I don't have a high end computer, it took me about 5 years to get a new computer, so I'm glad TS4 was made for everyone like it should be. Yes, it would be nice if there was open worlds and stuff that made TS3 great, but they still thought about how people can't do certain things, create a style made everything 90% slower because my computer would have to load the textures every time I even looked at a house. As for expansions and game packs, I think they're well worth their price.
High-End loft stuff gave us like 2 hairs for both genders and a few new furniture choices, Outdoor Retreat gave us at least 5 hairs and a bunch of new interactions plus camping for a far cheaper price than an expansion. Get to Work is offering even more for $10 more, and odds are it'll be on sale in no time. I just wish it wasn't really an argument, I understand some people don't like TS4, and there's people who do like TS4. Some people hated TS2, while a minority, they did. People hated TS3, others enjoyed it. It's just a matter of a persons perception.
Base Game $69.99 X 1 million sales
Outdoor Retreat $19.99 X 1 million sales
Get To Work $39.99 x 1 million sales
On my calculator that totals well over $100 million dollars, and year 1 isn't even done yet. Just how much do you think they pay their employees? Exactly how many people do you think worked on the sims 4 game that needs to be paid?
I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but sorry, I just can't agree.
The building upkeep, constant electricity, heating/air, plumbing, janitors, receptionists, security (including hi-tech), coders for their digital systems, legal representatives, accounting/financing, advertisement and marketing, equipment, ect. ect. ect.
Sims isn't their only source of income. How many games, EPs, GPs, etc, does EA/Maxis have to sell for $100 Million before they can finally pay their phone bill and office rent?
Something else you are forgetting. The $70 for the base game, $40 for the EP and $20 for game pack don't all go to EA/Maxis. With retail sales the retailer is taking close to half if not more, same with online distributors. Plus EP's and things like game packs never sell as much as the main game for the simple fact that unlike the base game they are niche content that not every player wants and many players on top of that wait for the price to drop before purchasing, meaning that the sales for them are only a fraction and even that fraction is delayed as many people wait. Meanwhile all those operating costs continue to stack up as the company has to stay in business over the lifespan of the game.
Furthermore EA when looking at financial information can't just look at the sims. They have numerous games releasing and in development each year all of which cost money, some of those make money back, some never break even and the money coming in often ends up being spread out to help make up the losses and keep the entire company going as opposed to just Maxis.
For example: just basing off the sims, Battlefield, and Mass Effect and a new IP from one of the other devs under EA for illustration. Say the sims manages after everything balances out for the quarter turns a profit of $20 million, however battlefield breaks even and Mass Effect loses $10 million. Suddenly that overall is down to only $10 million profit but EA still has all the bills, salaries, and other expenses throughout the entire company to maintain. Now say that new IP completely bombs and loses $20 million. Now they are in the whole overall but those costs persist. The sims does not exist in a vacuum separate from the rest of the EA associated developers. Profit, cost, and the rest of financials relate to EA as a whole.
Thats a very fair argument. And I completely agree with you. However, I think your explanation is more so compatible for "ongoing expenses" rather than "startup expenses".
What I mean is... if EA/Maxis is putting all of the sims 4 series on disks, then that would make your argument stronger... as there would be a constant expense to justify the constant income. Or said another way.... there is "economic scarcity".
Your argument better fits the business model of (for example) a grocery store, which has to constantly replace what it sells. Each time they sell something, their stock decreases.... and they have to assume the expense of replacing that/those item(s).
In the case of video games, a product only has to be created "once". Imagine a furniture maker who builds a captain's bed, and sells that 1 bed to 1 million people, by simply putting the bed into a replicator and with a touch of a button replicates endless copies of that original work. For video game companies that replicator is the "copy and paste" function.... which greatly diminishes economic scarcity.
If both you and I buy the sims 4 base game, which one of us (if either) actually got the original game, and which one of us got the one they copied and pasted as a new file.
Now on one hand, I can agree strongly with your argument and consider paying $70 for the original game a great deal, but on the other hand, I could consider $70 for a copy and paste file, that the EA/Maxis achieved for free.... a rip off.
