> @Writin_Reg said:
> Marina1997marina wrote: »
>
> Stop supporting 32 bit will also affect the ones that have 64bit os if they play with the 32bit version. Not all of us can afford updating our hardware. Before the release of laundry stuff they did polls. And it was a stuff pack. Why they don't do one now? It's just unfair.
>
>
>
>
> They don't have to Origin already tells them exactly what you are running and what version. Every time you start the game Origin has recorded what you are running and what your IP is. They do not need to physically hear from us about our pcs - they have the telemetry that tells them all about your pc.
They may have record of our pcs but not from our bank accounts. How many of the 32bit users or 64bit playing as 32bit will be able to keep up with the new requirements? I have a 64bit pc that can only play the 32bit version or it closes. And for sure i won't be able to find 200 or 300 euros in the next three months in order to upgraded my pc. Sims was a way to keep my mind of my health problems and now will be taken away from me. It's just sad.
Our bank accounts is not a game companies business other than to do a check to make sure there is enough money in your account to cover a purchase - and that info would not ever be going through Telemetry. That is a different system that checks an order. Telemetry cannot check personal information. Nor can the system that verifies your account - cannot even check your balance - all it can do is verify you can cover your order - period. Nothing else.
It is no ones business if you can afford a new pc either and not something a gaming company will be concerned with anyway. They have the right to up their equipment as Technology improves. If we want their software well we also need the equipment to run it.
ETA:
Your game will not be taken away at all. Everything you have now will work on your system - you just won't be able to add new packs and updates after the June date for your pc as it is.
"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.....
> @Writin_Reg said:
> Marina1997marina wrote: »
>
> Stop supporting 32 bit will also affect the ones that have 64bit os if they play with the 32bit version. Not all of us can afford updating our hardware. Before the release of laundry stuff they did polls. And it was a stuff pack. Why they don't do one now? It's just unfair.
>
>
>
>
> They don't have to Origin already tells them exactly what you are running and what version. Every time you start the game Origin has recorded what you are running and what your IP is. They do not need to physically hear from us about our pcs - they have the telemetry that tells them all about your pc.
They may have record of our pcs but not from our bank accounts. How many of the 32bit users or 64bit playing as 32bit will be able to keep up with the new requirements? I have a 64bit pc that can only play the 32bit version or it closes. And for sure i won't be able to find 200 or 300 euros in the next three months in order to upgraded my pc. Sims was a way to keep my mind of my health problems and now will be taken away from me. It's just sad.
But if 95% of players have 64-bit systems and only 5% have 32-bit systems and there are bugs that are likely not fixable as long as a 32 bit system is supported, then EA is smart to take support for 32 bit systems away. [%'s are pulled out of thin air, I have no idea the ratio]
Yes, I feel for those of you on 32 bit systems who are not able to upgrade to 64 bit.
And keep in mind, you'll still be able to play the game. You just won't be able to update your game or buy new packs. At least not until you are able to upgrade.
I had a similar situation during Sims 3. My computer could not handle city worlds. Bridgeport was a laggy mess. It would take all Sim day for my game to render formal attire for my Sim to go check out a club. I could not justify buying a new PC just so that I could play one world. The other worlds played relatively well, even the WA destinations. So I could not play Bridgeport until I bought a new computer. As "luck" would have it, I was forced to buy a new computer when that one died of hard drive failure. It was 5.5 years old. I probably would have been in trouble with Pets since that EP raises game specs.
I must admit I was super shocked to hear the news, all this time they've been making certain in-game decisions such as smaller worlds, lack of customization and using the whole performance thing as a reason. Now that they've made this decision does that mean that smaller worlds and a general lack of things cannot be excused?
I think that might even be the very reason they made this decision. And that would simply be good news for most Sims 4 fans wouldn’t it?
I also want to add, while is may be both good and bad. People fail to realize this that SOME people may not be able to afford a new computer and I find this very upsetting for those people, my heart hurts for them...and while the decision is probably for good intentions , I wish people could sympathize with the others that can't....
I don’t think you should go there, telling other people what they are or are not realizing and whether they are sympathizing or not. I realize that for instance and I do regret it’s like that for them (though at the same time it’s hard for me to understand why so many Sims 4 fans keep calling the game cheap when it has cost them hundreds of dollars by now; apparently that is not a problem then?). At the same time that doesn’t mean I feel the game should be able to run on cheap computers, because it can be so much more amazing and in depth if they’d create it for high end computers. And I’m only interested in this game when it has some depth and complexity.
@Writin_Reg I think you didn't understood what i said. I mean just because they know how many bits my pc is doesn't mean they know i will be able to upgrade it to keep up with the new requirements. And it should be their business since the sims 4 was advertised as a game that would be able to be played to low end pcs. Sorry but i want the game i paid. Not the Bugs,no updates,no gallery and no future packs "Legacy Edition".
@Seera1024 My pc is actually 64bit os and was bought for the sims 3. I have to use the sims 32bit version or my whole pc closes
Not to you but can't say the same for those that must now pay to upgrade and some may not have the money to do so.
Then they shouldn’t be buying Sims games. Honestly, if someone can’t afford to replace a desktop computer at any time in 10+ years, then they do not need to be buying video games for it. They certainly shouldn’t complain that their old hardware is no longer supported, it’s a marvel it was supported as long as it was.
I reiterate the person you quoted, this really isn’t a big deal. The number of 32bit players is negligible, or else this wouldn’t be happening. I don’t see why people suddenly want to jump on Maxis for dropping support for something I thought would be dropped long ago when they upgraded the base code. It’s about time IMO.
First of all I do have sympathy for one who wants to play the game just like you do. I am happy like you are but at the same time but I have compassion and I reiterate what I said It may not be an big deal to you but you only can speak for yourself. However EA/Maxis is justified in what they had to do as they must depend on OSes to support thier programs. Some of these customers do want to upgrade but some may not be able to due to whatever thier situation is. I am lucky to own 7 gaming systems as I can afford to but I still feel for those that can't but have to understand this one is not their fault. As far as Sims 5 coming sooner that is pure speculation and to be honest I could care less.
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
@Writin_Reg I think you didn't understood what i said. I mean just because they know how many bits my pc is doesn't mean they know i will be able to upgrade it to keep up with the new requirements.
And it should be their business since the sims 4 was advertised as a game that would be able to be played to low end pcs.
Sorry but i want the game i paid. Not the Bugs,no updates,no gallery and no future packs "Legacy Edition".
@Seera1024 My pc is actually 64bit os and was bought for the sims 3. I have to use the sims 32bit version or my whole pc closes
And you'll still be able to use the 32-bit version of Sims 4. You just won't get anymore patches, won't be able to get new packs, or use the gallery after the update.
You'll still have everything you paid for. EA sells you the games as is and it's only to avoid negative PR and the fact that fixing their games' patches increases purchases that they patch.
As for the gallery, that's more out of necessity than out of spite.
EA probably has the numbers that show that you are in the minority of players by a long shot or they wouldn't be risking cutting off players from buying new packs.
Yes, yes- we get it. Still, people can or should be able to give opinions without being lectured about how dumb they are using old computers. Thanks and Happy Simming.
*If I update my computer, which I did for all the other Sims (even TS), it sure won't be for The Sims 4.
Yes, yes- we get it. Still, people can or should be able to give opinions without being lectured about how dumb they are using old computers. Thanks and Happy Simming.
*If I update my computer, which I did for all the other Sims (even TS), it sure won't be for The Sims 4.
I agree and endorse this post.
