Forum Announcement, Click Here to Read More From EA_Cade.

Why now, why 40 bucks, why world adventures!

Comments

  • AquiasAquias Posts: 1,742 New Member
    edited August 2009
    I don't mind if they come out with one expansion after another, i don't mind if they release more then before. i will still probably buy them and still pay what they want as long as I feel good about what i am paying for. The content needs to match the price. If I pay $20 for an EP I will expect $20 worth of content. If I pay $40 for an EP I am expecting a lot more.
    All in All I have yet to be disappointed. I am still a Sims fan.
  • simskiersimskier Posts: 108 New Member
    edited August 2009
    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!

    What the heck? Now the EP is too expensive? You guys are the most annoying thing ever to happen the sims-franchise.

    Please.
    Be happy for once.

    Yes! So true!
  • Akila906Akila906 Posts: 1,836 Member
    edited August 2009
    Feldynn wrote:
    The last couple of Sims 2 expansions I have (Freetime and Apartment Life) were $29.99 (USD) when I got them, which was shortly after release. You could argue that, since the Sims 3 is a "next generation" game that the price is increased to $39.99 (USD) to go along with inflation and new technology and so on.. my jaded cynical pessimistic side is telling me that the extra $10 increase is infact to pay for the "free" Sim Points.

    Your cynical pessimistic side is correct! As the saying goes...."Even Stevie Wonder could see that!" :wink: Does anyone REALLY think that EA is going to give us $10 worth of "free" points to spend in the store?? :roll: NO WAY! We are PAYING for those "free" points with our $39.99. If not for the "free" points it would be $29.99....no doubt about it!

    Giving us "free" points is a way to get us in the store to buy MORE points and MORE stuff! :wink:
    michael-jackson-17.gif
  • HypesesHypeses Posts: 171 New Member
    edited August 2009
    Akila906 wrote:
    Feldynn wrote:
    The last couple of Sims 2 expansions I have (Freetime and Apartment Life) were $29.99 (USD) when I got them, which was shortly after release. You could argue that, since the Sims 3 is a "next generation" game that the price is increased to $39.99 (USD) to go along with inflation and new technology and so on.. my jaded cynical pessimistic side is telling me that the extra $10 increase is infact to pay for the "free" Sim Points.

    Your cynical pessimistic side is correct! As the saying goes...."Even Stevie Wonder could see that!" :wink: Does anyone REALLY think that EA is going to give us $10 worth of "free" points to spend in the store?? :roll: NO WAY! We are PAYING for those "free" points with our $39.99. If not for the "free" points it would be $29.99....no doubt about it!

    Giving us "free" points is a way to get us in the store to buy MORE points and MORE stuff! :wink:

    Helen Keller saw it before he did.

    And I always saw it as free since your not buying it seperate [they both come in the same box], thus saving the world 1 paper card-holder.

    As for it being 'too expensive', wait a year or two, I truely wish I'd done that with S3 [sims3 triple deluxe?]
  • pointforpokepointforpoke Posts: 157 New Member
    edited August 2009

    Seriously, if you can't scrounge up 40 dollars between now and November 16, you have other things you should be worrying about.

    QFT
  • martymcflymartymcfly Posts: 472 Member
    edited August 2009
    Curiously, is there any cut off point on the price to feed your addiction? Just because you can afford it, it seems like some of you will pay anything regardless. So what is it? $40.00 for an expansion? That's high for an add on for any game. So what is it. $50.00? Nah, that wouldn't be too much for you either. $60? I mean if it were $60 certainly "everybody could scrape that up between now and November" so I guess they should. Maybe EA should just go ahead and raise it another $20. EA certainly knows it has a captive audience and will undoubtedly take advantage of it. $70, $80. If someone doesn't want to spend $75 are they still a whiner? So if they were to charge $50 and you said that was too much, do you now become "just a whiner" as well. I guess so. Because for some of you, if it's EA and the Sims, the price is always right isn't it?

    The way some of you talk the sky's the limit when it comes to buying for The Sims. Really, I think the whole addicted lot of you don't have a price cut off when it comes to EA and The Sims.

