the responses in full not paraphrasing them for their convenience to avoid this very scenario.
Granted not everyone is going to like the answers we have to provide. People can shout at the top of their lungs that they think they are excuses, etc but they are our reality and there are many boundaries we have to work in. So yes, some things get cut in favor of other things that may be better for the overall pack - it isn't done because we "hate" the players or think they are "plum" or any other thing stated in threads like these.
Again, people may not like the answers we provide but they are provided just the same and if anyone has something constructive to add (even including their own ideas of how they would like to see something that was omitted be implemented in the future to favor all parties) then they are welcome to provide it. That can be done without insults to either the team or other members of the community.
Shouldn't there be some certainty behind this? If it comes down to juggling this or that shouldn't the decision maker be able to say with at least some certainty that it's absolutely better for the pack? As far as I am concerned I am hearing all of these excuses involving the time/budget/whatever and I am not seeing any kind of even trade off.
We can't build apartments, and what is the tradeoff there? What exactly was put ahead of that to benefit the pack for all players? Aren't 'all playstyles' supposed to be covered? Is building no longer a playstyle if it involves any structure other than a house or specific venue? I don't see any new build features in this EP at all. So again, what is the trade off? Lot traits and giving your neighbors keys?
At the end of the day if communications are getting mixed up then it is up to the provider to correct the misinterpretations, not the consumer. Our part of the bargain is simply to fork the money over. If we can be convinced to that it. Nothing is a given in an environment of disgruntled consumers I'd imagine.
In this instance the provider was a fan site and it was their job to provide the responses in full not paraphrasing them for their convenience to avoid this very scenario.
Granted not everyone is going to like the answers we have to provide. People can shout at the top of their lungs that they think they are excuses, etc but they are our reality and there are many boundaries we have to work in. So yes, some things get cut in favor of other things that may be better for the overall pack - it isn't done because we "hate" the players or think they are "plum" or any other thing stated in threads like these.
Again, people may not like the answers we provide but they are provided just the same and if anyone has something constructive to add (even including their own ideas of how they would like to see something that was omitted be implemented in the future to favor all parties) then they are welcome to provide it. That can be done without insults to either the team or other members of the community.
Shouldn't there be some certainty behind this? If it comes down to juggling this or that shouldn't the decision maker be able to say with at least some certainty that it's absolutely better for the pack? As far as I am concerned I am hearing all of these excuses involving the time/budget/whatever and I am not seeing any kind of even trade off.
We can't build apartments, and what is the tradeoff there? What exactly was put ahead of that to benefit the pack for all players? Aren't 'all playstyles' supposed to be covered? Is building no longer a playstyle if it involves any structure other than a house or specific venue? I don't see any new build features in this EP at all. So again, what is the trade off? Lot traits and giving your neighbors keys?
I'd like to know as well.
Where's the replayability in this pack? Get Together at least lets you make your own clubs. It would have been nice for the devs to allow us to create and customize our own festivals if apartments were too much.
Again, people may not like the answers we provide but they are provided just the same
I'm sure most of us understand that being a part of EA means the Maxis team doesn't have the freedom you probably want. You are given a budget and need to stick with it. Its just frustrating as a player seeing TS4 mature knowing you guys could be doing so much more. I'm sure there are plenty of people there at Maxis that probably feel the same way. So when someone says "too expensive", I don't doubt that it is the truth. Its just frustrating as a player to hear that after all the money we've thrown at and loyalty we've shown to the game over the years.
At the end of the day if communications are getting mixed up then it is up to the provider to correct the misinterpretations, not the consumer. Our part of the bargain is simply to fork the money over. If we can be convinced to that it. Nothing is a given in an environment of disgruntled consumers I'd imagine.
In this instance the provider was a fan site and it was their job to provide the responses in full not paraphrasing them for their convenience to avoid this very scenario.
Granted not everyone is going to like the answers we have to provide. People can shout at the top of their lungs that they think they are excuses, etc but they are our reality and there are many boundaries we have to work in. So yes, some things get cut in favor of other things that may be better for the overall pack - it isn't done because we "hate" the players or think they are "plum" or any other thing stated in threads like these.
Again, people may not like the answers we provide but they are provided just the same and if anyone has something constructive to add (even including their own ideas of how they would like to see something that was omitted be implemented in the future to favor all parties) then they are welcome to provide it. That can be done without insults to either the team or other members of the community.
Shouldn't there be some certainty behind this? If it comes down to juggling this or that shouldn't the decision maker be able to say with at least some certainty that it's absolutely better for the pack? As far as I am concerned I am hearing all of these excuses involving the time/budget/whatever and I am not seeing any kind of even trade off.
