A product is a product. No company is entitled to my business. If a product falls short i really don't care why. I can only vote with my wallet.
It is too bad that there isn't competition. That would make for a better game.
Agreed. I think this is probably one of the major reasons why TS4 is the way it is. EA and Maxis have grown complacent in regards to The Sims since they know there really isn't any competition out there. They assume sims players will just buy and accept whatever they put out there simply because they have nowhere else to go. Without the incentive to do better than the next guy, well we get what we got.
I don't know what EA will do about TS5 and I am not sure that EA even has planned very much about TS5 yet. But I am quite sure that it isn't TS5 the unsatisfied fans are interested in.
This was not my point. My point is that MY test for whether or not they're listening to fans is what they do for the sims 5. A lot of the biggest requested things from fans cannot be added to the sims 4 because of the limited game engine (so say the devs), like open world, cast, and color wheel. Fans want these but they're impossible to add, so it's unfair for me to say that they're not listening since they haven't added these to the game. Now, if they don't add them to the sims 5, then I'd have the proof I need that they're not listening to fans like many ppl already think.
Ur point abt how u don't think dissappointed fans are thinking abt the sims 5 is irrelevant, because I never said, implied, or insinuated that. I agree with you, very few fans, like me, are already thinking abt the sims 5, and its because the sims 4 is so bad that we've stopped playing, so the sims 5 can't come quick enough for me, a very long five years. 4, now. I might completely lose interest by then!
EA would love to add toddlers to the game if EA didn't have to pay a fortune to develop them. But for EA it is a matter of costs versus benefits. What EA probably considers are:
1. How much income will a toddler expansion generate for us?
2. How much will it cost us to develop such an expansion?
3. Why would adding the well known toddlers to TS4 interest new customers when nearly no other games or even the TS1 bestseller had them?
4. Would another GP not sell better than a toddler GP even though a thousand TS3 lovers in the forum (out of our million other IS4 customers worldwide) want them?
Yeah, not. The employees aren't work-for-hire type employees. They'll get paid the same amount regardless of what they work on; working on this game is in their pay, regardless of what aspects they work on. It's not a matter of cost, but time, according to the devs and the blog. Rachel Franklin's own comments contradict ur post. She said in a post on The Sims official blog that the reason for leaving out toddlers and pools in the base game was because they had a choice to create that stuff or work on making emotions more robust, and they chose to work on emotions (not multitasking like you say in another post) and patch in toddlers and pools later. Other devs have told fans that it comes down to prioritizing what they work on, because they can't work on it all at the same time. She heavily implied that they didn't have time to add all the base game stuff, and I'm assuming this is because of the focus being shifted from Olympus to an offline game, and that only gave them approximately 2-3 years to create the offline version when they'd already spent a few years working on Olympus.
I've jokingly said that they will give us toddlers 4 years in, but after reading Franklin's interview, I have good reason to believe that's true, and yes, I do think they'll patch in toddlers, not make us buy them as part of a pack. If they do then Franklin is the biggest, provable liar in the game world.
What makes this game a success is the combination of new and old fans, not just one group. If only new customers mattered then EA shouldn't worry abt patching the game until we have a full base game, because newbies won't care since they have nothing to compare the new game to. They can add pools, toddlers and basements to a stuff pack and make ppl buy it instead of patching it for free. Most ppl complaining abt the missing elements are old fans, not newbies, and if EA didn't care abt old fans then Franklin wouldn't have taken the time to make a blog post explaining the decisions not to have pools and toddlers in the base game, because old fans were the only ones complaining because this was before the game went on sale, and newbies don't know what to expect.
This game doesn't just depend on new players, and EA is NOT entitled to my money or my good reviews or my word-if-mouth, and if they still want old fan money then they'd better darned well care abt what old fans want. I'd bet anything that the majority of ppl playing the sims 4 are old fans, not ppl who are new to the franchise.
The last part of #4 doesn't make sense to me and because of it, I can't respond.
I agree that boycotts can work. But you can't compare the "TS4 without toddlers and an open world" problem with the SimCity problem because new Sims fans won't understand the TS4 problem and a lot of old fans don't really miss toddlers either. (This doesn't make sense to me and I don't get ur point)
I am not sure that those groups even would buy a toddler GP if EA made it. So should EA even expect good sales numbers for a toddler GP?
Your argument is based on the false premise that toddlers will be sold through a game pack when they've already said it will be added through a free patch. Now, they might sale an additional XP, stuff, or game pack to go with it, something that caters to family players, like what they did with basements. Toddlers missing is the biggest complaint abt the game, so there are more than enough ppl who have voiced that they want toddlers. They not only speak for themselves, but they speak for many, many more who don't say anything, so I'm not sure how anyone who has been following the sims 4 news since before it was released could ever think that there might not be enough ppl who want toddlers. Seriously??
Sure, there are a few who have said they don't care for them, but the majority want them, and I'm pretty confident in that. In fact, Franklin and another EA exec say they were surprised abt the backlash for the toddlers and pools, so obviously there were enough complaints to get their attention and have Rachel make a blog post defending their decision to patch them in later. How do u think companies like EA get fan feedback?? They don't have to hear from every single fan who plays the game, but when most ppl online are telling them something then they'd better believe that they speak for a whole lot of other ppl who didn't get the chance to voice their opinions, and there are a lot of sims players who are online expressing their discontent for no toddlers than those who say they hate toddlers.
