Hard to say because we don't know the sales numbers.
But toddlers clearly weren't meant to be in this version of the game and were dropped from the basegame when it was in the alpha stage. So why did EA finally decide to add toddlers anyway and even for free? Did the sales numbers for the latest expansions become so low that EA didn't even dare to take money for toddlers by putting them into a GP or EP? Is EA now desperately hoping that free toddlers will be enough to make more than a few people interested in TS4 expansions again?
If toddlers weren't meant to be in the game why was TS4 announced having all life stages but then later had to be retracted.
You misunderstood me. Sure toddlers were in the game too on the early stages of the development of the basegame. But Rachel Franklin decided to omit them (probably after negotiations with EA about the budget and the deadline) to make sure that the game could be finished within the budget and before the deadline. Pools and ghosts were omitted too but planned to be released shortly after the basegame while the intention was to omit toddlers for good (otherwise they would have been released a long time ago). But EA apparently didn't like that so many people still made hype about toddlers. So EA finally decided to make them anyway and release them for free hoping that this would stop the bad talk about TS4 and help the sales numbers for all the expansions. I think that the final decision about adding toddlers anyway was taken around September 2016 when Rachel Franklin left EA.
Simified: What are the Life Stages in The Sims 4? Are there any new ones?
SimGuruGrant: The Sims 4 will have all of the same life stages as previous games, Baby, Toddler, Child, Teen, Young Adult, Adult, and Elder. There are no new life stages coming at this time.
Just my thoughts but I feel it has more to do with the recent coming and going of the Maxis staff. Someone had a vision but that vision didn't satisfy a lot of players and now I understand that more of the devs from TS2 are back. I also think they felt they needed game changes to bring fans back.
@simgirl1010 I don't think sales numbers have anything to do with it either. For me it's the base game mechanics and missing lots of bits and pieces.
For EA sales numbers are everything. EA would never have allowed the developers to make and release an expensive thing like toddlers for free unless EA expected to get all the money back from higher sales numbers. Toddlers also wouldn't have been free unless EA's marketing experts thought that this was the most profitable way to release them
For me this isn't so hard to understand because many people would still have been angry if EA had released a toddler GP instead and I don't even believe that such a GP would have sold very well. But I would now really have liked to see the sales numbers so I could get an impression about how much the free release of toddlers seemed to have increased them.
Hard to say because we don't know the sales numbers.
But toddlers clearly weren't meant to be in this version of the game and were dropped from the basegame when it was in the alpha stage. So why did EA finally decide to add toddlers anyway and even for free? Did the sales numbers for the latest expansions become so low that EA didn't even dare to take money for toddlers by putting them into a GP or EP? Is EA now desperately hoping that free toddlers will be enough to make more than a few people interested in TS4 expansions again?
If toddlers weren't meant to be in the game why was TS4 announced having all life stages but then later had to be retracted.
You misunderstood me. Sure toddlers were in the game too on the early stages of the development of the basegame. But Rachel Franklin decided to omit them (probably after negotiations with EA about the budget and the deadline) to make sure that the game could be finished within the budget and before the deadline. Pools and ghosts were omitted too but planned to be released shortly after the basegame while the intention was to omit toddlers for good (otherwise they would have been released a long time ago). But EA apparently didn't like that so many people still made hype about toddlers. So EA finally decided to make them anyway and release them for free hoping that this would stop the bad talk about TS4 and help the sales numbers for all the expansions. I think that the final decision about adding toddlers anyway was taken around September 2016 when Rachel Franklin left EA.
Simified: What are the Life Stages in The Sims 4? Are there any new ones?
SimGuruGrant: The Sims 4 will have all of the same life stages as previous games, Baby, Toddler, Child, Teen, Young Adult, Adult, and Elder. There are no new life stages coming at this time.
Just my thoughts but I feel it has more to do with the recent coming and going of the Maxis staff. Someone had a vision but that vision didn't satisfy a lot of players and now I understand that more of the devs from TS2 are back. I also think they felt they needed game changes to bring fans back.
@simgirl1010 I don't think sales numbers have anything to do with it either. For me it's the base game mechanics and missing lots of bits and pieces.
