@muzickmage Just pointing out, thought that information could be useful for you
Also, don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you're saying in this thread. But I think it also shows how quick people are to judge this expansion without knowing everything.
@muzickmage Just pointing out, thought that information could be useful for you
Also, don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you're saying in this thread. But I think it also shows how quick people are to judge this expansion without knowing everything.
Absolutely, and not a problem. All is good.
My initial complaint, before I strayed off in rambles... was ideas like curtains and furniture being added to a Cats and Dogs EP. To me, that's like adding pet clothes to the "Cool Kitchen" stuff pack. It just doesn't make sense to me that they would do that. (outside of wanting to fill the gaps that is).
Is there a good video out there that shows create a pet, and gameplay? I am not a fan of the squeals and super omg look at this video. I like calm and facts...
I'm really starting to hope that there would be pets stuff pack for those who bought Cats and Dogs. I would buy it.
Of course I also feel that I shouldn't have to buy an extra stuff pack for items like doghouses and more pet toys after I already have bought the actual expansion pack, but I still would buy it.
Reading this makes me really sad. You should rather download some CC because paying them for a Pets SP is ridiculous. (Though people said that a SP seems unlikely because no SP was based on a EP/GP so far, so hopefully it won't come to this.)
there's nothing wrong with them wanting money for there work times have changed if we want the same amount of stuff we had in eps before the price has to go up
But they already do make money. It's EA, a massive multimillion company, not an indie start up. They're already making a killing from this game, why should we pay more? Why can't we expect value for money when we're making them millions, from our hard earned wages? Why are you so happy to get less for your money?
it takes them more money to make it because it takes people more money to live to buy food and other things it cost more money
so it make since we should pay more @RnM92
No it doesn't make sense. I just said they're still making millions in profit from this game (much of which is not even being reinvested into the game), they're not exactly struggling like an indie developer. I could understand if they were struggling to break even, but this is not the case. They should be providing value for money.
It does make sense. Regardless of how much EA executives make you do realize they have to pay allot of employees under them. Employees that have to pay for rent, food etc. The cost of living has gone up since they made the sims 3, 2 or 1. Production for the game may cost more as well. I'm sure EA gives each game a budget. I'm sure they have a time limit in which things have to get done for the game. Would you like to wait an extra two years so they put everything in this ep you want? I'm sure that would however cost your more money .
If you feel your getting less for your money, don't buy it.
The developers PERSONAL costs of living are completely irrelevant to the development budget of the game. An employer isn’t going to pay two people of equal qualifications different salaries because one has more expenses in their personal life. A single male no kids and a single mother of 3 have two completely different expenses - but unless one was more qualified than the other there’s not going to be a huge difference in pay. It’s an employers responsibility to compensate you an agreed upon amount for the work that you do for them, not to make sure you can pay all of your bills on their dime.
If TS4 is a huge money maker than it’s clearly not seeing enough of that money reinvested into the game.
ETA: I personally think the profitability they speak of isn’t due to the game’s massive success but more with the expenses that they have cut to make their profit grow. Less money spent is less money that has to be earned before you start making just profit.
EA pays their employees whatever they pay them . That is between EA and their employees. You miss the point. Im sure the developers demand a certain salary . They are not going to work for nothing . If the price of living has gone up, so may their salary . Some of the developers have been working for EA for years and Im sure they are not working for the same salary they did years ago. They are entitle to a raise as maybe the rest of their staff is too.
You know how much EA has made on the sims 4? Proof please. Than I would like to see you prove their books and what they pay all their employees . They have a large staff to pay. Are you doing the books for EA that you know more than anyone else? You know what is going on behind closed doors?
Also prove the the budget for this game. EA has other games to budget, not just this game. How much everything costs to create the game. How many hours the developers have spent creating the game for you? I do know SimGuruNick has been working very hard trying to fix this game. He has and is taking save files from people . Taking game bug reports etc. Maybe you should come into tech more often and see some EA staff trying to help people and fix the game.
> @gamekitten said: > Is there a good video out there that shows create a pet, and gameplay? I am not a fan of the squeals and super omg look at this video. I like calm and facts...
The youtubers only gotta a certain amount of footage they were able to show, so not everything is covered fully in one video. I would probably recommend watching the Sims CAP livestream on Twitch, I remember it being quite detailed. The gameplay one is not coming out til tomorrow however.
@muzickmage Just pointing out, thought that information could be useful for you
Also, don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you're saying in this thread. But I think it also shows how quick people are to judge this expansion without knowing everything.
Absolutely, and not a problem. All is good.
My initial complaint, before I strayed off in rambles... was ideas like curtains and furniture being added to a Cats and Dogs EP. To me, that's like adding pet clothes to the "Cool Kitchen" stuff pack. It just doesn't make sense to me that they would do that. (outside of wanting to fill the gaps that is).
I think furniture makes sense since they're creating a new world, they're going to want to fill the pre-made houses with things that fit the theme. I do get what you're saying though that things for the pets are the priority and should be done first.
Are we seriously trying to argue Sims 4 costs more because things these days cost more and they need to pay their employees more...?
Please explain to me why every other video game company on the planet continues to sell content at the same prices and somehow seems fine. Please explain why just EA and the Sims team desperately need to price gouge us so their workers can eat.
I'm really starting to hope that there would be pets stuff pack for those who bought Cats and Dogs. I would buy it.
Of course I also feel that I shouldn't have to buy an extra stuff pack for items like doghouses and more pet toys after I already have bought the actual expansion pack, but I still would buy it.
Reading this makes me really sad. You should rather download some CC because paying them for a Pets SP is ridiculous. (Though people said that a SP seems unlikely because no SP was based on a EP/GP so far, so hopefully it won't come to this.)
there's nothing wrong with them wanting money for there work times have changed if we want the same amount of stuff we had in eps before the price has to go up
But they already do make money. It's EA, a massive multimillion company, not an indie start up. They're already making a killing from this game, why should we pay more? Why can't we expect value for money when we're making them millions, from our hard earned wages? Why are you so happy to get less for your money?
it takes them more money to make it because it takes people more money to live to buy food and other things it cost more money
so it make since we should pay more @RnM92
No it doesn't make sense. I just said they're still making millions in profit from this game (much of which is not even being reinvested into the game), they're not exactly struggling like an indie developer. I could understand if they were struggling to break even, but this is not the case. They should be providing value for money.
It does make sense. Regardless of how much EA executives make you do realize they have to pay allot of employees under them. Employees that have to pay for rent, food etc. The cost of living has gone up since they made the sims 3, 2 or 1. Production for the game may cost more as well. I'm sure EA gives each game a budget. I'm sure they have a time limit in which things have to get done for the game. Would you like to wait an extra two years so they put everything in this ep you want? I'm sure that would however cost your more money .
If you feel your getting less for your money, don't buy it.
The developers PERSONAL costs of living are completely irrelevant to the development budget of the game. An employer isn’t going to pay two people of equal qualifications different salaries because one has more expenses in their personal life. A single male no kids and a single mother of 3 have two completely different expenses - but unless one was more qualified than the other there’s not going to be a huge difference in pay. It’s an employers responsibility to compensate you an agreed upon amount for the work that you do for them, not to make sure you can pay all of your bills on their dime.
If TS4 is a huge money maker than it’s clearly not seeing enough of that money reinvested into the game.
ETA: I personally think the profitability they speak of isn’t due to the game’s massive success but more with the expenses that they have cut to make their profit grow. Less money spent is less money that has to be earned before you start making just profit.
EA pays their employees whatever they pay them . That is between EA and their employees. You miss the point. Im sure the developers demand a certain salary . They are not going to work for nothing . If the price of living has gone up, so may their salary . Some of the developers have been working for EA for years and Im sure they are not working for the same salary they did years ago. They are entitle to a raise as maybe the rest of their staff is too.