I don't play SimCity except for SimCity Built-It which is an online game anyway. So I had to read an article on kotaku.com to understand the problem. But it was very different because it affected all the customers and not only some who wanted things back from an earlier game. The problems were:
1. The game required an internet connection even though it wasn't needed for anything but probably only required in a dubious attempt to prevent piracy.
2. EA's servers were down much of the time preventing everybody to play the game which they had paid for.
So it isn't any surprise for me that EA just had to solve that problem.
The servers are still up and running, so there's nothing keeping them from still offering online only play. The offline option came a good year after the game's release and the server failures were over by then, so to say that the offline mode is all because of the server issues in the beginning is wrong. They also looked into making the world's bigger and gave a detailed write-up to fans abt why that was impossible, and said they'd tried everything possible to make them bigger. Now, was this because of the server issues a year earlier or because they were trying to quell fan discontent.
My point in making that comparison is that EA has shown that it will capitulate to what fans want when it starts affecting their pocketbooks (offering offline a year after the server problems and trying to make the world's bigger). It has nothing to do with whether sims fans play SimCity or know abt the SimCity problems or whatever your point was (it was confusing and didn't make sense). The server problems were solved way b4 offline was made available.
A product is a product. No company is entitled to my business. If a product falls short i really don't care why. I can only vote with my wallet.
yes
unfortunately that still doesn't produce a comparable steak
i wonder if the changes in charge of Maxis would have taken place if there wouldn't be Cities Skylines or Cities XXL
Actually, my point was just that consumers have the right to get value for their money no matter what the product. If I'm served a substandard product, it doesn't matter to me WHY it was bad. As a consumer, my only concern is that I didn't get value for my money.
And if I'm paying $70 for a game, I expect it to be of a certain quality. If the game producer ran into issues, that falls under the "not my concern" category. Back when I worked, it never would have occurred to me to tell a client that I was sorry I didn't do the work they contracted me to do because of any reason. Had I tried that, I would have lost a client and my boss would not have been amused.
EA would love to add toddlers to the game if EA didn't have to pay a fortune to develop them. But for EA it is a matter of costs versus benefits. What EA probably considers are:
1. How much income will a toddler expansion generate for us?
2. How much will it cost us to develop such an expansion?
3. Why would adding the well known toddlers to TS4 interest new customers when nearly no other games or even the TS1 bestseller had them?
4. Would another GP not sell better than a toddler GP even though a thousand TS3 lovers in the forum (out of our million other IS4 customers worldwide) want them?
Yeah, not. The employees aren't work-for-hire type employees. They'll get paid the same amount regardless of what they work on; working on this game is in their pay, regardless of what aspects they work on. It's not a matter of cost, but time, according to the devs and the blog. Rachel Franklin's own comments contradict ur post. She said in a post on The Sims official blog that the reason for leaving out toddlers and pools in the base game was because they had a choice to create that stuff or work on making emotions more robust, and they chose to work on emotions (not multitasking like you say in another post) and patch in toddlers and pools later. Other devs have told fans that it comes down to prioritizing what they work on, because they can't work on it all at the same time. She heavily implied that they didn't have time to add all the base game stuff, and I'm assuming this is because of the focus being shifted from Olympus to an offline game, and that only gave them approximately 2-3 years to create the offline version when they'd already spent a few years working on Olympus.
I've jokingly said that they will give us toddlers 4 years in, but after reading Franklin's interview, I have good reason to believe that's true, and yes, I do think they'll patch in toddlers, not make us buy them as part of a pack. If they do then Franklin is the biggest, provable liar in the game world.
What makes this game a success is the combination of new and old fans, not just one group. If only new customers mattered then EA shouldn't worry abt patching the game until we have a full base game, because newbies won't care since they have nothing to compare the new game to. They can add pools, toddlers and basements to a stuff pack and make ppl buy it instead of patching it for free. Most ppl complaining abt the missing elements are old fans, not newbies, and if EA didn't care abt old fans then Franklin wouldn't have taken the time to make a blog post explaining the decisions not to have pools and toddlers in the base game, because old fans were the only ones complaining because this was before the game went on sale, and newbies don't know what to expect.
This game doesn't just depend on new players, and EA is NOT entitled to my money or my good reviews or my word-if-mouth, and if they still want old fan money then they'd better darned well care abt what old fans want. I'd bet anything that the majority of ppl playing the sims 4 are old fans, not ppl who are new to the franchise.
I didn't really think that I had to explain something so fundamental as the fact that it doesn't matter if the employees in Maxis are "work-for-hire type employers" or not. You assume that EA would just have to pay them for doing nothing in the following months if they didn't have to continue their work on TS4 to add more content to the game. But of course EA wouldn't do that. If they could finish their work on TS4 then there would be the following possibilities:
1. EA could fire the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to save the expenses for their wages.
2. EA could fire some other employees and let the employees in Maxis do their work.
3. EA could omit to hire new employees for another project and let the employees in Maxis do the work.
4. EA could just use the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to start a new project which EA otherwise would have postponed until later.
No matter which of those options EA would have chosen then the expenses to make the TS4 basegame would have increased by approximately the accumulated wages for all employees still working on the basegame during the extra months that EA had added to the development time.
Actually the expenses would have been even higher because I have omitted the expenses for renting the place where the game was developed during those months. If EA had to rent another place and hire new employees for another game that Maxis instead could have developed then all those expenses would have to be added to the costs for postponing the release date to add more content to the game.
