I started with Sims 2 on PS2 and remember getting frustrated with the color options, lol. I can literally only think of one thing I loved the color and pattern of and wouldn't have altered it and that was a swatch for a wall. Everything else I just begrudgingly accepted. Then I think I started playing Sims 3 on PC before Sims 2 on PC. My memory's a bit fuzzy but I remember being excited because I could change the color and patterns plus open world and I knew Sims 2 wouldn't have an open world but was annoyed I was stuck with presets again when I played 2 on PC.
I'm like JoAnne65 mostly, I like Sims 3 because the world evolves with my sims. I like that if feels more like an actual community even though I was annoyed playing rotational at times. It wasn't great that I couldn't keep wishes and opportunities but I wanted the sims I didn't play to carry on with life and I couldn't use mods at the time because I knew I'd forget about them when it was time to update the game. And also like Deshong04 mentioned the game learned and adapted to how I played which was great but when playing rotational a bit frustrating because the game would jump ahead make the moves I was planning to make when I got back around to the household(s) in question.
I don't know if I would be considered a core player. I feel like I would be but I don't think I fall into core player behavior patterns if money is almost guaranteed from them. Thinking that way to me shows a careless lack of respect but it unfortunately isn't surprising to me if that's a glimpse into how EA thinks. I have no problem with them appealing to newer players but forgetting about the core players and taking them for granted when they're the ones who helped make the game as popular as it is sounds like a way to get burned eventually. Especially when you have the history they do. If core players are almost a guarantee then what does that make newer and/or younger players they're trying to appeal to? They can reel them in but can they keep them?
Core players, even if frustrated at times, I do think are more likely to stick around because they have more of a connection and history with the franchise but newer people don't have that and I think would likely jump ship if a similar game were to come along. If a different company created a new sandbox life simulator game:
that strives to deliver a limitless sandbox life simulator game with the tools to create truly diverse characters and places if we desire
where they address and fix bugs and glitches when brought to their attention in a more timely manner
that makes new features, advancement and improvements without cutting corners or sacrificing other important features
where making a buck doesn't feel like their number one priority but their customers are number one
where they communicate more directly, openly, and honestly to understand players better and create a better game
I know for me personally, I love this franchise and I'd check in, but I'd be with the new sandbox life simulator by their second iteration at the very latest if this is how they carried themselves. Even if it meant having to wait longer for them to figure things out because my problem was never waiting.
If I'm seeing more passion and ideas that better the core concept from group B over group A, if I feel like group B values all customers more than group A, and if group B is showing more initiative to ensure what they put out is their best content every time with minimal issues more so than group A then I'll pick group B any day. If only there was a group B.
I'm wondering. If EA was only taking on more staff for a "new" Sims game a year ago ( @Writin_Reg ). Was the future of Sims games more precarious than we thought? Was 4 really to be the last Sims for PCs and laptops? Have EA/Maxis only just been seeing positive monetary advantages of staying with the brand and over-bragging about sales but now see a growth?
I remember that in 2014/2015 that PC's, Laptops were seen to be in decline with sales diminishing and tablets and smartphones were seen as the latest thing so mobile games came in in a big way. Now, new technology, huge gaming competitions needing gaming laptops and PCs and governments cracking down on lootboxes are causing a re-think.
And, if you think they might have thought they were right at the time you should check what those in charge thought about the internet in 1995.
"The same year, Ethernet co-inventor Robert Metcalfe commented in an article for InfoWorld: “I predict the internet will soon go spectacularly supernova, and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.”
It didn’t take Metcalfe long to admit his mistake, though: in 1997, he gave a keynote speech at the sixth International World Wide Web Conference, during which he put his article and some water into a blender and “ate his words”."
The article is very entertaining in light of what we know now!
(removed link as it is a sponsored one but is in the Guardian 12th April).
TS4 reminds me of the beanie baby saga. They had their fifteen mintutes of fame and now you can't give them away. And some still try to sell one for $1,000, and you can't even hand one out at a yard sale or garage sale anymore, no one wants them. Sure, it was a huge fad, I even ran around trying to find that special one thinking I could resale it later, lol. People had rooms filled to the top with all the collections, lol, it had about a two-five year run, beanie babies were every where. It wasn't just a stuffed toy, but a collector's item, buy them all! And now they are thrown into a free box but some (possibly still living under a rock) think they are worth more than the two cents it took to make one. TS4 has haad it's run in my opinion, and yes, it had some fun areas of gameplay, but if it could be resold it's my opinion if it carries on the way it has, it would be hard to give it away in a free box at a garage sale. Or at the end caps of a store in a bargain bin. It's had to be sold for $5 and bundles and cheaper than it cost to build it more than any of the previous games. Sure, sales may have caused a lot of new players, but it's still going to be hard to give away if it were a tangible item. If you put out the word, a teen can become an influencer to thousands of kids and tell them they too can be famous and get some freebies from Maxis what teen isn't going to fall for that, and have big dreams of being a star over on youtube. It's rather funny how they had to market this game, for the past five years, when one would think a game would either impress or not. And core fans would have liked it or not, seems they may not if they have to keep promising the moon and have reoccuring sales to unload it.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
TS4 reminds me of the beanie baby saga. They had their fifteen mintutes of fame and now you can't give them away. And some still try to sell one for $1,000, and you can't even hand one out at a yard sale or garage sale anymore, no one wants them. Sure, it was a huge fad, I even ran around trying to find that special one thinking I could resale it later, lol. People had rooms filled to the top with all the collections, lol, it had about a two-five year run, beanie babies were every where. It wasn't just a stuffed toy, but a collector's item, buy them all! And now they are thrown into a free box but some (possibly still living under a rock) think they are worth more than the two cents it took to make one. TS4 has haad it's run in my opinion, and yes, it had some fun areas of gameplay, but if it could be resold it's my opinion if it carries on the way it has, it would be hard to give it away in a free box at a garage sale. Or at the end caps of a store in a bargain bin. It's had to be sold for $5 and bundles and cheaper than it cost to build it more than any of the previous games. Sure, sales may have caused a lot of new players, but it's still going to be hard to give away if it were a tangible item. If you put out the word, a teen can become an influencer to thousands of kids and tell them they too can be famous and get some freebies from Maxis what teen isn't going to fall for that, and have big dreams of being a star over on youtube. It's rather funny how they had to market this game, for the past five years, when one would think a game would either impress or not. And core fans would have liked it or not, seems they may not if they have to keep promising the moon and have reoccuring sales to unload it.
