This site will go into read-only mode on July 18th as the new Forums.EA.com are now live.

Statement about toddlers

Comments

  • Options
    ebuchalaebuchala Posts: 4,945 Member
    edited August 2016
    Sigzy05 wrote: »
    Polyrhythm wrote: »
    Simanite wrote: »
    I stand by what I have said all along; if we get pets before toddlers I'm going to be angry and consider that confirmation that toddlers won't ever be released. Because pets are the only things that are as animation-heavy and take as much coding as toddlers would. Obviously I could be missing something, but I don't see how it would be possible to implement pets if it would be impossible to implement toddlers.
    I think they would be about the same too. Both need new animations, need to be made to work with CAS, voice acting, working with multitasking, new objects for them, made carry-able, etc. Unless we either get some really bland pets or don't get them at all.

    I don't think pets needs voice acting lol. Do you imagine hiring Tara Strong to do dog and cat sounds? Ahahaha (I don't think she does voice work for EA but you get the deal)

    Maybe a guru brings their dog and their cat to the recording session XD or the most logical they use pre-made ones.

    But toddlers are only one lifestate, cats and dogs would need their version of a baby/toddler, the puppies so there's a little more work there.

    Actually they do use voice acting for the pets.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8TH6Ri93cs

    ETA: I believe they use a mix of pre-recorded sounds from real animals and voice actors.
    Origin ID: ebuchala
    I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
  • Options
    jackjack_kjackjack_k Posts: 8,601 Member
    @Sigzy05 wrote: »
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    @Sigzy05 wrote: »
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    @Simanite wrote: »
    @jackjack_k OMG you always slay my soul with your posts! Speaking the voice of reason. :star::heart:

    giphy.gif

    :kissing_heart:
    @jackjack_k Dingdingdingding! We have a winner.
    This is almost definitely the problem (didn't know that about Into the Future though, it really brings everything into perspective).

    The project lead/director/whatever doesn't pitch ideas to EA, EA tells the project lead what to tell the team. If EA wants to focus on a particular pack, as determined by their focus groups, then that's what the team's gonna make.

    If EA doesn't want toddlers (because their TS3 and TS2 telemetry, taken directly from gamer's saves, shows that it was an unpopular life stage), then Maxis isn't going to be in a position to make toddlers.

    Who knows, maybe that toddler render they made for the CEO was a sneaky way to get him on board with the idea? As in, "look how cute your kid is? Who wouldn't want to play that in The Sims?"

    Yeah, you can Google the presentation. EA basically pitches the idea to the Devs, based on market research.
    It was really interesting. They pretty much told Devs who they were appealing to (mostly female teens), and why the pack should exist etc.

    That explains so much about TS3, and late-era TS2. SO MUCH teenybopper content.
    Katy Perry packs, how every household in Supernatural was a reference to Tru Blood, Twilight, Teen Wolf or Vampire Diaries, or how Oasis Landing in Into the Future was literally just the Capitol from The Hunger Games.

    The Sims 3 was definitely a teenage girls dream. Which is why when you go on YouTube, a lot of the male simmers only build in The Sims 3.
    A lot of the girls though, love The Sims 3.

    I do actually like a lot of The Sims 3, I just cannot bare all the issues that come with it. I pull my hair out when I install mods to fix issues, and then they start conflicting, and cause other issues. I wish someone would upload a Zip file of "all fixes as of 2016 patch" so I can plop it into my mods folder and play.

    Le Sigh.

    And TS4 isn't? As far as I'm concerned 90% of youtube simmers are female now and then, and to address the male builders, I haven't seen any pop up on youtube now that TS4 is out, so not 100% sure about that statement as far as I can see, it only got worse.

    There's quite a few Sims 4 players that are male. The quirky side of the Sims appeals to males more for whatever reason.
    The Sims 4 totally is, especially with CAS. But none of the packs have been so blindly catered to teenage girls more than anyone else.

    Get To Work, OR, DO, GT are all fairly even between audience. I'd say Spa Day was the only pack that felt more female orientated. But that's simply because girls are more into going to the Spa than Men.

    That's the most ridiculous thing I could ever hear, not to mention sexist. Plus you never, and I never said anything about sims players, only about simmer youtubers.

    Please review your facts because you are obviously putting your own opinions above anything else. Not to mention TS4 is the less quirky of all sims games, unless ofc you are talking about the potty humor, aka "angry poop".