Digital downloads, are not an example of ongoing operating expenses, and usually encourage a "royalty" type system of income vs expenses. Meaning, there's no bill to pay, until first, there is an income. EA/Maxis doesn't owe for the file they sold, until first, its sold. Bandwidth is an example of a "royalty" type system, where a company assumes an expense due to an income from a digital download sold.
Base Game $69.99 X 1 million sales
Outdoor Retreat $19.99 X 1 million sales
Get To Work $39.99 x 1 million sales
On my calculator that totals well over $100 million dollars, and year 1 isn't even done yet. Just how much do you think they pay their employees? Exactly how many people do you think worked on the sims 4 game that needs to be paid?
I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but sorry, I just can't agree.
The building upkeep, constant electricity, heating/air, plumbing, janitors, receptionists, security (including hi-tech), coders for their digital systems, legal representatives, accounting/financing, advertisement and marketing, equipment, ect. ect. ect.
Sims isn't their only source of income. How many games, EPs, GPs, etc, does EA/Maxis have to sell for $100 Million before they can finally pay their phone bill and office rent?
Something else you are forgetting. The $70 for the base game, $40 for the EP and $20 for game pack don't all go to EA/Maxis. With retail sales the retailer is taking close to half if not more, same with online distributors. Plus EP's and things like game packs never sell as much as the main game for the simple fact that unlike the base game they are niche content that not every player wants and many players on top of that wait for the price to drop before purchasing, meaning that the sales for them are only a fraction and even that fraction is delayed as many people wait. Meanwhile all those operating costs continue to stack up as the company has to stay in business over the lifespan of the game.
Furthermore EA when looking at financial information can't just look at the sims. They have numerous games releasing and in development each year all of which cost money, some of those make money back, some never break even and the money coming in often ends up being spread out to help make up the losses and keep the entire company going as opposed to just Maxis.
For example: just basing off the sims, Battlefield, and Mass Effect and a new IP from one of the other devs under EA for illustration. Say the sims manages after everything balances out for the quarter turns a profit of $20 million, however battlefield breaks even and Mass Effect loses $10 million. Suddenly that overall is down to only $10 million profit but EA still has all the bills, salaries, and other expenses throughout the entire company to maintain. Now say that new IP completely bombs and loses $20 million. Now they are in the whole overall but those costs persist. The sims does not exist in a vacuum separate from the rest of the EA associated developers. Profit, cost, and the rest of financials relate to EA as a whole.
Thats a very fair argument. And I completely agree with you. However, I think your explanation is more so compatible for "ongoing expenses" rather than "startup expenses".
What I mean is... if EA/Maxis is putting all of the sims 4 series on disks, then that would make your argument stronger... as there would be a constant expense to justify the constant income. Or said another way.... there is "economic scarcity".
Your argument better fits the business model of (for example) a grocery store, which has to constantly replace what it sells. Each time they sell something, their stock decreases.... and they have to assume the expense of replacing that/those item(s).
In the case of video games, a product only has to be created "once". Imagine a furniture maker who builds a captain's bed, and sells that 1 bed to 1 million people, by simply putting the bed into a replicator and with a touch of a button replicates endless copies of that original work. For video game companies that replicator is the "copy and paste" function.... which greatly diminishes economic scarcity.
If both you and I buy the sims 4 base game, which one of us (if either) actually got the original game, and which one of us got the one they copied and pasted as a new file.
Now on one hand, I can agree strongly with your argument and consider paying $70 for the original game a great deal, but on the other hand, I could consider $70 for a copy and paste file, that the EA/Maxis achieved for free.... a rip off.
Digital downloads, are not an example of ongoing operating expenses, and usually encourage a "royalty" type system of income vs expenses. Meaning, there's no bill to pay, until first, there is an income. EA/Maxis doesn't owe for the file they sold, until first, its sold. Bandwidth is an example of a "royalty" type system, where a company assumes an expense due to an income from a digital download sold.