How long did the other games last? Sims 1, 2 and 3? About 5 years each before the next one came out? Why is this one so special? Because it's lacking so much? Why does it deserve to get more and more "stuff" for it? There are some things I would have loved to see in the previous iterations. But they didn't do that.
Why this one?
I'd love a proper Sims 5. With the best of Sims 1, 2 and 3. I can't say what's best about Sims 4 because all I have is the base game. The toddlers are cute though. Maybe the toddlers and I hear vampires are fun. Maybe those. Bring on Sims 5! It's past time.
How long did the other games last? Sims 1, 2 and 3? About 5 years each before the next one came out? Why is this one so special? Because it's lacking so much? Why does it deserve to get more and more "stuff" for it?
If I had to venture a guess, maybe because they don't know if they will do a Sims 5. I don't remember when I heard about Sims 2, but Sims 3 was being advertised (in game on Sims tv's and computers) about a year before it was released. We've heard nothing of another game. If they aren't sure, it makes sense to keep adding to this one and sell what they can while that decision is being made. If they do decide to make it, we'll start hearing about it, probably a few months to a year before it comes out.
They have said since even before this game came out it was different than rest of the series and that it did not have an end point. One of the selling points they used on this game from the time they announced it at Gamescom in 2013 was that this game was designed from the ground up to be able to keep taking content as long as EA felt it was feasible to do so. So why is everyone surprised. They never once ever indicated it was ever meant to be a sequel to the first three or that it would follow the time lines of the first 3 games. People - I believe - don't pay attention to those things they have never ceased saying for what ever reason they had - choosing instead to believe it was a sequel to the first three and would run the same time course - in spite of the fact the management and devs have told us over and over the game would keep being made as long as it was feasible.
Obviously it sells well and is feasible to them at EA no matter what any one here feels about it. Also keep in mind many of the teens and younger ya's NEVER come to the forums. I'm told that often by my granddaughters and nieces and nephews. They tell me the forum is not a fun place to come to. Not a one of them know what people are saying here, nor even the least bit interested in the game ending anytime soon - in fact they didn't even want to hear of such things or a Sims 5.
Post edited by Writin_Reg on
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
They have said since even before this game came out it was different than rest of the series and that it did not have an end point. One of the selling points they used on this game from the time they announced it at Gamescom in 2013 was that this game was designed from the ground up to be able to keep taking content as long as EA felt it was feasible to do so. So why is everyone surprised.
Because technology wise it collapsed faster than any previous ones. City Living introduced simulation lag. Meaning it really couldn't do more than 2 years, let alone 4, let alone much longer.
It is also unrealistic. Even MMOs have an end point.
Also keep in mind many of the teens and younger ya's NEVER come to the forums. I'm told that often by my granddaughters and nieces and nephews. They tell me the forum is not a fun place to come to. Not a one of them know what people are saying here, nor even the least bit interested in the game ending anytime soon - in fact they didn't even want to hear of such things or a Sims 5.
I am much younger than you and I can state that your nephew and niece experience is not the normal experience. I've met plenty of 10+ year olds on both The Sims discords and here.
Hmmm, built from ground up to allow additional content, all I can do is shake my head as if this was built from bottom up, it sure lacks technical finesse. The only feature worthy in this version is the terrain editor and it is limited to the size of the lot. The other features are passe to me and it is just an average release which displays nothing spectacular for me.
Omen by HP Intel®️ Core™️ i9- 12900K W/ RGB Liquid Cooler 32GB Nvidia RTX 3080 10Gb ASUS Ultra-Wide 34" Curved Monitor. Omen By HP Intel® Core™ i7-12800HX 32 GB Nvidia 3070 Ti 8 GB 17.3 Screen
They have said since even before this game came out it was different than rest of the series and that it did not have an end point. One of the selling points they used on this game from the time they announced it at Gamescom in 2013 was that this game was designed from the ground up to be able to keep taking content as long as EA felt it was feasible to do so. So why is everyone surprised. They never once ever indicated it was ever meant to be a sequel to the first three or that it would follow the time lines of the first 3 games. People - I believe - don't pay attention to those things they have never ceased saying for what ever reason they had - choosing instead to believe it was a sequel to the first three and would run the same time course - in spite of the fact the management and devs have told us over and over the game would keep being made as long as it was feasible.
Obviously it sells well and is feasible to them at EA no matter what any one here feels about it. Also keep in mind many of the teens and younger ya's NEVER come to the forums. I'm told that often by my granddaughters and nieces and nephews. They tell me the forum is not a fun place to come to. Not a one of them know what people are saying here, nor even the least bit interested in the game ending anytime soon - in fact they didn't even want to hear of such things or a Sims 5.
I tried to give my niece (who will be 14 in August) the Sims 4 base game. She will have nothing to do with it. She got into the Sims by playing Sims 3 with me. She loves to redo her towns and recolor her household furniture and stuff. She looked at the Sims 4 but kept asking where the open world was, where was her Sim's car, why couldn't she drive through the town, etc.,etc.
But no, she's never been on the forums far as I know.
They have said since even before this game came out it was different than rest of the series and that it did not have an end point. One of the selling points they used on this game from the time they announced it at Gamescom in 2013 was that this game was designed from the ground up to be able to keep taking content as long as EA felt it was feasible to do so. So why is everyone surprised. They never once ever indicated it was ever meant to be a sequel to the first three or that it would follow the time lines of the first 3 games. People - I believe - don't pay attention to those things they have never ceased saying for what ever reason they had - choosing instead to believe it was a sequel to the first three and would run the same time course - in spite of the fact the management and devs have told us over and over the game would keep being made as long as it was feasible.