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
> @Seera1024 said: > Marina1997marina wrote: » > > @Writin_Reg I think you didn't understood what i said. I mean just because they know how many bits my pc is doesn't mean they know i will be able to upgrade it to keep up with the new requirements. > And it should be their business since the sims 4 was advertised as a game that would be able to be played to low end pcs. > Sorry but i want the game i paid. Not the Bugs,no updates,no gallery and no future packs "Legacy Edition". > > @Seera1024 My pc is actually 64bit os and was bought for the sims 3. I have to use the sims 32bit version or my whole pc closes > > > > > And you'll still be able to use the 32-bit version of Sims 4. You just won't get anymore patches, won't be able to get new packs, or use the gallery after the update. > > You'll still have everything you paid for. EA sells you the games as is and it's only to avoid negative PR and the fact that fixing their games' patches increases purchases that they patch. > > As for the gallery, that's more out of necessity than out of spite. > > EA probably has the numbers that show that you are in the minority of players by a long shot or they wouldn't be risking cutting off players from buying new packs.
So if in the last patch (the last for my 64bit pc that can only run the 32bit sims) one bug cause all my sims to go headless i will have stuck with a broken game unless i spend 200-300 into upgrading. Because let's be realistic there isn't a chance the 'Legacy Edition' be completely bug free. Anyway i won't keep spend my energy on disagreeing on the forum. :smile:
From what I can gather by researching for PCs is that you would have had to have purchased a computer in 2008/09 (Windows XP) or earlier to have an OS that would not support an upgrade to a 64 bit system. If your PC was purchased in 2010 or later it should from everything I've read be able to be switched to 64 bits and for not a lot of expense, depending as far as I can tell on available memory.
It would seem odds are if you were able to purchase and play C&D when those specs changed then you likely will survive this change too. I hope this is reassuring to many, and if I'm incorrect and someone knows better please correct me.
Edited to remove quoted removed post. ~Rtas
I just have to wonder how many people are even still playing on computers that old since in further research I found that Microsoft ended support for those computers in April 2014. Nobody is unfeeling, and I'm sure everyone here can empathize with having a game they love to play and not being able to afford new upgraded hardware to play it on demand. If you play video games for any length of time it's bound to happen eventually. But why should Sims continue to build for OSs that even the manufacturers are no longer updating? You can't even get virus protection for XP anymore.
From what I can gather by researching for PCs is that you would have had to have purchased a computer in 2008/09 (Windows XP) or earlier to have an OS that would not support an upgrade to a 64 bit system. If your PC was purchased in 2010 or later it should from everything I've read be able to be switched to 64 bits and for not a lot of expense, depending as far as I can tell on available memory.
It would seem odds are if you were able to purchase and play C&D when those specs changed then you likely will survive this change too. I hope this is reassuring to many, and if I'm incorrect and someone knows better please correct me.
All the people saying this doesn't matter and that it's great are the same people who said before that it's great that this game can work on lower end computers. Smh....
What a sweeping generalization, and frankly I disagree. The decision to not only support, but actively tailor the game to low end machines has never made any sense. Seriously. It made even less sense when they upgraded the base game to 64bit and did virtually nothing with that for the longest time.
Just because they sold this game on the mindset that it could run on a modded toaster doesn’t mean they actually snatched up a bunch of players who fit into that market. Even if they did, there’s no guarantee that they’ve been buying content regularly. Let’s not forget the “excuse” that’s tossed around for having such old hardware is the “high” cost of buying a new one or upgrading; if they can’t find money to better their machine I don’t suppose the money for Sims packs comes along any easier.
This whole thing seems to be being blown out of proportion by people who frankly have hated on the game being 32bit for years and are now suddenly speaking up for the little guy when it’s being dropped. This is not a big deal, if the game had a huge pool of 32bit players then that would be different, but clearly if they can drop support for that in mid-2019 they clearly don’t stand to lose much. As someone who is NOT a huge fan of Sims 4, or virtually anything they have done with the game thus far, this is a good thing. Doesn’t mean they’re going to take the game in a better direction, but at least what they make now won’t be tailored to near-obsolete hardware.
I'm just pointing out what a bunch of unfeeling hypocrites EA apologizers are.
I just have to wonder how many people are even still playing on computers that old since in further research I found that Microsoft ended support for those computers in April 2014. Nobody is unfeeling, and I'm sure everyone here can empathize with having a game they love to play and not being able to afford new upgraded hardware to play it on demand. If you play video games for any length of time it's bound to happen eventually. But why should Sims continue to build for OSs that even the manufacturers are no longer updating? You can't even get virus protection for XP anymore.
Windows 7 and Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 all have 32 bit versions and those are on extended support by Microsoft, meaning that they still get bug fixes and security patches. So there are still people who are on Microsoft supported OS's who have a 32 bit system. Just putting that out there so that people don't assume affected players are all playing on a Windows XP machine.
I do however feel that number of affected players is relatively small compared to those not affected given how money hungry EA is. They wouldn't likely end the ability of too many Sims players to buy more Sims 4 packs. I do sympathize with the ones who have a 32 bit system who are unable at this time to get a 64 bit system and likely won't be able to before the switch happens. And I will not be happy if EA leaves those players with the game in its current state of bugs. I say that just like Microsoft, EA should let the 32 bit system enter "extended support" for at least 2-3 years to give those players time to get a 64 bit system without rushing into things. Only getting bug fixes. Yes, that means 2 patches, but that's what they should do.
But affected players should not go around and act like EA is taking away their ability to play the game. They aren't. The only exception would be players who primarily build or create Sims with the intent to share them on the gallery. But I imagine that those people would be a very small portion of the already small portion of affected players.
From what I can gather by researching for PCs is that you would have had to have purchased a computer in 2008/09 (Windows XP) or earlier to have an OS that would not support an upgrade to a 64 bit system. If your PC was purchased in 2010 or later it should from everything I've read be able to be switched to 64 bits and for not a lot of expense, depending as far as I can tell on available memory.
It would seem odds are if you were able to purchase and play C&D when those specs changed then you likely will survive this change too. I hope this is reassuring to many, and if I'm incorrect and someone knows better please correct me.
All the people saying this doesn't matter and that it's great are the same people who said before that it's great that this game can work on lower end computers. Smh....
What a sweeping generalization, and frankly I disagree. The decision to not only support, but actively tailor the game to low end machines has never made any sense. Seriously. It made even less sense when they upgraded the base game to 64bit and did virtually nothing with that for the longest time.
Just because they sold this game on the mindset that it could run on a modded toaster doesn’t mean they actually snatched up a bunch of players who fit into that market. Even if they did, there’s no guarantee that they’ve been buying content regularly. Let’s not forget the “excuse” that’s tossed around for having such old hardware is the “high” cost of buying a new one or upgrading; if they can’t find money to better their machine I don’t suppose the money for Sims packs comes along any easier.
This whole thing seems to be being blown out of proportion by people who frankly have hated on the game being 32bit for years and are now suddenly speaking up for the little guy when it’s being dropped. This is not a big deal, if the game had a huge pool of 32bit players then that would be different, but clearly if they can drop support for that in mid-2019 they clearly don’t stand to lose much. As someone who is NOT a huge fan of Sims 4, or virtually anything they have done with the game thus far, this is a good thing. Doesn’t mean they’re going to take the game in a better direction, but at least what they make now won’t be tailored to near-obsolete hardware.
I'm just pointing out what a bunch of unfeeling hypocrites EA apologizers are.
I just have to wonder how many people are even still playing on computers that old since in further research I found that Microsoft ended support for those computers in April 2014. Nobody is unfeeling, and I'm sure everyone here can empathize with having a game they love to play and not being able to afford new upgraded hardware to play it on demand. If you play video games for any length of time it's bound to happen eventually. But why should Sims continue to build for OSs that even the manufacturers are no longer updating? You can't even get virus protection for XP anymore.