    Besides I don't even see how World Adventures screams girly, or Ambitions, or Late Night or Island Paradise or University and so on.

    Um......
    I never said The Sims 3 was a girls game. I said they catered more to Teenage Girls then they had previously.
    And how is what I sad Sexist in anyway? It's a fact that more females go to the Spa than Men.

    And I did actually. I mentioned a page back that EA were trying to cater to Teenage Girls with The Sims 3. That's where it started.

    I never said the EP's were girly, as I said it was just catered more too girls than before. References that Teenage Girls would get, etc.
    Some were already mentioned.
  • Options
    BatmanFanGirlBatmanFanGirl Posts: 1,298 Member
    edited August 2016
    My comment is a little different.. IF the teams were just stringing people along by saying "We hear you." instead of just telling people they aren't going to happen, how long could they possibly do it for before people totally walked (that wanted them) or they actually would finally say "Sorry they aren't happening." ?
    heartstopper-couple.gif
  • Options
    uo_aaronjduo_aaronjd Posts: 425 Member
    " It's a fact that more females go to the Spa than Men."
    depends on the country, In Sweden its more men then women....possibly the same for Denmark and maybe even Greenland...depends on the culture...Japan also could be a close one to call

    Anyways the statement on toddlers has sparked a teeny weeny glimmer of hope....or it could be indigestion, we shall see
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup
  • Options
    WulfsimmerWulfsimmer Posts: 4,381 Member
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    This just sounds like more of the same imo. There should be no reason why they don't know if toddlers are going to be in the game by now or not. I'm betting they know the answer and it's one that most simmers aren't going to like, hence the silence. But that's just my two cents... *goes back to work*
    So even when a statement is made about Toddlers, it's just a repeat of what they've been saying for the past 2 years. just tell us if you're working on them or not. I don't care if you hear us, or you're listening to our feedback, how about tell us what your plan is for once.
    It is sad they ask us to be even more patient than 2 years to make a life-stage which will probably not even have much content when released. :/ Really Maxis?
    I don't even give a plum about toddlers (always found that stage to be such a grind), but I find it interesting that they don't just outright say whether they're doing it one way or the other, which is what the community clearly wants.

    We know Maxis is listening. What people want to know, is whether they've made a decision or not.
    QDog wrote: »
    Ciarassims wrote: »
    QDog wrote: »
    lejoninna wrote: »
    QDog wrote: »
    My two cents:

    This statement pretty much confirms they are working on toddlers (otherwise why would they tak about them in the office every day?).

    ya for the next version maybe

    If you read my whole post, I said that this confirms they are working on them, but not that we are going to get them.

    Not trying sound sarcastic or rude or anything but what's the point of working on them if we ain't gonna get them?

    As I said, in a perfect world they would just work on them and release them and every one would be happy. But things are complicated in real life, particularly in business. They may have run into problems or may be discussing if it will be profitable to implement them (or when would be the perfect moment to release them) etc.

    Not that I'm defending EA, but in my opinion this means they are working on them. However, I think they haven't yet reached the point they are comfortable confirming toddlers are coming. Can you imagine the fan reaction if they confirmed that toddlers are coming and a few weeks later they told us that the developers have run into unsolvable problems and they cannot be implemented in the end?

    Yeah I understand your point but they've had two years to discuss this, do they need another two?

    Honestly, I think the REAL issue is, the Developers want to put Toddlers in the game, but EA are the ones who have to green light it.
    EA are the ones who have to invest in the project, which is why Maxis can't say "yes" or "no" because probably everything we ask about is on their "list" but whether EA provides the funding for that to come to fruition, is a totally different story.

    The only time we got major gameplay for Toddlers in 3, was when The Sims Store team was able to squeeze it into sets.
    EA obviously think Toddlers aren't profitable, for whatever reason, as they were the most neglected life stage in 3. Even babies got more stuff.

    I think Toddlers is something Maxis is pushing for, but EA are reluctant to green light it, simply because they either cannot see us paying for Toddlers, and they also don't see the audience growing enough if patched in for free, for it to be a well paid investment.

    ---

    We have to remember, EA are the ones who send out the Survey's regarding what packs people would like.
    We also have to remember, the Into The Future presentation that leaked, which was EA pitching the concept TO the Devs.
    Meaning the Devs were being presented by EA of what they had decided the pack should be.