You know how much EA has made on the sims 4? Proof please. Than I would like to see you prove their books and what they pay all their employees . They have a large staff to pay. Are you doing the books for EA that you know more than anyone else? You know what is going on behind closed doors?
Also prove the the budget for this game. EA has other games to budget, not just this game. How much everything costs to create the game. How many hours the developers have spent creating the game for you? I do know SimGuruNick has been working very hard trying to fix this game. He has and is taking save files from people . Taking game bug reports etc. Maybe you should come into tech more often and see some EA staff trying to help people and fix the game.
Proof?
That's a needless ping pong game of an argument that includes you as well. You have no proof either... though you too are making assumptions you can't complement.
You're also forgetting about the fact that many higher level employees are employed by employment contracts (which I mentioned in an earlier post). Just because the cost of living increased, doesn't mean their contracts will supplement for that economic inflation, or marginal increase.
In addition, higher level staff are paid higher level pay. If (for example) a programmer is being paid $200,000 a year ... I don't think the boss will hear much if he/she complains suddenly that their bills this year are $350 more than last year's. They're earning 200 grand a year already.... so deal with it. Come back and tell me when your life's expenses increase by 10,000... and then maybe we'll talk about it.
> @DeservedCriticism said: > Are we seriously trying to argue Sims 4 costs more because things these days cost more and they need to pay their employees more...? > > Please explain to me why every other video game company on the planet continues to sell content at the same prices and somehow seems fine. Please explain why just EA and the Sims team desperately need to price gouge us so their workers can eat.
Every game company IS struggling to earn a profit these days. That's why we've seen the rise in Microtransactions and DLCs, because it all has to be paid for somehow and the sales needed to just break even are huge (i.e millions). But they won't raise prices because consumers won't accept it, and piracy and second hand games have really cut into their chances for profit. We have to remeber that when we buy a game, the publisher does not get 100 % of the money, 30% will go the distributer and if your selling on a console, another percentage goes to them (I think it's about 30 again, though I can't quite remember). That's why EA have really pushed Origin for consumers as it allows them to keep more money from sales. It's why Ubisoft and Blizzard have also made their own online distributing platform. It's not just EA at all.
> @DeservedCriticism said:
> Are we seriously trying to argue Sims 4 costs more because things these days cost more and they need to pay their employees more...?
>
> Please explain to me why every other video game company on the planet continues to sell content at the same prices and somehow seems fine. Please explain why just EA and the Sims team desperately need to price gouge us so their workers can eat.
Every game company IS struggling to earn a profit these days. That's why we've seen the rise in Microtransactions and DLCs, because it all has to be paid for somehow and the sales needed to just break even are huge (i.e millions). But they won't raise prices because consumers won't accept it, and piracy and second hand games have really cut into their chances for profit. We have to remeber that when we buy a game, the publisher does not get 100 % of the money, 30% will go the distributer and if your selling on a console, another percentage goes to them (I think it's about 30 again, though I can't quite remember). That's why EA have really pushed Origin for consumers as it allows them to keep more money from sales. It's why Ubisoft and Blizzard have also made their own online distributing platform. It's not just EA at all.
I want citations, not speculation. Spending millions in development and then making millions in profit is not evidence of "struggling" to make a profit. Stardew Valley for example was developed by one guy who is now a millionaire. He had no sponsorship, no funding, no nothing. He just had passion for his own personal Harvest Moon mod and eventually it picked up enough steam to become a game.
You also give a rather long-winded list that isn't even applicable. EA/Maxis is one and the same company, there is no publisher/distributor, and up until now there hasn't been a console version.
> > Proof? > > That's a needless ping pong game of an argument that includes you as well. You have no proof either... though you too are making assumptions you can't complement. > > You're also forgetting about the fact that many higher level employees are employed by employment contracts (which I mentioned in an earlier post). Just because the cost of living increased, doesn't mean their contracts will supplement for that economic inflation, or marginal increase. > > In addition, higher level staff are paid higher level pay. If (for example) a programmer is being paid $200,000 a year ... I don't think the boss will hear much if he/she complains suddenly that their bills this year are $350 more than last year's. They're earning 200 grand a year already.... so deal with it. Come back and tell me when your life's expenses increase by 10,000... and then maybe we'll talk about it.
"One of the big issues was where they lived. Expenses in San Francisco were so high, between salaries and rent and costs of living, that by one source’s estimate each employee could cost over $16,000 a month. (That number, which includes salary and other expenses, dwarfs the widely accepted average estimate of $10,000 a month." - Kotaku - The Collapse of Visceral's Ambitious Star Wars Game, Jason Schrier.
This is coming from Visceral Studios, which is just beside the Sims Studio and was recently shut down because of the high cost of that area (some other reasons as well but it was the main contributing factor). That's not for a high level programmer, that's just for your normal employee. Video games are expensive and the Sims Studio is made in an expensive part of the world, which increases the cost even more.
>
> Proof?
>
> That's a needless ping pong game of an argument that includes you as well. You have no proof either... though you too are making assumptions you can't complement.
>
> You're also forgetting about the fact that many higher level employees are employed by employment contracts (which I mentioned in an earlier post). Just because the cost of living increased, doesn't mean their contracts will supplement for that economic inflation, or marginal increase.
>
> In addition, higher level staff are paid higher level pay. If (for example) a programmer is being paid $200,000 a year ... I don't think the boss will hear much if he/she complains suddenly that their bills this year are $350 more than last year's. They're earning 200 grand a year already.... so deal with it. Come back and tell me when your life's expenses increase by 10,000... and then maybe we'll talk about it.
"One of the big issues was where they lived. Expenses in San Francisco were so high, between salaries and rent and costs of living, that by one source’s estimate each employee could cost over $16,000 a month. (That number, which includes salary and other expenses, dwarfs the widely accepted average estimate of $10,000 a month." - Kotaku - The Collapse of Visceral's Ambitious Star Wars Game, Jason Schrier.
This is coming from Visceral Studios, which is just beside the Sims Studio and was recently shut down because of the high cost of that area (some other reasons as well but it was the main contributing factor). That's not for a high level programmer, that's just for your normal employee. Video games are expensive and the Sims Studio is made in an expensive part of the world, which increases the cost even more.
And that, more so than not, would affect "lower level" staff. ie Secretaries, mail room, custodians, etc.
Not so much the higher level programmers contracted to the company, some of which could maybe work from their home a thousand miles away.
Just saying, there are a lot of what ifs, and maybe's.
If EA/Maxis is hurting for money that badly, I would suggest they stop creating non needed content. I for one could have done without the talking toilet and used that time and money to create maybe a washer and dryer. Something the average household actually does have. Who on planet earth has a talking toilet? I don't.
> > I want citations, not speculation. Spending millions in development and then making millions in profit is not evidence of "struggling" to make a profit. Stardew Valley for example was developed by one guy who is now a millionaire. He had no sponsorship, no funding, no nothing. He just had passion for his own personal Harvest Moon mod and eventually it picked up enough steam to become a game. > > You also give a rather long-winded list that isn't even applicable. EA/Maxis is one and the same company, there is no publisher/distributor, and up until now there hasn't been a console version.
Distributer as in the Store you buy it from etc. Amazon, Walmart etc - they don't sell it out of the goodness of their heart, they make money out of it, a pretty big margin - hence why they've pushed Origin. And Stardew Valley is a rare sucess story, very few indie games sell anywhere near that amount, plus it has very low production values compared to your typical AAA game. Mass Effect Andromeda was predictated to a have cost around $40 million to make, The Witcher 3 was estimated about $60 million to make (which was also produced in Poland so the costs where lower due to the exchange rate). Triple A games cost a lot to make and it's not fair to compare to a game which wouldn't look out of place coming from the 80s (I love Stardew Valley but there's a reason it only took one person to make - and I might add it took that one person 4 years to make, working 12 hr days). And btw, no game developer would work at all in this industry (and yes this includes people in EA) if they weren't passionate, they work long hours for little pay compared to what they'd make in other software industries. During Cruch Periods, developers will work 7 days a week on 16 hr days. It's a horrible practise in the industry. And instead of gamers trying to support the people who sacrifice so mush to produce games for us, we call them "lazy" and "greedy".
