Forum Announcement, Click Here to Read More From EA_Cade.
Expansion packs need more development time.
ULIBABA66
Posts: 2,038 Member
Get To Work apparently didn't include the retail system until the last minute Maxis added it to the pack, from what I have heard. Besides, we only had clues about the active careers before the expansion was announced. I don't think the retail system was very long in development. I think it lacks so many features, like the business levels like in The Sims 2 Open For Business, and the awards were way better than the retail perks in my opinion. I still want to make my own tattoo salon and barber shop business and Sims need to get money from it!
Get Together, however, is another thing. It was probably far more longer in development but the pack wasn't mentioned in ANY of The Sims 4 surveys, so it seems like it would have happened anyway. It was a step forward that GT was delayed from November to December 2015 because of the feedback from us. I still think the pack needed more. It feels like it lacks something. Yes, I know there are over 300 objects in the pack, and Windenburg is amazing, but...it should have added another significant feature to be honest, like being able to run your own cafe. However, if it had, then we wouldn't probably have gotten some other features.
I don't know about you, but I feel somehow bitter about The Sims 4's expansion packs so far. I feel like we should get WAY more in depth gameplay. The club system in GT was very well done, but GTW could have been better. This is why I think that the packs need more development time so that they won't feel rushed or half-baked. I appreciate the packs for what they do include, though
One solution to this would listening to fans' feedback. Like during the Sims 3 days, the EPs were developed based on the feedback from Simmers, or at least more than nowadays. Many players wanted a thing for the houseboat for Island Paradise, and the feedback actually helped and they got them!
What do you guys think? Should Maxis take their time to develop packs so that they are well thought and done, or should they rush their schedule?
Get Together, however, is another thing. It was probably far more longer in development but the pack wasn't mentioned in ANY of The Sims 4 surveys, so it seems like it would have happened anyway. It was a step forward that GT was delayed from November to December 2015 because of the feedback from us. I still think the pack needed more. It feels like it lacks something. Yes, I know there are over 300 objects in the pack, and Windenburg is amazing, but...it should have added another significant feature to be honest, like being able to run your own cafe. However, if it had, then we wouldn't probably have gotten some other features.
I don't know about you, but I feel somehow bitter about The Sims 4's expansion packs so far. I feel like we should get WAY more in depth gameplay. The club system in GT was very well done, but GTW could have been better. This is why I think that the packs need more development time so that they won't feel rushed or half-baked. I appreciate the packs for what they do include, though
One solution to this would listening to fans' feedback. Like during the Sims 3 days, the EPs were developed based on the feedback from Simmers, or at least more than nowadays. Many players wanted a thing for the houseboat for Island Paradise, and the feedback actually helped and they got them!
What do you guys think? Should Maxis take their time to develop packs so that they are well thought and done, or should they rush their schedule?
13
Comments
It's just a rumor, retail was announced at the same time as the rest of Get To Work so I'm not sure where this came from.
I think that releasing a flawed product is not the best that they can do, and just making a certain number of sales should NOT be their priority. They are better than that. I completely believe that the devs are much better than that. All their schooling, talent, time, and effort should not be wasted for a dollar.
Game design, to me, is an art form in many ways. It shouldn't focus primarily on numbers ... it's like they started with boat loads of passion and excitement for the love of their work, and now it has been degraded into the love of the money, which is a quick way to ensure that you will eventually become forgotten or replaced.
There are some things in life that are timeless ... singers, movies, people, games ... we - including the devs - need to make sure that The Sims is a timeless franchise, not only for the money (because we all have to eat, and I completely support that) but because we genuinely love this game and want to see it remain successful for many years to come.
What it needs is a new creative vision, and developers who appreciate the genre The Sims was, and should have remained. It's a simulation game.
GT is significantly better than GTW because it aligns itself with simulation themes and elements. It still falls a BIT short in my book due to my opinion it could've had just a little bit more content, but it's still a TON better than GTW. As long as they follow the simulation roots of The Sims, their work will be well received.