    EA were also the ones that wouldn't green light The Sims 4 (originally) unless it was online.

    It's fair to say the Devs know what we want, but EA is the one that decides. Which is why the Devs sound so frustrated around certain topics.
    Which is why Drake's statement almost feels like they are waiting on an answer.

    Babies had more stuff than toddlers? Ummm...k.
    Random-gifs-random-18723411-368-312.gif

    WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY?
  • Options
    BatmanFanGirlBatmanFanGirl Posts: 1,298 Member
    edited August 2016
    Babies had more stuff than toddlers? Ummm...k.

    LOL I was thinking the same thing. I must have completely missed that. Maybe I hit my head at some point and didn't realize it?
    heartstopper-couple.gif
  • Options
    ArlettaArletta Posts: 8,444 Member
    I have a novel idea for people. How about we don't decide that it's a statement as to whether they're coming or not, but take it at face value, that they know people want them, they hear that, but there is nothing they can say at the moment and that if it changes, they'll tell us.
  • Options
    plopppoplopppo Posts: 5,031 Member
    If you want to know what's going on/what's leaking/what's forthcoming/what's pre-loading/what's test-loading, etc, etc.

    Our singing canary chums in South America are always willing to spill the beans.

    They always blab about stuff - they simply can't help themselves.
    It's a secret - Okay, we tell everyone.
    12jun2014---torcedora-do-brasil-acompanhada-de-uma-crianca-aguarda-inicio-do-jogo-contra-a-croacia-em-sao-paulo-1402776435239_956x500.jpg
  • Options
    IceDrizzle27IceDrizzle27 Posts: 648 Member
    Arletta wrote: »
    I have a novel idea for people. How about we don't decide that it's a statement as to whether they're coming or not, but take it at face value, that they know people want them, they hear that, but there is nothing they can say at the moment and that if it changes, they'll tell us.

    bqZpW.gif

    Here we go with another "happy-go-lucky" response. As for my personal response, NO!! I am not going to wait and sit until they feel they can say anything or until whenever we receive news, which may be never at this point. If they really were interested they would have something by now. 2 years of uproar, pleading, begging and inquiring about toddlers and other features is enough. It's time to start speaking up and stop treating us like fools. We deserve to know what's going on and why they are all of a sudden so tight lipped, compared to the other series, which I understand is different, but it's under the same company and development. There are a number 9f features that I feel should have been added by now (toddlers, seasons, more jobs to name a few), but what we have?!?! Honestly, these features should have already been in development given that we had them in the other series.

    Common sense would say, please your consumers, that's good business strategy. So again, NO!! I'm not going to How about we don't decide that it's a statement as to whether they're coming or not, but take it at face value

    *rolls eyes again at that statement*
  • Options
    jackjack_kjackjack_k Posts: 8,601 Member
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    This just sounds like more of the same imo. There should be no reason why they don't know if toddlers are going to be in the game by now or not. I'm betting they know the answer and it's one that most simmers aren't going to like, hence the silence. But that's just my two cents... *goes back to work*
    So even when a statement is made about Toddlers, it's just a repeat of what they've been saying for the past 2 years. just tell us if you're working on them or not. I don't care if you hear us, or you're listening to our feedback, how about tell us what your plan is for once.
    It is sad they ask us to be even more patient than 2 years to make a life-stage which will probably not even have much content when released. :/ Really Maxis?
    I don't even give a plum about toddlers (always found that stage to be such a grind), but I find it interesting that they don't just outright say whether they're doing it one way or the other, which is what the community clearly wants.

    We know Maxis is listening. What people want to know, is whether they've made a decision or not.
    QDog wrote: »
    Ciarassims wrote: »
    QDog wrote: »
    lejoninna wrote: »
    QDog wrote: »
    My two cents:

    This statement pretty much confirms they are working on toddlers (otherwise why would they tak about them in the office every day?).

    ya for the next version maybe

    If you read my whole post, I said that this confirms they are working on them, but not that we are going to get them.

    Not trying sound sarcastic or rude or anything but what's the point of working on them if we ain't gonna get them?

    As I said, in a perfect world they would just work on them and release them and every one would be happy. But things are complicated in real life, particularly in business. They may have run into problems or may be discussing if it will be profitable to implement them (or when would be the perfect moment to release them) etc.