We can't build apartments, and what is the tradeoff there? What exactly was put ahead of that to benefit the pack for all players? Aren't 'all playstyles' supposed to be covered? Is building no longer a playstyle if it involves any structure other than a house or specific venue? I don't see any new build features in this EP at all. So again, what is the trade off? Lot traits and giving your neighbors keys?
I'd like to know as well.
Where's the replayability in this pack? Get Together at least lets you make your own clubs. It would have been nice for the devs to allow us to create and customize our own festivals if apartments were too much.
In my opinion, the replayability for CL is in the festivals. Particularly in the Flea Market because you can send your sim there to do their shopping instead of sending them to a shop in Magnolia Promenade over and over again.
In this instance the provider was a fan site and it was their job to provide the responses in full not paraphrasing them for their convenience to avoid this very scenario.
Granted not everyone is going to like the answers we have to provide. People can shout at the top of their lungs that they think they are excuses, etc but they are our reality and there are many boundaries we have to work in. So yes, some things get cut in favor of other things that may be better for the overall pack - it isn't done because we "hate" the players or think they are "plum" or any other thing stated in threads like these.
Again, people may not like the answers we provide but they are provided just the same and if anyone has something constructive to add (even including their own ideas of how they would like to see something that was omitted be implemented in the future to favor all parties) then they are welcome to provide it. That can be done without insults to either the team or other members of the community.
1. How do you expect a polish site to provide an exact quote? If it is their duty to provide exact quotes, then non English speaking sites might as well not exist, as their readers will not understand said quotes.
2. If you're going to provide an answer that will seem outright demeaning, do not. "We think multiple transportation systems would be too confusing for the new players" reads as "we think our new players are plum". "We think this was not necessary as there's already a well established way of commuting in TS4, however if there's enough audience for it, we might reconsider it" is an answer that reads far better.
Edit: if you think a journalist is lying, best thing to do is to provide the recorded conversation yourself. It's a fairly bad PR move to take down the conversation AND to close topics surrounding it.
Many a site has done a great job translating things from one language to another without needing to paraphrase. When you run a site it is important for you to report things as clearly and accurately as possible, this includes translations, regardless of whether it is fan run or is a big site like IGN - Polygon - etc.
As for your edit: I had nothing to do with the removal of the article as that is not my decision to make and I also had no part in the events in Europe. I made sure all of the people that I worked with for my Sims Camp event provided clear and concise disclosures for things (including any one on one interviews with members of the team --of which only 3 attendees requested 1:1 interviews-- and that we paid for their travel, food, and lodging) so they are very transparent with the community. We also had a producer round table led by Lyndsay and Grant along with several other members of the team.
Comments
I do have to point out, that Guru's strongly believe that TS4 is not on a timer. Meaning potentially we'll never get TS5. It will just die when TS4 becomes less profitable.
“Instead of putting players in the role of Luke Skywalker, or Frodo Baggins, I'd rather put them in the role of George Lucas.”Will Wright.
They said the development costs were too high to do it right. That seems to be the canned answer for everything.[/quote]
Yeah I don't understand why they decided that should be the canned answer because blaming it on costs still doesn't make sense to me. Do their animators get paid per animation? Because I'd think they'd have animators on staff who get paid a set salary no matter how much they animate per day. That's kind of how most full-time jobs work. And given that this is a city living pack set in high-rise apartment buildings which inherently have elevators (or else residents who are in extremely good shape), I'd think 2-3 elevator animations would kind of be a given. So are they trying to say they don't have full-time animators on staff and that's why we don't get a seemingly simple animation? [/quote]
They are most likely paid per day but there's so many animations they can do in a day. In video game developpement, tasks are counted in man-hours, each task has an estimated man-hour cost (how much time it will take to make it) for each discipline. They have a budget in man-hour for each displine and they try to use it as efficiently as possible. SimGuruGraham has explained a bit more what it is, and how they are juggling all this. Most likely elevators animations were not included because the animators already had enough work to keep them busy, or it would have needed work from another discipline who were already busy too.
[/quote]
just like I said... some money hungry ceo said "LET'S DO LESS WITH LESS"... We got so much money we can't hire more people, and we have too much money to update our tech to minimize the amount of work and time to create good game play! Oh well, they will buy it anyway and just complain... Who cares about that, right? We sure don't. Hey, let's go spend some of that sim money... How bout an all inclusive 2 week cruise for the entire EA and Maxis team; it won't cost too much it's just pennies compared to sales and margins on production. Who will know
Props to Grant for being honest though. From what I've seen, EA is trying to hide the interview now.
The explanation @SimGuruDrake gave was that this was not an interview but a summary of what was said at a round table -- the text was not verbatim. Unfortunately, it's been treated as if it was actual quotation when it wasn't.
Only because some people are angry and disappointed and are looking for answers.
“Instead of putting players in the role of Luke Skywalker, or Frodo Baggins, I'd rather put them in the role of George Lucas.”Will Wright.