I don't know if it was the emotions or the multitasking that was the main cause for the team to omit toddlers and simplify other things too. Only that a guru told us that especially the multitasking had been very tricky to make.
I am not sure if you have understood Rachel correctly. But I will have to see EA allow her to give us toddlers for free now before I will be able to believe it.
Of course EA cares about old fans too. But EA knows much more about how big or small a part of the customers they are than we do - and EA knows that the game can't possibly sell well if it is only bought by some of the old customers. Therefore it is vital for EA that such a game also can attract a big number of new customers. Don't forget that people usually get a lot of games which they don't play very much. Therefore a lot of people probably also own an almost unused copy of TS3. But such people aren't likely to have bought TS4 too unless they got tempted by the advertising about "new emotions, new and better multitasking and a completely new build mode". Therefore those things were just vital for EA to include in TS4.
Of course EA cares about old fans too. But EA knows much more about how big or small a part of the customers they are than we do - and EA knows that the game can't possibly sell well if it is only bought by some of the old customers. Therefore it is vital for EA that such a game also can attract a big number of new customers. Don't forget that people usually get a lot of games which they don't play very much. Therefore a lot of people probably also own an almost unused copy of TS3. But such people aren't likely to have bought TS4 too unless they got tempted by the advertising about "new emotions, new and better multitasking and a completely new build mode". Therefore those things were just vital for EA to include in TS4.
I understand wanting to attract new customers, I really do, but the "old" customers for The Sims isn't some insignificant little number. The Sims has historically been a hugely successful series, as EP and stores sales of TS3 can testify to. Even if they didn't attract a single new customer, but had built TS4 to simply please all the old customers (and done so successfully) the game would have been considered a smashing success by any standard.
/shrug Oh well, too late now, what's done is done.
Of course EA cares about old fans too. But EA knows much more about how big or small a part of the customers they are than we do - and EA knows that the game can't possibly sell well if it is only bought by some of the old customers. Therefore it is vital for EA that such a game also can attract a big number of new customers. Don't forget that people usually get a lot of games which they don't play very much. Therefore a lot of people probably also own an almost unused copy of TS3. But such people aren't likely to have bought TS4 too unless they got tempted by the advertising about "new emotions, new and better multitasking and a completely new build mode". Therefore those things were just vital for EA to include in TS4.
I understand wanting to attract new customers, I really do, but the "old" customers for The Sims isn't some insignificant little number. The Sims has historically been a hugely successful series, as EP and stores sales of TS3 can testify to. Even if they didn't attract a single new customer, but had built TS4 to simply please all the old customers (and done so successfully) the game would have been considered a smashing success by any standard.
/shrug Oh well, too late now, what's done is done.
EA would love to add toddlers to the game if EA didn't have to pay a fortune to develop them. But for EA it is a matter of costs versus benefits. What EA probably considers are:
1. How much income will a toddler expansion generate for us?
2. How much will it cost us to develop such an expansion?
3. Why would adding the well known toddlers to TS4 interest new customers when nearly no other games or even the TS1 bestseller had them?
4. Would another GP not sell better than a toddler GP even though a thousand TS3 lovers in the forum (out of our million other IS4 customers worldwide) want them?
Yeah, not. The employees aren't work-for-hire type employees. They'll get paid the same amount regardless of what they work on; working on this game is in their pay, regardless of what aspects they work on. It's not a matter of cost, but time, according to the devs and the blog. Rachel Franklin's own comments contradict ur post. She said in a post on The Sims official blog that the reason for leaving out toddlers and pools in the base game was because they had a choice to create that stuff or work on making emotions more robust, and they chose to work on emotions (not multitasking like you say in another post) and patch in toddlers and pools later. Other devs have told fans that it comes down to prioritizing what they work on, because they can't work on it all at the same time. She heavily implied that they didn't have time to add all the base game stuff, and I'm assuming this is because of the focus being shifted from Olympus to an offline game, and that only gave them approximately 2-3 years to create the offline version when they'd already spent a few years working on Olympus.
I've jokingly said that they will give us toddlers 4 years in, but after reading Franklin's interview, I have good reason to believe that's true, and yes, I do think they'll patch in toddlers, not make us buy them as part of a pack. If they do then Franklin is the biggest, provable liar in the game world.
What makes this game a success is the combination of new and old fans, not just one group. If only new customers mattered then EA shouldn't worry abt patching the game until we have a full base game, because newbies won't care since they have nothing to compare the new game to. They can add pools, toddlers and basements to a stuff pack and make ppl buy it instead of patching it for free. Most ppl complaining abt the missing elements are old fans, not newbies, and if EA didn't care abt old fans then Franklin wouldn't have taken the time to make a blog post explaining the decisions not to have pools and toddlers in the base game, because old fans were the only ones complaining because this was before the game went on sale, and newbies don't know what to expect.
This game doesn't just depend on new players, and EA is NOT entitled to my money or my good reviews or my word-if-mouth, and if they still want old fan money then they'd better darned well care abt what old fans want. I'd bet anything that the majority of ppl playing the sims 4 are old fans, not ppl who are new to the franchise.