Windows 7 and Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 all have 32 bit versions and those are on extended support by Microsoft, meaning that they still get bug fixes and security patches. So there are still people who are on Microsoft supported OS's who have a 32 bit system. Just putting that out there so that people don't assume affected players are all playing on a Windows XP machine.
I do however feel that number of affected players is relatively small compared to those not affected given how money hungry EA is. They wouldn't likely end the ability of too many Sims players to buy more Sims 4 packs. I do sympathize with the ones who have a 32 bit system who are unable at this time to get a 64 bit system and likely won't be able to before the switch happens. And I will not be happy if EA leaves those players with the game in its current state of bugs. I say that just like Microsoft, EA should let the 32 bit system enter "extended support" for at least 2-3 years to give those players time to get a 64 bit system without rushing into things. Only getting bug fixes. Yes, that means 2 patches, but that's what they should do.
But affected players should not go around and act like EA is taking away their ability to play the game. They aren't. The only exception would be players who primarily build or create Sims with the intent to share them on the gallery. But I imagine that those people would be a very small portion of the already small portion of affected players.
They had to do it - with the way this game is dependent on Video card updates and the video card companies like Nvidia - etc that stopped support of 32 bit computer last year - never mind Apple stopping support of 32 bit computers - you could no longer get security updates nor Video game updates - so EA, like many of the other studios had no choice but also drop 32 bit support seeing the machines could no longer be updated or made secure. They are technically viruses ready to happen and no decent company could or should support that. When machines become a hazard because they cannot have updates then they need to get the machines to stop using the game.
I would never suggest anyone who can no longer get proper updates to run that computer - not ever.
If a game needs updated video cards like this one does on a regular bases - and can't get them - then that computer has done it's time and needs to be retired.
EA is even making a Legacy system for the people who just can't afford an update - to keep them having the abilty to play the games they paid for - for FREE. Say what you will about EA and greed but if you ask me that is a very nice and ungreedy thing to do of EA, when they do not have too. I have a trunk full of games from over many years of gaming that are no longer playable unless one has older pcs and not one of the companies I have these games from ever gave me a legacy system to use so I could play the old games on my always newer pcs (I frequently rebuild my pcs every 3 years so I never have an old system) - I am just flat out of luck if I want to play any of my old games.
EA is also the only company that gave me a new complete download of my Sims 2 after Windows made it impossible for me to play that game any longer. When window 10 came out - they scurried to give us an update on that free version of Sims 2 - as well as an update for Sims 3 and Sims 3 CAW - again something they did not have to do, but they did. A few years ago they also made it possible for me to play my old Scrabble game that would not even play on Windows 7 as EA owns Hasbro which owned my scrabble game. Not once did EA have to do these things - never mind for free - and very few companies I know of has ever done this - other wise I would not have a trunk full of unplayable games today - now would I?
Perhaps many of you misjudge EA more times than you notice and ignore the times they prove they are not as greedy as you think. Not support 32 bit - as it has no support from it's OS and many video cards is actually a kindness - giving you a Legacy system for free is even kinder - and something no publisher has to do, and I guarantee you many do not even try. I have a trunk of games that prove that.
Most likely they are making the Legacy version available because the alternative would be having nothing available for those people whose PCs are no longer good enough, which might open them up to iffy issues, along the lines of "I bought this game and now no longer have access to it, despite owning it." (With a physical disk, even if it stops working on a new machine, you still own the disk. This virtual 'live service' stuff doesn't have quite the same setup.) It also may just be one of those things where they are trying not to lose long-time fans of the series; they probably have some numbers on how many people are going to be affected by this.
That said, yes, my impression as well is that this is about the overall operations of the tech world and the messiness of trying to support 32-bit with updates while others are not. On a marketing/business level, they probably don't like doing this at all. I don't see how opening up a bit more performance, maybe, for a portion of the fanbase is a motivating business goal if it's going to cut out existing customers in the process.
I don't see any reason to believe this move is greedy or generous in any way. It just seems like a pragmatic, boxed-into-a-corner thing.
They had to do it - with the way this game is dependent on Video card updates and the video card companies like Nvidia - etc that stopped support of 32 bit computer last year - never mind Apple stopping support of 32 bit computers - you could no longer get security updates nor Video game updates - so EA, like many of the other studios had no choice but also drop 32 bit support seeing the machines could no longer be updated or made secure. They are technically viruses ready to happen and no decent company could or should support that. When machines become a hazard because they cannot have updates then they need to get the machines to stop using the game.
I would never suggest anyone who can no longer get proper updates to run that computer - not ever.
If a game needs updated video cards like this one does on a regular bases - and can't get them - then that computer has done it's time and needs to be retired.
EA is even making a Legacy system for the people who just can't afford an update - to keep them having the abilty to play the games they paid for - for FREE. Say what you will about EA and greed but if you ask me that is a very nice and ungreedy thing to do of EA, when they do not have too. I have a trunk full of games from over many years of gaming that are no longer playable unless one has older pcs and not one of the companies I have these games from ever gave me a legacy system to use so I could play the old games on my always newer pcs (I frequently rebuild my pcs every 3 years so I never have an old system) - I am just flat out of luck if I want to play any of my old games.
EA is also the only company that gave me a new complete download of my Sims 2 after Windows made it impossible for me to play that game any longer. When window 10 came out - they scurried to give us an update on that free version of Sims 2 - as well as an update for Sims 3 and Sims 3 CAW - again something they did not have to do, but they did. A few years ago they also made it possible for me to play my old Scrabble game that would not even play on Windows 7 as EA owns Hasbro which owned my scrabble game. Not once did EA have to do these things - never mind for free - and very few companies I know of has ever done this - other wise I would not have a trunk full of unplayable games today - now would I?
Perhaps many of you misjudge EA more times than you notice and ignore the times they prove they are not as greedy as you think. Not support 32 bit - as it has no support from it's OS and many video cards is actually a kindness - giving you a Legacy system for free is even kinder - and something no publisher has to do, and I guarantee you many do not even try. I have a trunk of games that prove that.
Most likely they are making the Legacy version available because the alternative would be having nothing available for those people whose PCs are no longer good enough, which might open them up to iffy issues, along the lines of "I bought this game and now no longer have access to it, despite owning it." (With a physical disk, even if it stops working on a new machine, you still own the disk. This virtual 'live service' stuff doesn't have quite the same setup.) It also may just be one of those things where they are trying not to lose long-time fans of the series; they probably have some numbers on how many people are going to be affected by this.
That said, yes, my impression as well is that this is about the overall operations of the tech world and the messiness of trying to support 32-bit with updates while others are not. On a marketing/business level, they probably don't like doing this at all. I don't see how opening up a bit more performance, maybe, for a portion of the fanbase is a motivating business goal if it's going to cut out existing customers in the process.
I don't see any reason to believe this move is greedy or generous in any way. It just seems like a pragmatic, boxed-into-a-corner thing.
I don't have an issue with companies updating - it is always a benefit for the games they produce. My issues are with companies who update and don't even try to help players be able to play the games. All of them need to make Legacy systems to play their games - but most never do.
I will say EA has offered ways to play many of their outdated games though over the years - some of which were even made by other companies that EA took over long after these games were out there, and EA was able to give me a game update to make that game work. I have not had the same help from many of the other big game companies though. So having faced this experience many times - I do think they are being a lot more generous than many other game companies. Not all mind you - I have had good luck with a few companies - like the one who first took over Sierra games they were good at making the games work - then Activision/Blizzard took them over and they wouldn't help at all. So they ended up in my trunk of hundreds of unplayable games - which proves a lot of companies don't make it possible to even play the games you paid for.
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.....
I have plenty of games that I could no longer play because companies (or microsoft) update their systems - and never gave us a way to use the older games - in fact even updating our own systems did not make these games playable because the companies did not update the game itself. You were just flat out of luck.