    Like I said, some of you may afford to pay ten times that much. I certainly can but I won't fall into that "buy at any price" trap some of you have. But that's okay because EA is pricing the franchise out of reach of a lot of fans, especially younger ones. 1000 free points, my ***.

    But of course, EA probably needs that ten dollars badly to cover the cost of being able to name the green room at The Teen Choice awards, The Sims 3 Green Room. What a waste.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • ArchitektinArchitektin Posts: 1,242 New Member
    edited August 2009
    i always loved the expansions. considered that most ppl would spend the same amount of cash in a single night (going out e.g.), an EP lasts for a long time and fills us with joy :-) (and new gameplay, stuff etc.)

    i would have been slightly upset if it was just another "weather" or "pets" EP, but world adventures sounds so much more than "vacation", it will be a totally new experience and i´m really looking forward to getting it!
  • AthenaOnyxAthenaOnyx Posts: 3,921 Member
    edited August 2009
    I hoping the reason for the $40 price tag is because there's going be triple the content of the previous eps. The base game had triple the content of the original base so maybe the eps will follow suit.
  • Uzone27Uzone27 Posts: 2,808 Member
    edited August 2009
    martymcfly wrote:
    Curiously, is there any cut off point on the price to feed your addiction? Just because you can afford it, it seems like some of you will pay anything regardless. So what is it? $40.00 for an expansion? That's high for an add on for any game. So what is it. $50.00? Nah, that wouldn't be too much for you either. $60? I mean if it were $60 certainly "everybody could scrape that up between now and November" so I guess they should. Maybe EA should just go ahead and raise it another $20. EA certainly knows it has a captive audience and will undoubtedly take advantage of it. $70, $80. If someone doesn't want to spend $75 are they still a whiner? So if they were to charge $50 and you said that was too much, do you now become "just a whiner" as well. I guess so. Because for some of you, if it's EA and the Sims, the price is always right isn't it?

    The way some of you talk the sky's the limit when it comes to buying for The Sims. Really, I think the whole addicted lot of you don't have a price cut off when it comes to EA and The Sims.

    Like I said, some of you may afford to pay ten times that much. I certainly can but I won't fall into that "buy at any price" trap some of you have. But that's okay because EA is pricing the franchise out of reach of a lot of fans, especially younger ones. 1000 free points, my ***.

    But of course, EA probably needs that ten dollars badly to cover the cost of being able to name the green room at The Teen Choice awards, The Sims 3 Green Room. What a waste.

    Yet here you are....a registered forumite (two weeks before release....hmm addicted much?) Which indicates that at some point you took your mighty +3 crowbar of cynicism to wallet for the privalage of coming out here to remind us what lemmings we are.

    A dollar to your doughnut we find a little WA logo on your Simpage by Christmas 8)
  • CK213CK213 Posts: 20,525 Member
    edited August 2009
    I didn't know EA was dripping with red ink.
    They've reported $234 million in losses. $90 million last year. I'd be money hungry too. :P
    Still, this had better be a really good EP for 40 bucks.
    The%20Goths.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds
  • NyappyMuffinNyappyMuffin Posts: 363 New Member
    edited August 2009
    Well, even though I probably have the excitable and easily impressed traits in RL (lol) I'm really excited for this game XD And I'm willim to pay around $40 for it, it's convincing my grandparents to buy it for me, since I'm only a teen, don't get allowance, and my grandma has a habit of storing away my 'allowance' if I ever get any for college money =x
  • violasrock95violasrock95 Posts: 304 New Member
    edited August 2009
    Yeah I think its 40 bucks due to the economy... the Sims 3 was the first, well, second game I have ever bought that was $50 so I don't know...
  • TynkTynk Posts: 1,316 Member
    edited August 2009
    I really don't see why everyone is so up in arms over the price. o.0 I spend $40 alone in gas every 2 days to get to and from work.

    Improvements in technology = higher prices for games.

    Take PS3 and Xbox 360 for example. Next generation gaming systems = Next generation Games = Higher Price Tags for said games. I believe I paid $60 for Modern Warfare for my fiance. And I am buying him Modern Warfare 2 and Army of 2: 40th hour in November and December at about $50-$60 a pop, and he will beat both games in about 3 days. Then they won't be touched again for who knows how long.