But there is a constant expense. Just because the game is finished doesn't mean the expenses just stop. All the employees at Maxis are still working and being paid as they make patches and work on game packs and expansions, all the bills for maintaining that company is still ongoing and as previously stated in the case of EA this is multiplied across all of their different branches and developers. For this kind of company the expenses never stop until the company goes under.
Base Game $69.99 X 1 million sales
Outdoor Retreat $19.99 X 1 million sales
Get To Work $39.99 x 1 million sales
On my calculator that totals well over $100 million dollars, and year 1 isn't even done yet. Just how much do you think they pay their employees? Exactly how many people do you think worked on the sims 4 game that needs to be paid?
I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but sorry, I just can't agree.
The building upkeep, constant electricity, heating/air, plumbing, janitors, receptionists, security (including hi-tech), coders for their digital systems, legal representatives, accounting/financing, advertisement and marketing, equipment, ect. ect. ect.
Sims isn't their only source of income. How many games, EPs, GPs, etc, does EA/Maxis have to sell for $100 Million before they can finally pay their phone bill and office rent?
Something else you are forgetting. The $70 for the base game, $40 for the EP and $20 for game pack don't all go to EA/Maxis. With retail sales the retailer is taking close to half if not more, same with online distributors. Plus EP's and things like game packs never sell as much as the main game for the simple fact that unlike the base game they are niche content that not every player wants and many players on top of that wait for the price to drop before purchasing, meaning that the sales for them are only a fraction and even that fraction is delayed as many people wait. Meanwhile all those operating costs continue to stack up as the company has to stay in business over the lifespan of the game.
Furthermore EA when looking at financial information can't just look at the sims. They have numerous games releasing and in development each year all of which cost money, some of those make money back, some never break even and the money coming in often ends up being spread out to help make up the losses and keep the entire company going as opposed to just Maxis.
For example: just basing off the sims, Battlefield, and Mass Effect and a new IP from one of the other devs under EA for illustration. Say the sims manages after everything balances out for the quarter turns a profit of $20 million, however battlefield breaks even and Mass Effect loses $10 million. Suddenly that overall is down to only $10 million profit but EA still has all the bills, salaries, and other expenses throughout the entire company to maintain. Now say that new IP completely bombs and loses $20 million. Now they are in the whole overall but those costs persist. The sims does not exist in a vacuum separate from the rest of the EA associated developers. Profit, cost, and the rest of financials relate to EA as a whole.
Thats a very fair argument. And I completely agree with you. However, I think your explanation is more so compatible for "ongoing expenses" rather than "startup expenses".
What I mean is... if EA/Maxis is putting all of the sims 4 series on disks, then that would make your argument stronger... as there would be a constant expense to justify the constant income. Or said another way.... there is "economic scarcity".
Your argument better fits the business model of (for example) a grocery store, which has to constantly replace what it sells. Each time they sell something, their stock decreases.... and they have to assume the expense of replacing that/those item(s).
In the case of video games, a product only has to be created "once". Imagine a furniture maker who builds a captain's bed, and sells that 1 bed to 1 million people, by simply putting the bed into a replicator and with a touch of a button replicates endless copies of that original work. For video game companies that replicator is the "copy and paste" function.... which greatly diminishes economic scarcity.
If both you and I buy the sims 4 base game, which one of us (if either) actually got the original game, and which one of us got the one they copied and pasted as a new file.
Now on one hand, I can agree strongly with your argument and consider paying $70 for the original game a great deal, but on the other hand, I could consider $70 for a copy and paste file, that the EA/Maxis achieved for free.... a rip off.
Digital downloads, are not an example of ongoing operating expenses, and usually encourage a "royalty" type system of income vs expenses. Meaning, there's no bill to pay, until first, there is an income. EA/Maxis doesn't owe for the file they sold, until first, its sold. Bandwidth is an example of a "royalty" type system, where a company assumes an expense due to an income from a digital download sold.