I didn't really think that I had to explain something so fundamental as the fact that it doesn't matter if the employees in Maxis are "work-for-hire type employers" or not. You assume that EA would just have to pay them for doing nothing in the following months if they didn't have to continue their work on TS4 to add more content to the game. But of course EA wouldn't do that. If they could finish their work on TS4 then there would be the following possibilities:
1. EA could fire the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to save the expenses for their wages.
2. EA could fire some other employees and let the employees in Maxis do their work.
3. EA could omit to hire new employees for another project and let the employees in Maxis do the work.
4. EA could just use the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to start a new project which EA otherwise would have postponed until later.
No matter which of those options EA would have chosen then the expenses to make the TS4 basegame would have increased by approximately the accumulated wages for all employees still working on the basegame during the extra months that EA had added to the development time.
Actually the expenses would have been even higher because I have omitted the expenses for renting the place where the game was developed during those months. If EA had to rent another place and hire new employees for another game that Maxis instead could have developed then all those expenses would have to be added to the costs for postponing the release date to add more content to the game.
I don't know if it was the emotions or the multitasking that was the main cause for the team to omit toddlers and simplify other things too. Only that a guru told us that especially the multitasking had been very tricky to make.
I am not sure if you have understood Rachel correctly. But I will have to see EA allow her to give us toddlers for free now before I will be able to believe it.
Of course EA cares about old fans too. But EA knows much more about how big or small a part of the customers they are than we do - and EA knows that the game can't possibly sell well if it is only bought by some of the old customers. Therefore it is vital for EA that such a game also can attract a big number of new customers. Don't forget that people usually get a lot of games which they don't play very much. Therefore a lot of people probably also own an almost unused copy of TS3. But such people aren't likely to have bought TS4 too unless they got tempted by the advertising about "new emotions, new and better multitasking and a completely new build mode". Therefore those things were just vital for EA to include in TS4.
Of course EA cares about old fans too. But EA knows much more about how big or small a part of the customers they are than we do - and EA knows that the game can't possibly sell well if it is only bought by some of the old customers. Therefore it is vital for EA that such a game also can attract a big number of new customers. Don't forget that people usually get a lot of games which they don't play very much. Therefore a lot of people probably also own an almost unused copy of TS3. But such people aren't likely to have bought TS4 too unless they got tempted by the advertising about "new emotions, new and better multitasking and a completely new build mode". Therefore those things were just vital for EA to include in TS4.
I understand wanting to attract new customers, I really do, but the "old" customers for The Sims isn't some insignificant little number. The Sims has historically been a hugely successful series, as EP and stores sales of TS3 can testify to. Even if they didn't attract a single new customer, but had built TS4 to simply please all the old customers (and done so successfully) the game would have been considered a smashing success by any standard.
/shrug Oh well, too late now, what's done is done.
I would normally agree with you on this, but I can't. Customer retention is a huge deal in a lot of industries, including the one I work in, but until one or two serious competitors emerge this doesn't apply to EA right now.
"That person who helps others simply because it should or must be done, and because it is the right thing to do, is indeed without a doubt, a real superhero." - Stan Lee
Of course EA cares about old fans too. But EA knows much more about how big or small a part of the customers they are than we do - and EA knows that the game can't possibly sell well if it is only bought by some of the old customers. Therefore it is vital for EA that such a game also can attract a big number of new customers. Don't forget that people usually get a lot of games which they don't play very much. Therefore a lot of people probably also own an almost unused copy of TS3. But such people aren't likely to have bought TS4 too unless they got tempted by the advertising about "new emotions, new and better multitasking and a completely new build mode". Therefore those things were just vital for EA to include in TS4.
I understand wanting to attract new customers, I really do, but the "old" customers for The Sims isn't some insignificant little number. The Sims has historically been a hugely successful series, as EP and stores sales of TS3 can testify to. Even if they didn't attract a single new customer, but had built TS4 to simply please all the old customers (and done so successfully) the game would have been considered a smashing success by any standard.
/shrug Oh well, too late now, what's done is done.
I'm a newer customer got about eight months of sims 3 quit, not really sure why, and came back a few years later. They didn't appeal to me at all. Quite the opposite. No open world, no cast, no toddlers. I'm more interested in Sims 2 than the newer game and it didn't cost a thing. Even without open world and cast it still has tots and non tied crib babies and yes emotional sims.
From a smart business sense I think it's better to focus on your old customers. Would JJR do well with a book called Harry Gives up Everything and Becomes a Mugggle? I don't think so. You have to know your audience if you want to sell well. It seems obvious to me they don't or they don't care. Which is a shame, I'm glad I did research and didn't get the game I would never shell out eighty bucks for a game anyway. After the interview it's seems it's more about vision, fans don't get it, and the people in charge of the game just don't care.. Bragging about free pools and ghosts, family trees is...shameful, they should have been there to begin with.
The you rule is a joke, I ruled i Sims 3 I enjoyed it because it had limitless option, yes I don't care for rabbitholes still it did't bother me much,I, never paid attention about how many sims were around on a lot but they were never empty, the parks, graveyards had plenty of sims for me. The only thing you rule in Sims 4 is cas but even that is missing a color wheel and I felt limited with the children body/face options, sims 2 options for kids seemed better to me.
Is the game a flop? To some no. I guess it's doing alright since it's still going. Too me...this is my first time learning paying attention to what goes on behind the scenes, reading each simmers pov, it should appeal to everyone since it is the fourth. I'm a Sims 3 player and I can see why people love Sims 2 the most nd why people don't care for Sims 3. Bashing them to makes Sims 4 look better makes no sense since it should stand on it's own and without those two games wouldn't exist. All the fighting that happens here is because the people in charge didn't listen to what fans want and went with what they wanted. Until they can be honest about their mistakes, nothing will change. Giving the last interview I don't see positive change coming anytime soon if at all. And until we get honesty nothing's going to get any better. I have little hope for TS5 with Rachel's promotion. Change is coming. Be afraid..be very afraid..