Obviously it sells well and is feasible to them at EA no matter what any one here feels about it. Also keep in mind many of the teens and younger ya's NEVER come to the forums. I'm told that often by my granddaughters and nieces and nephews. They tell me the forum is not a fun place to come to. Not a one of them know what people are saying here, nor even the least bit interested in the game ending anytime soon - in fact they didn't even want to hear of such things or a Sims 5.
What Rachel and Lucy said was they failed to explain to long time players of the series it is a different game and had failed to market it properly to get them on board. They didn't blame themselves, nor the structure of the game nor the lack of content 'core fans' were demanding before buying but blamed the reason for the rocky start on failing to properly market the game or explain it to their loyal customers. Never once thinking their core customers didn't actually like the base and it's lack of gameplay and content or it's structure, but ignored all that, and blamed themselves for failing to explain it. Since when did any Simmer need an explanation of the next iteration with a number in the title explained to them? No, it was the core fans who decided it's not worthy of that number. But they couldn't understand they would not but blamed a failure of marketing to explain the game. Deaf ears were talking apples and oranges. How to solve all that? Announce to teens everywhere on instagram, FB, Tumblr, Simblr or wherever, they too can be famous if they buy and play a game that core fans didn't see as part of a series.
You know as well as I do if they had not done a gender patch to gain 'new' players or let's say more players of a specific demographic and or had never added toddlers (to satisify long time supporters) we wouldn't even be here today, it would have ended or folded three years ago. And when that no longer works, throw in some stuff for the disabled, of how much they care, and invite thousands more to become influencers (another call just went out last year to thousands more). And when all that may not work any longer (it does for awhile) release more bundles (even more than past games) and have more $5 sales. ETA: And when that doesn't work as much as they would like or stops working, throw some terms out saying the game transends game genres and stop trying to satify long time players and grab some fashion influencers to boost sales or gain those in demographics that never even heard of it. TS4 has never been a game but a vechile to gain followers. It's not about a game, it's about influence.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
We all know The Sims 4 was meant to be online but SimCity 2013 was a disaster and EA changed! No... the future of simulators don't go well online! They could forget and start from 0 but they decided to continue with a game that in the beginning was really bad. The game we have today will never be good as the other games and thats frustrating for long time fans.
You would think they would have learned that this game concept is not meant for online play when it failed miserably in 2002. Then again, I'm an aging dinosaur, times are different, so who knows? I still don't think it will be successful as an online game, but what do I know? I do know this though, I didn't buy it in 2002 and I'm still not buying it if it's an online game.
They have said since even before this game came out it was different than rest of the series and that it did not have an end point. One of the selling points they used on this game from the time they announced it at Gamescom in 2013 was that this game was designed from the ground up to be able to keep taking content as long as EA felt it was feasible to do so. So why is everyone surprised. They never once ever indicated it was ever meant to be a sequel to the first three or that it would follow the time lines of the first 3 games. People - I believe - don't pay attention to those things they have never ceased saying for what ever reason they had - choosing instead to believe it was a sequel to the first three and would run the same time course - in spite of the fact the management and devs have told us over and over the game would keep being made as long as it was feasible.
Obviously it sells well and is feasible to them at EA no matter what any one here feels about it. Also keep in mind many of the teens and younger ya's NEVER come to the forums. I'm told that often by my granddaughters and nieces and nephews. They tell me the forum is not a fun place to come to. Not a one of them know what people are saying here, nor even the least bit interested in the game ending anytime soon - in fact they didn't even want to hear of such things or a Sims 5.
What Rachel and Lucy said was they failed to explain to long time players of the series it is a different game and had failed to market it properly to get them on board. They didn't blame themselves, nor the structure of the game nor the lack of content 'core fans' were demanding before buying but blamed the reason for the rocky start on failing to properly market the game or explain it to their loyal customers. Never once thinking their core customers didn't actually like the base and it's lack of gameplay and content or it's structure, but ignored all that, and blamed themselves for failing to explain it. Since when did any Simmer need an explanation of the next iteration with a number in the title explained to them? No, it was the core fans who decided it's not worthy of that number. But they couldn't understand they would not but blamed a failure of marketing to explain the game. Deaf ears were talking apples and oranges. How to solve all that? Announce to teens everywhere on instagram, FB, Tumblr, Simblr or wherever, they too can be famous if they buy and play a game that core fans didn't see as part of a series.
You know as well as I do if they had not done a gender patch to gain 'new' players or let's say more players of a specific demographic and or had never added toddlers (to satisify long time supporters) we wouldn't even be here today, it would have ended or folded three years ago. And when that no longer works, throw in some stuff for the disabled, of how much they care, and invite thousands more to become influencers (another call just went out last year to thousands more). And when all that may not work any longer (it does for awhile) release more bundles (even more than past games) and have more $5 sales. ETA: And when that doesn't work as much as they would like or stops working, throw some terms out saying the game transends game genres and stop trying to satify long time players and grab some fashion influencers to boost sales or gain those in demographics that never even heard of it. TS4 has never been a game but a vechile to gain followers. It's not about a game, it's about influence.
I really dislike "influencers" and all that they stand for. My 10 year old nephew however, is always on YouTube and thinks they're great. Me, I can hear what he's watching and want to grab his ipad and toss it. I'm just an old dinosaur, I guess.
But there is one thing, at 10 he's not the one with the money, I am. And they don't seem to want mine.
I really dislike "influencers" and all that they stand for. My 10 year old nephew however, is always on YouTube and thinks they're great. Me, I can hear what he's watching and want to grab his ipad and toss it. I'm just an old dinosaur, I guess.
But there is one thing, at 10 he's not the one with the money, I am. And they don't seem to want mine.
Your nephew is essentially consuming an add that's not regulated. And he invests a lot more time into watching said add than old types of advertising. If it was my kid, I would have a nice long talk about is the person he's watching trying to sell us something and how he feels about that
I really dislike "influencers" and all that they stand for. My 10 year old nephew however, is always on YouTube and thinks they're great. Me, I can hear what he's watching and want to grab his ipad and toss it. I'm just an old dinosaur, I guess.