But there is a constant expense. Just because the game is finished doesn't mean the expenses just stop. All the employees at Maxis are still working and being paid as they make patches and work on game packs and expansions, all the bills for maintaining that company is still ongoing and as previously stated in the case of EA this is multiplied across all of their different branches and developers. For this kind of company the expenses never stop until the company goes under.
Agreed. I'm not saying EA/Maxis has no expenses. And i'm not saying that digital downloads should be free. What I am saying is.... there is a difference between getting fairly paid for your work (respectful price tags), and price gouging the people who made you a rich man in the first place.
This is almost the price of a base game.. For a $40 expansion pack... I expect they could open ALL the workplaces + school..
How could they sell this minimal of content for $40.. Plus I think this little thing should had been included in base game.. otherwise What sims 4 base game has to compete? at least then it would have open rabbit-holes and some stores.. compared to previous title
PS: Sims 4 base game in many south america countries is less than $35. Battlefield 4 premium service (all EPs) is $40. This such high pricing for a dlc is ridiculous.
Where we you during TS3?
$40 got you a lot less in those EPs and SPs, let alone the store.
Forty dollars was the price for TS3 EP's I don't understand why it's being considered to high now. Many people were asking for this very thing in the TS3 forums. I really thought people would be more ecstatic over this,lol.
Not gonna change. Accept it. Also, Active Careers have never been in the base game! Would you rather have all the careers with a few active career aspects, or 4 amazing careers? Compare how in depth the jobs are from Ambitions and Get to Work. Without playing it I know 100% it will be Ambitions < Get to Work.
I am happy with the price tag of £29.99. I personally don't see it as an issue. I expected it to be higher because the base game was so expensive but no... I'm satisfied. I'm still waiting on my toddlers but I guess this will help keep my sims busy in the meantime. I'm extremely excited for my sims to own their own business again.
Sims 3 EPs were more so worth the $40 price tag, because they were made for a 2009 game that actually looked like 2009 technology. Sims 4 EPs are not worth $40 because they are made for a 2014 game... that doesn't look like 2014 tech game. If this was still 2009, then I would be agreeing with you on the argument that.... it cost $40 before, so, what's the big deal now?
The big deal now is.... EA/Maxis is still trying to sell us a 2009 design style game... that doesn't allow the opportunities of tomorrow's technological advances. The game is limited to a 32 bit, 4GB RAM game that can't really go anywhere when considering the future of games.
Or, said another way, technologically speaking, Sims 4 is pretty much dead in the water.
ETA: A major concern should be... after paying nearly $1000 to complete this game over the next 5 years, will you be able to play the game? The game may not even be compatible with some new software/hardware that you may be using by the year 2020. It's ok today, but what about 5 years from now after you have paid out all of that money for a game that doesn't have the ability to advance much past the year 2009?
Sims 3 EPs were more so worth the $40 price tag, because they were made for a 2009 game that actually looked like 2009 technology. Sims 4 EPs are not worth $40 because they are made for a 2014 game... that doesn't look like 2014 tech game. If this was still 2009, then I would be agreeing with you on the argument that.... it cost $40 before, so, what's the big deal now?
The big deal now is.... EA/Maxis is still trying to sell us a 2009 design style game... that doesn't allow the opportunities of tomorrow's technological advances. The game is limited to a 32 bit, 4GB RAM game that can't really go anywhere when considering the future of games.
Or, said another way, technologically speaking, Sims 4 is pretty much dead in the water.
ETA: A major concern should be... after paying nearly $1000 to complete this game over the next 5 years, will you be able to play the game? The game may not even be compatible with some new software/hardware that you may be using by the year 2020. It's ok today, but what about 5 years from now after you have paid out all of that money for a game that doesn't have the ability to advance much past the year 2009?
Have any of you thought of that???
But can't that be said about just any game. I mean how many games will become unplayable with Windows 10 and that's this year not 2020.
Sims 3 EPs were more so worth the $40 price tag, because they were made for a 2009 game that actually looked like 2009 technology. Sims 4 EPs are not worth $40 because they are made for a 2014 game... that doesn't look like 2014 tech game. If this was still 2009, then I would be agreeing with you on the argument that.... it cost $40 before, so, what's the big deal now?