GTW was delayed? I don't recall that.
By a month, if I remember correctly, I'll have to double check but I am certain it was slated for an earlier release in an investor call. What I do distinctly recall is the fact they couldn't give us a solid release date until about 2 weeks before it was due.
Get Together was delayed, and I honestly feel like the content in that EP did not warrant the delay. In other words, it seemed even with the delay, they didn't exactly produce an EP loaded with content. Perhaps that's more to do with their vague concept for that EP.
MaxoidSam (Sam Player) who lead the design of the Sims 2 was once asked how long time it had taken them to make a certain EP for TS2. His answer was "About 3 months." This is probably still the same - except when they get unexpected problems. When an EP is delayed I am quite sure that it isn't because they want to improve it - but only because they get such technical problems which they have to solve before they can finish the EP. Small technical problems are rarely solved though - only the very big problems which they aren't able to ignore and release the EP anyway. Games are seen as unimportant programs where all technical problems can't be avoided unlike professional programs where even the smallest issues just have to be solved (but professional programs are therefore also sold for much higher prices).
I think little things are the reason why I liked Generations the least for TS3. Talking to other simmers recently reminded me of the good things, but what I remember is being annoyed at the constant autonomous pranking, the proms you couldn't see, having boarding schools instead of the private school, being unable to drop your kids off at the daycare... it was all this annoying things that really ruined that expansion for me. I know people will feel differently about some of the things I mentioned, but it was a general feeling that the game wasn't as 'finished' as it could have been.
But on the other hand, they can't give us everything in one pack. They have to make choices. So I think they have to try and predict the player expectations and judge what is most important. I think in general they shouldn't miss smaller features, because that feels like they just couldn't be bothered giving that extra push. So getting the little things is as important as getting the big features spot-on.
What I think the current team deserve praise for is taking on-board feedback, and sometimes actually going back and re-looking at features. I know SimGuruDaniel has tweaked a lot of things to try and make them better. And of course they've patched in things like pools, ghosts, etc, that people were upset about not having in the base game. We can't expect ALL THE THINGS unfortunately, but I think giving lots of feedback and ideas, and giving details, helps the devs to predict what people want from certain features, and to gather information on things that could be improved or brought to the game in the future. Credit where credit's due, the Sims 4 team are a lot more responsive than the team during The Sims 3's development.
[edit: because of terrible pre-coffee spelling errors]
That's the two mentions I found :
"The reduction in our Q4 revenue expectation is based on uncertainty around future currency movements and the decision to move EA Sports PGA Tour and the first Sims 4 expansion pack into fiscal 2016."
" PGA Golf and the first Sims expansion pack will both fall into Q1 now. Those were originally in our thinking for Q4."
I didn't find any mention of "a month", nor that it was to give more development time. GTW was released on March 31th, that's the exact same day as the end of Q4/EA fiscal year 2015 so the pack was delayed just enough to fall into 2016 Q1 and not 2015 Q4. It could be a fiscal based decision.
The release date was known one month and a half before release (mid february : Source)
Thanks for providing actual numbers. My point still stands.
Even if it were a fiscal decision, it doesn't seem as if they made use of the extra time. In addition, notifying us of an exact release date only about a few weeks in advance doesn't convince me they are organized and sure of what they are doing. I don't know if that's a product of corporate or the developers, but it's strange considering we had a solid release schedule with TS2/TS3.
Well extra time may not mean extra budget.
TS3 Generations was announced the 5th of April for a release the 31th of May, so it's not unprecedented.
And TS3: Generations really felt like a "glorified stuff pack", just as MANY people phrased it back on the TS3 forums when it released. There really wasn't that much content in it, compared to the other TS3 expansions.
It wasn't until TS4 scrapped a ton of what is considered generational gameplay when more people started to appreciate TS3's attentiveness to that theme.