>
> I want citations, not speculation. Spending millions in development and then making millions in profit is not evidence of "struggling" to make a profit. Stardew Valley for example was developed by one guy who is now a millionaire. He had no sponsorship, no funding, no nothing. He just had passion for his own personal Harvest Moon mod and eventually it picked up enough steam to become a game.
>
> You also give a rather long-winded list that isn't even applicable. EA/Maxis is one and the same company, there is no publisher/distributor, and up until now there hasn't been a console version.
Distributer as in the Store you buy it from etc. Amazon, Walmart etc - they don't sell it out of the goodness of their heart, they make money out of it, a pretty big margin - hence why they've pushed Origin. And Stardew Valley is a rare sucess story, very few indie games sell anywhere near that amount, plus it has very low production values compared to your typical AAA game. Mass Effect Andromeda was predictated to a have cost around $40 million to make, The Witcher 3 was estimated about $60 million to make (which was also produced in Poland so the costs where lower due to the exchange rate). Triple A games cost a lot to make and it's not fair to compare to a game which wouldn't look out of place coming from the 80s (I love Stardew Valley but there's a reason it only took one person to make - and I might add it took that one person 4 years to make, working 12 hr days). And btw, no game developer would work at all in this industry (and yes this includes people in EA) if they weren't passionate, they work long hours for little pay compared to what they'd make in other software industries. During Cruch Periods, developers will work 7 days a week on 16 hr days. It's a horrible practise in the industry. And instead of gamers trying to support the people who sacrifice so mush to produce games for us, we call them "lazy" and "greedy".
And a million copies sold of "just the base game" at $80 a pop... equals $80 million. Now factor in the EPs X $40 each, GP X $20 each, and the SPs X $10 each. How much money did you get on your calculator?
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm moving on from this particular topic.
> > > And a million copies sold of "just the base game" at $80 a pop... equals $80 million. Now factor in the EPs X $40 each, GP X $20 each, and the SPs X $10 each. How much money did you get on your calculator?
Again as I said, they do not get the full $80. And when you factor in sales, CD seller sites, piracy and second hand, the money per unit they get is significantly lower than the retail price. Also, you have to factor in the price of marketing as well, which can cost as much as it took to make the game. Are you really arguing that games are exempt from the effect of inflation? If every other product you buy has to go up because of inflation, what make you think the cost of making games doesn't go up as well?
>
> I want citations, not speculation. Spending millions in development and then making millions in profit is not evidence of "struggling" to make a profit. Stardew Valley for example was developed by one guy who is now a millionaire. He had no sponsorship, no funding, no nothing. He just had passion for his own personal Harvest Moon mod and eventually it picked up enough steam to become a game.
>
> You also give a rather long-winded list that isn't even applicable. EA/Maxis is one and the same company, there is no publisher/distributor, and up until now there hasn't been a console version.
Distributer as in the Store you buy it from etc. Amazon, Walmart etc - they don't sell it out of the goodness of their heart, they make money out of it, a pretty big margin - hence why they've pushed Origin. And Stardew Valley is a rare sucess story, very few indie games sell anywhere near that amount, plus it has very low production values compared to your typical AAA game. Mass Effect Andromeda was predictated to a have cost around $40 million to make, The Witcher 3 was estimated about $60 million to make (which was also produced in Poland so the costs where lower due to the exchange rate). Triple A games cost a lot to make and it's not fair to compare to a game which wouldn't look out of place coming from the 80s (I love Stardew Valley but there's a reason it only took one person to make - and I might add it took that one person 4 years to make, working 12 hr days). And btw, no game developer would work at all in this industry (and yes this includes people in EA) if they weren't passionate, they work long hours for little pay compared to what they'd make in other software industries. During Cruch Periods, developers will work 7 days a week on 16 hr days. It's a horrible practise in the industry. And instead of gamers trying to support the people who sacrifice so mush to produce games for us, we call them "lazy" and "greedy".
And a million copies sold of "just the base game" at $80 a pop... equals $80 million. Now factor in the EPs X $40 each, GP X $20 each, and the SPs X $10 each. How much money did you get on your calculator?
I remember a button on twitter that celebrated Sims 4 selling 5mil copies of the base game a long while ago (about 2 years ago). That's $400mil if they were priced $80, and $200mil if they were priced $40, averaging out to $300 mil. If we add that to all of the EPs, GPs and SPs released and sold up to this point; EA likely have made about a billion from the Sims 4. All I'm saying is that dog beds are cheaper than that.
Intel i7-6700HQ; nvidia gtx970m 3 gb; 1tb HHD and 256gb SSD; my drivers are always up to date.
>
> I want citations, not speculation. Spending millions in development and then making millions in profit is not evidence of "struggling" to make a profit. Stardew Valley for example was developed by one guy who is now a millionaire. He had no sponsorship, no funding, no nothing. He just had passion for his own personal Harvest Moon mod and eventually it picked up enough steam to become a game.
>
> You also give a rather long-winded list that isn't even applicable. EA/Maxis is one and the same company, there is no publisher/distributor, and up until now there hasn't been a console version.
Distributer as in the Store you buy it from etc. Amazon, Walmart etc - they don't sell it out of the goodness of their heart, they make money out of it, a pretty big margin - hence why they've pushed Origin. And Stardew Valley is a rare sucess story, very few indie games sell anywhere near that amount, plus it has very low production values compared to your typical AAA game. Mass Effect Andromeda was predictated to a have cost around $40 million to make, The Witcher 3 was estimated about $60 million to make (which was also produced in Poland so the costs where lower due to the exchange rate). Triple A games cost a lot to make and it's not fair to compare to a game which wouldn't look out of place coming from the 80s (I love Stardew Valley but there's a reason it only took one person to make - and I might add it took that one person 4 years to make, working 12 hr days). And btw, no game developer would work at all in this industry (and yes this includes people in EA) if they weren't passionate, they work long hours for little pay compared to what they'd make in other software industries. During Cruch Periods, developers will work 7 days a week on 16 hr days. It's a horrible practise in the industry. And instead of gamers trying to support the people who sacrifice so mush to produce games for us, we call them "lazy" and "greedy".
Yes, and EA is the distributor. Thus, this is moot. Nintendo doesn't have a distributor, yet Nintendo recently somehow had the breathing room to dump millions into Breath of the Wild. Why is it that Nintendo can consciously take a risk and a hit to their income for the sake of quality and still come out fine, yet EA allegedly needs to price gouge Sims fans so the Gurus can buy a sandwich, and all this despite the fact that EA utilizes less expenses...?
And Stardew Valley is a rare sucess story, very few indie games sell anywhere near that amount, plus it has very low production values compared to your typical AAA game.
Minecraft
Stardew Valley
Undertale
Cuphead
Darkest Dungeon
Lisa: The Painful
Shovel Knight
Terraria
Rocket League
Kerbal Space Program
Binding of Isaac
A Hat in Time
Don't Starve
Faster Than Light
There's multiple every year. Somehow these people with limited funding and resources manage to develop games without starving, Nintendo can even go for broke and "overinvest" in a title despite having distributors to deal with an only one console to sell their games on, yet this AAA company needs to up their prices and income to ensure their dev team can eat...? Something doesn't add up here.
I'm really starting to hope that there would be pets stuff pack for those who bought Cats and Dogs. I would buy it.
Of course I also feel that I shouldn't have to buy an extra stuff pack for items like doghouses and more pet toys after I already have bought the actual expansion pack, but I still would buy it.