I don't have an issue with companies updating - it is always a benefit for the games they produce. My issues are with companies who update and don't even try to help players be able to play the games. All of them need to make Legacy systems to play their games - but most never do.
I will say EA has offered ways to play many of their outdated games though over the years - some of which were even made by other companies that EA took over long after these games were out there, and EA was able to give me a game update to make that game work. I have not had the same help from many of the other big game companies though. So having faced this experience many times - I do think they are being a lot more generous than many other game companies. Not all mind you - I have had good luck with a few companies - like the one who first took over Sierra games they were good at making the games work - then Activision/Blizzard took them over and they wouldn't help at all. So they ended up in my trunk of hundreds of unplayable games - which proves a lot of companies don't make it possible to even play the games you paid for.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. When a multi-billion-dollar company is dealing with the fanbase for one of its flagship franchises that keeps it afloat as a company and enables it to make billions of dollars in profit, I'm going to be wary of applying the term "generous" to things they do that make paying customers happy. Certainly I'd believe some individuals in the company are trying to be kind where they can and those individuals may at times deserve credit where it is due, but a decision like this one, I don't think it's a generous act, though I would imagine it's meant to be viewed in a positive light by the community and reflect positively on the company as a result.
I might be ok with calling it "good business practice" or "proper treatment of the customer's interests"; what you'd expect from a good customer-business relationship. I feel like "generous" is a stretch. I'm hesitate to nod along with applying terms we usually reserve for kindness between individual human beings being applied to how a business interfaces with its paying customers (and the money customers put into this series can be quite a lot).
If other companies are poor at legacy support, I would argue they are managing their customer-business relationship poorly, not that EA is being generous in this instance. Though in many cases of legacy support, I suspect it's simply a case of the company not being prepared to handle the evolution of technology, along with things intellectual property possibly changing hands if a company went under, or was consumed by another company. And then there are problems, of course, like how to actually go about providing the legacy support. If it's a game that was never a "live service" to begin with, how do you go about distributing it to people who paid in a way that it can still work and is it worth the money to try? Or if it was a game that is old and needs to be adapted to new systems, how much time and money is involved working that out, and how doable is it? I have a version of KOTOR on steam that was updated to work on more recent technology (I paid, but I think it was much much cheaper than the original). But even though it works, there are little things where it can throw a fit (last I checked anyway), like it struggles to deal with widescreen monitor settings in fullscreen. The UI just wasn't designed to adapt to that at all.
They had to do it - with the way this game is dependent on Video card updates and the video card companies like Nvidia - etc that stopped support of 32 bit computer last year - never mind Apple stopping support of 32 bit computers - you could no longer get security updates nor Video game updates - so EA, like many of the other studios had no choice but also drop 32 bit support seeing the machines could no longer be updated or made secure. They are technically viruses ready to happen and no decent company could or should support that. When machines become a hazard because they cannot have updates then they need to get the machines to stop using the game.
I would never suggest anyone who can no longer get proper updates to run that computer - not ever.
If a game needs updated video cards like this one does on a regular bases - and can't get them - then that computer has done it's time and needs to be retired.
EA is even making a Legacy system for the people who just can't afford an update - to keep them having the abilty to play the games they paid for - for FREE. Say what you will about EA and greed but if you ask me that is a very nice and ungreedy thing to do of EA, when they do not have too. I have a trunk full of games from over many years of gaming that are no longer playable unless one has older pcs and not one of the companies I have these games from ever gave me a legacy system to use so I could play the old games on my always newer pcs (I frequently rebuild my pcs every 3 years so I never have an old system) - I am just flat out of luck if I want to play any of my old games.
EA is also the only company that gave me a new complete download of my Sims 2 after Windows made it impossible for me to play that game any longer. When window 10 came out - they scurried to give us an update on that free version of Sims 2 - as well as an update for Sims 3 and Sims 3 CAW - again something they did not have to do, but they did. A few years ago they also made it possible for me to play my old Scrabble game that would not even play on Windows 7 as EA owns Hasbro which owned my scrabble game. Not once did EA have to do these things - never mind for free - and very few companies I know of has ever done this - other wise I would not have a trunk full of unplayable games today - now would I?
Perhaps many of you misjudge EA more times than you notice and ignore the times they prove they are not as greedy as you think. Not support 32 bit - as it has no support from it's OS and many video cards is actually a kindness - giving you a Legacy system for free is even kinder - and something no publisher has to do, and I guarantee you many do not even try. I have a trunk of games that prove that.
Most likely they are making the Legacy version available because the alternative would be having nothing available for those people whose PCs are no longer good enough, which might open them up to iffy issues, along the lines of "I bought this game and now no longer have access to it, despite owning it." (With a physical disk, even if it stops working on a new machine, you still own the disk. This virtual 'live service' stuff doesn't have quite the same setup.) It also may just be one of those things where they are trying not to lose long-time fans of the series; they probably have some numbers on how many people are going to be affected by this.
That said, yes, my impression as well is that this is about the overall operations of the tech world and the messiness of trying to support 32-bit with updates while others are not. On a marketing/business level, they probably don't like doing this at all. I don't see how opening up a bit more performance, maybe, for a portion of the fanbase is a motivating business goal if it's going to cut out existing customers in the process.
I don't see any reason to believe this move is greedy or generous in any way. It just seems like a pragmatic, boxed-into-a-corner thing.
I have plenty of games that I could no longer play because companies (or microsoft) update their systems - and never gave us a way to use the older games - in fact even updating our own systems did not make these games playable because the companies did not update the game itself. You were just flat out of luck.
I don't have an issue with companies updating - it is always a benefit for the games they produce. My issues are with companies who update and don't even try to help players be able to play the games. All of them need to make Legacy systems to play their games - but most never do.
I will say EA has offered ways to play many of their outdated games though over the years - some of which were even made by other companies that EA took over long after these games were out there, and EA was able to give me a game update to make that game work. I have not had the same help from many of the other big game companies though. So having faced this experience many times - I do think they are being a lot more generous than many other game companies. Not all mind you - I have had good luck with a few companies - like the one who first took over Sierra games they were good at making the games work - then Activision/Blizzard took them over and they wouldn't help at all. So they ended up in my trunk of hundreds of unplayable games - which proves a lot of companies don't make it possible to even play the games you paid for.
If the reason for the game not being playable is the technology and software has advanced too much and the game is not being actively worked on, is over 5 years old, and the game has not been actively worked on in over 2 years then companies should not be obligated to ensure that modern computers can play it. Those games are not making enough money to warrant that to be something that they should have to do. It's not realistic as any number of reasons can be what's causing the problem.
Any support for old games is something I feel that is purely optional for companies. The people who worked on those games and know the code either no longer work there are are focused on the games that actively being supported or are in the pipeline to be released. And those games should be the priority of the company and they should not have to forever support all games they've ever released because that's just too much work for too little return.
They had to do it - with the way this game is dependent on Video card updates and the video card companies like Nvidia - etc that stopped support of 32 bit computer last year - never mind Apple stopping support of 32 bit computers - you could no longer get security updates nor Video game updates - so EA, like many of the other studios had no choice but also drop 32 bit support seeing the machines could no longer be updated or made secure. They are technically viruses ready to happen and no decent company could or should support that. When machines become a hazard because they cannot have updates then they need to get the machines to stop using the game.
I would never suggest anyone who can no longer get proper updates to run that computer - not ever.
If a game needs updated video cards like this one does on a regular bases - and can't get them - then that computer has done it's time and needs to be retired.
EA is even making a Legacy system for the people who just can't afford an update - to keep them having the abilty to play the games they paid for - for FREE. Say what you will about EA and greed but if you ask me that is a very nice thing to do of EA, when they do not have too.