    But he WILL buy my WA, for $40, that I will continue playing until TS4 comes out. :lol:

    Who is really getting the better deal?
  • FeldynnFeldynn Posts: 331 Member
    edited August 2009
    CK213 wrote:
    I didn't know EA was dripping with red ink.
    They've reported $234 million in losses. $90 million last year. I'd be money hungry too. :P
    Still, this had better be a really good EP for 40 bucks.

    Those figures are subjected to creative accounting unfortunately, so they can find ways to appear to be not doing so well when infact it may not be as bad as they make out. As an example here are a couple of quotes from on of their investor reports (http://investors.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=401109 I found with a quick internet search.
    Non-GAAP net revenue was $816 million, up 34 percent as compared with $609 million for the prior year
    Non-GAAP net loss was $6 million as compared with a non-GAAP net loss of $135 million a year ago. Non-GAAP diluted loss per share was $0.02 as compared with a non-GAAP diluted loss per share of $0.42 for the prior year
    Trailing-twelve-month cash flow used in operations was $25 million as compared with cash flow generated from operations of $239 million a year ago. The Company ended the quarter with cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $1.8 billion

    Now, I'm not an accountant so to be honest I really don't know a great deal of what that all means but when they publish and advertise "$234 million losses" and then neglect to advertise an increase of 34% (or $210 million) over the prior year's numbers it's hard to know which numbers are accurate or what the whole story really is.
  • RoffeyGleshRoffeyGlesh Posts: 579 Member
    edited August 2009
    Hmm, if they give us quality content, I'm all for paying higher prices. I will definitely buy the first ep, but if it doesn't prove worth the money, the sims 3 is out the window *

    *not literally, as my window is first floor and i have annoying neighbors.
  • dellapiazzadellapiazza Posts: 62 New Member
    edited August 2009
    i like it because this is really the first time sims will have left america and american traditions
  • ChessackChessack Posts: 227 New Member
    edited August 2009
    My thoughts on this:

    1. I absolutely will not pre-order the EP, but then I never pre-order games. I will wait, let it launch, and see what people think of it and what the general feedback is. In particular I will be watching for things like: (1) is there an objectionable DRM system like Spore had? 2. How much stuff comes with the EP? And most importantly 3. Is the thing stable at launch, or riddled with bugs until 3 patches in?

    2. $40 is entirely too much for an EP. Normally games launch at $50-60, and EPs are $20-30. I am unlikely to spend $40 on it. Sims Store points mean little to me as I already think the store is over-priced.

    C
  • OpmystikOpmystik Posts: 1,720 New Member
    edited August 2009
    Feldynn wrote:
    CK213 wrote:
    I didn't know EA was dripping with red ink.
    They've reported $234 million in losses. $90 million last year. I'd be money hungry too. :P
    Still, this had better be a really good EP for 40 bucks.

    Those figures are subjected to creative accounting unfortunately, so they can find ways to appear to be not doing so well when infact it may not be as bad as they make out. As an example here are a couple of quotes from on of their investor reports (http://investors.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=401109 I found with a quick internet search.
    Non-GAAP net revenue was $816 million, up 34 percent as compared with $609 million for the prior year
    Non-GAAP net loss was $6 million as compared with a non-GAAP net loss of $135 million a year ago. Non-GAAP diluted loss per share was $0.02 as compared with a non-GAAP diluted loss per share of $0.42 for the prior year
    Trailing-twelve-month cash flow used in operations was $25 million as compared with cash flow generated from operations of $239 million a year ago. The Company ended the quarter with cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $1.8 billion

    Now, I'm not an accountant so to be honest I really don't know a great deal of what that all means but when they publish and advertise "$234 million losses" and then neglect to advertise an increase of 34% (or $210 million) over the prior year's numbers it's hard to know which numbers are accurate or what the whole story really is.