    Not that I'm defending EA, but in my opinion this means they are working on them. However, I think they haven't yet reached the point they are comfortable confirming toddlers are coming. Can you imagine the fan reaction if they confirmed that toddlers are coming and a few weeks later they told us that the developers have run into unsolvable problems and they cannot be implemented in the end?

    Yeah I understand your point but they've had two years to discuss this, do they need another two?

    Honestly, I think the REAL issue is, the Developers want to put Toddlers in the game, but EA are the ones who have to green light it.
    EA are the ones who have to invest in the project, which is why Maxis can't say "yes" or "no" because probably everything we ask about is on their "list" but whether EA provides the funding for that to come to fruition, is a totally different story.

    The only time we got major gameplay for Toddlers in 3, was when The Sims Store team was able to squeeze it into sets.
    EA obviously think Toddlers aren't profitable, for whatever reason, as they were the most neglected life stage in 3. Even babies got more stuff.

    I think Toddlers is something Maxis is pushing for, but EA are reluctant to green light it, simply because they either cannot see us paying for Toddlers, and they also don't see the audience growing enough if patched in for free, for it to be a well paid investment.

    ---

    We have to remember, EA are the ones who send out the Survey's regarding what packs people would like.
    We also have to remember, the Into The Future presentation that leaked, which was EA pitching the concept TO the Devs.
    Meaning the Devs were being presented by EA of what they had decided the pack should be.

    EA were also the ones that wouldn't green light The Sims 4 (originally) unless it was online.

    It's fair to say the Devs know what we want, but EA is the one that decides. Which is why the Devs sound so frustrated around certain topics.
    Which is why Drake's statement almost feels like they are waiting on an answer.

    Babies had more stuff than toddlers? Ummm...k.
    Babies had more stuff than toddlers? Ummm...k.

    LOL I was thinking the same thing. I must have completely missed that. Maybe I hit my head at some point and didn't realize it?

    Outside of the base game and Store Content, yeah. Any DLC included Baby objects, that Toddlers "could" use too. But were designed for Babies. Like the pram is designed better for babies, and Toddlers can use it but don't fit on it properly. It was an after-thought. Which is why people reported that while babies had new animations in the stroller, the Toddlers just had high chair animations re-used.

    Store Content had more freedom.

  • Options
    BatmanFanGirlBatmanFanGirl Posts: 1,298 Member
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    This just sounds like more of the same imo. There should be no reason why they don't know if toddlers are going to be in the game by now or not. I'm betting they know the answer and it's one that most simmers aren't going to like, hence the silence. But that's just my two cents... *goes back to work*
    So even when a statement is made about Toddlers, it's just a repeat of what they've been saying for the past 2 years. just tell us if you're working on them or not. I don't care if you hear us, or you're listening to our feedback, how about tell us what your plan is for once.
    It is sad they ask us to be even more patient than 2 years to make a life-stage which will probably not even have much content when released. :/ Really Maxis?
    I don't even give a plum about toddlers (always found that stage to be such a grind), but I find it interesting that they don't just outright say whether they're doing it one way or the other, which is what the community clearly wants.

    We know Maxis is listening. What people want to know, is whether they've made a decision or not.
    QDog wrote: »
    Ciarassims wrote: »
    QDog wrote: »
    lejoninna wrote: »
    QDog wrote: »
    My two cents:

    This statement pretty much confirms they are working on toddlers (otherwise why would they tak about them in the office every day?).

    ya for the next version maybe

    If you read my whole post, I said that this confirms they are working on them, but not that we are going to get them.

    Not trying sound sarcastic or rude or anything but what's the point of working on them if we ain't gonna get them?

    As I said, in a perfect world they would just work on them and release them and every one would be happy. But things are complicated in real life, particularly in business. They may have run into problems or may be discussing if it will be profitable to implement them (or when would be the perfect moment to release them) etc.

    Not that I'm defending EA, but in my opinion this means they are working on them. However, I think they haven't yet reached the point they are comfortable confirming toddlers are coming. Can you imagine the fan reaction if they confirmed that toddlers are coming and a few weeks later they told us that the developers have run into unsolvable problems and they cannot be implemented in the end?

    Yeah I understand your point but they've had two years to discuss this, do they need another two?

    Honestly, I think the REAL issue is, the Developers want to put Toddlers in the game, but EA are the ones who have to green light it.
    EA are the ones who have to invest in the project, which is why Maxis can't say "yes" or "no" because probably everything we ask about is on their "list" but whether EA provides the funding for that to come to fruition, is a totally different story.