But there is one thing, at 10 he's not the one with the money, I am. And they don't seem to want mine.
His parents have the money. I have a co-worker whose 14 year old daughter plays the game. The daughter isn't a die-hard simmer so she doesn't keep up with releases, or frequent fan sites, but her mom will ask me about any new releases when she's planning a gift. Report card gift, birthday, etc. I think she gave her 3 packs for Christmas and another pack for Valentine's day. We know longer work at the same location but she probably bought her one for Easter.
They have said since even before this game came out it was different than rest of the series and that it did not have an end point. One of the selling points they used on this game from the time they announced it at Gamescom in 2013 was that this game was designed from the ground up to be able to keep taking content as long as EA felt it was feasible to do so. So why is everyone surprised. They never once ever indicated it was ever meant to be a sequel to the first three or that it would follow the time lines of the first 3 games. People - I believe - don't pay attention to those things they have never ceased saying for what ever reason they had - choosing instead to believe it was a sequel to the first three and would run the same time course - in spite of the fact the management and devs have told us over and over the game would keep being made as long as it was feasible.
Obviously it sells well and is feasible to them at EA no matter what any one here feels about it. Also keep in mind many of the teens and younger ya's NEVER come to the forums. I'm told that often by my granddaughters and nieces and nephews. They tell me the forum is not a fun place to come to. Not a one of them know what people are saying here, nor even the least bit interested in the game ending anytime soon - in fact they didn't even want to hear of such things or a Sims 5.
What Rachel and Lucy said was they failed to explain to long time players of the series it is a different game and had failed to market it properly to get them on board. They didn't blame themselves, nor the structure of the game nor the lack of content 'core fans' were demanding before buying but blamed the reason for the rocky start on failing to properly market the game or explain it to their loyal customers. Never once thinking their core customers didn't actually like the base and it's lack of gameplay and content or it's structure, but ignored all that, and blamed themselves for failing to explain it. Since when did any Simmer need an explanation of the next iteration with a number in the title explained to them? No, it was the core fans who decided it's not worthy of that number. But they couldn't understand they would not but blamed a failure of marketing to explain the game. Deaf ears were talking apples and oranges. How to solve all that? Announce to teens everywhere on instagram, FB, Tumblr, Simblr or wherever, they too can be famous if they buy and play a game that core fans didn't see as part of a series.
You know as well as I do if they had not done a gender patch to gain 'new' players or let's say more players of a specific demographic and or had never added toddlers (to satisify long time supporters) we wouldn't even be here today, it would have ended or folded three years ago. And when that no longer works, throw in some stuff for the disabled, of how much they care, and invite thousands more to become influencers (another call just went out last year to thousands more). And when all that may not work any longer (it does for awhile) release more bundles (even more than past games) and have more $5 sales. ETA: And when that doesn't work as much as they would like or stops working, throw some terms out saying the game transends game genres and stop trying to satify long time players and grab some fashion influencers to boost sales or gain those in demographics that never even heard of it. TS4 has never been a game but a vechile to gain followers. It's not about a game, it's about influence.
I really dislike "influencers" and all that they stand for. My 10 year old nephew however, is always on YouTube and thinks they're great. Me, I can hear what he's watching and want to grab his ipad and toss it. I'm just an old dinosaur, I guess.
But there is one thing, at 10 he's not the one with the money, I am. And they don't seem to want mine.
So true. I’d like to add that even when my own kids watch a lot of Let’s Plays and like doing so (not Sims but that’s beside the point), they also reject the idea of YouTubers playing such a huge part in the gaming industry and they acknowledge most of the time it isn’t in the benefit of them, the players. The addiciton of young players to influencers/gamechangers is used against them. The whole agreement is only in favour of the companies and the gamechangers, not the players. The players pay.
The series is no longer (and hasn't been since the birth of TS4) about the game but how to influence people into buying a pack to talk about. Forget about playing it, just sit around and talk and talk and talk about it. That's what influencers do, that is what players do. Yes, some play some and some can even brag how many hours but still they are on forums talking and talking about a game instead of playing it. That is the whole problem with TS4, it can't hold anyone's attention for more than a week. ETA: If it's about the money, yes, they have marketed a sal's ear into a silk purse, and it has done very well, but anyone who has spent any time playing it, knows in their gut it's not about the game but the money, and to talk about it, instead of play it, and after a week they are looking for the next new thing. I wonder if anyone would hold up their hand in a few years to get a free version if they knew what they know now. It's not going to hold the same nostalgia as the others. And that is probably planned, too, to keep people buying and buying and waiting and waiting on things they think they got for free, no, those things used to be in packs so no. you didn't get anything for free, remember many, many of hundreds or thousands of people paid for a $60-$80 base in 2014, so you have already paid for all the free stuff they can throw at you.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
How long did the other games last? Sims 1, 2 and 3? About 5 years each before the next one came out? Why is this one so special? Because it's lacking so much? Why does it deserve to get more and more "stuff" for it? There are some things I would have loved to see in the previous iterations. But they didn't do that.
Why this one?
I'm not so sure that it's a matter of getting more stuff than the previous games. It seems to be more like the same core themes are being stretched out over a longer period of time and over a greater number of expansions. For example, Seasons is missing a boatload of summertime activities and the Pets expansion was reduced to only cats and dogs. For the rest of the stuff, like beach activities, and smaller animals/horses, we'll have to wait for goodness knows how long, if ever.
The one bonus is that certain niche themes are getting a lot more attention, such as Fame and Vampires. The downside is that the basics, especially the Sims themselves, are being all but ignored. Up to now, there is still very little distinction between Sims and between adult-sized life stages, teen to elder.
It's very disappointing because, at this rate, the game will need to go many more years before it begins to feel 'complete'.
How long did the other games last? Sims 1, 2 and 3? About 5 years each before the next one came out? Why is this one so special? Because it's lacking so much? Why does it deserve to get more and more "stuff" for it? There are some things I would have loved to see in the previous iterations. But they didn't do that.