Reading this makes me really sad. You should rather download some CC because paying them for a Pets SP is ridiculous. (Though people said that a SP seems unlikely because no SP was based on a EP/GP so far, so hopefully it won't come to this.)
there's nothing wrong with them wanting money for there work times have changed if we want the same amount of stuff we had in eps before the price has to go up
But they already do make money. It's EA, a massive multimillion company, not an indie start up. They're already making a killing from this game, why should we pay more? Why can't we expect value for money when we're making them millions, from our hard earned wages? Why are you so happy to get less for your money?
it takes them more money to make it because it takes people more money to live to buy food and other things it cost more money
so it make since we should pay more @RnM92
No it doesn't make sense. I just said they're still making millions in profit from this game (much of which is not even being reinvested into the game), they're not exactly struggling like an indie developer. I could understand if they were struggling to break even, but this is not the case. They should be providing value for money.
It does make sense. Regardless of how much EA executives make you do realize they have to pay allot of employees under them. Employees that have to pay for rent, food etc. The cost of living has gone up since they made the sims 3, 2 or 1. Production for the game may cost more as well. I'm sure EA gives each game a budget. I'm sure they have a time limit in which things have to get done for the game. Would you like to wait an extra two years so they put everything in this ep you want? I'm sure that would however cost your more money .
If you feel your getting less for your money, don't buy it.
The developers PERSONAL costs of living are completely irrelevant to the development budget of the game. An employer isn’t going to pay two people of equal qualifications different salaries because one has more expenses in their personal life. A single male no kids and a single mother of 3 have two completely different expenses - but unless one was more qualified than the other there’s not going to be a huge difference in pay. It’s an employers responsibility to compensate you an agreed upon amount for the work that you do for them, not to make sure you can pay all of your bills on their dime.
If TS4 is a huge money maker than it’s clearly not seeing enough of that money reinvested into the game.
ETA: I personally think the profitability they speak of isn’t due to the game’s massive success but more with the expenses that they have cut to make their profit grow. Less money spent is less money that has to be earned before you start making just profit.
EA pays their employees whatever they pay them . That is between EA and their employees. You miss the point. Im sure the developers demand a certain salary . They are not going to work for nothing . If the price of living has gone up, so may their salary . Some of the developers have been working for EA for years and Im sure they are not working for the same salary they did years ago. They are entitle to a raise as maybe the rest of their staff is too.
You know how much EA has made on the sims 4? Proof please. Than I would like to see you prove their books and what they pay all their employees . They have a large staff to pay. Are you doing the books for EA that you know more than anyone else? You know what is going on behind closed doors?
Also prove the the budget for this game. EA has other games to budget, not just this game. How much everything costs to create the game. How many hours the developers have spent creating the game for you? I do know SimGuruNick has been working very hard trying to fix this game. He has and is taking save files from people . Taking game bug reports etc. Maybe you should come into tech more often and see some EA staff trying to help people and fix the game.
Proof?
That's a needless ping pong game of an argument that includes you as well. You have no proof either... though you too are making assumptions you can't complement.
You're also forgetting about the fact that many higher level employees are employed by employment contracts (which I mentioned in an earlier post). Just because the cost of living increased, doesn't mean their contracts will supplement for that economic inflation, or marginal increase.
In addition, higher level staff are paid higher level pay. If (for example) a programmer is being paid $200,000 a year ... I don't think the boss will hear much if he/she complains suddenly that their bills this year are $350 more than last year's. They're earning 200 grand a year already.... so deal with it. Come back and tell me when your life's expenses increase by 10,000... and then maybe we'll talk about it.
Proof of what. Let me spell it out for you in simple terms and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out Running a company or business costs money. Whatever that amount may be. You can not prove what their profit is for this game. You can not prove their budget for the game . You can not prove what they pay ALL their staff working on this game. They have staff in this forum and other forums too. Again it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the higher tech jobs will pay more. It works that way at any business. It's really not anyone's business how much they get paid. The point, it's a business cost. You can not prove how many hours the developers have worked on this game.
Complain all you want , this game has now been going on for 3 years. If people are so dissatisfied with the content of this game why do people continue to buy the game? Especially when they feel they not getting your money's worth. I know I would never buy something if I was not getting my money's worth. I also would not buy something that was not to my liking
I'm really starting to hope that there would be pets stuff pack for those who bought Cats and Dogs. I would buy it.
Of course I also feel that I shouldn't have to buy an extra stuff pack for items like doghouses and more pet toys after I already have bought the actual expansion pack, but I still would buy it.
Reading this makes me really sad. You should rather download some CC because paying them for a Pets SP is ridiculous. (Though people said that a SP seems unlikely because no SP was based on a EP/GP so far, so hopefully it won't come to this.)
there's nothing wrong with them wanting money for there work times have changed if we want the same amount of stuff we had in eps before the price has to go up
But they already do make money. It's EA, a massive multimillion company, not an indie start up. They're already making a killing from this game, why should we pay more? Why can't we expect value for money when we're making them millions, from our hard earned wages? Why are you so happy to get less for your money?
it takes them more money to make it because it takes people more money to live to buy food and other things it cost more money
so it make since we should pay more @RnM92
No it doesn't make sense. I just said they're still making millions in profit from this game (much of which is not even being reinvested into the game), they're not exactly struggling like an indie developer. I could understand if they were struggling to break even, but this is not the case. They should be providing value for money.
It does make sense. Regardless of how much EA executives make you do realize they have to pay allot of employees under them. Employees that have to pay for rent, food etc. The cost of living has gone up since they made the sims 3, 2 or 1. Production for the game may cost more as well. I'm sure EA gives each game a budget. I'm sure they have a time limit in which things have to get done for the game. Would you like to wait an extra two years so they put everything in this ep you want? I'm sure that would however cost your more money .
If you feel your getting less for your money, don't buy it.
The developers PERSONAL costs of living are completely irrelevant to the development budget of the game. An employer isn’t going to pay two people of equal qualifications different salaries because one has more expenses in their personal life. A single male no kids and a single mother of 3 have two completely different expenses - but unless one was more qualified than the other there’s not going to be a huge difference in pay. It’s an employers responsibility to compensate you an agreed upon amount for the work that you do for them, not to make sure you can pay all of your bills on their dime.
If TS4 is a huge money maker than it’s clearly not seeing enough of that money reinvested into the game.
ETA: I personally think the profitability they speak of isn’t due to the game’s massive success but more with the expenses that they have cut to make their profit grow. Less money spent is less money that has to be earned before you start making just profit.
EA pays their employees whatever they pay them . That is between EA and their employees. You miss the point. Im sure the developers demand a certain salary . They are not going to work for nothing . If the price of living has gone up, so may their salary . Some of the developers have been working for EA for years and Im sure they are not working for the same salary they did years ago. They are entitle to a raise as maybe the rest of their staff is too.
You know how much EA has made on the sims 4? Proof please. Than I would like to see you prove their books and what they pay all their employees . They have a large staff to pay. Are you doing the books for EA that you know more than anyone else? You know what is going on behind closed doors?
Also prove the the budget for this game. EA has other games to budget, not just this game. How much everything costs to create the game. How many hours the developers have spent creating the game for you? I do know SimGuruNick has been working very hard trying to fix this game. He has and is taking save files from people . Taking game bug reports etc. Maybe you should come into tech more often and see some EA staff trying to help people and fix the game.
Proof?
That's a needless ping pong game of an argument that includes you as well. You have no proof either... though you too are making assumptions you can't complement.
You're also forgetting about the fact that many higher level employees are employed by employment contracts (which I mentioned in an earlier post). Just because the cost of living increased, doesn't mean their contracts will supplement for that economic inflation, or marginal increase.
In addition, higher level staff are paid higher level pay. If (for example) a programmer is being paid $200,000 a year ... I don't think the boss will hear much if he/she complains suddenly that their bills this year are $350 more than last year's. They're earning 200 grand a year already.... so deal with it. Come back and tell me when your life's expenses increase by 10,000... and then maybe we'll talk about it.