    The only time we got major gameplay for Toddlers in 3, was when The Sims Store team was able to squeeze it into sets.
    EA obviously think Toddlers aren't profitable, for whatever reason, as they were the most neglected life stage in 3. Even babies got more stuff.

    I think Toddlers is something Maxis is pushing for, but EA are reluctant to green light it, simply because they either cannot see us paying for Toddlers, and they also don't see the audience growing enough if patched in for free, for it to be a well paid investment.

    ---

    We have to remember, EA are the ones who send out the Survey's regarding what packs people would like.
    We also have to remember, the Into The Future presentation that leaked, which was EA pitching the concept TO the Devs.
    Meaning the Devs were being presented by EA of what they had decided the pack should be.

    EA were also the ones that wouldn't green light The Sims 4 (originally) unless it was online.

    It's fair to say the Devs know what we want, but EA is the one that decides. Which is why the Devs sound so frustrated around certain topics.
    Which is why Drake's statement almost feels like they are waiting on an answer.

    Babies had more stuff than toddlers? Ummm...k.
    Babies had more stuff than toddlers? Ummm...k.

    LOL I was thinking the same thing. I must have completely missed that. Maybe I hit my head at some point and didn't realize it?

    Outside of the base game and Store Content, yeah. Any DLC included Baby objects, that Toddlers "could" use too. But were designed for Babies. Like the pram is designed better for babies, and Toddlers can use it but don't fit on it properly. It was an after-thought. Which is why people reported that while babies had new animations in the stroller, the Toddlers just had high chair animations re-used.

    Store Content had more freedom.

    What is pram? Also How do babies have more content? They could be in a crib? Toddlers had the xylophone, the pegbox, toddler books, and high chair. Did I forget all the things babies can do? I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely don't know anything main game (not the store) that babies could do besides lay in their crib, and rock in a rocker? I'm not saying toddlers had a ton to do but they had more then babies? Are you talking about animated related items? Not physical items?
    heartstopper-couple.gif
  • Options
    lejoninnalejoninna Posts: 4,287 Member
    @IceDrizzle27 they knoooow. truth is toddlers arent a big deal outside the "veteran" players, who, alot if them, gather here in the forum...
  • Options
    MadIrisMadIris Posts: 596 Member
    edited August 2016
    Ciarassims wrote: »
    Not trying sound sarcastic or rude or anything but what's the point of working on them if we ain't gonna get them?

    It's EA dangling the carrot; there will never be a direct answer.


  • Options
    SimFan298SimFan298 Posts: 1,079 Member
    I'll just say, at least no toddler fans can claim they aren't being heard. So that's a plus.
    Origin ID: theAidster21

    The Sims has always been an important part of my life, and may it continue to be so! Long live Sims!

    [Due to some kind of glitch, I am unable to insert photos into my signature for some reason.]
  • Options
    x_Always_Heart_xx_Always_Heart_x Posts: 567 Member
    Why do they keep beating around the bush with this question? All I need is a straight forward answer; yes, no, or maybe so.

    "We hear you, we understand your concerns"... sounds like something costumer service would say to me. :/
  • Options
    To7mTo7m Posts: 5,467 Member
    edited August 2016
    QDog wrote: »
    Ciarassims wrote: »
    QDog wrote: »
    lejoninna wrote: »
    QDog wrote: »
    My two cents:

    This statement pretty much confirms they are working on toddlers (otherwise why would they tak about them in the office every day?).

    ya for the next version maybe

    If you read my whole post, I said that this confirms they are working on them, but not that we are going to get them.

    Not trying sound sarcastic or rude or anything but what's the point of working on them if we ain't gonna get them?

    As I said, in a perfect world they would just work on them and release them and every one would be happy. But things are complicated in real life, particularly in business. They may have run into problems or may be discussing if it will be profitable to implement them (or when would be the perfect moment to release them) etc.

    Not that I'm defending EA, but in my opinion this means they are working on them. However, I think they haven't yet reached the point they are comfortable confirming toddlers are coming. Can you imagine the fan reaction if they confirmed that toddlers are coming and a few weeks later they told us that the developers have run into unsolvable problems and they cannot be implemented in the end?