Why this one?
I'm not so sure that it's a matter of getting more stuff than the previous games. It seems to be more like the same core themes are being stretched out over a longer period of time and over a greater number of expansions. For example, Seasons is missing a boatload of summertime activities and the Pets expansion was reduced to only cats and dogs. For the rest of the stuff, like beach activities, and smaller animals/horses, we'll have to wait for goodness knows how long, if ever.
The one bonus is that certain niche themes are getting a lot more attention, such as Fame and Vampires. The downside is that the basics, especially the Sims themselves, are being all but ignored. Up to now, there is still very little distinction between Sims and between adult-sized life stages, teen to elder.
It's very disappointing because, at this rate, the game will need to go many more years before it begins to feel 'complete'.
Exactly, good for them, but a horrible premise for players.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
They have said since even before this game came out it was different than rest of the series and that it did not have an end point. One of the selling points they used on this game from the time they announced it at Gamescom in 2013 was that this game was designed from the ground up to be able to keep taking content as long as EA felt it was feasible to do so. So why is everyone surprised. They never once ever indicated it was ever meant to be a sequel to the first three or that it would follow the time lines of the first 3 games. People - I believe - don't pay attention to those things they have never ceased saying for what ever reason they had - choosing instead to believe it was a sequel to the first three and would run the same time course - in spite of the fact the management and devs have told us over and over the game would keep being made as long as it was feasible.
Obviously it sells well and is feasible to them at EA no matter what any one here feels about it. Also keep in mind many of the teens and younger ya's NEVER come to the forums. I'm told that often by my granddaughters and nieces and nephews. They tell me the forum is not a fun place to come to. Not a one of them know what people are saying here, nor even the least bit interested in the game ending anytime soon - in fact they didn't even want to hear of such things or a Sims 5.
Personally I'm not too fussed about it following the storyline perfectly, but I'm sorry regardless of whether they specified that it was never meant to be a sequel or not, the fact they decided to clearly name it and brand it as "The Sims 4" is going to lead anyone to the conclusion that "this is the fourth game in a series franchise" hence falling under the term of 'sequel'. Nothing they say can change that. In fact, I think I remember seeing an article about this before it released, saying it was "a completely new and different game," and even then it ticked me off because, seriously why would you name a game 'Anyseries4' if it's not meant to be the fourth iteration of that series!?!?? Literally makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, if they really wanted it to be this new and innovative game, they could've kept the name "Olympus" and I don't think a single Simmer would be having any problems at all with the game. It would just be another side game in the series, and would probably be even more profitable had EA done that considering there would likely be a LOT less controversy surrounding the game. Just my two cents, rant over lol
Also, I myself am a YA (mid-20s) and I come here to these forums quite often. However, I will say the main reason for that is because I'm genuinely passionate about Sims games. It's more than just enjoyment of the game, I truly care about it and the direction it goes. And I've felt this way for about 15 years now, as a child I just always assumed forums were for more "grown-up talks" about the game, whereas I just wanted to read legacy stories and such Maybe some insight as to why younger folks aren't seen here as often lol
They have said since even before this game came out it was different than rest of the series and that it did not have an end point. One of the selling points they used on this game from the time they announced it at Gamescom in 2013 was that this game was designed from the ground up to be able to keep taking content as long as EA felt it was feasible to do so. So why is everyone surprised. They never once ever indicated it was ever meant to be a sequel to the first three or that it would follow the time lines of the first 3 games. People - I believe - don't pay attention to those things they have never ceased saying for what ever reason they had - choosing instead to believe it was a sequel to the first three and would run the same time course - in spite of the fact the management and devs have told us over and over the game would keep being made as long as it was feasible.
Obviously it sells well and is feasible to them at EA no matter what any one here feels about it. Also keep in mind many of the teens and younger ya's NEVER come to the forums. I'm told that often by my granddaughters and nieces and nephews. They tell me the forum is not a fun place to come to. Not a one of them know what people are saying here, nor even the least bit interested in the game ending anytime soon - in fact they didn't even want to hear of such things or a Sims 5.
Personally I'm not too fussed about it following the storyline perfectly, but I'm sorry regardless of whether they specified that it was never meant to be a sequel or not, the fact they decided to clearly name it and brand it as "The Sims 4" is going to lead anyone to the conclusion that "this is the fourth game in a series franchise" hence falling under the term of 'sequel'. Nothing they say can change that. In fact, I think I remember seeing an article about this before it released, saying it was "a completely new and different game," and even then it ticked me off because, seriously why would you name a game 'Anyseries4' if it's not meant to be the fourth iteration of that series!?!?? Literally makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, if they really wanted it to be this new and innovative game, they could've kept the name "Olympus" and I don't think a single Simmer would be having any problems at all with the game. It would just be another side game in the series, and would probably be even more profitable had EA done that considering there would likely be a LOT less controversy surrounding the game. Just my two cents, rant over lol
Also, I myself am a YA (mid-20s) and I come here to these forums quite often. However, I will say the main reason for that is because I'm genuinely passionate about Sims games. It's more than just enjoyment of the game, I truly care about it and the direction it goes. And I've felt this way for about 15 years now, as a child I just always assumed forums were for more "grown-up talks" about the game, whereas I just wanted to read legacy stories and such Maybe some insight as to why younger folks aren't seen here as often lol
I agree with all of this. I don't think there would've been an uproar if they'd called it something else either and that was something that I didn't get. I remember someone saying (and this may not have even been a guru but people trying to defend the game) that The Sims 4 is like an alternate universe and how it's not supposed to follow it's predecessors and I remember thinking, 'then why the 4?' They could've called it The Sims Alternate Universe and prevented a lot of the chaos we had from the start. I actually think there would've been much more excitement and positivity.
And I'm in my mid to late 20's and come here a lot too. I lurk more than I post but I come here because I love this series and the best place to talk and give feedback in more depth, and to find simmers just as if not more in love with the series is here in the forums. On social media sites like Twitter and even Facebook I don't often find the kind of depth and insight that I do in the forums. The older I get the more I appreciate that type of thing but when I was younger I probably would've gravitated more towards Twitter (had it been as popular when I was a teen or preteen) just to make simple, short comments and things.