Proof of what. Let me spell it out for you in simple terms and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out Running a company or business costs money. Whatever that amount may be. You can not prove what their profit is for this game. You can not prove their budget for the game . You can not prove what they pay ALL their staff working on this game. They have staff in this forum and other forums too. Again it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the higher tech jobs will pay more. It works that way at any business. It's really not anyone's business how much they get paid. The point, it's a business cost. You can not prove how many hours the developers have worked on this game.
Complain all you want , this game has now been going on for 3 years. If people are so dissatisfied with the content of this game why do people continue to buy the game? Especially when they feel they not getting your money's worth. I know I would never buy something if I was not getting my money's worth. I also would not buy something that was not to my liking
Exactly. There is no proof. Not for me. Not for you. Neither of us know what the math is behind EA's closed doors. That reality applies to "you" as well. You are making just as many assumptions as I, but yet, you are only demanding proof from me. Where is "your" proof?
We can both sit here all day and post the obvious. Businesses take money to run. Higher level staff get paid more. etc, etc. But such obvious remarks don't solve the argument that is based on a bunch of assumptions that we are "both" making. Not just myself, but you as well.
>
> I want citations, not speculation. Spending millions in development and then making millions in profit is not evidence of "struggling" to make a profit. Stardew Valley for example was developed by one guy who is now a millionaire. He had no sponsorship, no funding, no nothing. He just had passion for his own personal Harvest Moon mod and eventually it picked up enough steam to become a game.
>
> You also give a rather long-winded list that isn't even applicable. EA/Maxis is one and the same company, there is no publisher/distributor, and up until now there hasn't been a console version.
Distributer as in the Store you buy it from etc. Amazon, Walmart etc - they don't sell it out of the goodness of their heart, they make money out of it, a pretty big margin - hence why they've pushed Origin. And Stardew Valley is a rare sucess story, very few indie games sell anywhere near that amount, plus it has very low production values compared to your typical AAA game. Mass Effect Andromeda was predictated to a have cost around $40 million to make, The Witcher 3 was estimated about $60 million to make (which was also produced in Poland so the costs where lower due to the exchange rate). Triple A games cost a lot to make and it's not fair to compare to a game which wouldn't look out of place coming from the 80s (I love Stardew Valley but there's a reason it only took one person to make - and I might add it took that one person 4 years to make, working 12 hr days). And btw, no game developer would work at all in this industry (and yes this includes people in EA) if they weren't passionate, they work long hours for little pay compared to what they'd make in other software industries. During Cruch Periods, developers will work 7 days a week on 16 hr days. It's a horrible practise in the industry. And instead of gamers trying to support the people who sacrifice so mush to produce games for us, we call them "lazy" and "greedy".
And a million copies sold of "just the base game" at $80 a pop... equals $80 million. Now factor in the EPs X $40 each, GP X $20 each, and the SPs X $10 each. How much money did you get on your calculator?
I remember a button on twitter that celebrated Sims 4 selling 5mil copies of the base game a long while ago (about 2 years ago). That's $400mil if they were priced $80, and $200mil if they were priced $40, averaging out to $300 mil. If we add that to all of the EPs, GPs and SPs released and sold up to this point; EA likely have made about a billion from the Sims 4. All I'm saying is that dog beds are cheaper than that.
Sims 4 is about 3 years old. A billion would be enough to pay 1666 people $200000 per year for 3 years straight. How many people do you think work on sims 4? 300 if I'm being optimistic. And not all of them are making $200000 per year. EA really doesn't have an excuse to produce half-baked content.
Intel i7-6700HQ; nvidia gtx970m 3 gb; 1tb HHD and 256gb SSD; my drivers are always up to date.
>
> I want citations, not speculation. Spending millions in development and then making millions in profit is not evidence of "struggling" to make a profit. Stardew Valley for example was developed by one guy who is now a millionaire. He had no sponsorship, no funding, no nothing. He just had passion for his own personal Harvest Moon mod and eventually it picked up enough steam to become a game.
>
> You also give a rather long-winded list that isn't even applicable. EA/Maxis is one and the same company, there is no publisher/distributor, and up until now there hasn't been a console version.
Distributer as in the Store you buy it from etc. Amazon, Walmart etc - they don't sell it out of the goodness of their heart, they make money out of it, a pretty big margin - hence why they've pushed Origin. And Stardew Valley is a rare sucess story, very few indie games sell anywhere near that amount, plus it has very low production values compared to your typical AAA game. Mass Effect Andromeda was predictated to a have cost around $40 million to make, The Witcher 3 was estimated about $60 million to make (which was also produced in Poland so the costs where lower due to the exchange rate). Triple A games cost a lot to make and it's not fair to compare to a game which wouldn't look out of place coming from the 80s (I love Stardew Valley but there's a reason it only took one person to make - and I might add it took that one person 4 years to make, working 12 hr days). And btw, no game developer would work at all in this industry (and yes this includes people in EA) if they weren't passionate, they work long hours for little pay compared to what they'd make in other software industries. During Cruch Periods, developers will work 7 days a week on 16 hr days. It's a horrible practise in the industry. And instead of gamers trying to support the people who sacrifice so mush to produce games for us, we call them "lazy" and "greedy".
And a million copies sold of "just the base game" at $80 a pop... equals $80 million. Now factor in the EPs X $40 each, GP X $20 each, and the SPs X $10 each. How much money did you get on your calculator?
I remember a button on twitter that celebrated Sims 4 selling 5mil copies of the base game a long while ago (about 2 years ago). That's $400mil if they were priced $80, and $200mil if they were priced $40, averaging out to $300 mil. If we add that to all of the EPs, GPs and SPs released and sold up to this point; EA likely have made about a billion from the Sims 4. All I'm saying is that dog beds are cheaper than that.
Sims 4 is about 3 years old. A billion would be enough to pay 1666 people $200000 per year for 3 years straight. How many people do you think work on sims 4? 300 if I'm being optimistic. And not all of them are making $200000 per year. EA really doesn't have an excuse to produce half-baked content.
Precisely. And it doesn't take a calculator to understand that EA/Maxis wouldn't be creating sims 4 if they weren't making a profit. And by profit, I don't mean a measly little $1000 per month.
> @DeservedCriticism said: > > Yes, and EA is the distributor. Thus, this is moot. Nintendo doesn't have a distributor, yet Nintendo recently somehow had the breathing room to dump millions into Breath of the Wild. Why is it that Nintendo can consciously take a risk and a hit to their income for the sake of quality and still come out fine, yet EA allegedly needs to price gouge Sims fans so the Gurus can buy a sandwich, and all this despite the fact that EA utilizes less expenses...? And Stardew Valley is a rare sucess story, very few indie games sell anywhere near that amount, plus it has very low production values compared to your typical AAA game. > > > > > Minecraft > Stardew Valley > Undertale > Cuphead > Darkest Dungeon > Lisa: The Painful > Shovel Knight > Terraria > Rocket League > Kerbal Space Program > Binding of Isaac > A Hat in Time > Don't Starve > Faster Than Light > > There's multiple every year. Somehow these people with limited funding and resources manage to develop games without starving, Nintendo can even go for broke and "overinvest" in a title despite having distributors to deal with an only one console to sell their games on, yet this AAA company needs to up their prices and income to ensure their dev team can eat...? Something doesn't add up here.
EA and Nintendo are Publishers, not distributers, they handle marketing, legal etc for developers for their games. Distributers are the people who sell thr product to the consumers, like stores like Walmart and Amazon or online distributing platforms like Steam and Origin. EA developed Origin so it would have to give the 30 % cut of the retail price to their distributers.
Also some of those games are triple A games. And I wouldn't be sure that all of them are in profit yet despite doing good sales, Hellblade Senua's Sacrifice was released this year and did much better than expected and yet is only just breaking even 3 months after release, even though the majority of a games sales will happen in the first week of release. And those are still a few sucessful games out of the thousands that are released every, the majority you won't have heard of - afterall, noone really notices the failures. And AAA games have much higher production values expected of them, which again increases costs.