    Unusually I'm right up there with you but I can't agree on this one. I don't see this as conformation in any sense or form. It's been 2 years. 2 years. What the heck are they talking about every day at the office if they STILL can't give a basic answer? Are they coming or not? Don't need to know when, just that they are. I'll wait.

    --T

    P.S - @Pary yeah, Pram is British for stroller lol
  • Options
    halimali1980halimali1980 Posts: 8,246 Member
    @halimali1980 here you go. It was in another thread but it's better if you just read this statement specifically without having to look through all of it page by page.
    CqVL6LVWYAAVb6H.jpg:large

    Thank you, I didn't realize this was from the other thread until I saw it there. Thought this was something new from Twitter.

    We hear you, we listen === We cannot talk about future content is all the same.

    A simple we are working on them could change all this.
    Everything I post is an opinion here and I think every post of others is as well.
    giphy.gif
  • Options
    halimali1980halimali1980 Posts: 8,246 Member
    lejoninna wrote: »
    QDog wrote: »
    lejoninna wrote: »
    QDog wrote: »
    My two cents:

    This statement pretty much confirms they are working on toddlers (otherwise why would they tak about them in the office every day?).

    ya for the next version maybe

    If you read my whole post, I said that this confirms they are working on them, but not that we are going to get them.

    everything she said is the standard generic answer

    As I said in the other post, it feels you are getting a reply from an answering machine, the same tone, the same sentence. Not with Drake only but all the gurus and EA employees.

    I wonder if their technical staff are asked to say the same too.

    This whole thing resembles this scene from Meet your Parents lol
    https://youtu.be/oWRfodXI6TY
    Everything I post is an opinion here and I think every post of others is as well.
    giphy.gif
  • Options
    JoAnne65JoAnne65 Posts: 22,959 Member
    edited August 2016
    Ciarassims wrote: »
    "We absolutely hear you" how many times have we heard this in the last two years?

    That's why she said that they can't repeat the same answer because it'll get you frustrated, but that's because it's the only answer they've got right now that they can say to us on the subject. People will be upset if they don't respond about something they can't talk about, people will be upset if they do respond about a thing they can't talk about in the only way they can. There's no middle ground for them, so rather than saying these words and frustrating people like you who don't want the same answer, the only thing they can say is to be patient until they can actually have something so say about the subject besides the one answer they've given.
    No it's not. There are lots of other statements they can make. From a simple "yes, we're busy trying to make it happen" to "there'll be no toddlers in this game, we've decided to focus on other things". Nobody's expecting them to say nothing untill something actually happens. The fact people will get upset has got nothing to do with anything, that must never be a reason to withhold information.
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    This just sounds like more of the same imo. There should be no reason why they don't know if toddlers are going to be in the game by now or not. I'm betting they know the answer and it's one that most simmers aren't going to like, hence the silence. But that's just my two cents... *goes back to work*
    So even when a statement is made about Toddlers, it's just a repeat of what they've been saying for the past 2 years. just tell us if you're working on them or not. I don't care if you hear us, or you're listening to our feedback, how about tell us what your plan is for once.
    It is sad they ask us to be even more patient than 2 years to make a life-stage which will probably not even have much content when released. :/ Really Maxis?
    I don't even give a plum about toddlers (always found that stage to be such a grind), but I find it interesting that they don't just outright say whether they're doing it one way or the other, which is what the community clearly wants.

    We know Maxis is listening. What people want to know, is whether they've made a decision or not.
    QDog wrote: »
    Ciarassims wrote: »
    QDog wrote: »
    lejoninna wrote: »
    QDog wrote: »
    My two cents:

    This statement pretty much confirms they are working on toddlers (otherwise why would they tak about them in the office every day?).

    ya for the next version maybe

    If you read my whole post, I said that this confirms they are working on them, but not that we are going to get them.

    Not trying sound sarcastic or rude or anything but what's the point of working on them if we ain't gonna get them?

    As I said, in a perfect world they would just work on them and release them and every one would be happy. But things are complicated in real life, particularly in business. They may have run into problems or may be discussing if it will be profitable to implement them (or when would be the perfect moment to release them) etc.

    Not that I'm defending EA, but in my opinion this means they are working on them. However, I think they haven't yet reached the point they are comfortable confirming toddlers are coming. Can you imagine the fan reaction if they confirmed that toddlers are coming and a few weeks later they told us that the developers have run into unsolvable problems and they cannot be implemented in the end?

    Yeah I understand your point but they've had two years to discuss this, do they need another two?