Not support 32 bit - as it has no support from it's OS and many video cards is actually a kindness - giving you a Legacy system for free is even kinder - and something no publisher has to do, and I guarantee you many do not even try. I have a trunk of games that prove that.
Most likely they are making the Legacy version available because the alternative would be having nothing available for those people whose PCs are no longer good enough, which might open them up to iffy issues, along the lines of "I bought this game and now no longer have access to it, despite owning it." (With a physical disk, even if it stops working on a new machine, you still own the disk. This virtual 'live service' stuff doesn't have quite the same setup.) It also may just be one of those things where they are trying not to lose long-time fans of the series; they probably have some numbers on how many people are going to be affected by this.
That said, yes, my impression as well is that this is about the overall operations of the tech world and the messiness of trying to support 32-bit with updates while others are not. On a marketing/business level, they probably don't like doing this at all. I don't see how opening up a bit more performance, maybe, for a portion of the fanbase is a motivating business goal if it's going to cut out existing customers in the process.
I don't see any reason to believe this move is greedy or generous in any way. It just seems like a pragmatic, boxed-into-a-corner thing.
If the reason for the game not being playable is the technology and software has advanced too much and the game is not being actively worked on, is over 5 years old, and the game has not been actively worked on in over 2 years then companies should not be obligated to ensure that modern computers can play it. Those games are not making enough money to warrant that to be something that they should have to do. It's not realistic as any number of reasons can be what's causing the problem.
Any support for old games is something I feel that is purely optional for companies. The people who worked on those games and know the code either no longer work there are are focused on the games that actively being supported or are in the pipeline to be released. And those games should be the priority of the company and they should not have to forever support all games they've ever released because that's just too much work for too little return.
They had to do it - with the way this game is dependent on Video card updates and the video card companies like Nvidia - etc that stopped support of 32 bit computer last year - never mind Apple stopping support of 32 bit computers - you could no longer get security updates nor Video game updates - so EA, like many of the other studios had no choice but also drop 32 bit support seeing the machines could no longer be updated or made secure. They are technically viruses ready to happen and no decent company could or should support that. When machines become a hazard because they cannot have updates then they need to get the machines to stop using the game.
I would never suggest anyone who can no longer get proper updates to run that computer - not ever.
If a game needs updated video cards like this one does on a regular bases - and can't get them - then that computer has done it's time and needs to be retired.
EA is even making a Legacy system for the people who just can't afford an update - to keep them having the abilty to play the games they paid for - for FREE. Say what you will about EA and greed but if you ask me that is a very nice and ungreedy thing to do of EA, when they do not have too.
EA is also the only company that gave me a new complete download of my Sims 2 after Windows made it impossible for me to play that game any longer. When window 10 came out - they scurried to give us an update on that free version of Sims 2 - as well as an update for Sims 3 and Sims 3 CAW - again something they did not have to do, but they did. A few years ago they also made it possible for me to play my old Scrabble game that would not even play on Windows 7 as EA owns Hasbro which owned my scrabble game. Not once did EA have to do these things - never mind for free - and very few companies I know of has ever done this - other wise I would not have a trunk full of unplayable games today -
Perhaps many of you misjudge EA more times than you notice and ignore the times they prove they are not as greedy as you think. Not support 32 bit - as it has no support from it's OS and many video cards is actually a kindness - giving you a Legacy system for free is even kinder - and something no publisher has to do .
Most likely they are making the Legacy version available because the alternative would be having nothing available for those people whose PCs are no longer good enough, which might open them up to iffy issues, along the lines of "I bought this game and now no longer have access to it, despite owning it." (With a physical disk, even if it stops working on a new machine, you still own the disk. This virtual 'live service' stuff doesn't have quite the same setup.) It also may just be one of those things where they are trying not to lose long-time fans of the series; they probably have some numbers on how many people are going to be affected by this.
That said, yes, my impression as well is that this is about the overall operations of the tech world and the messiness of trying to support 32-bit with updates while others are not. On a marketing/business level, they probably don't like doing this at all. I don't see how opening up a bit more performance, maybe, for a portion of the fanbase is a motivating business goal if it's going to cut out existing customers in the process.
I don't see any reason to believe this move is greedy or generous in any way. It just seems like a pragmatic, boxed-into-a-corner thing.
I don't have an issue with companies updating - it is always a benefit for the games they produce. My issues are with companies who update and don't even try to help players be able to play the games. All of them need to make Legacy systems to play their games - but most never do.
If the reason for the game not being playable is the technology and software has advanced too much and the game is not being actively worked on, is over 5 years old, and the game has not been actively worked on in over 2 years then companies should not be obligated to ensure that modern computers can play it. Those games are not making enough money to warrant that to be something that they should have to do. It's not realistic as any number of reasons can be what's causing the problem.
Any support for old games is something I feel that is purely optional for companies. The people who worked on those games and know the code either no longer work there are are focused on the games that actively being supported or are in the pipeline to be released. And those games should be the priority of the company and they should not have to forever support all games they've ever released because that's just too much work for too little return.
I agree - like 32 bit holding back the Sims 4 with so few users. It's pretty much the same thing.
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 had to do it - with the way this game is dependent on Video card updates and the video card companies like Nvidia - etc that stopped support of 32 bit computer last year - never mind Apple stopping support of 32 bit computers - you could no longer get security updates nor Video game updates - so EA, like many of the other studios had no choice but also drop 32 bit support seeing the machines could no longer be updated or made secure. They are technically viruses ready to happen and no decent company could or should support that. When machines become a hazard because they cannot have updates then they need to get the machines to stop using the game.
I would never suggest anyone who can no longer get proper updates to run that computer - not ever.
If a game needs updated video cards like this one does on a regular bases - and can't get them - then that computer has done it's time and needs to be retired.
EA is even making a Legacy system for the people who just can't afford an update - to keep them having the abilty to play the games they paid for - for FREE. Say what you will about EA and greed but if you ask me that is a very nice and ungreedy thing to do of EA, when they do not have too. I have a trunk full of games from over many years of gaming that are no longer playable unless one has older pcs and not one of the companies I have these games from ever gave me a legacy system to use so I could play the old games on my always newer pcs (I frequently rebuild my pcs every 3 years so I never have an old system) - I am just flat out of luck if I want to play any of my old games.
EA is also the only company that gave me a new complete download of my Sims 2 after Windows made it impossible for me to play that game any longer. When window 10 came out - they scurried to give us an update on that free version of Sims 2 - as well as an update for Sims 3 and Sims 3 CAW - again something they did not have to do, but they did. A few years ago they also made it possible for me to play my old Scrabble game that would not even play on Windows 7 as EA owns Hasbro which owned my scrabble game. Not once did EA have to do these things - never mind for free - and very few companies I know of has ever done this - other wise I would not have a trunk full of unplayable games today - now would I?
Perhaps many of you misjudge EA more times than you notice and ignore the times they prove they are not as greedy as you think. Not support 32 bit - as it has no support from it's OS and many video cards is actually a kindness - giving you a Legacy system for free is even kinder - and something no publisher has to do, and I guarantee you many do not even try. I have a trunk of games that prove that.
Most likely they are making the Legacy version available because the alternative would be having nothing available for those people whose PCs are no longer good enough, which might open them up to iffy issues, along the lines of "I bought this game and now no longer have access to it, despite owning it." (With a physical disk, even if it stops working on a new machine, you still own the disk. This virtual 'live service' stuff doesn't have quite the same setup.) It also may just be one of those things where they are trying not to lose long-time fans of the series; they probably have some numbers on how many people are going to be affected by this.
That said, yes, my impression as well is that this is about the overall operations of the tech world and the messiness of trying to support 32-bit with updates while others are not. On a marketing/business level, they probably don't like doing this at all. I don't see how opening up a bit more performance, maybe, for a portion of the fanbase is a motivating business goal if it's going to cut out existing customers in the process.