    How is it creative accounting? You always want to DO BETTER every year. At this point they are 234 million below where they were last year. That is extremely bad. My mom is an accountant and I used to help her with the books especially now that her arthritis flares up. Plus I mean it's like accounting 101 or really 102 cause 102 is corporate accounting. Once you start doing worse then a previous year that may just smell trouble. What's to say you won't do worse the year after that? A downward slope is just that a downward slope and just because 1 thing increased 34% does not mean they still haven't had a loss.

    Look at it this way investors in a company only want 1 thing. More profits or at least the same. They will see the loss and start second guessing whether or not to keep being invested in the company. You lose investors you lose even more money. You could even lose you company. Now I don' think EA will lose the company but it will be even more people without jobs cause between games and investors that's where their paychecks come in.

    Now back on topic. Yes the ep is kinda expensive but the technology is better and the better graphics the more the time has to be put in it cause you got to continuously do code for it. It's just like now the better flat screen, whether lcd or plasma you pay more for the refresh rate then anything else. The higher the refresh rate the higher the cost of the tv. Why because the refresh rate is the "technology". So yeah it's more then the previous ones but we have the better technology that involves more work to pay for.

    So I agree with legendarybitka (probably spelt that wrong sorry) Kids excluded especially ones who don't get allowance if you can't afford $40 by November which is 3 months away you have more problems then your willing to admit. Personally I've been saving my money for eps and I don't buy from the store mainly cause they don't really have anything that interest me. My husband and I have a separate account that we keep for "luxuries" such as going out to eat, movies, water parks, games etc lol. And I call them that cause in the end it's not necessary to buy them it is however fun to buy and do expand the gameplay. And kids if you do get allowance save your money instead of just depending on mommy and daddy to buy it. If you get 10 a week which I doubt is so little but anyway save a couple dollars. I know if my boys came up with at least half of the money that they want for a game when they get older I will pay the other have cause I see that they were at least trying to make the effort to pay for it themselves.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • lettuceoutlettuceout Posts: 241 New Member
    edited August 2009
    moonbeam wrote:
    I wish it were going to be cheaper as well. But.. when you consider the time and effort put into it it is actually cost affective. $40 is what 4 movies? That's 8 hours of enjoyment? I know for one.. we all play sims more then 8 hours. Heck I did that on the first day it came out alone..

    So.. when you put it in that perspective. Besides... that $40 is a bit of an investment. When the movies over it's over. But.. with the money EA makes .. some of it.. goes to making our sim worlds a happier....

    Moonbeam FTW. I like the way you think. (:
  • CK213CK213 Posts: 20,525 Member
    edited August 2009
    Feldynn wrote:
    CK213 wrote:
    I didn't know EA was dripping with red ink.
    They've reported $234 million in losses. $90 million last year. I'd be money hungry too. :P
    Still, this had better be a really good EP for 40 bucks.

    Those figures are subjected to creative accounting unfortunately, so they can find ways to appear to be not doing so well when infact it may not be as bad as they make out. As an example here are a couple of quotes from on of their investor reports (http://investors.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=401109 I found with a quick internet search.
    Non-GAAP net revenue was $816 million, up 34 percent as compared with $609 million for the prior year
    Non-GAAP net loss was $6 million as compared with a non-GAAP net loss of $135 million a year ago. Non-GAAP diluted loss per share was $0.02 as compared with a non-GAAP diluted loss per share of $0.42 for the prior year
    Trailing-twelve-month cash flow used in operations was $25 million as compared with cash flow generated from operations of $239 million a year ago. The Company ended the quarter with cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $1.8 billion

    Now, I'm not an accountant so to be honest I really don't know a great deal of what that all means but when they publish and advertise "$234 million losses" and then neglect to advertise an increase of 34% (or $210 million) over the prior year's numbers it's hard to know which numbers are accurate or what the whole story really is.

    They probably get creative with the numbers depending on who the audience is. I'm sure they try to keep things positive as far as the investors are concerned.
    The%20Goths.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds
  • AlisoxAlisox Posts: 1,640 Member
    edited August 2009
    Obviously,I only have like 2 bucks. Its pathetic. But I don't know if I would really buy it anyway. After spending over 100 dollars on Sims 2 and its expansion packs, I'm broke. I like Sims and was hoping they wouldn't come out with 4050505035 different expansions and stuff packs like the Sims 2. Anybody else doubting the new expansion? What do you think about it?