I'm really starting to hope that there would be pets stuff pack for those who bought Cats and Dogs. I would buy it.
Of course I also feel that I shouldn't have to buy an extra stuff pack for items like doghouses and more pet toys after I already have bought the actual expansion pack, but I still would buy it.
Reading this makes me really sad. You should rather download some CC because paying them for a Pets SP is ridiculous. (Though people said that a SP seems unlikely because no SP was based on a EP/GP so far, so hopefully it won't come to this.)
there's nothing wrong with them wanting money for there work times have changed if we want the same amount of stuff we had in eps before the price has to go up
But they already do make money. It's EA, a massive multimillion company, not an indie start up. They're already making a killing from this game, why should we pay more? Why can't we expect value for money when we're making them millions, from our hard earned wages? Why are you so happy to get less for your money?
it takes them more money to make it because it takes people more money to live to buy food and other things it cost more money
so it make since we should pay more @RnM92
No it doesn't make sense. I just said they're still making millions in profit from this game (much of which is not even being reinvested into the game), they're not exactly struggling like an indie developer. I could understand if they were struggling to break even, but this is not the case. They should be providing value for money.
It does make sense. Regardless of how much EA executives make you do realize they have to pay allot of employees under them. Employees that have to pay for rent, food etc. The cost of living has gone up since they made the sims 3, 2 or 1. Production for the game may cost more as well. I'm sure EA gives each game a budget. I'm sure they have a time limit in which things have to get done for the game. Would you like to wait an extra two years so they put everything in this ep you want? I'm sure that would however cost your more money .
If you feel your getting less for your money, don't buy it.
The developers PERSONAL costs of living are completely irrelevant to the development budget of the game. An employer isn’t going to pay two people of equal qualifications different salaries because one has more expenses in their personal life. A single male no kids and a single mother of 3 have two completely different expenses - but unless one was more qualified than the other there’s not going to be a huge difference in pay. It’s an employers responsibility to compensate you an agreed upon amount for the work that you do for them, not to make sure you can pay all of your bills on their dime.
If TS4 is a huge money maker than it’s clearly not seeing enough of that money reinvested into the game.
ETA: I personally think the profitability they speak of isn’t due to the game’s massive success but more with the expenses that they have cut to make their profit grow. Less money spent is less money that has to be earned before you start making just profit.
EA pays their employees whatever they pay them . That is between EA and their employees. You miss the point. Im sure the developers demand a certain salary . They are not going to work for nothing . If the price of living has gone up, so may their salary . Some of the developers have been working for EA for years and Im sure they are not working for the same salary they did years ago. They are entitle to a raise as maybe the rest of their staff is too.
You know how much EA has made on the sims 4? Proof please. Than I would like to see you prove their books and what they pay all their employees . They have a large staff to pay. Are you doing the books for EA that you know more than anyone else? You know what is going on behind closed doors?
Also prove the the budget for this game. EA has other games to budget, not just this game. How much everything costs to create the game. How many hours the developers have spent creating the game for you? I do know SimGuruNick has been working very hard trying to fix this game. He has and is taking save files from people . Taking game bug reports etc. Maybe you should come into tech more often and see some EA staff trying to help people and fix the game.
Proof?
That's a needless ping pong game of an argument that includes you as well. You have no proof either... though you too are making assumptions you can't complement.
You're also forgetting about the fact that many higher level employees are employed by employment contracts (which I mentioned in an earlier post). Just because the cost of living increased, doesn't mean their contracts will supplement for that economic inflation, or marginal increase.
In addition, higher level staff are paid higher level pay. If (for example) a programmer is being paid $200,000 a year ... I don't think the boss will hear much if he/she complains suddenly that their bills this year are $350 more than last year's. They're earning 200 grand a year already.... so deal with it. Come back and tell me when your life's expenses increase by 10,000... and then maybe we'll talk about it.
Proof of what. Let me spell it out for you in simple terms and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out Running a company or business costs money. Whatever that amount may be. You can not prove what their profit is for this game. You can not prove their budget for the game . You can not prove what they pay ALL their staff working on this game. They have staff in this forum and other forums too. Again it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the higher tech jobs will pay more. It works that way at any business. It's really not anyone's business how much they get paid. The point, it's a business cost. You can not prove how many hours the developers have worked on this game.
Complain all you want , this game has now been going on for 3 years. If people are so dissatisfied with the content of this game why do people continue to buy the game? Especially when they feel they not getting your money's worth. I know I would never buy something if I was not getting my money's worth. I also would not buy something that was not to my liking
Exactly. There is no proof. Not for me. Not for you. Neither of us know what the math is behind EA's closed doors. That reality applies to "you" as well. You are making just as many assumptions as I, but yet, you are only demanding proof from me. Where is "your" proof?
We can both sit here all day and post the obvious. Businesses take money to run. Higher level staff get paid more. etc, etc. But such obvious remarks don't solve the argument that is based on a bunch of assumptions that we are "both" making. Not just myself, but you as well.
I think you confused something. I was responding originally to someone else (drake mcarty) who commented to me. It was not you I responded to in the first place. Then you responded to me. That other person was going into ea profit and I asked them for proof. You are correct no one knows.
I am waiting for the finished product of Cats and Dogs. I hope over the next week or so EA updates the pet objects with a few pet things. I guess we'll all have to wait and see.
I'm really starting to hope that there would be pets stuff pack for those who bought Cats and Dogs. I would buy it.
Of course I also feel that I shouldn't have to buy an extra stuff pack for items like doghouses and more pet toys after I already have bought the actual expansion pack, but I still would buy it.
Reading this makes me really sad. You should rather download some CC because paying them for a Pets SP is ridiculous. (Though people said that a SP seems unlikely because no SP was based on a EP/GP so far, so hopefully it won't come to this.)
there's nothing wrong with them wanting money for there work times have changed if we want the same amount of stuff we had in eps before the price has to go up
But they already do make money. It's EA, a massive multimillion company, not an indie start up. They're already making a killing from this game, why should we pay more? Why can't we expect value for money when we're making them millions, from our hard earned wages? Why are you so happy to get less for your money?
it takes them more money to make it because it takes people more money to live to buy food and other things it cost more money
so it make since we should pay more @RnM92
No it doesn't make sense. I just said they're still making millions in profit from this game (much of which is not even being reinvested into the game), they're not exactly struggling like an indie developer. I could understand if they were struggling to break even, but this is not the case. They should be providing value for money.
It does make sense. Regardless of how much EA executives make you do realize they have to pay allot of employees under them. Employees that have to pay for rent, food etc. The cost of living has gone up since they made the sims 3, 2 or 1. Production for the game may cost more as well. I'm sure EA gives each game a budget. I'm sure they have a time limit in which things have to get done for the game. Would you like to wait an extra two years so they put everything in this ep you want? I'm sure that would however cost your more money .
If you feel your getting less for your money, don't buy it.
The developers PERSONAL costs of living are completely irrelevant to the development budget of the game. An employer isn’t going to pay two people of equal qualifications different salaries because one has more expenses in their personal life. A single male no kids and a single mother of 3 have two completely different expenses - but unless one was more qualified than the other there’s not going to be a huge difference in pay. It’s an employers responsibility to compensate you an agreed upon amount for the work that you do for them, not to make sure you can pay all of your bills on their dime.
If TS4 is a huge money maker than it’s clearly not seeing enough of that money reinvested into the game.
ETA: I personally think the profitability they speak of isn’t due to the game’s massive success but more with the expenses that they have cut to make their profit grow. Less money spent is less money that has to be earned before you start making just profit.
EA pays their employees whatever they pay them . That is between EA and their employees. You miss the point. Im sure the developers demand a certain salary . They are not going to work for nothing . If the price of living has gone up, so may their salary . Some of the developers have been working for EA for years and Im sure they are not working for the same salary they did years ago. They are entitle to a raise as maybe the rest of their staff is too.