For EA sales numbers are everything. EA would never have allowed the developers to make and release an expensive thing like toddlers for free unless EA expected to get all the money back from higher sales numbers. Toddlers also wouldn't have been free unless EA's marketing experts thought that this was the most profitable way to release them
Then you need to be a bit more clear in your suppositions. This remark is what I was responding to.
But toddlers clearly weren't meant to be in this version of the game and were dropped from the basegame when it was in the alpha stage.
The second thing you responded to was directed to someone else and part of a different conversation.
"People really love to explore 'failure states. In fact, the failure states are really much more interesting than the success states." ~ Will Wright
Not a failure any more - don't care about nothing else - got my toddlers and Vamps are coming - all is right with my world.....
Pretty much this too. I would like CASt but I can live without it. Same with open world.
Shorter teens would be great. As with no culling. But yeah, I got what I asked for. I'm good now.
--T
Same here. I can live without those features as well.
There are still some bits I would like to be tweaked or added (definitely some tweaking of AI, and maybe a color wheel), but I am just SOOO HAPPY and RELIEVED we finallly got the little tykes! They would enhance future content so much for my gameplay.
Sorry for constantly gushing about the tots, but OMG, I just, I just can't hold in my happy satisfaction of such a wonderfully done (and much needed) addition for my type of family gameplay.
I'm eagerly waiting for the vamps, so I can add them into my worlds/neighborhoods.
Not a failure any more - don't care about nothing else - got my toddlers, and Vamps are coming - all is right with my world.....
Two words...... TODDLER VAMPS
Awww! That's just going to be SO CUTE!!!!
I don't know why, but the imagery of vamps (especially if they're the "scary"-ish or "tough" types) dealing with the torture of the terrible toddler tantrums and toddler chaos is just hilarious to me.
ETA: To answer the OP question, no, I don't think Sims 4 is a total failure now. Now it has potential to be an awesome sims game (for me).
1. Rename the game to "The Sims 0.5," "The Sims 1.5," or "The Sims 2.5"
That's what I found insulting about the game. If they gonna imply that it is "The Sims" with the NUMBER FOUR in it titled as, then make me believe that it is actually is one as suggested.. At least the number should show that is an overall improvement and dominates over other iterations of the games. Not just a half piece of poop, that only introduces new mechanics in cas, buy&buildmode and a gallery.
I don't think it's a failure at all, but there will always be things that need changed or fixing. I find it best to just enjoy what is given to you rather than complain. The happier the community the more likely the Sims Team will want to make great things for us.
I don't think it's a failure at all, but there will always be things that need changed or fixing. I find it best to just enjoy what is given to you rather than complain. The happier the community the more likely the Sims Team will want to make great things for us.
It doesn't work that way for four reasons:
1. It is EA's marketing experts who plan the number and kinds of expansions. EA's top decides the budgets for them after advice from the same people.
2. The developers can only make the expansions they are ordered to make. Any changes in EA's orders require approval from EA's top and marketing department. The developers therefore usually only have influence on details that can be changed within the budget and don't go against EA's orders.
3. If we don't tell EA and the developers what we want to be different then they won't know it and therefore not change anything at all.
4. The developers make the games as good as possible just to satisfy EA and to get higher bonuses added to their salaries. They like it when we praise their games. But EA's satisfaction and approval is of course much more important for them because it is EA who pays them and decides if they shall be fired or instead have higher salaries or promotions.
4. The developers make the games as good as possible just to satisfy EA and to get higher bonuses added to their salaries. They like it when we praise their games. But EA's satisfaction and approval is of course much more important for them because it is EA who pays them and decides if they shall be fired or instead have higher salaries or promotions.
Don't you think that's quite an assumption to make about what motivates someone at work??? Do you only do things right at your job because of the people that pay you? Have you noticed how excited the devs are about the upcoming GP? Do you think that they're excited because of their bonuses or because they're honestly proud of their work? Look, I don't teach my classes as good as possible to get paid more, but because I honestly like what I do and want to get better at it. My bf makes sure his animations are as excellent as possible within budgetary constraints even though customers are surprisingly often satisfied with mediocre content, but he personally isn't.