    Honestly, I think the REAL issue is, the Developers want to put Toddlers in the game, but EA are the ones who have to green light it.
    EA are the ones who have to invest in the project, which is why Maxis can't say "yes" or "no" because probably everything we ask about is on their "list" but whether EA provides the funding for that to come to fruition, is a totally different story.

    The only time we got major gameplay for Toddlers in 3, was when The Sims Store team was able to squeeze it into sets.
    EA obviously think Toddlers aren't profitable, for whatever reason, as they were the most neglected life stage in 3. Even babies got more stuff.


    I think Toddlers is something Maxis is pushing for, but EA are reluctant to green light it, simply because they either cannot see us paying for Toddlers, and they also don't see the audience growing enough if patched in for free, for it to be a well paid investment.

    ---

    We have to remember, EA are the ones who send out the Survey's regarding what packs people would like.
    We also have to remember, the Into The Future presentation that leaked, which was EA pitching the concept TO the Devs.
    Meaning the Devs were being presented by EA of what they had decided the pack should be.

    EA were also the ones that wouldn't green light The Sims 4 (originally) unless it was online.

    It's fair to say the Devs know what we want, but EA is the one that decides. Which is why the Devs sound so frustrated around certain topics.
    Which is why Drake's statement almost feels like they are waiting on an answer.
    Dingdingding.. what? Great gameplay for toddlers was added in an EP, more so than in a set. After Generations we could read to them, they could read themselves, they could play on a springrider, they could snuggle with their siblings and we could take a stroll with them. Those interactions I use because they improve the toddler experience. Throwing them in a playpen or in a walker may be easy, but it didn't provide great gameplay. Those items are rather a way to not having to bother about them anymore. And what more stuff exactly did babies get in TS3 toddlers didn't? And as for that set: they deliberately attached that stuff to a world to make sure people would buy that world. It was used as decoy. Which you do with stuff you know people want badly.

    ETA: Oh, and after Seasons (or a patch, not sure) we can play with them in the sea.
    5JZ57S6.png
  • Options
    SapientsimsolidSapientsimsolid Posts: 3,169 Member
    edited August 2016
    Boo EA !
    we want toddlers; its weird watching an infant magically become a child & pop out of a bassinet !

    and for what its worth think toddlers should be as a Free optional DL; that way people who don't want them don't have to get them and those who do can dl it.
    IDT its fair to ask people who want them to pay for them, and don't think its fair to ask people who don't want them to get them if they don't.
  • Options
    JoAnne65JoAnne65 Posts: 22,959 Member
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    @Simanite wrote: »
    @jackjack_k OMG you always slay my soul with your posts! Speaking the voice of reason. :star::heart:

    giphy.gif

    :kissing_heart:
    @jackjack_k Dingdingdingding! We have a winner.
    This is almost definitely the problem (didn't know that about Into the Future though, it really brings everything into perspective).

    The project lead/director/whatever doesn't pitch ideas to EA, EA tells the project lead what to tell the team. If EA wants to focus on a particular pack, as determined by their focus groups, then that's what the team's gonna make.

    If EA doesn't want toddlers (because their TS3 and TS2 telemetry, taken directly from gamer's saves, shows that it was an unpopular life stage), then Maxis isn't going to be in a position to make toddlers.

    Who knows, maybe that toddler render they made for the CEO was a sneaky way to get him on board with the idea? As in, "look how cute your kid is? Who wouldn't want to play that in The Sims?"

    Yeah, you can Google the presentation. EA basically pitches the idea to the Devs, based on market research.
    It was really interesting. They pretty much told Devs who they were appealing to (mostly female teens), and why the pack should exist etc.

    That explains so much about TS3, and late-era TS2. SO MUCH teenybopper content.
    Katy Perry packs, how every household in Supernatural was a reference to Tru Blood, Twilight, Teen Wolf or Vampire Diaries, or how Oasis Landing in Into the Future was literally just the Capitol from The Hunger Games.

    The Sims 3 was definitely a teenage girls dream. Which is why when you go on YouTube, a lot of the male simmers only build in The Sims 3.
    A lot of the girls though, love The Sims 3.

    I do actually like a lot of The Sims 3, I just cannot bare all the issues that come with it. I pull my hair out when I install mods to fix issues, and then they start conflicting, and cause other issues. I wish someone would upload a Zip file of "all fixes as of 2016 patch" so I can plop it into my mods folder and play.