The big deal now is.... EA/Maxis is still trying to sell us a 2009 design style game... that doesn't allow the opportunities of tomorrow's technological advances. The game is limited to a 32 bit, 4GB RAM game that can't really go anywhere when considering the future of games.
Or, said another way, technologically speaking, Sims 4 is pretty much dead in the water.
ETA: A major concern should be... after paying nearly $1000 to complete this game over the next 5 years, will you be able to play the game? The game may not even be compatible with some new software/hardware that you may be using by the year 2020. It's ok today, but what about 5 years from now after you have paid out all of that money for a game that doesn't have the ability to advance much past the year 2009?
Have any of you thought of that???
But can't that be said about just any game. I mean how many games will become unplayable with Windows 10 and that's this year not 2020.
I agree. That can be said about every game. However, not every game will cost $1000 over the next 5 years to finally complete. Alot of games have a "one time" price tag. I also play ETS2, and Farming Simulator 2015. ETS2 base game + EP Going East cost me $46 CAD. FS2015 + EP cost me just under $60 CAD.
Farming Simulator updates every couple of years.... NOT 5. (ie; FS 2011, FS 2013, FS 2015), which allows it to keep up with modern technology better.
ETS Developers announced just recently that they are upgrading to 64 bit for the ETS2.
ETA: A major concern should be... after paying nearly $1000 to complete this game over the next 5 years, will you be able to play the game? The game may not even be compatible with some new software/hardware that you may be using by the year 2020. It's ok today, but what about 5 years from now after you have paid out all of that money for a game that doesn't have the ability to advance much past the year 2009?
Have any of you thought of that???
Yes, I frequently think about that. If you buy games on Steam you need to because some of the older games on Steam won't work on newer OSes without issues.
With TS4, I doubt it will be much of a problem since they will probably still be supporting it up to 2020. Over that time, they can upgrade the game to be compatible should they need to.
And if that somehow happens anyway, you could just play it on your older computer or you could probably get it to work by running it in compatibility mode. I had to do that to get the copy of Divine Divinity I have working on Windows 7.
ETA: A major concern should be... after paying nearly $1000 to complete this game over the next 5 years, will you be able to play the game? The game may not even be compatible with some new software/hardware that you may be using by the year 2020. It's ok today, but what about 5 years from now after you have paid out all of that money for a game that doesn't have the ability to advance much past the year 2009?
Have any of you thought of that???
Yes, I frequently think about that. If you buy games on Steam you need to because some of the older games on Steam won't work on newer OSes without issues.
With TS4, I doubt it will be much of a problem since they will probably still be supporting it up to 2020. Over that time, they can upgrade the game to be compatible should they need to.
And if that somehow happens anyway, you could just play it on your older computer or you could probably get it to work by running it in compatibility mode. I had to do that to get the copy of Divine Divinity I have working on Windows 7.
Another thing to consider, which is in contradiction to my recent post, but should be mentioned as a fair counter argument..... is my sharing of ETS2 being updated by its developers to 64 bit. I wonder if maybe EA/Maxis may be considering this idea as well for the future of Sims 4. If SCS can upgrade their ETS2 game to 64 bit, then EA/Maxis can maybe upgrade sims 4 to 64 bit as well.
But can't that be said about just any game. I mean how many games will become unplayable with Windows 10 and that's this year not 2020.
windows 10 isnt going to make sims 4 obsolete one directx 9 is still very very widely used and backwards compatibilities will still be available, for example windows 8.1 can install and run sims 1 its just probably needs to be run in compatibly mode. and MS is not dropping compatibly mode, and 8.1 can even run 3 without compatible mode. 10 is arguably an advancement of 8.1
and MS does factor these things in when upgrading providing a bridge for older programs is normal in fact most programs that run the worlds banking systems only just upgraded to windows 7, this is real - sims 4 is like most programs using older tech then available. and honestly thats the same for most games.
whats interesting about windows 10 is not what its taking away but whats its adding, directx12!