Of course EA makes monetary decisions, of course toddlers were added because it will ultimately be profitable for them. Every business in the world would do the same. But you can't fault them for playing by the same rules as anyone else, and you certainly can't presume to know why someone works the way they do, what motivates them to do it, or how much effort they put into it. Money doesn't motivate people at work, did you know that? Experiments have consistently shown that more money doesn't actually make people put in more effort (at least not in the straightforward, causal way most people seem to think it does). The opportunity to be creative, come up with your own ideas & follow through on them, however, does. You can criticise EA for being a business if you want to (and there's certainly things one can fault EA for), but I don't think you should make widespread assumptions about every single individual that works for them.
4. The developers make the games as good as possible just to satisfy EA and to get higher bonuses added to their salaries. They like it when we praise their games. But EA's satisfaction and approval is of course much more important for them because it is EA who pays them and decides if they shall be fired or instead have higher salaries or promotions.
Don't you think that's quite an assumption to make about what motivates someone at work??? Do you only do things right at your job because of the people that pay you? Have you noticed how excited the devs are about the upcoming GP? Do you think that they're excited because of their bonuses or because they're honestly proud of their work? Look, I don't teach my classes as good as possible to get paid more, but because I honestly like what I do and want to get better at it. My bf makes sure his animations are as excellent as possible within budgetary constraints even though customers are surprisingly often satisfied with mediocre content, but he personally isn't.
Of course EA makes monetary decisions, of course toddlers were added because it will ultimately be profitable for them. Every business in the world would do the same. But you can't fault them for playing by the same rules as anyone else, and you certainly can't presume to know why someone works the way they do, what motivates them to do it, or how much effort they put into it. Money doesn't motivate people at work, did you know that? Experiments have consistently shown that more money doesn't actually make people put in more effort (at least not in the straightforward, causal way most people seem to think it does). The opportunity to be creative, come up with your own ideas & follow through on them, however, does. You can criticise EA for being a business if you want to (and there's certainly things one can fault EA for), but I don't think you should make widespread assumptions about every single individual that works for them.
Don't engage. He has a habit of assuming he knows what the rest of the world are doing and their reasons behind it.
@To7m yeah I usually try not to, but there are some statements I have a hard time not responding to
I like to type up responses to people and then delete them without actually posting, so if people think my comments are bad now, they should see my *real* thoughts lol. It's a good way to vent and let off some steam and nobody gets their feelings hurt.
4. The developers make the games as good as possible just to satisfy EA and to get higher bonuses added to their salaries. They like it when we praise their games. But EA's satisfaction and approval is of course much more important for them because it is EA who pays them and decides if they shall be fired or instead have higher salaries or promotions.
Don't you think that's quite an assumption to make about what motivates someone at work??? Do you only do things right at your job because of the people that pay you?
I didn't say that we, the developers here or employees in other companies only try to do things right because they are paid. I am sure that both me, my collegues and other employees also attempt to do things right because it gives us more satisfaction. But also in my own job I know that if their is a conflict between the rules we work under and what our customers would like then we always obey the rules too.
There may be exceptions to this. But not many because it is actually very rare that employees are ready to lose their jobs or be degraded just to please their customers a little more.
Have you noticed how excited the devs are about the upcoming GP? Do you think that they're excited because of their bonuses or because they're honestly proud of their work?
Have you looked at TV adds recently? Have you noticed how happy people in them are over the products in the announcements? Do you believe them? Or do you like me think that they are only "happy" because they are paid to be happy? I suspect that it is the same with the developers because EA wouldn't allow them to tell us that they aren't happy with the game. Instead EA most likely has told them that they must talk happily about the games to improve the sales numbers and thus to become more sure that they can keep their jobs.
Look, I don't teach my classes as good as possible to get paid more, but because I honestly like what I do and want to get better at it.
We are in the same business because I am a teacher too (at Highschool lvl). But exactly here I have had a conflict for years because our government wants quantity instead of quality. That means that our schools are punished if not everybody pass their exams. So the schools want us to help the lazy students to just pass with the lowest grades and don't care if our students really enjoy our teaching or learn something. Personally I don't agree in that policy. But I have had to adjust my teaching to it for years and so has my collegues. (I don't want to discuss this further here though because that wouldn't be offtopic and also against the forum rules. So I just mentioned it as an example of how I also myself chose to be more loyal to my superiors than to my students who could have learned much more if I had been allowed to teach in a different way.)