Forums seemed like a more adult thing to me too but when I started coming to the forums and actually seeing for myself that most people on the forums care about the game enough to not just say 'oh, this sucked,' or 'this was great' but 'this sucked and these are the reasons why' or 'this was great and here are the reasons why' I felt like this is where I should be to discuss the game. There are so many different perspectives and reasons as to why someone likes a feature, feels something could be better, plays a certain way, etc. and it also helped me gain more insight on myself as a player as well.
I mean, if they really wanted it to be this new and innovative game, they could've kept the name "Olympus" and I don't think a single Simmer would be having any problems at all with the game. It would just be another side game in the series, and would probably be even more profitable had EA done that considering there would likely be a LOT less controversy surrounding the game. Just my two cents, rant over lol
Yes! I think that's definitely true. There have been other side games that have done well, like Castaway and the Stories series. Medieval didn't do well, but I think that's because they misinterpreted what the community wanted. Bustin' Out and Urbz did really well and are remembered fondly. Not because they tied into the other games well later, they were definitely different, but just because they were fun. And Sims 4 is fun to play. It's biggest flaw is that it is called Sims 4 and it feels to different from 1-3. They could have just called it The Sims 2014 and I think that would have worked. lol. Had it been called something different, we would have gone in expecting different. As it was, we were caught by surprise with what we got.
They could have just called it The Sims 2014 and I think that would have worked. lol. Had it been called something different, we would have gone in expecting different. As it was, we were caught by surprise with what we got.
I've thought about this exact name as well! It's a decent name for the game since it is more modern than the past iterations, and would be a fun "time capsule" kinda game I suppose. I mean, it already captures the essence of our modern day era with mandatory cellphones, internet careers, influencers, etc. Heck, that actually sounds like a great side game idea, and it would've emphasized all the things EA seems to have wanted in Olympus: YAs everywhere, online everything, and party party party!
They have said since even before this game came out it was different than rest of the series and that it did not have an end point. One of the selling points they used on this game from the time they announced it at Gamescom in 2013 was that this game was designed from the ground up to be able to keep taking content as long as EA felt it was feasible to do so. So why is everyone surprised. They never once ever indicated it was ever meant to be a sequel to the first three or that it would follow the time lines of the first 3 games. People - I believe - don't pay attention to those things they have never ceased saying for what ever reason they had - choosing instead to believe it was a sequel to the first three and would run the same time course - in spite of the fact the management and devs have told us over and over the game would keep being made as long as it was feasible.
Obviously it sells well and is feasible to them at EA no matter what any one here feels about it. Also keep in mind many of the teens and younger ya's NEVER come to the forums. I'm told that often by my granddaughters and nieces and nephews. They tell me the forum is not a fun place to come to. Not a one of them know what people are saying here, nor even the least bit interested in the game ending anytime soon - in fact they didn't even want to hear of such things or a Sims 5.
Personally I'm not too fussed about it following the storyline perfectly, but I'm sorry regardless of whether they specified that it was never meant to be a sequel or not, the fact they decided to clearly name it and brand it as "The Sims 4" is going to lead anyone to the conclusion that "this is the fourth game in a series franchise" hence falling under the term of 'sequel'. Nothing they say can change that. In fact, I think I remember seeing an article about this before it released, saying it was "a completely new and different game," and even then it ticked me off because, seriously why would you name a game 'Anyseries4' if it's not meant to be the fourth iteration of that series!?!?? Literally makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, if they really wanted it to be this new and innovative game, they could've kept the name "Olympus" and I don't think a single Simmer would be having any problems at all with the game. It would just be another side game in the series, and would probably be even more profitable had EA done that considering there would likely be a LOT less controversy surrounding the game. Just my two cents, rant over lol
Also, I myself am a YA (mid-20s) and I come here to these forums quite often. However, I will say the main reason for that is because I'm genuinely passionate about Sims games. It's more than just enjoyment of the game, I truly care about it and the direction it goes. And I've felt this way for about 15 years now, as a child I just always assumed forums were for more "grown-up talks" about the game, whereas I just wanted to read legacy stories and such Maybe some insight as to why younger folks aren't seen here as often lol
I honestly think they did that because they knew, for sure, with a name like, "The Sims 4", the game would sell. Whereas more people would have been skeptical about purchasing a game called, "Olympus". And look at how much its sold. When I initially heard about the sims 4 I was thinking it was going to be a sequel just by the name alone and didn't feel like I needed to look into it much because I was thinking at the time, "Its probably going to be like the sims 2 and 3 put together". Boy was I largely mistaken. And then after being around in the forums for a while and coming across information I should have seen before I bought the base game I was kicking myself in the behind, but again all because of the name alone and imagine how many other simmers did the same thing. It was one of the best things they could have done for this game that is, "Different than the others in the series", to sell well. If they'd chosen a different name there would have been a lot of skeptical people not buying and trying out their new version/vision of the series, I being one of them would have not bought it and would have continued to play the sims 3.
"Bada su the gorn bada su the brawn bada bady oda aba donk donk donk gerbits gerbits vo gerbits".
You may have a point about the name of the game. I can only speak for myself. 4 has been buggy and laden with performance problems from the beginning. Add not having an open world, CASt, and constant load screens everytime I travel. So I would not have liked the game regardless of what name it was given.
Had the game not been named "sims" something or other, I may not have bought the game in the first place. I'll never really know for sure, but I did buy it immediately after it was released, because I had loved the other versions and trusted that it was going to be a game that I would love. I'll never make that mistake again. I doubt I will buy another sims game, because they seem to be going in a direction that is not attractive to me. In addition, they are not fixing all the bugs within a reasonable amount of time. If I ever do buy another game in this franchise, it will be because I researched it thoroughly first and found it to be a high quality game. Seriously doubt I will be pleased with what I find.