ETA: A major concern should be... after paying nearly $1000 to complete this game over the next 5 years, will you be able to play the game? The game may not even be compatible with some new software/hardware that you may be using by the year 2020. It's ok today, but what about 5 years from now after you have paid out all of that money for a game that doesn't have the ability to advance much past the year 2009?
Have any of you thought of that???
Yes, I frequently think about that. If you buy games on Steam you need to because some of the older games on Steam won't work on newer OSes without issues.
With TS4, I doubt it will be much of a problem since they will probably still be supporting it up to 2020. Over that time, they can upgrade the game to be compatible should they need to.
And if that somehow happens anyway, you could just play it on your older computer or you could probably get it to work by running it in compatibility mode. I had to do that to get the copy of Divine Divinity I have working on Windows 7.
Another thing to consider, which is in contradiction to my recent post, but should be mentioned as a fair counter argument..... is my sharing of ETS2 being updated by its developers to 64 bit. I wonder if maybe EA/Maxis may be considering this idea as well for the future of Sims 4. If SCS can upgrade their ETS2 game to 64 bit, then EA/Maxis can maybe upgrade sims 4 to 64 bit as well.
This is an important point - you still see quite a few companies launching in 32 bit before potentially upgrading to 64 bit down the road.
Even other big AAA titles have followed this trend. I for one certainly welcome a 64 bit Sims 4 client, but I don't think this fact makes the game a non-2014 title. 32 bit is definitely going the way of the dinosaur, but it still has value in today's gaming world.
The trade off is that no company should just be like "Haha, k - 32 bit is what you get and we're done now.." - I also do advocate some patience as they also just rolled out a Mac client (which SHOULD take precedence over a 64 bit upgrade IMO) and that probably will still hold a fair amount of coder attention as they squash bugs/issues there alongside the native PC version.
Still - yes to a 64 bit upgrade via a patch at some point in this cycle. /signs
But can't that be said about just any game. I mean how many games will become unplayable with Windows 10 and that's this year not 2020.
windows 10 isnt going to make sims 4 obsolete one directx 9 is still very very widely used and backwards compatibilities will still be available, for example windows 8.1 can install and run sims 1 its just probably needs to be run in compatibly mode. and MS is not dropping compatibly mode, and 8.1 can even run 3 without compatible mode. 10 is arguably an advancement of 8.1
and MS does factor these things in when upgrading providing a bridge for older programs is normal in fact most programs that run the worlds banking systems only just upgraded to windows 7, this is real - sims 4 is like most programs using older tech then available. and honestly thats the same for most games.
whats interesting about windows 10 is not what its taking away but whats its adding, directx12!
Well that's good to hear. I wasn't really thinking of TS4 it was more about older games I have on steam. Thanks for the explanation I have been a bit excited and nervous about Windows 10, lol.
Sims 3 EPs were more so worth the $40 price tag, because they were made for a 2009 game that actually looked like 2009 technology. Sims 4 EPs are not worth $40 because they are made for a 2014 game... that doesn't look like 2014 tech game. If this was still 2009, then I would be agreeing with you on the argument that.... it cost $40 before, so, what's the big deal now?
The big deal now is.... EA/Maxis is still trying to sell us a 2009 design style game... that doesn't allow the opportunities of tomorrow's technological advances. The game is limited to a 32 bit, 4GB RAM game that can't really go anywhere when considering the future of games.
Or, said another way, technologically speaking, Sims 4 is pretty much dead in the water.
ETA: A major concern should be... after paying nearly $1000 to complete this game over the next 5 years, will you be able to play the game? The game may not even be compatible with some new software/hardware that you may be using by the year 2020. It's ok today, but what about 5 years from now after you have paid out all of that money for a game that doesn't have the ability to advance much past the year 2009?
Have any of you thought of that???
All I'm thinking about is Get To Work! I'll worry about 2020 in five years.