My bf makes sure his animations are as excellent as possible within budgetary constraints even though customers are surprisingly often satisfied with mediocre content, but he personally isn't.
That is different because he can do his best within the budget without getting into any conflict with his superiors.
Of course EA makes monetary decisions, of course toddlers were added because it will ultimately be profitable for them. Every business in the world would do the same.
Agreed.
But you can't fault them for playing by the same rules as anyone else, and you certainly can't presume to know why someone works the way they do, what motivates them to do it, or how much effort they put into it. Money doesn't motivate people at work, did you know that?
The companies don't agree with you here because they wouldn't have introduced all those bonus systems if they did. I also know employees myself who usually work at least 70 hours a week just to get more bonusses or a bigger chance for promotions and I am sure that they wouldn't have done that if they just had been paid fixed hourly wages instead.
Experiments have consistently shown that more money doesn't actually make people put in more effort (at least not in the straightforward, causal way most people seem to think it does). The opportunity to be creative, come up with your own ideas & follow through on them, however, does. You can criticise EA for being a business if you want to (and there's certainly things one can fault EA for), but I don't think you should make widespread assumptions about every single individual that works for them.
I agree that higher hourly wages usually won't make people work harder. But bonusses and chances to get promotions sure will
I didn't say that we, the developers here or employees in other companies only try to do things right because they are paid. I am sure that both me, my collegues and other employees also attempt to do things right because it gives us more satisfaction. But also in my own job I know that if their is a conflict between the rules we work under and what our customers would like then we always obey the rules too.
That wasn't my point. My point was that some people still try to do the very best work they can do within those constraints, even if those constraints may ultimately prevent greatness, that doesn't mean they don't try to make the mediocre or good stuff as great as possible.
Have you looked at TV adds recently? Have you noticed how happy people in them are over the products in the announcements? Do you believe them? Or do you like me think that they are only "happy" because they are paid to be happy?
Yes I have seen ads lately, and too many overall (like all of us). But again: there's a difference between the enjoyment, passion & love they're showing for their work now (the vamp GP) and how they have (or rather haven't) communicated with us in the past. You can sense that this excitement isn't merely excitement they were paid for. I don't think they'd write as often and as happily as they currently do if it was. They didn't do that in the past either. Maybe I'm stupid but yeah, for once, I believe they love what they've made. And if the reactions of thousands of simmers are anything to go by, it seems that (again, for once) an overwhelming majority agrees.
We are in the same business because I am a teacher too (at Highschool lvl). But exactly here I have had a conflict for years because our government wants quantity instead of quality. That means that our schools are punished if not everybody pass their exams. So the schools want us to help the lazy students to just pass with the lowest grades and don't care if our students really enjoy our teaching or learn something. Personally I don't agree in that policy. But I have had to adjust my teaching to it for years and so has my collegues.
Yes this issue certainly exists in many parts of the world. But I don't think it adds anything truly fundamental, at this point, to the discussion. Again: within those constraints you can either choose to put your head down and comply, or comply and find the best possible way to do what you love the way you love to do it. Everyone has rules & limitations, not everyone handles them the same. And I'm not saying, btw, that you're not doing your best. I just don't think you should make that assumption about anyone else either. Or call their excitement about their work fake because the companies they work for want to make a profit. One doesn't cancel out the other.
I also know employees myself who usually work at least 70 hours a week just to get more bonusses or a bigger chance for promotions and I am sure that they wouldn't have done that if they just had been paid fixed hourly wages instead.
Here's the flaw in that argument: it's not money that seems to motivate people in your example, it's stability (fixed hourly wages) & financial security. People only crave financial security because in this world, money matters more than anything else. Money defines your options, your choices, your possibilities & limitations. You work a lot to earn a lot of money because you need the money to have a nice life, I don't think most people chase money just for the sake of it. And I don't think that it's a happy pursuit for those that do. There's things in life money doesn't touch or satisfy. Being truly creative, setting up a project, succeeding at it and surpassing your own expectations is a much more satisfying feeling than holding 1000 dollars in your hands.
I agree that higher hourly wages usually won't make people work harder. But bonusses and chances to get promotions sure will
Again, this is more about personal accomplishment than it is about the money.