"For EA making games has always been about earning money. EA was actually founded as only a publishing company which earned its money by publishing and marketing games developed by other companies who made the games but had problems selling them. EA was much better doing this and it took nearly 10 years before EA bought the first game developing company and became a developer itself."
Yes, I know. The Sims, however, was not founded on money or publishing. The Sims wasn't even the first or only idea of Will Wright's, but he incorporated his passion into the games that he developed, including Spore. He truly was a visionary.
"MaxoidSam (Sam Player) who lead the design of the Sims 2 was once asked how long time it had taken them to make a certain EP for TS2. His answer was "About 3 months." This is probably still the same - except when they get unexpected problems. When an EP is delayed I am quite sure that it isn't because they want to improve it - but only because they get such technical problems which they have to solve before they can finish the EP. Small technical problems are rarely solved though - only the very big problems which they aren't able to ignore and release the EP anyway. Games are seen as unimportant programs where all technical problems can't be avoided unlike professional programs where even the smallest issues just have to be solved (but professional programs are therefore also sold for much higher prices). "
That's EA's stance, and I have always disagreed with it. Plus, TS2 still had Will Wright and Tim Letourneau taking charge, and it wasn't till the game was well into it's first few EP's that EA and The Sims merged development, and then Will had left for Spore. Both Will and Tim did not treat The Sims as a money making machine. They really believed in it. Many other successful game developers and producers do not view games that way either. You view a game that way when you create a conglomerate to publish games purely for profit. That's all fine and dandy until you start developing games purely for profit.
EA was a publisher since TS1, but they did not control development until after TS2. I'm not going to stop pointing out that this game should not be made solely for profit just because EA is motivated by greed. I think it is something that needs to be said repeatedly, because I find it pitiful to waste the talent/potential of people who have put in years of work, schooling, etc. Everyone wants to make money, but it doesn't mean that you have to produce poorly made work in a fast amount of time ... a good, solid game will sell on its own once it gains traction, which The Sims already has. They won't grow their demographic/sales as much as they want to if they keep doing this. Conditioning people to accept mediocre products is an insult to consumers and developers alike.
As it is Gamepack 3 is late coming out because GT was delayed.
Will Wright had to get Jeff Braun as cofounder for Maxis in 1987 to help him finding a game publisher for SimCity which he hadn't been able to do. But after that Maxis wasn't very successful and experimented with now forgotten games like SimFarm, SimEarth, SimLife, SimTower, SimIsle and SimHealth.
EA is different because it was founded by Trip Hawkins (in 1982) who was the Director of Strategy and Marketing at Apple Computer until he left to found EA as a company for publishing video games. So he was a business man (even though he also was the founder of the video company 3do after he left EA in 1991). EA was a publisher since 1982. In the 1980s EA was known as an aggressive publisher who especially published games for Commodore Amiga. Then in 1990 EA began to produce console games for Nintendo and Trip Hawkins left EA in 1991.
Maxis was bought by EA already in 1997 because the games from Maxis had just been economical failures since SimCity. After that Maxis was allowed to finish SimCity 3000 and the Sims 1. Maybe this was part of the sales agreement between Will Wright and EA. But all Sims games have been developed after EA bought Maxis.
You may wish that games aren't made for profit. But game companies who agree with you on this go bankruptcy very fast. The only surviving game companies therefore are the companies who care enough about profit to realize that profit is necessary in all industries - also in the game industries.
Too much history. Let us get back to discuss the Sims 4 instead
You are trying to make it seem as though EA has been leading the team since the start, which they most definitely did not. The games were also published purely for profit, but, again, the people who actually made the game to begin with were motivated more by their love of the cause, not the money. Does that mean that money was not part of the equation? Of course not. Everyone has to survive, but it was not at the forefront.