I didn't really think that I had to explain something so fundamental as the fact that it doesn't matter if the employees in Maxis are "work-for-hire type employers" or not. You assume that EA would just have to pay them for doing nothing in the following months if they didn't have to continue their work on TS4 to add more content to the game. But of course EA wouldn't do that. If they could finish their work on TS4 then there would be the following possibilities:
1. EA could fire the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to save the expenses for their wages.
2. EA could fire some other employees and let the employees in Maxis do their work.
3. EA could omit to hire new employees for another project and let the employees in Maxis do the work.
4. EA could just use the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to start a new project which EA otherwise would have postponed until later.
No matter which of those options EA would have chosen then the expenses to make the TS4 basegame would have increased by approximately the accumulated wages for all employees still working on the basegame during the extra months that EA had added to the development time.
Actually the expenses would have been even higher because I have omitted the expenses for renting the place where the game was developed during those months. If EA had to rent another place and hire new employees for another game that Maxis instead could have developed then all those expenses would have to be added to the costs for postponing the release date to add more content to the game.
I don't know if it was the emotions or the multitasking that was the main cause for the team to omit toddlers and simplify other things too. Only that a guru told us that especially the multitasking had been very tricky to make.
I am not sure if you have understood Rachel correctly. But I will have to see EA allow her to give us toddlers for free now before I will be able to believe it.
Of course EA cares about old fans too. But EA knows much more about how big or small a part of the customers they are than we do - and EA knows that the game can't possibly sell well if it is only bought by some of the old customers. Therefore it is vital for EA that such a game also can attract a big number of new customers. Don't forget that people usually get a lot of games which they don't play very much. Therefore a lot of people probably also own an almost unused copy of TS3. But such people aren't likely to have bought TS4 too unless they got tempted by the advertising about "new emotions, new and better multitasking and a completely new build mode". Therefore those things were just vital for EA to include in TS4.
Forgive, this doesn't make good sense to me. If an employee's project is cancelled, they do not do nothing, they are assigned to a different project. You speak as if EA and Maxis are under the same company: they are not. EA owns Maxis. Maxis is privately held company that has its own expenses and its own financial reports. If EA fired employees who are working on another company's project it will not change what happens at Maxis directly. EA does not Allow Rachel Franklin to do things. She is the head of the project; she makes the decisions.
Your concept of TS3 and TS4 are very much in disagreement with my own. TS4 didn't have a sales pitch until after it was marketed only weeks before it went live. Is truth, the consumer knew very little about it. Much of the preorders came from TS2 and TS3 owners who anticipated what TS4 might be. based on what had been done in the past. There is nothing new about the emotions or the multitasking. Both of those selling points were active in the other sim games. Not to the extreme animation that is used in TS4, but they were there and they were not intrusive. The build tool is a step backwards. They added a couple toys and took away the toy box. It is my opinion that not only was none of those attributes vital, they were not even necessary.
I would normally agree with you on this, but I can't. Customer retention is a huge deal in a lot of industries, including the one I work in, but until one or two serious competitors emerge this doesn't apply to EA right now.
Well the Sims is competing against itself with past games. I've read countless times how Simmers have left the Sims 4 for the Sims 2 and 3. But upcoming competitors of games being developed now are Identity and TGL. TGL probably more so since players can play either online or offline. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=422537663 There are a few life Sim projects going on with MTS regulars too right now. Competition is coming.
But yeah competition is required for customer retention. If customers are not happy with any business, they'll leave for something else even in this case it isn't a life sim game. Some even leaving for Fallout 4. Sims isn't the only game around. So many options to entertainment now. I am really loving Splatoon myself.
You would think Maxis would learn not to ignore their customers just from SimCity 2013, but I guess not. The Sims 4 did make me appreciate the Sims 3 more. The more Maxis bashes their own creations, the more I like it. Sad thing is, this is coming from a TS1/TS2 hardcore Simmer. I think I shocked a Guru saying how I loved the Sims 2, but the Sims 4 let me down. I guess they were just used to TS3 players not liking it. I still don't think it is a bad game, it just gets boring fast and doesn't keep my retention up. A lot of times I was multitasking PVZ 2 with it. That's bad if I have to play another game during any Sim game. I think that is a first for this iteration.
“Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it.” –Helen Keller
A product is a product. No company is entitled to my business. If a product falls short i really don't care why. I can only vote with my wallet.
yes
unfortunately that still doesn't produce a comparable steak
i wonder if the changes in charge of Maxis would have taken place if there wouldn't be Cities Skylines or Cities XXL
Actually, my point was just that consumers have the right to get value for their money no matter what the product. If I'm served a substandard product, it doesn't matter to me WHY it was bad. As a consumer, my only concern is that I didn't get value for my money.