You know how much EA has made on the sims 4? Proof please. Than I would like to see you prove their books and what they pay all their employees . They have a large staff to pay. Are you doing the books for EA that you know more than anyone else? You know what is going on behind closed doors?
Also prove the the budget for this game. EA has other games to budget, not just this game. How much everything costs to create the game. How many hours the developers have spent creating the game for you? I do know SimGuruNick has been working very hard trying to fix this game. He has and is taking save files from people . Taking game bug reports etc. Maybe you should come into tech more often and see some EA staff trying to help people and fix the game.
Proof?
That's a needless ping pong game of an argument that includes you as well. You have no proof either... though you too are making assumptions you can't complement.
You're also forgetting about the fact that many higher level employees are employed by employment contracts (which I mentioned in an earlier post). Just because the cost of living increased, doesn't mean their contracts will supplement for that economic inflation, or marginal increase.
In addition, higher level staff are paid higher level pay. If (for example) a programmer is being paid $200,000 a year ... I don't think the boss will hear much if he/she complains suddenly that their bills this year are $350 more than last year's. They're earning 200 grand a year already.... so deal with it. Come back and tell me when your life's expenses increase by 10,000... and then maybe we'll talk about it.
Proof of what. Let me spell it out for you in simple terms and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out Running a company or business costs money. Whatever that amount may be. You can not prove what their profit is for this game. You can not prove their budget for the game . You can not prove what they pay ALL their staff working on this game. They have staff in this forum and other forums too. Again it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the higher tech jobs will pay more. It works that way at any business. It's really not anyone's business how much they get paid. The point, it's a business cost. You can not prove how many hours the developers have worked on this game.
Complain all you want , this game has now been going on for 3 years. If people are so dissatisfied with the content of this game why do people continue to buy the game? Especially when they feel they not getting your money's worth. I know I would never buy something if I was not getting my money's worth. I also would not buy something that was not to my liking
Exactly. There is no proof. Not for me. Not for you. Neither of us know what the math is behind EA's closed doors. That reality applies to "you" as well. You are making just as many assumptions as I, but yet, you are only demanding proof from me. Where is "your" proof?
We can both sit here all day and post the obvious. Businesses take money to run. Higher level staff get paid more. etc, etc. But such obvious remarks don't solve the argument that is based on a bunch of assumptions that we are "both" making. Not just myself, but you as well.
I think you confused something. I was responding originally to someone else (drake mcarty) who commented to me. It was not you I responded to in the first place. Then you responded to me. That other person was going into ea profit and I asked them for proof. You are correct no one knows.
Comments
Also, don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you're saying in this thread. But I think it also shows how quick people are to judge this expansion without knowing everything.
Absolutely, and not a problem. All is good.
My initial complaint, before I strayed off in rambles... was ideas like curtains and furniture being added to a Cats and Dogs EP. To me, that's like adding pet clothes to the "Cool Kitchen" stuff pack. It just doesn't make sense to me that they would do that. (outside of wanting to fill the gaps that is).
EA pays their employees whatever they pay them . That is between EA and their employees. You miss the point. Im sure the developers demand a certain salary . They are not going to work for nothing . If the price of living has gone up, so may their salary . Some of the developers have been working for EA for years and Im sure they are not working for the same salary they did years ago. They are entitle to a raise as maybe the rest of their staff is too.
You know how much EA has made on the sims 4? Proof please. Than I would like to see you prove their books and what they pay all their employees . They have a large staff to pay. Are you doing the books for EA that you know more than anyone else? You know what is going on behind closed doors?
Also prove the the budget for this game. EA has other games to budget, not just this game. How much everything costs to create the game. How many hours the developers have spent creating the game for you? I do know SimGuruNick has been working very hard trying to fix this game. He has and is taking save files from people . Taking game bug reports etc. Maybe you should come into tech more often and see some EA staff trying to help people and fix the game.
> Is there a good video out there that shows create a pet, and gameplay? I am not a fan of the squeals and super omg look at this video. I like calm and facts...
The youtubers only gotta a certain amount of footage they were able to show, so not everything is covered fully in one video. I would probably recommend watching the Sims CAP livestream on Twitch, I remember it being quite detailed. The gameplay one is not coming out til tomorrow however.
I think furniture makes sense since they're creating a new world, they're going to want to fill the pre-made houses with things that fit the theme. I do get what you're saying though that things for the pets are the priority and should be done first.
Please explain to me why every other video game company on the planet continues to sell content at the same prices and somehow seems fine. Please explain why just EA and the Sims team desperately need to price gouge us so their workers can eat.
Proof?
That's a needless ping pong game of an argument that includes you as well. You have no proof either... though you too are making assumptions you can't complement.
You're also forgetting about the fact that many higher level employees are employed by employment contracts (which I mentioned in an earlier post). Just because the cost of living increased, doesn't mean their contracts will supplement for that economic inflation, or marginal increase.
In addition, higher level staff are paid higher level pay. If (for example) a programmer is being paid $200,000 a year ... I don't think the boss will hear much if he/she complains suddenly that their bills this year are $350 more than last year's. They're earning 200 grand a year already.... so deal with it. Come back and tell me when your life's expenses increase by 10,000... and then maybe we'll talk about it.
> Are we seriously trying to argue Sims 4 costs more because things these days cost more and they need to pay their employees more...?
>
> Please explain to me why every other video game company on the planet continues to sell content at the same prices and somehow seems fine. Please explain why just EA and the Sims team desperately need to price gouge us so their workers can eat.
Every game company IS struggling to earn a profit these days. That's why we've seen the rise in Microtransactions and DLCs, because it all has to be paid for somehow and the sales needed to just break even are huge (i.e millions). But they won't raise prices because consumers won't accept it, and piracy and second hand games have really cut into their chances for profit. We have to remeber that when we buy a game, the publisher does not get 100 % of the money, 30% will go the distributer and if your selling on a console, another percentage goes to them (I think it's about 30 again, though I can't quite remember). That's why EA have really pushed Origin for consumers as it allows them to keep more money from sales. It's why Ubisoft and Blizzard have also made their own online distributing platform. It's not just EA at all.
I want citations, not speculation. Spending millions in development and then making millions in profit is not evidence of "struggling" to make a profit. Stardew Valley for example was developed by one guy who is now a millionaire. He had no sponsorship, no funding, no nothing. He just had passion for his own personal Harvest Moon mod and eventually it picked up enough steam to become a game.
You also give a rather long-winded list that isn't even applicable. EA/Maxis is one and the same company, there is no publisher/distributor, and up until now there hasn't been a console version.
> Proof?
>
> That's a needless ping pong game of an argument that includes you as well. You have no proof either... though you too are making assumptions you can't complement.
>
> You're also forgetting about the fact that many higher level employees are employed by employment contracts (which I mentioned in an earlier post). Just because the cost of living increased, doesn't mean their contracts will supplement for that economic inflation, or marginal increase.
>
> In addition, higher level staff are paid higher level pay. If (for example) a programmer is being paid $200,000 a year ... I don't think the boss will hear much if he/she complains suddenly that their bills this year are $350 more than last year's. They're earning 200 grand a year already.... so deal with it. Come back and tell me when your life's expenses increase by 10,000... and then maybe we'll talk about it.
"One of the big issues was where they lived. Expenses in San Francisco were so high, between salaries and rent and costs of living, that by one source’s estimate each employee could cost over $16,000 a month. (That number, which includes salary and other expenses, dwarfs the widely accepted average estimate of $10,000 a month." - Kotaku - The Collapse of Visceral's Ambitious Star Wars Game, Jason Schrier.
This is coming from Visceral Studios, which is just beside the Sims Studio and was recently shut down because of the high cost of that area (some other reasons as well but it was the main contributing factor). That's not for a high level programmer, that's just for your normal employee. Video games are expensive and the Sims Studio is made in an expensive part of the world, which increases the cost even more.
And that, more so than not, would affect "lower level" staff. ie Secretaries, mail room, custodians, etc.