But it doesn't matter: I made my point in the beginning. Don't assume to know what motivates people, or that they only work to get ahead or earn bonuses. That's a really sad way of looking at people. And, while it may certainly be true for some people, it will absolutely never be true for all of them.
Have you looked at TV adds recently? Have you noticed how happy people in them are over the products in the announcements? Do you believe them? Or do you like me think that they are only "happy" because they are paid to be happy?
Yes I have seen ads lately, and too many overall (like all of us). But again: there's a difference between the enjoyment, passion & love they're showing for their work now (the vamp GP) and how they have (or rather haven't) communicated with us in the past. You can sense that this excitement isn't merely excitement they were paid for. I don't think they'd write as often and as happily as they currently do if it was. They didn't do that in the past either. Maybe I'm plum but yeah, for once, I believe they love what they've made. And if the reactions of thousands of simmers are anything to go by, it seems that (again, for once) an overwhelming majority agrees.
Still this discussion was about the following:
Have you noticed how excited the devs are about the upcoming GP? Do you think that they're excited because of their bonuses or because they're honestly proud of their work?
I think that they get bonuses for their results although I don't know exactly how their bonuses work. But I would guess that EA wants to make them feel more like a team and to motivate them by giving them bonuses for something like:
1. A bonus for higher sales numbers than expected (maybe as a tiny fraction of EA's extra income).
2. A bonus to the artists for every piece of clothes, a sim, a furniture and all similar things they make - but only if they are used in the released game or one of its expansions. And maybe especially if that expansion got extra high sales numbers.
3. A bonus if EA's stock raises in value.
And so on. If they get bonuses for such things then they will feel more responsible for the whole company's success and also to work overtime without getting paid by the hour. And they sure will like to pretend to be exited in an attempt to increase the sales numbers too .
.
I also know employees myself who usually work at least 70 hours a week just to get more bonusses or a bigger chance for promotions and I am sure that they wouldn't have done that if they just had been paid fixed hourly wages instead.
Here's the flaw in that argument: it's not money that seems to motivate people in your example, it's stability (fixed hourly wages) & financial security.[/quote]
No. It is their ambitions. They are paid with salaries and not for the number of hours they work. Therefore bonuses mean everything for them and bonuses are given for results. Results is also what they need to get promotions and higher salaries. Therefore they usually work much more an much harder than people who have fixed hourly wages. They also compete much more with eachother and are therefore more comparable to professional sportsmen.
Although not quite the same an example is EA's CEO. He started a few years ago with a salary of about $10 million a year. But because EA's stock has increased its value heavily in those few years his yearly salary is now about $20 million. To make such close connections between the success of the company and people's salaries the companies know that their employees will work much harder and also be much more loyal to the company. If this hadn't been their experience then they would go back to just paying people by the hour instead. But bonuses and salaries have been a huge success and is therefore loved both by the employees and by the companies.
Lol of course that makes people loyal. Never bite that hand that feeds you right? But again: is it the money, or the life they associate with said money that they want?
Either way I'll end this discussion with you here because the entire first part of your reply is based on absolutely nothing but assumptions. And it doesn't even really go for or against anything I've said. This is just arguing for the sake of it. Remember the saying: if you assume you make an a.ss out of u and me
Lol of course that makes people loyal. Never bite that hand that feeds you right? But again: is it the money, or the life they associate with said money that they want?
I still say that it is ambition although money and the life associated with it of course also has a little influence. So why do I think that? The reason is that even billionaires don't slow down. They usually just go on and on until they die or are too sick to manage. I just saw a billionaire and his wife in their 70s comment in Danish TV about the fact that he always is asked: "Don't you really still have enough money yet?" They both tried to explain that it wasn't about that at all. But their company was described as his third child besides his son and daughter. He needed to still go on and expand it with even more new stores all over the world like he has done in about 40 years since he opened his very first store. "I think that I would die otherwise!" he said. For him it was a competition and his company needed to grow because his competitors were huge and still growing too. He doesn't need the money because he is already number 4 on the list of the richest billionaires in Denmark and a personal friend even with our royal family.
So don't underestimate the importance of ambition and prestige. They often matter much more to people than money
Lol of course that makes people loyal. Never bite that hand that feeds you right? But again: is it the money, or the life they associate with said money that they want?