What I don't understand is all those people who say that the sims 4 needs to be able to run on really low specs because they can't afford a new computer. If you can afford to spend $500+ on one game you can afford a new computer. If you can't do both, then choose a new computer over the sims. There are alot of great games out there. Sims 2 was a great game and it can run on an old computer. Why should TS4 need to be made to run on computers that cost less than the actual game???
Usually I get annoyed when people cut up my posts like that, but you got my point across far better than I did.
You got your point across brilliantly. I couldn't have worded it any better which is why I had to quote you. It was just unnecessary for me to post the whole thing since your post was directly above my response. I'm glad you didn't mind.
Customers don’t expect you to be perfect. They do expect you to fix things when they go wrong. ~ Donald Porter
I buy TS3 expansion packs only if they're on sale for $10 each, even then I only get one or two every several months throughout the years. I still feel ripped off. BUT that's because there's never any content to justify the high prices. Majority of content was online for $5 just for a shirt in the Sims store! >.< Now it looks like we'll be getting the rest of the content through 'game packs'. $20 just to shower outside? No thank you. The later 'game packs' better be worth it. The game just lacks anything to do outside woohoo around every corner of the 2D Facebook game of a closed up neighborhood that makes you feel like you're a prisoner.
1. The Sims 2
2. The Sims 3
3. The Sims 4 (5 years later its decent)
4. The Sims 1
I think this is a pretty flawed summary. For me outdoor retreat means less loading screens since my sims don't need to go home as often. It also opens up other gameplay which I enjoy like stalking, homelessness and playing a sim that doesn't like technology (apart from that annoying phone). I also like rustic decor. I liked this gamepack.
Customers don’t expect you to be perfect. They do expect you to fix things when they go wrong. ~ Donald Porter
Comments
High-End loft stuff gave us like 2 hairs for both genders and a few new furniture choices, Outdoor Retreat gave us at least 5 hairs and a bunch of new interactions plus camping for a far cheaper price than an expansion. Get to Work is offering even more for $10 more, and odds are it'll be on sale in no time. I just wish it wasn't really an argument, I understand some people don't like TS4, and there's people who do like TS4. Some people hated TS2, while a minority, they did. People hated TS3, others enjoyed it. It's just a matter of a persons perception.
Thats a very fair argument. And I completely agree with you. However, I think your explanation is more so compatible for "ongoing expenses" rather than "startup expenses".
What I mean is... if EA/Maxis is putting all of the sims 4 series on disks, then that would make your argument stronger... as there would be a constant expense to justify the constant income. Or said another way.... there is "economic scarcity".
Your argument better fits the business model of (for example) a grocery store, which has to constantly replace what it sells. Each time they sell something, their stock decreases.... and they have to assume the expense of replacing that/those item(s).
In the case of video games, a product only has to be created "once". Imagine a furniture maker who builds a captain's bed, and sells that 1 bed to 1 million people, by simply putting the bed into a replicator and with a touch of a button replicates endless copies of that original work. For video game companies that replicator is the "copy and paste" function.... which greatly diminishes economic scarcity.
If both you and I buy the sims 4 base game, which one of us (if either) actually got the original game, and which one of us got the one they copied and pasted as a new file.
Now on one hand, I can agree strongly with your argument and consider paying $70 for the original game a great deal, but on the other hand, I could consider $70 for a copy and paste file, that the EA/Maxis achieved for free.... a rip off.
Digital downloads, are not an example of ongoing operating expenses, and usually encourage a "royalty" type system of income vs expenses. Meaning, there's no bill to pay, until first, there is an income. EA/Maxis doesn't owe for the file they sold, until first, its sold. Bandwidth is an example of a "royalty" type system, where a company assumes an expense due to an income from a digital download sold.
But there is a constant expense. Just because the game is finished doesn't mean the expenses just stop. All the employees at Maxis are still working and being paid as they make patches and work on game packs and expansions, all the bills for maintaining that company is still ongoing and as previously stated in the case of EA this is multiplied across all of their different branches and developers. For this kind of company the expenses never stop until the company goes under.
Agreed. I'm not saying EA/Maxis has no expenses. And i'm not saying that digital downloads should be free. What I am saying is.... there is a difference between getting fairly paid for your work (respectful price tags), and price gouging the people who made you a rich man in the first place.