Not so much the higher level programmers contracted to the company, some of which could maybe work from their home a thousand miles away.
Just saying, there are a lot of what ifs, and maybe's.
If EA/Maxis is hurting for money that badly, I would suggest they stop creating non needed content. I for one could have done without the talking toilet and used that time and money to create maybe a washer and dryer. Something the average household actually does have. Who on planet earth has a talking toilet? I don't.
> I want citations, not speculation. Spending millions in development and then making millions in profit is not evidence of "struggling" to make a profit. Stardew Valley for example was developed by one guy who is now a millionaire. He had no sponsorship, no funding, no nothing. He just had passion for his own personal Harvest Moon mod and eventually it picked up enough steam to become a game.
>
> You also give a rather long-winded list that isn't even applicable. EA/Maxis is one and the same company, there is no publisher/distributor, and up until now there hasn't been a console version.
Distributer as in the Store you buy it from etc. Amazon, Walmart etc - they don't sell it out of the goodness of their heart, they make money out of it, a pretty big margin - hence why they've pushed Origin. And Stardew Valley is a rare sucess story, very few indie games sell anywhere near that amount, plus it has very low production values compared to your typical AAA game. Mass Effect Andromeda was predictated to a have cost around $40 million to make, The Witcher 3 was estimated about $60 million to make (which was also produced in Poland so the costs where lower due to the exchange rate). Triple A games cost a lot to make and it's not fair to compare to a game which wouldn't look out of place coming from the 80s (I love Stardew Valley but there's a reason it only took one person to make - and I might add it took that one person 4 years to make, working 12 hr days). And btw, no game developer would work at all in this industry (and yes this includes people in EA) if they weren't passionate, they work long hours for little pay compared to what they'd make in other software industries. During Cruch Periods, developers will work 7 days a week on 16 hr days. It's a horrible practise in the industry. And instead of gamers trying to support the people who sacrifice so mush to produce games for us, we call them "lazy" and "greedy".
And a million copies sold of "just the base game" at $80 a pop... equals $80 million. Now factor in the EPs X $40 each, GP X $20 each, and the SPs X $10 each. How much money did you get on your calculator?
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm moving on from this particular topic.
>
>
> And a million copies sold of "just the base game" at $80 a pop... equals $80 million. Now factor in the EPs X $40 each, GP X $20 each, and the SPs X $10 each. How much money did you get on your calculator?
Again as I said, they do not get the full $80. And when you factor in sales, CD seller sites, piracy and second hand, the money per unit they get is significantly lower than the retail price. Also, you have to factor in the price of marketing as well, which can cost as much as it took to make the game. Are you really arguing that games are exempt from the effect of inflation? If every other product you buy has to go up because of inflation, what make you think the cost of making games doesn't go up as well?
I remember a button on twitter that celebrated Sims 4 selling 5mil copies of the base game a long while ago (about 2 years ago). That's $400mil if they were priced $80, and $200mil if they were priced $40, averaging out to $300 mil. If we add that to all of the EPs, GPs and SPs released and sold up to this point; EA likely have made about a billion from the Sims 4.
All I'm saying is that dog beds are cheaper than that.
Yes, and EA is the distributor. Thus, this is moot. Nintendo doesn't have a distributor, yet Nintendo recently somehow had the breathing room to dump millions into Breath of the Wild. Why is it that Nintendo can consciously take a risk and a hit to their income for the sake of quality and still come out fine, yet EA allegedly needs to price gouge Sims fans so the Gurus can buy a sandwich, and all this despite the fact that EA utilizes less expenses...?
Minecraft
Stardew Valley
Undertale
Cuphead
Darkest Dungeon
Lisa: The Painful
Shovel Knight
Terraria
Rocket League
Kerbal Space Program
Binding of Isaac
A Hat in Time
Don't Starve
Faster Than Light
There's multiple every year. Somehow these people with limited funding and resources manage to develop games without starving, Nintendo can even go for broke and "overinvest" in a title despite having distributors to deal with an only one console to sell their games on, yet this AAA company needs to up their prices and income to ensure their dev team can eat...? Something doesn't add up here.
Proof of what. Let me spell it out for you in simple terms and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out Running a company or business costs money. Whatever that amount may be. You can not prove what their profit is for this game. You can not prove their budget for the game . You can not prove what they pay ALL their staff working on this game. They have staff in this forum and other forums too. Again it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the higher tech jobs will pay more. It works that way at any business. It's really not anyone's business how much they get paid. The point, it's a business cost. You can not prove how many hours the developers have worked on this game.
Complain all you want , this game has now been going on for 3 years. If people are so dissatisfied with the content of this game why do people continue to buy the game? Especially when they feel they not getting your money's worth. I know I would never buy something if I was not getting my money's worth. I also would not buy something that was not to my liking
Exactly. There is no proof. Not for me. Not for you. Neither of us know what the math is behind EA's closed doors. That reality applies to "you" as well. You are making just as many assumptions as I, but yet, you are only demanding proof from me. Where is "your" proof?
We can both sit here all day and post the obvious. Businesses take money to run. Higher level staff get paid more. etc, etc. But such obvious remarks don't solve the argument that is based on a bunch of assumptions that we are "both" making. Not just myself, but you as well.
Sims 4 is about 3 years old. A billion would be enough to pay 1666 people $200000 per year for 3 years straight. How many people do you think work on sims 4? 300 if I'm being optimistic. And not all of them are making $200000 per year. EA really doesn't have an excuse to produce half-baked content.
Precisely. And it doesn't take a calculator to understand that EA/Maxis wouldn't be creating sims 4 if they weren't making a profit. And by profit, I don't mean a measly little $1000 per month.
>
> Yes, and EA is the distributor. Thus, this is moot. Nintendo doesn't have a distributor, yet Nintendo recently somehow had the breathing room to dump millions into Breath of the Wild. Why is it that Nintendo can consciously take a risk and a hit to their income for the sake of quality and still come out fine, yet EA allegedly needs to price gouge Sims fans so the Gurus can buy a sandwich, and all this despite the fact that EA utilizes less expenses...? And Stardew Valley is a rare sucess story, very few indie games sell anywhere near that amount, plus it has very low production values compared to your typical AAA game.
>
>
>
>
> Minecraft
> Stardew Valley
> Undertale
> Cuphead
> Darkest Dungeon
> Lisa: The Painful
> Shovel Knight
> Terraria
> Rocket League
> Kerbal Space Program
> Binding of Isaac
> A Hat in Time
> Don't Starve
> Faster Than Light
>
> There's multiple every year. Somehow these people with limited funding and resources manage to develop games without starving, Nintendo can even go for broke and "overinvest" in a title despite having distributors to deal with an only one console to sell their games on, yet this AAA company needs to up their prices and income to ensure their dev team can eat...? Something doesn't add up here.
EA and Nintendo are Publishers, not distributers, they handle marketing, legal etc for developers for their games. Distributers are the people who sell thr product to the consumers, like stores like Walmart and Amazon or online distributing platforms like Steam and Origin. EA developed Origin so it would have to give the 30 % cut of the retail price to their distributers.
Also some of those games are triple A games. And I wouldn't be sure that all of them are in profit yet despite doing good sales, Hellblade Senua's Sacrifice was released this year and did much better than expected and yet is only just breaking even 3 months after release, even though the majority of a games sales will happen in the first week of release. And those are still a few sucessful games out of the thousands that are released every, the majority you won't have heard of - afterall, noone really notices the failures. And AAA games have much higher production values expected of them, which again increases costs.
I think you confused something. I was responding originally to someone else (drake mcarty) who commented to me. It was not you I responded to in the first place. Then you responded to me. That other person was going into ea profit and I asked them for proof. You are correct no one knows.
Now that we cleared that up. Carry on. LOL
I am waiting for the finished product of Cats and Dogs. I hope over the next week or so EA updates the pet objects with a few pet things. I guess we'll all have to wait and see.
Fair enough, then my fault..... sorry.