I still say that it is ambition although money and the life associated with it of course also has a little influence. So why do I think that? The reason is that even billionaires don't slow down. They usually just go on and on until they die or are too sick to manage. I just saw a billionaire and his wife in their 70s comment in Danish TV about the fact that he always is asked: "Don't you really still have enough money yet?" They both tried to explain that it wasn't about that at all. But their company was described as his third child besides his son and daughter. He needed to still go on and expand it with even more new stores all over the world like he has done in about 40 years since he opened his very first store. "I think that I would die otherwise!" he said. For him it was a competition and his company needed to grow because his competitors were huge and still growing too. He doesn't need the money because he is already number 4 on the list of the richest billionaires in Denmark and a personal friend even with our royal family.
So don't underestimate the importance of ambition and prestige. They often matter much more to people than money
Yes, that's what I said: people don't run after money just for the sake of having money.
Can we talk about this now again please. I’m pretty sure that a lot of things have changed and added and maybe we can share our new thoughts again, duh, it’s 2018. lol
I wouldn't call it a failure per se but it's definitely not my favourite game from the franchise, actually it's my least favourite. However that doesn't mean I hate everything about it.
I wouldn't call it a failure per se but it's definitely not my favourite game from the franchise, actually it's my least favourite. However that doesn't mean I hate everything about it.
Same for me. It’s better than it was. But I still don’t get the vibe I get when I play TS2 and even TS3 and I wasn’t the biggest fan of that, either.
I don’t like the word failure, especially when there’s apparently people who love playing the game. I do resent the idea though a game apparently would need spending hundreds of euros/dollars on first to become enjoyable (for those that applies to). In that respect I think EA has failed to deliver a worthy successor for this franchise, even though they’re doing a good job now to make amends.
Compared with TS2, TS4 is an utter fiasco. While it does have its good points and features, it is much less playable, is still missing things that even base TS2 had, is wasteful of neighborhood/world space, does not give the players true flexibility in either the sims themselves or the worlds they live in, is bug infested-many of which have been with us since the game began, and overall has the feeling of a half-baked rush job. To put it in car terms, TS4 is a Yugo, TS2 is an Impala SS427. (Or Shelby Mustang, Daytona Charger, etc.)
I suppose it’s a matter of taste. I played TS3 quite extensively and I’ve also played TS2 and I enjoyed both, but my favourite by far has to be TS4. I know that puts me in a minority, but I guess what I’m saying is that not everyone regards it as a failure.
I suppose it’s a matter of taste. I played TS3 quite extensively and I’ve also played TS2 and I enjoyed both, but my favourite by far has to be TS4. I know that puts me in a minority, but I guess what I’m saying is that not everyone regards it as a failure.
Same.
This thread was started in 2015 after 40 hours of play. Wonder what the OP thinks now.
Comments
For EA sales numbers are everything. EA would never have allowed the developers to make and release an expensive thing like toddlers for free unless EA expected to get all the money back from higher sales numbers. Toddlers also wouldn't have been free unless EA's marketing experts thought that this was the most profitable way to release them
For me this isn't so hard to understand because many people would still have been angry if EA had released a toddler GP instead and I don't even believe that such a GP would have sold very well. But I would now really have liked to see the sales numbers so I could get an impression about how much the free release of toddlers seemed to have increased them.
Then you need to be a bit more clear in your suppositions. This remark is what I was responding to.
The second thing you responded to was directed to someone else and part of a different conversation.
I am almost quenched. I just need a color wheel, or more swatches.
Well, releasing more children and toddler content in the future is a way to make that flaw up, for me, personally.
Same here. I can live without those features as well.
There are still some bits I would like to be tweaked or added (definitely some tweaking of AI, and maybe a color wheel), but I am just SOOO HAPPY and RELIEVED we finallly got the little tykes!
Sorry for constantly gushing about the tots, but OMG, I just, I just can't hold in my happy satisfaction of such a wonderfully done (and much needed) addition for my type of family gameplay.
I'm eagerly waiting for the vamps, so I can add them into my worlds/neighborhoods.
Awww! That's just going to be SO CUTE!!!!
I don't know why, but the imagery of vamps (especially if they're the "scary"-ish or "tough" types) dealing with the torture of the terrible toddler tantrums and toddler chaos is just hilarious to me.