And if I'm paying $70 for a game, I expect it to be of a certain quality. If the game producer ran into issues, that falls under the "not my concern" category. Back when I worked, it never would have occurred to me to tell a client that I was sorry I didn't do the work they contracted me to do because of any reason. Had I tried that, I would have lost a client and my boss would not have been amused.
an actual right contains justiciability
the best you can really expect is your 70$ back
i doubt it very much that simmer can claim in court a better sims game
but i suspect you don't want just your money back, you want what every disappointed simmer wants, indeed a better gaming experience
& additionally simmers are on the mercy of that only one supplier out there,
nobody can do anything about that really
if other companies don't build other life simulations, then there is only that one, which worsens the outlook for a better sims game
because EA can dictate what they develop & how they twist that franchise to whatever other genre or cost effective production or dreams to conquer the mobile gaming
i hope for some reason within EA, that they care for their own revenues & get it managed to transform that care to better quality of sims gaming
because their plans about sims online were also just hopes, same as their plans about mobile gaming & cross platform simming, just hopes
maybe that's why they rely so much now on that telemetry, to get away from hopes towards facts, only telemetry is not gaming facts, it shows just a portion of how this game can be played
i think the best insight into what makes this franchise great is to know this game as a player
& to be skilled to a critical self examination io not to be blinded by the love for what one is developing, not to be blinded by Pygmalion's love
& i think the idea behind this franchise has a big potential,
that idea is what makes me hopeful that the devs still care enough to improve even TS4 to a simming status & not just design an entertaining game titled TheSims
a competition to this franchise would show EA that there is money to make, fans to gather, popularity to gain
same as CitiesSkylines shows it to them that a city builder can be done better
i won't be participating in the forums & the gallery anymore - thanks EA
I didn't really think that I had to explain something so fundamental as the fact that it doesn't matter if the employees in Maxis are "work-for-hire type employers" or not. You assume that EA would just have to pay them for doing nothing in the following months if they didn't have to continue their work on TS4 to add more content to the game. But of course EA wouldn't do that. If they could finish their work on TS4 then there would be the following possibilities:
1. EA could fire the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to save the expenses for their wages.
2. EA could fire some other employees and let the employees in Maxis do their work.
3. EA could omit to hire new employees for another project and let the employees in Maxis do the work.
4. EA could just use the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to start a new project which EA otherwise would have postponed until later.
No matter which of those options EA would have chosen then the expenses to make the TS4 basegame would have increased by approximately the accumulated wages for all employees still working on the basegame during the extra months that EA had added to the development time.
Actually the expenses would have been even higher because I have omitted the expenses for renting the place where the game was developed during those months. If EA had to rent another place and hire new employees for another game that Maxis instead could have developed then all those expenses would have to be added to the costs for postponing the release date to add more content to the game.
I don't know if it was the emotions or the multitasking that was the main cause for the team to omit toddlers and simplify other things too. Only that a guru told us that especially the multitasking had been very tricky to make.
I am not sure if you have understood Rachel correctly. But I will have to see EA allow her to give us toddlers for free now before I will be able to believe it.
Of course EA cares about old fans too. But EA knows much more about how big or small a part of the customers they are than we do - and EA knows that the game can't possibly sell well if it is only bought by some of the old customers. Therefore it is vital for EA that such a game also can attract a big number of new customers. Don't forget that people usually get a lot of games which they don't play very much. Therefore a lot of people probably also own an almost unused copy of TS3. But such people aren't likely to have bought TS4 too unless they got tempted by the advertising about "new emotions, new and better multitasking and a completely new build mode". Therefore those things were just vital for EA to include in TS4.
Forgive, this doesn't make good sense to me. If an employee's project is cancelled, they do not do nothing, they are assigned to a different project. You speak as if EA and Maxis are under the same company: they are not. EA owns Maxis. Maxis is privately held company that has its own expenses and its own financial reports. If EA fired employees who are working on another company's project it will not change what happens at Maxis directly. EA does not Allow Rachel Franklin to do things. She is the head of the project; she makes the decisions.
You are wrong. Otherwise EA couldn't close their subsidiaries or restructure them as EA so often have done.
EA was originally only a game publisher which published and sold games made by other companies. But after a few years EA began to buy the companies which made the games. EA has done that in at least 25 years now and usually still buy one or two new companies every year. Until now EA has bought 39 such game companies and Maxis is only one of them. Recently EA closed down the Maxis game studio in Emeryville and earlier EA moved the Sims making studio into EA's own headquarter in Redwood Valley. EA has also several times moved other studios belonging to a subsidiary to another division in EA.
So EA owns Maxis and EA decides which projects Maxis should work on. Maxis is an EA subsidiary which means that Maxis is responsible for making the games which EA wants Maxis to make. But EA is still the publisher which market and sell the games. It is also EA who controls the economics in Maxis. So EA decides also how much money Maxis is allowed to use making a certain game - just as EA can cancel such a game at any time if EA assess that the development of the game doesn't go well or if EA decides that the market for such a game has changed in negative way. And yes: EA can replace the person who leads the game development if EA loses confidence to this person's ability to lead the team or to make the game ready for sale for the budgeted money.
Of course EA cares about old fans too. But EA knows much more about how big or small a part of the customers they are than we do - and EA knows that the game can't possibly sell well if it is only bought by some of the old customers. Therefore it is vital for EA that such a game also can attract a big number of new customers. Don't forget that people usually get a lot of games which they don't play very much. Therefore a lot of people probably also own an almost unused copy of TS3. But such people aren't likely to have bought TS4 too unless they got tempted by the advertising about "new emotions, new and better multitasking and a completely new build mode". Therefore those things were just vital for EA to include in TS4.
