How come the Sims franchise is the way that it is?

MasonGamer

We start with the base game, and then all the expansions, stuff and game packs are made, and then 4 or 5 years later we do it all again?

How come the Sims just doesn't update itself containing everything reorganizing, and always expanding? like what Second life or Minecraft, why keep repeating the process?

luthienrising

Is there a comparable example for a game that's not based online?

Colton147147

Things need to eventually changed; the same thing over and over would become repetitive and boring.

MasonGamer

luthienrising wrote: »

Is there a comparable example for a game that's not based online?

well minecraft isn't 100% online, you can play offline in your own generated world.

catmando830

MasonGamer wrote: »

We start with the base game, and then all the expansions, stuff and game packs are made, and then 4 or 5 years later we do it all again?

How come the Sims just doesn't update itself containing everything reorganizing, and always expanding? like what Second life or Minecraft, why keep repeating the process?

They should have fixed everything that was messed up in TS3 and offered us a bundle with everything, EP's, SP's and all store items; either before going on to TS4 or before they stayed with TS3 and updated graphics, etc. IMO they should still fix Isle Paradisio in TS3 no matter what.

luthienrising

Just thinking about so many topics comparing Sims games, and one of the things you hear is "I'm mostly playing Sims 2," or "I play both Sims 3 and Sims 4". With game refreshes that start fresh -- new gameplay structure, new animations, etc. -- instead of completely changing the game on us midstream, we have more Sims games we can play. If they were to just keep editing the same game, patch after patch since Sims 1 or 2, what would have have to go back to? One person's improvement is another person's game-destroyer. I think we win more in the end by having multiple Sims games than by having constant base game alterations. Add to that taking advantage of changes in computer hardware (which, yes, they could do more of if they were willing to cut a bottom end of the market out harder) to revamp the base in a way that just updating probably can't do. Someone who does software development work could probably speak more to the technical advantages of rebooting. (Just speaking here to the "doing it all again" part)

catmando830

luthienrising wrote: »

Just thinking about so many topics comparing Sims games, and one of the things you hear is "I'm mostly playing Sims 2," or "I play both Sims 3 and Sims 4". With game refreshes that start fresh -- new gameplay structure, new animations, etc. -- instead of completely changing the game on us midstream, we have more Sims games we can play. If they were to just keep editing the same game, patch after patch since Sims 1 or 2, what would have have to go back to? One person's improvement is another person's game-destroyer. I think we win more in the end by having multiple Sims games than by having constant base game alterations. Add to that taking advantage of changes in computer hardware (which, yes, they could do more of if they were willing to cut a bottom end of the market out harder) to revamp the base in a way that just updating probably can't do. Someone who does software development work could probably speak more to the technical advantages of rebooting. (Just speaking here to the "doing it all again" part)

That all makes sense. I still wish they would go back and fix Isle Paradisio in TS 3, it's my favorite world to play.

luthienrising

I think it would awesome if they revived Sims 1 and Sims 2 to play easily on modern computers, plus fixed the longstanding bugs in Sims 3 (and the routing in Bridgeport OMG I wanted to play that world so bad and it always failed). Make it so even if Sims 4 is the only game getting new content right now, the others are kept alive and functioning.

SimChic1

Because new things, like better technology, come out that this current engine simply cannot support. It's not comparable to Minecraft or Second Life because of you look at them, they have pretty much the same graphics they've always had. The Sims is also much more in depth. There's so much to it that can constantly be expanded on, but not on the current engine.

Edit: Also, they'd lose a LOT of money if they did that.

Hermitgirl

I play Minecraft sometimes, it's not close to the same. Also they have opened what minecraft realms to make money? They also sold it off I think.

Secondlife makes money through land sales and I think they get a percentage of the money that is exchanged in game through created content. They also have premium memberships for those that chose to get that, no clue how those work but they are paid for.

Any game has to be updated and refreshed, because it gets stale it needs to stay timely... Businesses have to pay employees from general labor to CEO's and everything in between, they also have to and have to make money for themselves and their shareholders, or there is no use working on it. So we have a game that has no match in concept.. The Sims. Of course they will redo it, they make money that way.

MasonGamer

luthienrising wrote: »

I think it would awesome if they revived Sims 1 and Sims 2 to play easily on modern computers, plus fixed the longstanding bugs in Sims 3 (and the routing in Bridgeport OMG I wanted to play that world so bad and it always failed). Make it so even if Sims 4 is the only game getting new content right now, the others are kept alive and functioning.

And that's what I'm thinking about, I keep hearing about over time EA shuts down older games on origin, games we bought and people still play. Why not just keep it going all together? Sure the developers want to focus on their current project but why stop updating game people still play?

CapraCorn104

MasonGamer wrote: »

luthienrising wrote: »

I think it would awesome if they revived Sims 1 and Sims 2 to play easily on modern computers, plus fixed the longstanding bugs in Sims 3 (and the routing in Bridgeport OMG I wanted to play that world so bad and it always failed). Make it so even if Sims 4 is the only game getting new content right now, the others are kept alive and functioning.

And that's what I'm thinking about, I keep hearing about over time EA shuts down older games on origin, games we bought and people still play. Why not just keep it going all together? Sure the developers want to focus on their current project but why stop updating game people still play?

Because they've moved off of that and can no longer make money from it. They may make a little bit money off of the Sims 3 Store even now, since people still play it, but EPs and SPs are the main sources of income. Once they stopped developing them, the game is no longer worth their time.

cauliflowers

Because Challenge Everything

MasonGamer

Well here's to hoping the Sims 4 lasts a little more than 4-5 years and becomes the game the players dreamed it would be. I really like it, and I don't really like discarding games I love.

Hermitgirl

I would love if they would update and revive prior Sims installments to play on our computers now also . I can't get Sims 2 to work on my computer now. Well not without error warnings.

Skyscraperfan

$$$$$

MiataPlay

Skyscraperfan wrote: »

$$$$$

I Agree100%