ETA: To answer the OP question, no, I don't think Sims 4 is a total failure now. Now it has potential to be an awesome sims game (for me).
(She/her)
That's what I found insulting about the game. If they gonna imply that it is "The Sims" with the NUMBER FOUR in it titled as, then make me believe that it is actually is one as suggested.. At least the number should show that is an overall improvement and dominates over other iterations of the games. Not just a half piece of poop, that only introduces new mechanics in cas, buy&buildmode and a gallery.
1. It is EA's marketing experts who plan the number and kinds of expansions. EA's top decides the budgets for them after advice from the same people.
2. The developers can only make the expansions they are ordered to make. Any changes in EA's orders require approval from EA's top and marketing department. The developers therefore usually only have influence on details that can be changed within the budget and don't go against EA's orders.
3. If we don't tell EA and the developers what we want to be different then they won't know it and therefore not change anything at all.
4. The developers make the games as good as possible just to satisfy EA and to get higher bonuses added to their salaries. They like it when we praise their games. But EA's satisfaction and approval is of course much more important for them because it is EA who pays them and decides if they shall be fired or instead have higher salaries or promotions.
Don't you think that's quite an assumption to make about what motivates someone at work??? Do you only do things right at your job because of the people that pay you? Have you noticed how excited the devs are about the upcoming GP? Do you think that they're excited because of their bonuses or because they're honestly proud of their work? Look, I don't teach my classes as good as possible to get paid more, but because I honestly like what I do and want to get better at it. My bf makes sure his animations are as excellent as possible within budgetary constraints even though customers are surprisingly often satisfied with mediocre content, but he personally isn't.
Of course EA makes monetary decisions, of course toddlers were added because it will ultimately be profitable for them. Every business in the world would do the same. But you can't fault them for playing by the same rules as anyone else, and you certainly can't presume to know why someone works the way they do, what motivates them to do it, or how much effort they put into it. Money doesn't motivate people at work, did you know that? Experiments have consistently shown that more money doesn't actually make people put in more effort (at least not in the straightforward, causal way most people seem to think it does). The opportunity to be creative, come up with your own ideas & follow through on them, however, does. You can criticise EA for being a business if you want to (and there's certainly things one can fault EA for), but I don't think you should make widespread assumptions about every single individual that works for them.
Don't engage. He has a habit of assuming he knows what the rest of the world are doing and their reasons behind it.
--T
I like to type up responses to people and then delete them without actually posting, so if people think my comments are bad now, they should see my *real* thoughts lol. It's a good way to vent and let off some steam and nobody gets their feelings hurt.
--T
There may be exceptions to this. But not many because it is actually very rare that employees are ready to lose their jobs or be degraded just to please their customers a little more.
Have you looked at TV adds recently? Have you noticed how happy people in them are over the products in the announcements? Do you believe them? Or do you like me think that they are only "happy" because they are paid to be happy? I suspect that it is the same with the developers because EA wouldn't allow them to tell us that they aren't happy with the game. Instead EA most likely has told them that they must talk happily about the games to improve the sales numbers and thus to become more sure that they can keep their jobs. We are in the same business because I am a teacher too (at Highschool lvl). But exactly here I have had a conflict for years because our government wants quantity instead of quality. That means that our schools are punished if not everybody pass their exams. So the schools want us to help the lazy students to just pass with the lowest grades and don't care if our students really enjoy our teaching or learn something. Personally I don't agree in that policy. But I have had to adjust my teaching to it for years and so has my collegues. (I don't want to discuss this further here though because that wouldn't be offtopic and also against the forum rules. So I just mentioned it as an example of how I also myself chose to be more loyal to my superiors than to my students who could have learned much more if I had been allowed to teach in a different way.) That is different because he can do his best within the budget without getting into any conflict with his superiors.
Agreed. The companies don't agree with you here because they wouldn't have introduced all those bonus systems if they did. I also know employees myself who usually work at least 70 hours a week just to get more bonusses or a bigger chance for promotions and I am sure that they wouldn't have done that if they just had been paid fixed hourly wages instead. I agree that higher hourly wages usually won't make people work harder. But bonusses and chances to get promotions sure will
That wasn't my point. My point was that some people still try to do the very best work they can do within those constraints, even if those constraints may ultimately prevent greatness, that doesn't mean they don't try to make the mediocre or good stuff as great as possible.