Comments
I'm like JoAnne65 mostly, I like Sims 3 because the world evolves with my sims. I like that if feels more like an actual community even though I was annoyed playing rotational at times. It wasn't great that I couldn't keep wishes and opportunities but I wanted the sims I didn't play to carry on with life and I couldn't use mods at the time because I knew I'd forget about them when it was time to update the game. And also like Deshong04 mentioned the game learned and adapted to how I played which was great but when playing rotational a bit frustrating because the game would jump ahead make the moves I was planning to make when I got back around to the household(s) in question.
I don't know if I would be considered a core player. I feel like I would be but I don't think I fall into core player behavior patterns if money is almost guaranteed from them. Thinking that way to me shows a careless lack of respect but it unfortunately isn't surprising to me if that's a glimpse into how EA thinks. I have no problem with them appealing to newer players but forgetting about the core players and taking them for granted when they're the ones who helped make the game as popular as it is sounds like a way to get burned eventually. Especially when you have the history they do. If core players are almost a guarantee then what does that make newer and/or younger players they're trying to appeal to? They can reel them in but can they keep them?
Core players, even if frustrated at times, I do think are more likely to stick around because they have more of a connection and history with the franchise but newer people don't have that and I think would likely jump ship if a similar game were to come along. If a different company created a new sandbox life simulator game:
I know for me personally, I love this franchise and I'd check in, but I'd be with the new sandbox life simulator by their second iteration at the very latest if this is how they carried themselves. Even if it meant having to wait longer for them to figure things out because my problem was never waiting.
If I'm seeing more passion and ideas that better the core concept from group B over group A, if I feel like group B values all customers more than group A, and if group B is showing more initiative to ensure what they put out is their best content every time with minimal issues more so than group A then I'll pick group B any day. If only there was a group B.
I remember that in 2014/2015 that PC's, Laptops were seen to be in decline with sales diminishing and tablets and smartphones were seen as the latest thing so mobile games came in in a big way. Now, new technology, huge gaming competitions needing gaming laptops and PCs and governments cracking down on lootboxes are causing a re-think.
And, if you think they might have thought they were right at the time you should check what those in charge thought about the internet in 1995.
"The same year, Ethernet co-inventor Robert Metcalfe commented in an article for InfoWorld: “I predict the internet will soon go spectacularly supernova, and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.”
It didn’t take Metcalfe long to admit his mistake, though: in 1997, he gave a keynote speech at the sixth International World Wide Web Conference, during which he put his article and some water into a blender and “ate his words”."
The article is very entertaining in light of what we know now!
(removed link as it is a sponsored one but is in the Guardian 12th April).
How long did the other games last? Sims 1, 2 and 3? About 5 years each before the next one came out? Why is this one so special? Because it's lacking so much? Why does it deserve to get more and more "stuff" for it? There are some things I would have loved to see in the previous iterations. But they didn't do that.
Why this one?
I'd love a proper Sims 5. With the best of Sims 1, 2 and 3. I can't say what's best about Sims 4 because all I have is the base game. The toddlers are cute though. Maybe the toddlers and I hear vampires are fun. Maybe those. Bring on Sims 5! It's past time.
If I had to venture a guess, maybe because they don't know if they will do a Sims 5. I don't remember when I heard about Sims 2, but Sims 3 was being advertised (in game on Sims tv's and computers) about a year before it was released. We've heard nothing of another game. If they aren't sure, it makes sense to keep adding to this one and sell what they can while that decision is being made. If they do decide to make it, we'll start hearing about it, probably a few months to a year before it comes out.
Obviously it sells well and is feasible to them at EA no matter what any one here feels about it. Also keep in mind many of the teens and younger ya's NEVER come to the forums. I'm told that often by my granddaughters and nieces and nephews. They tell me the forum is not a fun place to come to. Not a one of them know what people are saying here, nor even the least bit interested in the game ending anytime soon - in fact they didn't even want to hear of such things or a Sims 5.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
Because technology wise it collapsed faster than any previous ones. City Living introduced simulation lag. Meaning it really couldn't do more than 2 years, let alone 4, let alone much longer.
It is also unrealistic. Even MMOs have an end point.
I am much younger than you and I can state that your nephew and niece experience is not the normal experience. I've met plenty of 10+ year olds on both The Sims discords and here.
1 and 2 - 4 years
3 -5 years
I tried to give my niece (who will be 14 in August) the Sims 4 base game. She will have nothing to do with it. She got into the Sims by playing Sims 3 with me. She loves to redo her towns and recolor her household furniture and stuff. She looked at the Sims 4 but kept asking where the open world was, where was her Sim's car, why couldn't she drive through the town, etc.,etc.
But no, she's never been on the forums far as I know.
What Rachel and Lucy said was they failed to explain to long time players of the series it is a different game and had failed to market it properly to get them on board. They didn't blame themselves, nor the structure of the game nor the lack of content 'core fans' were demanding before buying but blamed the reason for the rocky start on failing to properly market the game or explain it to their loyal customers. Never once thinking their core customers didn't actually like the base and it's lack of gameplay and content or it's structure, but ignored all that, and blamed themselves for failing to explain it. Since when did any Simmer need an explanation of the next iteration with a number in the title explained to them? No, it was the core fans who decided it's not worthy of that number. But they couldn't understand they would not but blamed a failure of marketing to explain the game.
You know as well as I do if they had not done a gender patch to gain 'new' players or let's say more players of a specific demographic and or had never added toddlers (to satisify long time supporters) we wouldn't even be here today, it would have ended or folded three years ago. And when that no longer works, throw in some stuff for the disabled, of how much they care, and invite thousands more to become influencers (another call just went out last year to thousands more). And when all that may not work any longer (it does for awhile) release more bundles (even more than past games) and have more $5 sales. ETA: And when that doesn't work as much as they would like or stops working, throw some terms out saying the game transends game genres and stop trying to satify long time players and grab some fashion influencers to boost sales or gain those in demographics that never even heard of it. TS4 has never been a game but a vechile to gain followers. It's not about a game, it's about influence.