Where we you during TS3?
$40 got you a lot less in those EPs and SPs, let alone the store.
I hope my Sims and lots aren't too terrible!
Please EA
Sims 3 EPs were more so worth the $40 price tag, because they were made for a 2009 game that actually looked like 2009 technology. Sims 4 EPs are not worth $40 because they are made for a 2014 game... that doesn't look like 2014 tech game. If this was still 2009, then I would be agreeing with you on the argument that.... it cost $40 before, so, what's the big deal now?
The big deal now is.... EA/Maxis is still trying to sell us a 2009 design style game... that doesn't allow the opportunities of tomorrow's technological advances. The game is limited to a 32 bit, 4GB RAM game that can't really go anywhere when considering the future of games.
Or, said another way, technologically speaking, Sims 4 is pretty much dead in the water.
ETA: A major concern should be... after paying nearly $1000 to complete this game over the next 5 years, will you be able to play the game? The game may not even be compatible with some new software/hardware that you may be using by the year 2020. It's ok today, but what about 5 years from now after you have paid out all of that money for a game that doesn't have the ability to advance much past the year 2009?
Have any of you thought of that???
But can't that be said about just any game. I mean how many games will become unplayable with Windows 10 and that's this year not 2020.
I agree. That can be said about every game. However, not every game will cost $1000 over the next 5 years to finally complete. Alot of games have a "one time" price tag. I also play ETS2, and Farming Simulator 2015. ETS2 base game + EP Going East cost me $46 CAD. FS2015 + EP cost me just under $60 CAD.
Farming Simulator updates every couple of years.... NOT 5. (ie; FS 2011, FS 2013, FS 2015), which allows it to keep up with modern technology better.
ETS Developers announced just recently that they are upgrading to 64 bit for the ETS2.
Yes, I frequently think about that. If you buy games on Steam you need to because some of the older games on Steam won't work on newer OSes without issues.
With TS4, I doubt it will be much of a problem since they will probably still be supporting it up to 2020. Over that time, they can upgrade the game to be compatible should they need to.
And if that somehow happens anyway, you could just play it on your older computer or you could probably get it to work by running it in compatibility mode. I had to do that to get the copy of Divine Divinity I have working on Windows 7.
Another thing to consider, which is in contradiction to my recent post, but should be mentioned as a fair counter argument..... is my sharing of ETS2 being updated by its developers to 64 bit. I wonder if maybe EA/Maxis may be considering this idea as well for the future of Sims 4. If SCS can upgrade their ETS2 game to 64 bit, then EA/Maxis can maybe upgrade sims 4 to 64 bit as well.
and MS does factor these things in when upgrading
whats interesting about windows 10 is not what its taking away but whats its adding, directx12!
This is an important point - you still see quite a few companies launching in 32 bit before potentially upgrading to 64 bit down the road.
Even other big AAA titles have followed this trend. I for one certainly welcome a 64 bit Sims 4 client, but I don't think this fact makes the game a non-2014 title. 32 bit is definitely going the way of the dinosaur, but it still has value in today's gaming world.
The trade off is that no company should just be like "Haha, k - 32 bit is what you get and we're done now.." - I also do advocate some patience as they also just rolled out a Mac client (which SHOULD take precedence over a 64 bit upgrade IMO) and that probably will still hold a fair amount of coder attention as they squash bugs/issues there alongside the native PC version.
Still - yes to a 64 bit upgrade via a patch at some point in this cycle. /signs
Well that's good to hear. I wasn't really thinking of TS4 it was more about older games I have on steam. Thanks for the explanation I have been a bit excited and nervous about Windows 10, lol.
All I'm thinking about is Get To Work!
You got your point across brilliantly. I couldn't have worded it any better which is why I had to quote you. It was just unnecessary for me to post the whole thing since your post was directly above my response. I'm glad you didn't mind.
2. The Sims 3
3. The Sims 4 (5 years later its decent)
4. The Sims 1