Yes I have seen ads lately, and too many overall (like all of us). But again: there's a difference between the enjoyment, passion & love they're showing for their work now (the vamp GP) and how they have (or rather haven't) communicated with us in the past. You can sense that this excitement isn't merely excitement they were paid for. I don't think they'd write as often and as happily as they currently do if it was. They didn't do that in the past either. Maybe I'm stupid but yeah, for once, I believe they love what they've made. And if the reactions of thousands of simmers are anything to go by, it seems that (again, for once) an overwhelming majority agrees.
Yes this issue certainly exists in many parts of the world. But I don't think it adds anything truly fundamental, at this point, to the discussion. Again: within those constraints you can either choose to put your head down and comply, or comply and find the best possible way to do what you love the way you love to do it. Everyone has rules & limitations, not everyone handles them the same. And I'm not saying, btw, that you're not doing your best. I just don't think you should make that assumption about anyone else either. Or call their excitement about their work fake because the companies they work for want to make a profit. One doesn't cancel out the other.
Lol. Yeah, no, I don't think that's the case
Here's the flaw in that argument: it's not money that seems to motivate people in your example, it's stability (fixed hourly wages) & financial security. People only crave financial security because in this world, money matters more than anything else. Money defines your options, your choices, your possibilities & limitations. You work a lot to earn a lot of money because you need the money to have a nice life, I don't think most people chase money just for the sake of it. And I don't think that it's a happy pursuit for those that do. There's things in life money doesn't touch or satisfy. Being truly creative, setting up a project, succeeding at it and surpassing your own expectations is a much more satisfying feeling than holding 1000 dollars in your hands.
Again, this is more about personal accomplishment than it is about the money.
But it doesn't matter: I made my point in the beginning. Don't assume to know what motivates people, or that they only work to get ahead or earn bonuses. That's a really sad way of looking at people. And, while it may certainly be true for some people, it will absolutely never be true for all of them.
1. A bonus for higher sales numbers than expected (maybe as a tiny fraction of EA's extra income).
2. A bonus to the artists for every piece of clothes, a sim, a furniture and all similar things they make - but only if they are used in the released game or one of its expansions. And maybe especially if that expansion got extra high sales numbers.
3. A bonus if EA's stock raises in value.
And so on. If they get bonuses for such things then they will feel more responsible for the whole company's success and also to work overtime without getting paid by the hour. And they sure will like to pretend to be exited in an attempt to increase the sales numbers too
.
Here's the flaw in that argument: it's not money that seems to motivate people in your example, it's stability (fixed hourly wages) & financial security.[/quote]
No. It is their ambitions. They are paid with salaries and not for the number of hours they work. Therefore bonuses mean everything for them and bonuses are given for results. Results is also what they need to get promotions and higher salaries. Therefore they usually work much more an much harder than people who have fixed hourly wages. They also compete much more with eachother and are therefore more comparable to professional sportsmen.
Although not quite the same an example is EA's CEO. He started a few years ago with a salary of about $10 million a year. But because EA's stock has increased its value heavily in those few years his yearly salary is now about $20 million. To make such close connections between the success of the company and people's salaries the companies know that their employees will work much harder and also be much more loyal to the company. If this hadn't been their experience then they would go back to just paying people by the hour instead. But bonuses and salaries have been a huge success and is therefore loved both by the employees and by the companies.
Either way I'll end this discussion with you here because the entire first part of your reply is based on absolutely nothing but assumptions. And it doesn't even really go for or against anything I've said. This is just arguing for the sake of it. Remember the saying: if you assume you make an a.ss out of u and me
I wish you a lovely evening @Erpe!
So don't underestimate the importance of ambition and prestige. They often matter much more to people than money
Yes, that's what I said: people don't run after money just for the sake of having money.
Same for me. It’s better than it was. But I still don’t get the vibe I get when I play TS2 and even TS3 and I wasn’t the biggest fan of that, either.
—T
Vlad The Dad: A 100 Baby Challenge, Vlad as ‘matriarch’ *COMPLETE*
Breed Out The Weird *COMPLETE*
Same.
This thread was started in 2015 after 40 hours of play. Wonder what the OP thinks now.