I am going to link you to an interview with Will Wright ... http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-04-will-wright-games-falling-way-short-as-a-medium
In the interview from your link he is critical to EA which doesn't surprise me because he had disagreements with EA about Spore which he seem to have wanted even more time to develop. I believe that EA forced him to finish it and threatened him with legal actions if he didn't do it soon. So he finished it but then left EA - but probably not without bitterness.
Your attitude about developers like Will Wright seems quite romantic to me. But even though the developers sometimes get lucky and make a good game on their own I think that it is actually quite rare. Will Wright didn't know that the Sims would be a much bigger success than all his earlier games which mostly weren't. EA's marketing of the Sims 1 also helped much to make this happen. But if Will Wright had known how well the Sims 1 would sell then he probably wouldn't have even considered to sell Maxis to EA.
That is true. Of course you need funding for a large project. You need people to invest in you. We live in a capitalist society. This does not mean that your investors have to diminish your integrity. Once they do that, then you are a sellout. Will Wright was not a sellout.
This is true.
He probably wouldn't have, and then he probably would not have left The Sims at all, had he known that TS1 was going to take off like it did.
Back in the 90's/early millennium, it was rare that indie game developers would make successful games ... but with all the successful games that had to stick with publishers, their success lead to intense interest in game development by the next generation, and now indie developers can actually create great videogames without the need of a publisher. Not saying that it is the easy or anything, but it is a lot more doable opposed to 20 years ago. I am not trying to say that publishers do not have a part in the success of a game ... but the market is simply not what it used to be, and that is a very good thing.
My attitude about developers like Will Wright is not romantic to me. I just uphold people that have genuine integrity.
Your attitude towards EA is more peculiar to me. I already know that EA was crucial in marketing TS1 and driving sales. We all have a role - I'm not disregarding that. Sometimes it's just to make profit, but it doesn't mean that we have to be obnoxiously greedy about it. That's all I've been saying about EA, really. Their motive is to franchise games and make as much money as possible within the smallest amount of time. See what they did with TS3? And then TS4? There's only so many avenues that this discussion can go, and none of them are leading me to believe that EA cares about developing quality games. Mass Effect, The Sims, Ultima, Battlefield ... the list of games that EA has ruined goes on, and I am most definitely not the only person who feels that way. They have an objective history of ruining videogames. Not everyone working for EA is incompetent. A lot of people who work for EA are very talented at game development. I am talking specifically about EA's higher-up's that only allow a certain amount of funding based off of variables that are dependent upon a higher level of quality that EA is just not willing to go to because it would cost them more money and would take too much time that would not fall under the timeline that they have set for themselves.
Educated game designers want to make the profit just by making games which they like and hope that most other people then will like the games too and buy them. Such game designers usually just hope that the games will sell themselves without too much effort. But this has rarely been the case. Therefore most such companies have gone bankruptcy or have been bought by their publisher.
I know that EA has a reputation for ruining its games. But nevertheless EA have earned more money than all other game companies and game publishers. EA usually has never responded to those accusations which is probably the reason why they have continued. But EA just doesn't care as long as the accusations don't hurt the sales numbers which doesn't seem to have happened.
I don't know much about EA's other games. EA's sports games I have only played shortly a few times. But sports games aren't really for me. The only of your mentioned games I have used enough time on to comment is the Ultima series which I played many years ago (before Ultima Online). It was a good series of adventure games. But such games don't sell anymore. Ultima VIII and Ultima X were attempts to improve the series. But neither me or many else liked the changes. Nevertheless the same can be said about the Might&Magic series where Might&Magic 9 destroyed the series even though EA didn't have anything to do with that series. So I believe that it is just the adventure games which can't be made anymore because people now have better games to choose.
The problem with the Sims games is for me to see that the people who don't like their development since the Sims 2 are adults commenting them in the forum are adults while most of their customers are 13 to 15 yrs old teens (and in some countries also 10 to 12 yrs old preteens). Therefore EA wants to make them for especially such young simmers (most of them girls) who play them as their very first big game. We can hate this all we want. But we probably have no chance to persuade EA to change it.