I really dislike "influencers" and all that they stand for. My 10 year old nephew however, is always on YouTube and thinks they're great. Me, I can hear what he's watching and want to grab his ipad and toss it. I'm just an old dinosaur, I guess.
But there is one thing, at 10 he's not the one with the money, I am. And they don't seem to want mine.
Your nephew is essentially consuming an add that's not regulated. And he invests a lot more time into watching said add than old types of advertising. If it was my kid, I would have a nice long talk about is the person he's watching trying to sell us something and how he feels about that
His parents have the money.
I'm not so sure that it's a matter of getting more stuff than the previous games. It seems to be more like the same core themes are being stretched out over a longer period of time and over a greater number of expansions. For example, Seasons is missing a boatload of summertime activities and the Pets expansion was reduced to only cats and dogs. For the rest of the stuff, like beach activities, and smaller animals/horses, we'll have to wait for goodness knows how long, if ever.
The one bonus is that certain niche themes are getting a lot more attention, such as Fame and Vampires. The downside is that the basics, especially the Sims themselves, are being all but ignored. Up to now, there is still very little distinction between Sims and between adult-sized life stages, teen to elder.
It's very disappointing because, at this rate, the game will need to go many more years before it begins to feel 'complete'.
Exactly, good for them, but a horrible premise for players.
Personally I'm not too fussed about it following the storyline perfectly, but I'm sorry regardless of whether they specified that it was never meant to be a sequel or not, the fact they decided to clearly name it and brand it as "The Sims 4" is going to lead anyone to the conclusion that "this is the fourth game in a series franchise" hence falling under the term of 'sequel'. Nothing they say can change that. In fact, I think I remember seeing an article about this before it released, saying it was "a completely new and different game," and even then it ticked me off because, seriously why would you name a game 'Anyseries4' if it's not meant to be the fourth iteration of that series!?!?? Literally makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, if they really wanted it to be this new and innovative game, they could've kept the name "Olympus" and I don't think a single Simmer would be having any problems at all with the game. It would just be another side game in the series, and would probably be even more profitable had EA done that considering there would likely be a LOT less controversy surrounding the game. Just my two cents, rant over lol
Also, I myself am a YA (mid-20s) and I come here to these forums quite often. However, I will say the main reason for that is because I'm genuinely passionate about Sims games. It's more than just enjoyment of the game, I truly care about it and the direction it goes. And I've felt this way for about 15 years now, as a child I just always assumed forums were for more "grown-up talks" about the game, whereas I just wanted to read legacy stories and such
I agree with all of this. I don't think there would've been an uproar if they'd called it something else either and that was something that I didn't get. I remember someone saying (and this may not have even been a guru but people trying to defend the game) that The Sims 4 is like an alternate universe and how it's not supposed to follow it's predecessors and I remember thinking, 'then why the 4?' They could've called it The Sims Alternate Universe and prevented a lot of the chaos we had from the start. I actually think there would've been much more excitement and positivity.
And I'm in my mid to late 20's and come here a lot too. I lurk more than I post but I come here because I love this series and the best place to talk and give feedback in more depth, and to find simmers just as if not more in love with the series is here in the forums. On social media sites like Twitter and even Facebook I don't often find the kind of depth and insight that I do in the forums. The older I get the more I appreciate that type of thing but when I was younger I probably would've gravitated more towards Twitter (had it been as popular when I was a teen or preteen) just to make simple, short comments and things.
Forums seemed like a more adult thing to me too but when I started coming to the forums and actually seeing for myself that most people on the forums care about the game enough to not just say 'oh, this sucked,' or 'this was great' but 'this sucked and these are the reasons why' or 'this was great and here are the reasons why' I felt like this is where I should be to discuss the game. There are so many different perspectives and reasons as to why someone likes a feature, feels something could be better, plays a certain way, etc. and it also helped me gain more insight on myself as a player as well.
Yes! I think that's definitely true. There have been other side games that have done well, like Castaway and the Stories series. Medieval didn't do well, but I think that's because they misinterpreted what the community wanted. Bustin' Out and Urbz did really well and are remembered fondly. Not because they tied into the other games well later, they were definitely different, but just because they were fun. And Sims 4 is fun to play. It's biggest flaw is that it is called Sims 4 and it feels to different from 1-3. They could have just called it The Sims 2014 and I think that would have worked. lol. Had it been called something different, we would have gone in expecting different. As it was, we were caught by surprise with what we got.
I've thought about this exact name as well! It's a decent name for the game since it is more modern than the past iterations, and would be a fun "time capsule" kinda game I suppose. I mean, it already captures the essence of our modern day era with mandatory cellphones, internet careers, influencers, etc. Heck, that actually sounds like a great side game idea, and it would've emphasized all the things EA seems to have wanted in Olympus: YAs everywhere, online everything, and party party party!
I honestly think they did that because they knew, for sure, with a name like, "The Sims 4", the game would sell. Whereas more people would have been skeptical about purchasing a game called, "Olympus". And look at how much its sold. When I initially heard about the sims 4 I was thinking it was going to be a sequel just by the name alone and didn't feel like I needed to look into it much because I was thinking at the time, "Its probably going to be like the sims 2 and 3 put together". Boy was I largely mistaken. And then after being around in the forums for a while and coming across information I should have seen before I bought the base game I was kicking myself in the behind, but again all because of the name alone and imagine how many other simmers did the same thing. It was one of the best things they could have done for this game that is, "Different than the others in the series", to sell well. If they'd chosen a different name there would have been a lot of skeptical people not buying and trying out their new version/vision of the series, I being one of them would have not bought it and would have continued to play the sims 3.
Had the game not been named "sims" something or other, I may not have bought the game in the first place. I'll never really know for sure, but I did buy it immediately after it was released, because I had loved the other versions and trusted that it was going to be a game that I would love. I'll never make that mistake again. I doubt I will buy another sims game, because they seem to be going in a direction that is not attractive to me. In addition, they are not fixing all the bugs within a reasonable amount of time. If I ever do buy another game in this franchise, it will be because I researched it thoroughly first and found it to be a high quality game. Seriously doubt I will be pleased with what I find.