I don't see any reason to believe this move is greedy or generous in any way. It just seems like a pragmatic, boxed-into-a-corner thing.
I have plenty of games that I could no longer play because companies (or microsoft) update their systems - and never gave us a way to use the older games - in fact even updating our own systems did not make these games playable because the companies did not update the game itself. You were just flat out of luck.
I don't have an issue with companies updating - it is always a benefit for the games they produce. My issues are with companies who update and don't even try to help players be able to play the games. All of them need to make Legacy systems to play their games - but most never do.
I will say EA has offered ways to play many of their outdated games though over the years - some of which were even made by other companies that EA took over long after these games were out there, and EA was able to give me a game update to make that game work. I have not had the same help from many of the other big game companies though. So having faced this experience many times - I do think they are being a lot more generous than many other game companies. Not all mind you - I have had good luck with a few companies - like the one who first took over Sierra games they were good at making the games work - then Activision/Blizzard took them over and they wouldn't help at all. So they ended up in my trunk of hundreds of unplayable games - which proves a lot of companies don't make it possible to even play the games you paid for.
If the reason for the game not being playable is the technology and software has advanced too much and the game is not being actively worked on, is over 5 years old, and the game has not been actively worked on in over 2 years then companies should not be obligated to ensure that modern computers can play it. Those games are not making enough money to warrant that to be something that they should have to do. It's not realistic as any number of reasons can be what's causing the problem.
Any support for old games is something I feel that is purely optional for companies. The people who worked on those games and know the code either no longer work there are are focused on the games that actively being supported or are in the pipeline to be released. And those games should be the priority of the company and they should not have to forever support all games they've ever released because that's just too much work for too little return.
I agree - like 32 bit holding back the Sims 4 with so few users. It's pretty much the same thing.
But you said that companies should make sure all of their games are still playable even if things change to make the game not playable.
You can't agree with me and hold that position.
Like the company that first took over Sierra games was not obligated in my mind to make sure those games worked on modern systems in any way. That they did was great, but I would not have held it against them if they chose not to. And I don't hold it against Activision/Blizzard for choosing to not do the same thing with those Sierra games.
What I took from your post is that you feel that all companies should be like the first company that took over Sierra games and do that. But that's not realistic. At some point technology and software just progresses too much and the income that would be generated from fixing it doesn't cover the costs of getting the game to work.
They had to do it - with the way this game is dependent on Video card updates and the video card companies like Nvidia - etc that stopped support of 32 bit computer last year - never mind Apple stopping support of 32 bit computers - you could no longer get security updates nor Video game updates - so EA, like many of the other studios had no choice but also drop 32 bit support seeing the machines could no longer be updated or made secure. They are technically viruses ready to happen and no decent company could or should support that. When machines become a hazard because they cannot have updates then they need to get the machines to stop using the game.
I would never suggest anyone who can no longer get proper updates to run that computer - not ever.
If a game needs updated video cards like this one does on a regular bases - and can't get them - then that computer has done it's time and needs to be retired.
EA is even making a Legacy system for the people who just can't afford an update - to keep them having the abilty to play the games they paid for - for FREE. Say what you will about EA and greed but if you ask me that is a very nice and ungreedy thing to do of EA, when they do not have too. I have a trunk full of games from over many years of gaming that are no longer playable unless one has older pcs and not one of the companies I have these games from ever gave me a legacy system to use so I could play the old games on my always newer pcs (I frequently rebuild my pcs every 3 years so I never have an old system) - I am just flat out of luck if I want to play any of my old games.
EA is also the only company that gave me a new complete download of my Sims 2 after Windows made it impossible for me to play that game any longer. When window 10 came out - they scurried to give us an update on that free version of Sims 2 - as well as an update for Sims 3 and Sims 3 CAW - again something they did not have to do, but they did. A few years ago they also made it possible for me to play my old Scrabble game that would not even play on Windows 7 as EA owns Hasbro which owned my scrabble game. Not once did EA have to do these things - never mind for free - and very few companies I know of has ever done this - other wise I would not have a trunk full of unplayable games today - now would I?
Perhaps many of you misjudge EA more times than you notice and ignore the times they prove they are not as greedy as you think. Not support 32 bit - as it has no support from it's OS and many video cards is actually a kindness - giving you a Legacy system for free is even kinder - and something no publisher has to do, and I guarantee you many do not even try. I have a trunk of games that prove that.
Most likely they are making the Legacy version available because the alternative would be having nothing available for those people whose PCs are no longer good enough, which might open them up to iffy issues, along the lines of "I bought this game and now no longer have access to it, despite owning it." (With a physical disk, even if it stops working on a new machine, you still own the disk. This virtual 'live service' stuff doesn't have quite the same setup.) It also may just be one of those things where they are trying not to lose long-time fans of the series; they probably have some numbers on how many people are going to be affected by this.
That said, yes, my impression as well is that this is about the overall operations of the tech world and the messiness of trying to support 32-bit with updates while others are not. On a marketing/business level, they probably don't like doing this at all. I don't see how opening up a bit more performance, maybe, for a portion of the fanbase is a motivating business goal if it's going to cut out existing customers in the process.
I don't see any reason to believe this move is greedy or generous in any way. It just seems like a pragmatic, boxed-into-a-corner thing.
I have plenty of games that I could no longer play because companies (or microsoft) update their systems - and never gave us a way to use the older games - in fact even updating our own systems did not make these games playable because the companies did not update the game itself. You were just flat out of luck.
I don't have an issue with companies updating - it is always a benefit for the games they produce. My issues are with companies who update and don't even try to help players be able to play the games. All of them need to make Legacy systems to play their games - but most never do.
I will say EA has offered ways to play many of their outdated games though over the years - some of which were even made by other companies that EA took over long after these games were out there, and EA was able to give me a game update to make that game work. I have not had the same help from many of the other big game companies though. So having faced this experience many times - I do think they are being a lot more generous than many other game companies. Not all mind you - I have had good luck with a few companies - like the one who first took over Sierra games they were good at making the games work - then Activision/Blizzard took them over and they wouldn't help at all. So they ended up in my trunk of hundreds of unplayable games - which proves a lot of companies don't make it possible to even play the games you paid for.
If the reason for the game not being playable is the technology and software has advanced too much and the game is not being actively worked on, is over 5 years old, and the game has not been actively worked on in over 2 years then companies should not be obligated to ensure that modern computers can play it. Those games are not making enough money to warrant that to be something that they should have to do. It's not realistic as any number of reasons can be what's causing the problem.
Any support for old games is something I feel that is purely optional for companies. The people who worked on those games and know the code either no longer work there are are focused on the games that actively being supported or are in the pipeline to be released. And those games should be the priority of the company and they should not have to forever support all games they've ever released because that's just too much work for too little return.
I agree - like 32 bit holding back the Sims 4 with so few users. It's pretty much the same thing.
But you said that companies should make sure all of their games are still playable even if things change to make the game not playable.
You can't agree with me and hold that position.
Like the company that first took over Sierra games was not obligated in my mind to make sure those games worked on modern systems in any way. That they did was great, but I would not have held it against them if they chose not to. And I don't hold it against Activision/Blizzard for choosing to not do the same thing with those Sierra games.
What I took from your post is that you feel that all companies should be like the first company that took over Sierra games and do that. But that's not realistic. At some point technology and software just progresses too much and the income that would be generated from fixing it doesn't cover the costs of getting the game to work.
Okay the Sierra games was a series of 7 games for one that were not cheap and all they needed to do was provide an update or code key or both - which is not a Legacy system but a single line of code to feed into my computer. It was not a big expense. Some office person took a minute to do it the first time. Usually most updates are just a line of code or not much more than that - easily obtained from the company. They do not even have to reveal it - they can encrypt it but no one but the company who owns those material has that information. They include the information when the companies exchange hands. It should be in the paperwork - most likely in their computer under that companies information. A simple search feature at most - there is no work involved. I know the first company did that - it took a two minute phone call and me giving them my name, address, and phone number.