No, I mean the original post at the site made it seem like it was quotation when it wasn't. (But as a follow-up, that means people are getting angry at words that aren't the same as those that were actually said.)
I know, I understood you the first time.
*edited: let me add some more to explain. It's the same old, right? Some people are disappointed, they want answers, devs sometimes don't quite make their statements clear or other people misquote them. Next things it's gospel. It's happened a million times before and will continue to happen.
“Instead of putting players in the role of Luke Skywalker, or Frodo Baggins, I'd rather put them in the role of George Lucas.”Will Wright.
The exact words, at least to me, aren't really important. Those 'quotes' are the same answers we have gotten about everything since pre-release. Too hard, too much time, too much money, too many resources, players too plum to figure it out. Whether those were his exact words or not its still the same responses we've been getting for over two years now.
As much money as the series and this iteration of the game have made over the years the whole 'woe is me we just don't have enough resources for that' refrain has grown from simply being insulting to just tiresome. Kinda like the potty humor. A talking toilet? Really?
“Instead of putting players in the role of Luke Skywalker, or Frodo Baggins, I'd rather put them in the role of George Lucas.”Will Wright.
“Instead of putting players in the role of Luke Skywalker, or Frodo Baggins, I'd rather put them in the role of George Lucas.”Will Wright.
I know you 'get me' and my antipodean humor. lol. Not many do.
“Instead of putting players in the role of Luke Skywalker, or Frodo Baggins, I'd rather put them in the role of George Lucas.”Will Wright.
In this instance the provider was a fan site and it was their job to provide the responses in full not paraphrasing them for their convenience to avoid this very scenario.
Granted not everyone is going to like the answers we have to provide. People can shout at the top of their lungs that they think they are excuses, etc but they are our reality and there are many boundaries we have to work in. So yes, some things get cut in favor of other things that may be better for the overall pack - it isn't done because we "hate" the players or think they are "stupid" or any other thing stated in threads like these.
Again, people may not like the answers we provide but they are provided just the same and if anyone has something constructive to add (even including their own ideas of how they would like to see something that was omitted be implemented in the future to favor all parties) then they are welcome to provide it. That can be done without insults to either the team or other members of the community.
1. How do you expect a polish site to provide an exact quote? If it is their duty to provide exact quotes, then non English speaking sites might as well not exist, as their readers will not understand said quotes.
2. If you're going to provide an answer that will seem outright demeaning, do not. "We think multiple transportation systems would be too confusing for the new players" reads as "we think our new players are idiots". "We think this was not necessary as there's already a well established way of commuting in TS4, however if there's enough audience for it, we might reconsider it" is an answer that reads far better.
Edit: if you think a journalist is lying, best thing to do is to provide the recorded conversation yourself. It's a fairly bad PR move to take down the conversation AND to close topics surrounding it.
Shouldn't there be some certainty behind this? If it comes down to juggling this or that shouldn't the decision maker be able to say with at least some certainty that it's absolutely better for the pack? As far as I am concerned I am hearing all of these excuses involving the time/budget/whatever and I am not seeing any kind of even trade off.
We can't build apartments, and what is the tradeoff there? What exactly was put ahead of that to benefit the pack for all players? Aren't 'all playstyles' supposed to be covered? Is building no longer a playstyle if it involves any structure other than a house or specific venue? I don't see any new build features in this EP at all. So again, what is the trade off? Lot traits and giving your neighbors keys?
I'd like to know as well.
Where's the replayability in this pack? Get Together at least lets you make your own clubs. It would have been nice for the devs to allow us to create and customize our own festivals if apartments were too much.
I'm sure most of us understand that being a part of EA means the Maxis team doesn't have the freedom you probably want. You are given a budget and need to stick with it. Its just frustrating as a player seeing TS4 mature knowing you guys could be doing so much more. I'm sure there are plenty of people there at Maxis that probably feel the same way. So when someone says "too expensive", I don't doubt that it is the truth. Its just frustrating as a player to hear that after all the money we've thrown at and loyalty we've shown to the game over the years.
So, don't take it personally.
Many a site has done a great job translating things from one language to another without needing to paraphrase. When you run a site it is important for you to report things as clearly and accurately as possible, this includes translations, regardless of whether it is fan run or is a big site like IGN - Polygon - etc.
As for your edit: I had nothing to do with the removal of the article as that is not my decision to make and I also had no part in the events in Europe. I made sure all of the people that I worked with for my Sims Camp event provided clear and concise disclosures for things (including any one on one interviews with members of the team --of which only 3 attendees requested 1:1 interviews-- and that we paid for their travel, food, and lodging) so they are very transparent with the community. We also had a producer round table led by Lyndsay and Grant along with several other members of the team.