I understand wanting to attract new customers, I really do, but the "old" customers for The Sims isn't some insignificant little number. The Sims has historically been a hugely successful series, as EP and stores sales of TS3 can testify to. Even if they didn't attract a single new customer, but had built TS4 to simply please all the old customers (and done so successfully) the game would have been considered a smashing success by any standard.
/shrug Oh well, too late now, what's done is done.
This article is general and not especially about games. But it makes a huge difference if your product is a special brand of cars, iPads, a special brand of toothpaste or Sims games.
If it is Sims games then you don't really have to fear losing customers to competition because there are no similar products from anybody else. So your biggest problem is to attract new customers.
In all my other examples there are alternative very similar products from competitors and in such cases it is much easier to retain customers than to persuade people (who usually buy a similar product from somebody else) to switch to your brand.
I didn't really think that I had to explain something so fundamental as the fact that it doesn't matter if the employees in Maxis are "work-for-hire type employers" or not. You assume that EA would just have to pay them for doing nothing in the following months if they didn't have to continue their work on TS4 to add more content to the game. But of course EA wouldn't do that. If they could finish their work on TS4 then there would be the following possibilities:
1. EA could fire the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to save the expenses for their wages.
2. EA could fire some other employees and let the employees in Maxis do their work.
3. EA could omit to hire new employees for another project and let the employees in Maxis do the work.
4. EA could just use the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to start a new project which EA otherwise would have postponed until later.
No matter which of those options EA would have chosen then the expenses to make the TS4 basegame would have increased by approximately the accumulated wages for all employees still working on the basegame during the extra months that EA had added to the development time.
Actually the expenses would have been even higher because I have omitted the expenses for renting the place where the game was developed during those months. If EA had to rent another place and hire new employees for another game that Maxis instead could have developed then all those expenses would have to be added to the costs for postponing the release date to add more content to the game.
I don't know if it was the emotions or the multitasking that was the main cause for the team to omit toddlers and simplify other things too. Only that a guru told us that especially the multitasking had been very tricky to make.
I am not sure if you have understood Rachel correctly. But I will have to see EA allow her to give us toddlers for free now before I will be able to believe it.
Of course EA cares about old fans too. But EA knows much more about how big or small a part of the customers they are than we do - and EA knows that the game can't possibly sell well if it is only bought by some of the old customers. Therefore it is vital for EA that such a game also can attract a big number of new customers. Don't forget that people usually get a lot of games which they don't play very much. Therefore a lot of people probably also own an almost unused copy of TS3. But such people aren't likely to have bought TS4 too unless they got tempted by the advertising about "new emotions, new and better multitasking and a completely new build mode". Therefore those things were just vital for EA to include in TS4.
Forgive, this doesn't make good sense to me. If an employee's project is cancelled, they do not do nothing, they are assigned to a different project. You speak as if EA and Maxis are under the same company: they are not. EA owns Maxis. Maxis is privately held company that has its own expenses and its own financial reports. If EA fired employees who are working on another company's project it will not change what happens at Maxis directly. EA does not Allow Rachel Franklin to do things. She is the head of the project; she makes the decisions.
You are wrong. Otherwise EA couldn't close their subsidiaries or restructure them as EA so often have done.
EA was originally only a game publisher which published and sold games made by other companies. But after a few years EA began to buy the companies which made the games. EA has done that in at least 25 years now and usually still buy one or two new companies every year. Until now EA has bought 39 such game companies and Maxis is only one of them. Recently EA closed down the Maxis game studio in Emeryville and earlier EA moved the Sims making studio into EA's own headquarter in Redwood Valley. EA has also several times moved other studios belonging to a subsidiary to another division in EA.
So EA owns Maxis and EA decides which projects Maxis should work on. Maxis is an EA subsidiary which means that Maxis is responsible for making the games which EA wants Maxis to make. But EA is still the publisher which market and sell the games. It is also EA who controls the economics in Maxis. So EA decides also how much money Maxis is allowed to use making a certain game - just as EA can cancel such a game at any time if EA assess that the development of the game doesn't go well or if EA decides that the market for such a game has changed in negative way. And yes: EA can replace the person who leads the game development if EA loses confidence to this person's ability to lead the team or to make the game ready for sale for the budgeted money.
The Sims making studio as you call it has been in Redwood City since the Sims 2 at least. During Sims 3 they also had a studio in Salt Lake City where the store content was made and often the eps and such was tested. When I tested Showtime for Sims 3 - I had to report to the Sims Team in Salt Lake City. But they have since pulled the Sims people out of there when they closed the Sims 3 store and rebuilt the studios there solely for mobile apps. Maxis does still have 2 other studios not in the USA too.
They made Sims City and Spore in Emeryville and started Sims there. But the Sims Division at the huge Redwood campus has been in place for a long time, at least 2006 if I recall. Emeryville could not have held the size teams the Sims and Sims city used in that building. Maxis itself has 1500 employees as of June 22, 2015 according to Wall St. Review of Tech companies, with EA itself having 8400 employees. Makes me see EA 4 times bigger than my entire town. That's a lot of people. Shesh.
But I recall when EA gave the Sims their own studios as Will Wright Filmed the entire move and showed it online. It was funny - he was downright giddy.
One other thing - EA or Maxis anyway does sometime choose Team leaders for packs from other EA Divisions I know several of EA's departments who have had their Head people heading an entire EP team - like when Sims 2 Bon Voyage came out, come to find out the one who made and was in charge of BV was actually an EA person who had worked for years on the Tiger Woods Golf and other EA Games Titles. He also made several Sims eps - that was the very talented Sam Player. For EPs the lead on the team can be from anywhere in EA, not just in the Maxis Division.