    Le Sigh.
    Thanks for making me feel young again :D
    Simanite wrote: »
    Sigzy05 wrote: »
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    @Sigzy05 wrote: »
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    @Simanite wrote: »
    @jackjack_k OMG you always slay my soul with your posts! Speaking the voice of reason. :star::heart:

    giphy.gif

    :kissing_heart:
    @jackjack_k Dingdingdingding! We have a winner.
    This is almost definitely the problem (didn't know that about Into the Future though, it really brings everything into perspective).

    The project lead/director/whatever doesn't pitch ideas to EA, EA tells the project lead what to tell the team. If EA wants to focus on a particular pack, as determined by their focus groups, then that's what the team's gonna make.

    If EA doesn't want toddlers (because their TS3 and TS2 telemetry, taken directly from gamer's saves, shows that it was an unpopular life stage), then Maxis isn't going to be in a position to make toddlers.

    Who knows, maybe that toddler render they made for the CEO was a sneaky way to get him on board with the idea? As in, "look how cute your kid is? Who wouldn't want to play that in The Sims?"

    Yeah, you can Google the presentation. EA basically pitches the idea to the Devs, based on market research.
    It was really interesting. They pretty much told Devs who they were appealing to (mostly female teens), and why the pack should exist etc.

    That explains so much about TS3, and late-era TS2. SO MUCH teenybopper content.
    Katy Perry packs, how every household in Supernatural was a reference to Tru Blood, Twilight, Teen Wolf or Vampire Diaries, or how Oasis Landing in Into the Future was literally just the Capitol from The Hunger Games.

    The Sims 3 was definitely a teenage girls dream. Which is why when you go on YouTube, a lot of the male simmers only build in The Sims 3.
    A lot of the girls though, love The Sims 3.

    I do actually like a lot of The Sims 3, I just cannot bare all the issues that come with it. I pull my hair out when I install mods to fix issues, and then they start conflicting, and cause other issues. I wish someone would upload a Zip file of "all fixes as of 2016 patch" so I can plop it into my mods folder and play.

    Le Sigh.

    And TS4 isn't? As far as I'm concerned 90% of youtube simmers are female now and then, and to address the male builders, I haven't seen any pop up on youtube now that TS4 is out, so not 100% sure about that statement as far as I can see, it only got worse.

    There's quite a few Sims 4 players that are male. The quirky side of the Sims appeals to males more for whatever reason.
    The Sims 4 totally is, especially with CAS. But none of the packs have been so blindly catered to teenage girls more than anyone else.

    Get To Work, OR, DO, GT are all fairly even between audience. I'd say Spa Day was the only pack that felt more female orientated. But that's simply because girls are more into going to the Spa than Men.

    That's the most ridiculous thing I could ever hear, not to mention sexist.

    Please review your facts because you are obviously putting your own opinions above anything else. Not to mention TS4 is the less quirky of all sims games, unless ofc you are talking about the potty humor, aka "angry poop".

    Besides I don't even see how World Adventures screams girly, or Ambitions, or Late Night or Island Paradise or University and so on.

    latest?cb=20140910040316
    Not sure what your message is, I agree with @Sigzy05 there. If you don't please explain why, instead of dealing with it with an insulting pic that may express your feelings but I haven't got a clue why. One Katy Perry SP doesn't suddenly make the entire game girly.

    In any case, Generations is mentioned as a favourite by simmers in the TS3 section a lot. I happen to agree with JackJack it was a disappointing EP, but others clearly don't feel that way.
    5JZ57S6.png
  • Options
    SapientsimsolidSapientsimsolid Posts: 3,169 Member
    edited August 2016
    if you guys got toddlers would you be willing to pay for some things they would enjoy or need ?

    ETA: EA shld give us the toddler for free (for pain and suffering, and add a few things they'd need in with them)
    then make a stuff pack for them for about $10.00. Good compromise and win win situation
    what you guys think ?
  • Options
    JoAnne65JoAnne65 Posts: 22,959 Member
    edited August 2016
    SimFan298 wrote: »
    I'll just say, at least no toddler fans can claim they aren't being heard. So that's a plus.
    Yeah... Fyi, that statement was part of a post, written in the airport on a phone, to rectify after insulting simmers in a pretty bad way.
    5JZ57S6.png
Sign In or Register to comment.
Return to top