No, not all companies - the big ones should though. Especially series games we spend a lot of money on. I do not hold Indie studios and small studios to the same rules as that would take some body away from their work - most don't have people to do that kind of thing - office people etc. But the mammouth companies I think they should in cases where it would be that simple.
I can agree in retrospect - it depends on the games and the companies. If I spend 10- 20 bucks for a game - well of course not - who would even bother. But when I spend a couple hundred dollars or more - you can bet I want a way to use those games.
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.....
If it's an unpopular decision then they really shouldn't do it. Just saying wait until the release of Sims 5 to make such drastic changes. My computer can handle it thankfully. However, not everybody has a computer that can handle it.
Playtesting - not just tabletop games and card games any more. Really that should have been playtested in Beta and not [img]just with accounting and marketing but actual players. https://i.imgur.com/t48COW6.jpg[/img]
If it's an unpopular decision then they really shouldn't do it. Just saying wait until the release of Sims 5 to make such drastic changes. My computer can handle it thankfully. However, not everybody has a computer that can handle it.
If they can continue to so if they had no plans to bring options that would require 64 bit and do it even though MS and Apple had moved away from supporting anything 32 bit. But it appears that is not the case and most have to wait and see what they do going forward using 64 bit like adding more robust options to Sims 4 that was not capable under 32 bit. But it is all speculation and EA/Maxis just gave us the frosting and not was underneath that frosting on why not going forward with how SIms 4 is currently programmed. I feel for all those that affected and hope most at least can upgrade eventually. For this is an catch 22 situation where no matter what route they take it will not really matter.
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
Im sorry if I sound rude but why they don't admit the true? The Sims 4 is EA cash cow. Another companies would have been accepted a failure and moved on! Maxis have to say TS4 is like it is because of performance but its not 100% true! We all know The Sims 4 was designed to be an online experience like SimCity 2013 but this last one was a totally disaster and failed so hard that they just changed everything for The Sims 4 in the last minute and the result is the game we have now. Yes the game is "better" now but it would have been much easier for EA to admit a failure and moving on... they could have stayed in TS3 trying to fix some lag problems and taked more time to make a decent 4th generation. But no! I know its not Maxis (simgurus) fault. Its EA... some companies care about money and the consumers, other like EA just care about $$$$$$$ and thats the sad true. EA is killing The Sims right in front of our eyes.
I wish they would have done this too. Just make 3 better while creating 4.
Im sorry if I sound rude but why they don't admit the true? The Sims 4 is EA cash cow. Another companies would have been accepted a failure and moved on! Maxis have to say TS4 is like it is because of performance but its not 100% true! We all know The Sims 4 was designed to be an online experience like SimCity 2013 but this last one was a totally disaster and failed so hard that they just changed everything for The Sims 4 in the last minute and the result is the game we have now. Yes the game is "better" now but it would have been much easier for EA to admit a failure and moving on... they could have stayed in TS3 trying to fix some lag problems and taked more time to make a decent 4th generation. But no! I know its not Maxis (simgurus) fault. Its EA... some companies care about money and the consumers, other like EA just care about $$$$$$$ and thats the sad true. EA is killing The Sims right in front of our eyes.
I wish they would have done this too. Just make 3 better while creating 4.
I agree with this, it saddens me that they are taking longer with the sims 4 giving it a longer run than Sims 3 and 2....I wish they improved and added onto TS3...:(
Comments
Our bank accounts is not a game companies business other than to do a check to make sure there is enough money in your account to cover a purchase - and that info would not ever be going through Telemetry. That is a different system that checks an order. Telemetry cannot check personal information. Nor can the system that verifies your account - cannot even check your balance - all it can do is verify you can cover your order - period. Nothing else.
It is no ones business if you can afford a new pc either and not something a gaming company will be concerned with anyway. They have the right to up their equipment as Technology improves. If we want their software well we also need the equipment to run it.
ETA:
Your game will not be taken away at all. Everything you have now will work on your system - you just won't be able to add new packs and updates after the June date for your pc as it is.
"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.....
But if 95% of players have 64-bit systems and only 5% have 32-bit systems and there are bugs that are likely not fixable as long as a 32 bit system is supported, then EA is smart to take support for 32 bit systems away. [%'s are pulled out of thin air, I have no idea the ratio]
Yes, I feel for those of you on 32 bit systems who are not able to upgrade to 64 bit.
And keep in mind, you'll still be able to play the game. You just won't be able to update your game or buy new packs. At least not until you are able to upgrade.
I had a similar situation during Sims 3. My computer could not handle city worlds. Bridgeport was a laggy mess. It would take all Sim day for my game to render formal attire for my Sim to go check out a club. I could not justify buying a new PC just so that I could play one world. The other worlds played relatively well, even the WA destinations. So I could not play Bridgeport until I bought a new computer. As "luck" would have it, I was forced to buy a new computer when that one died of hard drive failure. It was 5.5 years old. I probably would have been in trouble with Pets since that EP raises game specs.
And it should be their business since the sims 4 was advertised as a game that would be able to be played to low end pcs.
Sorry but i want the game i paid. Not the Bugs,no updates,no gallery and no future packs "Legacy Edition".
@Seera1024 My pc is actually 64bit os and was bought for the sims 3. I have to use the sims 32bit version or my whole pc closes
First of all I do have sympathy for one who wants to play the game just like you do. I am happy like you are but at the same time but I have compassion and I reiterate what I said It may not be an big deal to you but you only can speak for yourself. However EA/Maxis is justified in what they had to do as they must depend on OSes to support thier programs. Some of these customers do want to upgrade but some may not be able to due to whatever thier situation is. I am lucky to own 7 gaming systems as I can afford to but I still feel for those that can't but have to understand this one is not their fault. As far as Sims 5 coming sooner that is pure speculation and to be honest I could care less.
And you'll still be able to use the 32-bit version of Sims 4. You just won't get anymore patches, won't be able to get new packs, or use the gallery after the update.
You'll still have everything you paid for. EA sells you the games as is and it's only to avoid negative PR and the fact that fixing their games' patches increases purchases that they patch.
As for the gallery, that's more out of necessity than out of spite.
EA probably has the numbers that show that you are in the minority of players by a long shot or they wouldn't be risking cutting off players from buying new packs.
*If I update my computer, which I did for all the other Sims (even TS), it sure won't be for The Sims 4.
I agree and endorse this post.
Repose en paix mamie tu va me manquer :
1923-2016 mamie
> Marina1997marina wrote: »
>
> @Writin_Reg I think you didn't understood what i said. I mean just because they know how many bits my pc is doesn't mean they know i will be able to upgrade it to keep up with the new requirements.
> And it should be their business since the sims 4 was advertised as a game that would be able to be played to low end pcs.
> Sorry but i want the game i paid. Not the Bugs,no updates,no gallery and no future packs "Legacy Edition".
>
> @Seera1024 My pc is actually 64bit os and was bought for the sims 3. I have to use the sims 32bit version or my whole pc closes
>
>
>
>
> And you'll still be able to use the 32-bit version of Sims 4. You just won't get anymore patches, won't be able to get new packs, or use the gallery after the update.
>
> You'll still have everything you paid for. EA sells you the games as is and it's only to avoid negative PR and the fact that fixing their games' patches increases purchases that they patch.
>
> As for the gallery, that's more out of necessity than out of spite.
>
> EA probably has the numbers that show that you are in the minority of players by a long shot or they wouldn't be risking cutting off players from buying new packs.