    Uh, wow. First, if you don't want it don't buy it. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.
    And if you had all the EPs for TS2 you spent way more than $100. I would know.
    I don't know what I think about it yet, but I know I thought the first EP for TS2 was a bust, too.
    And this is hardly "4050505035 different expansions". This is the very first one, if you had difficulty counting.
    AND. There are plenty of things they know we've asked for that would make us happy. They wouldn't waste their time making a piece of **** to rip us off when they know what we want. They obviously think they have something we will enjoy. Have some faith...
  • FeldynnFeldynn Posts: 331 Member
    edited August 2009
    Opmystik wrote:
    How is it creative accounting? You always want to DO BETTER every year. At this point they are 234 million below where they were last year. That is extremely bad. My mom is an accountant and I used to help her with the books especially now that her arthritis flares up. Plus I mean it's like accounting 101 or really 102 cause 102 is corporate accounting. Once you start doing worse then a previous year that may just smell trouble. What's to say you won't do worse the year after that? A downward slope is just that a downward slope and just because 1 thing increased 34% does not mean they still haven't had a loss.

    Look at it this way investors in a company only want 1 thing. More profits or at least the same. They will see the loss and start second guessing whether or not to keep being invested in the company. You lose investors you lose even more money. You could even lose you company. Now I don' think EA will lose the company but it will be even more people without jobs cause between games and investors that's where their paychecks come in.

    By "creative accounting" I mean they use all the legal resources available to move the numbers around so on one hand they can report losses but on the other hand the losses may not be nearly as bad as they make out because the numbers are juggled and shifted and moved around.

    On one line it looks like they're down $160 million, on the next line it looks like they're up $210 million. In the grand scheme of things, for the average person at least, I think it's hard to tell for sure what to believe the "bottom line" really is.. pardon the pun :)

    (edit: fixed a forum code error)
  • legendarybitka29legendarybitka29 Posts: 1,185 Member
    edited August 2009
    Uzone27 wrote:
    martymcfly wrote:
    Curiously, is there any cut off point on the price to feed your addiction? Just because you can afford it, it seems like some of you will pay anything regardless. So what is it? $40.00 for an expansion? That's high for an add on for any game. So what is it. $50.00? Nah, that wouldn't be too much for you either. $60? I mean if it were $60 certainly "everybody could scrape that up between now and November" so I guess they should. Maybe EA should just go ahead and raise it another $20. EA certainly knows it has a captive audience and will undoubtedly take advantage of it. $70, $80. If someone doesn't want to spend $75 are they still a whiner? So if they were to charge $50 and you said that was too much, do you now become "just a whiner" as well. I guess so. Because for some of you, if it's EA and the Sims, the price is always right isn't it?

    The way some of you talk the sky's the limit when it comes to buying for The Sims. Really, I think the whole addicted lot of you don't have a price cut off when it comes to EA and The Sims.

    Like I said, some of you may afford to pay ten times that much. I certainly can but I won't fall into that "buy at any price" trap some of you have. But that's okay because EA is pricing the franchise out of reach of a lot of fans, especially younger ones. 1000 free points, my ***.

    But of course, EA probably needs that ten dollars badly to cover the cost of being able to name the green room at The Teen Choice awards, The Sims 3 Green Room. What a waste.

    Yet here you are....a registered forumite (two weeks before release....hmm addicted much?) Which indicates that at some point you took your mighty +3 crowbar of cynicism to wallet for the privalage of coming out here to remind us what lemmings we are.

    A dollar to your doughnut we find a little WA logo on your Simpage by Christmas 8)

    Uzone, your post is full of win.

  • 4katsuki4katsuki Posts: 1,550 New Member
    edited August 2009
    According to Google 40 USD is 24 GBP ..thats not alot of money imo so ill be buying it XD
  • Sim_OutlawSim_Outlaw Posts: 3,342 Member
    edited August 2009
    $40 it better dang well include a ton of content. $9 more you can buy the sims 3.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Return to top