So if in the last patch (the last for my 64bit pc that can only run the 32bit sims) one bug cause all my sims to go headless i will have stuck with a broken game unless i spend 200-300 into upgrading. Because let's be realistic there isn't a chance the 'Legacy Edition' be completely bug free. Anyway i won't keep spend my energy on disagreeing on the forum. :smile:
Happy Simming to the 64bit users. :smile:
Edited to remove quoted removed post. ~Rtas
I just have to wonder how many people are even still playing on computers that old since in further research I found that Microsoft ended support for those computers in April 2014. Nobody is unfeeling, and I'm sure everyone here can empathize with having a game they love to play and not being able to afford new upgraded hardware to play it on demand. If you play video games for any length of time it's bound to happen eventually. But why should Sims continue to build for OSs that even the manufacturers are no longer updating? You can't even get virus protection for XP anymore.
Windows 7 and Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 all have 32 bit versions and those are on extended support by Microsoft, meaning that they still get bug fixes and security patches. So there are still people who are on Microsoft supported OS's who have a 32 bit system. Just putting that out there so that people don't assume affected players are all playing on a Windows XP machine.
I do however feel that number of affected players is relatively small compared to those not affected given how money hungry EA is. They wouldn't likely end the ability of too many Sims players to buy more Sims 4 packs. I do sympathize with the ones who have a 32 bit system who are unable at this time to get a 64 bit system and likely won't be able to before the switch happens. And I will not be happy if EA leaves those players with the game in its current state of bugs. I say that just like Microsoft, EA should let the 32 bit system enter "extended support" for at least 2-3 years to give those players time to get a 64 bit system without rushing into things. Only getting bug fixes. Yes, that means 2 patches, but that's what they should do.
But affected players should not go around and act like EA is taking away their ability to play the game. They aren't. The only exception would be players who primarily build or create Sims with the intent to share them on the gallery. But I imagine that those people would be a very small portion of the already small portion of affected players.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Most likely they are making the Legacy version available because the alternative would be having nothing available for those people whose PCs are no longer good enough, which might open them up to iffy issues, along the lines of "I bought this game and now no longer have access to it, despite owning it." (With a physical disk, even if it stops working on a new machine, you still own the disk. This virtual 'live service' stuff doesn't have quite the same setup.) It also may just be one of those things where they are trying not to lose long-time fans of the series; they probably have some numbers on how many people are going to be affected by this.
That said, yes, my impression as well is that this is about the overall operations of the tech world and the messiness of trying to support 32-bit with updates while others are not. On a marketing/business level, they probably don't like doing this at all. I don't see how opening up a bit more performance, maybe, for a portion of the fanbase is a motivating business goal if it's going to cut out existing customers in the process.
I don't see any reason to believe this move is greedy or generous in any way. It just seems like a pragmatic, boxed-into-a-corner thing.
I don't have an issue with companies updating - it is always a benefit for the games they produce. My issues are with companies who update and don't even try to help players be able to play the games. All of them need to make Legacy systems to play their games - but most never do.
I will say EA has offered ways to play many of their outdated games though over the years - some of which were even made by other companies that EA took over long after these games were out there, and EA was able to give me a game update to make that game work. I have not had the same help from many of the other big game companies though. So having faced this experience many times - I do think they are being a lot more generous than many other game companies. Not all mind you - I have had good luck with a few companies - like the one who first took over Sierra games they were good at making the games work - then Activision/Blizzard took them over and they wouldn't help at all. So they ended up in my trunk of hundreds of unplayable games - which proves a lot of companies don't make it possible to even play the games you paid for.
"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.....
I might be ok with calling it "good business practice" or "proper treatment of the customer's interests"; what you'd expect from a good customer-business relationship. I feel like "generous" is a stretch. I'm hesitate to nod along with applying terms we usually reserve for kindness between individual human beings being applied to how a business interfaces with its paying customers (and the money customers put into this series can be quite a lot).
If other companies are poor at legacy support, I would argue they are managing their customer-business relationship poorly, not that EA is being generous in this instance. Though in many cases of legacy support, I suspect it's simply a case of the company not being prepared to handle the evolution of technology, along with things intellectual property possibly changing hands if a company went under, or was consumed by another company. And then there are problems, of course, like how to actually go about providing the legacy support. If it's a game that was never a "live service" to begin with, how do you go about distributing it to people who paid in a way that it can still work and is it worth the money to try? Or if it was a game that is old and needs to be adapted to new systems, how much time and money is involved working that out, and how doable is it? I have a version of KOTOR on steam that was updated to work on more recent technology (I paid, but I think it was much much cheaper than the original). But even though it works, there are little things where it can throw a fit (last I checked anyway), like it struggles to deal with widescreen monitor settings in fullscreen. The UI just wasn't designed to adapt to that at all.
If the reason for the game not being playable is the technology and software has advanced too much and the game is not being actively worked on, is over 5 years old, and the game has not been actively worked on in over 2 years then companies should not be obligated to ensure that modern computers can play it. Those games are not making enough money to warrant that to be something that they should have to do. It's not realistic as any number of reasons can be what's causing the problem.
Any support for old games is something I feel that is purely optional for companies. The people who worked on those games and know the code either no longer work there are are focused on the games that actively being supported or are in the pipeline to be released. And those games should be the priority of the company and they should not have to forever support all games they've ever released because that's just too much work for too little return.
I agree - like 32 bit holding back the Sims 4 with so few users. It's pretty much the same thing.
"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.....
But you said that companies should make sure all of their games are still playable even if things change to make the game not playable.
You can't agree with me and hold that position.
Like the company that first took over Sierra games was not obligated in my mind to make sure those games worked on modern systems in any way. That they did was great, but I would not have held it against them if they chose not to. And I don't hold it against Activision/Blizzard for choosing to not do the same thing with those Sierra games.
What I took from your post is that you feel that all companies should be like the first company that took over Sierra games and do that. But that's not realistic. At some point technology and software just progresses too much and the income that would be generated from fixing it doesn't cover the costs of getting the game to work.
Okay the Sierra games was a series of 7 games for one that were not cheap and all they needed to do was provide an update or code key or both - which is not a Legacy system but a single line of code to feed into my computer. It was not a big expense. Some office person took a minute to do it the first time. Usually most updates are just a line of code or not much more than that - easily obtained from the company. They do not even have to reveal it - they can encrypt it but no one but the company who owns those material has that information. They include the information when the companies exchange hands. It should be in the paperwork - most likely in their computer under that companies information. A simple search feature at most - there is no work involved. I know the first company did that - it took a two minute phone call and me giving them my name, address, and phone number.
No, not all companies - the big ones should though. Especially series games we spend a lot of money on. I do not hold Indie studios and small studios to the same rules as that would take some body away from their work - most don't have people to do that kind of thing - office people etc. But the mammouth companies I think they should in cases where it would be that simple.
I can agree in retrospect - it depends on the games and the companies. If I spend 10- 20 bucks for a game - well of course not - who would even bother. But when I spend a couple hundred dollars or more - you can bet I want a way to use those games.
"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.....
If they can continue to so if they had no plans to bring options that would require 64 bit and do it even though MS and Apple had moved away from supporting anything 32 bit. But it appears that is not the case and most have to wait and see what they do going forward using 64 bit like adding more robust options to Sims 4 that was not capable under 32 bit. But it is all speculation and EA/Maxis just gave us the frosting and not was underneath that frosting on why not going forward with how SIms 4 is currently programmed. I feel for all those that affected and hope most at least can upgrade eventually. For this is an catch 22 situation where no matter what route they take it will not really matter.
I wish they would have done this too. Just make 3 better while creating 4.
I agree with this, it saddens me that they are taking longer with the sims 4 giving it a longer run than Sims 3 and 2....I wish they improved and added onto TS3...:(