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 didn't really think that I had to explain something so fundamental as the fact that it doesn't matter if the employees in Maxis are "work-for-hire type employers" or not. You assume that EA would just have to pay them for doing nothing in the following months if they didn't have to continue their work on TS4 to add more content to the game. But of course EA wouldn't do that. If they could finish their work on TS4 then there would be the following possibilities:
1. EA could fire the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to save the expenses for their wages.
2. EA could fire some other employees and let the employees in Maxis do their work.
3. EA could omit to hire new employees for another project and let the employees in Maxis do the work.
4. EA could just use the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to start a new project which EA otherwise would have postponed until later.
No matter which of those options EA would have chosen then the expenses to make the TS4 basegame would have increased by approximately the accumulated wages for all employees still working on the basegame during the extra months that EA had added to the development time.
Actually the expenses would have been even higher because I have omitted the expenses for renting the place where the game was developed during those months. If EA had to rent another place and hire new employees for another game that Maxis instead could have developed then all those expenses would have to be added to the costs for postponing the release date to add more content to the game.
I don't know if it was the emotions or the multitasking that was the main cause for the team to omit toddlers and simplify other things too. Only that a guru told us that especially the multitasking had been very tricky to make.
I am not sure if you have understood Rachel correctly. But I will have to see EA allow her to give us toddlers for free now before I will be able to believe it.
Of course EA cares about old fans too. But EA knows much more about how big or small a part of the customers they are than we do - and EA knows that the game can't possibly sell well if it is only bought by some of the old customers. Therefore it is vital for EA that such a game also can attract a big number of new customers. Don't forget that people usually get a lot of games which they don't play very much. Therefore a lot of people probably also own an almost unused copy of TS3. But such people aren't likely to have bought TS4 too unless they got tempted by the advertising about "new emotions, new and better multitasking and a completely new build mode". Therefore those things were just vital for EA to include in TS4.
Forgive, this doesn't make good sense to me. If an employee's project is cancelled, they do not do nothing, they are assigned to a different project. You speak as if EA and Maxis are under the same company: they are not. EA owns Maxis. Maxis is privately held company that has its own expenses and its own financial reports. If EA fired employees who are working on another company's project it will not change what happens at Maxis directly. EA does not Allow Rachel Franklin to do things. She is the head of the project; she makes the decisions.
You are wrong. Otherwise EA couldn't close their subsidiaries or restructure them as EA so often have done.
EA was originally only a game publisher which published and sold games made by other companies. But after a few years EA began to buy the companies which made the games. EA has done that in at least 25 years now and usually still buy one or two new companies every year. Until now EA has bought 39 such game companies and Maxis is only one of them. Recently EA closed down the Maxis game studio in Emeryville and earlier EA moved the Sims making studio into EA's own headquarter in Redwood Valley. EA has also several times moved other studios belonging to a subsidiary to another division in EA.
So EA owns Maxis and EA decides which projects Maxis should work on. Maxis is an EA subsidiary which means that Maxis is responsible for making the games which EA wants Maxis to make. But EA is still the publisher which market and sell the games. It is also EA who controls the economics in Maxis. So EA decides also how much money Maxis is allowed to use making a certain game - just as EA can cancel such a game at any time if EA assess that the development of the game doesn't go well or if EA decides that the market for such a game has changed in negative way. And yes: EA can replace the person who leads the game development if EA loses confidence to this person's ability to lead the team or to make the game ready for sale for the budgeted money.
The Sims making studio as you call it has been in Redwood City since the Sims 2 at least. During Sims 3 they also had a studio in Salt Lake City where the store content was made and often the eps and such was tested. When I tested Showtime for Sims 3 - I had to report to the Sims Team in Salt Lake City. But they have since pulled the Sims people out of there when they closed the Sims 3 store and rebuilt the studios there solely for mobile apps. Maxis does still have 2 other studios not in the USA too.
They made Sims City and Spore in Emeryville and started Sims there. But the Sims Division at the huge Redwood campus has been in place for a long time, at least 2006 if I recall. Emeryville could not have held the size teams the Sims and Sims city used in that building. Maxis itself has 1500 employees as of June 22, 2015 according to Wall St. Review of Tech companies, with EA itself having 8400 employees. Makes me see EA 4 times bigger than my entire town. That's a lot of people. Shesh.
But I recall when EA gave the Sims their own studios as Will Wright Filmed the entire move and showed it online. It was funny - he was downright giddy.
One other thing - EA or Maxis anyway does sometime choose Team leaders for packs from other EA Divisions I know several of EA's departments who have had their Head people heading an entire EP team - like when Sims 2 Bon Voyage came out, come to find out the one who made and was in charge of BV was actually an EA person who had worked for years on the Tiger Woods Golf and other EA Games Titles. He also made several Sims eps - that was the very talented Sam Player. For EPs the lead on the team can be from anywhere in EA, not just in the Maxis Division.
I think that you just proved my point further. The Emeryville studio was where Will Wright worked until he left EA. Spore was his last game.
And I remember MaxoidSam (Sam Player) too from the Sims 2 forum. He left to work on another (at the time) unannounced game and later left Maxis too. He is now Head of Product Management at Sports Illustrated Play according to https://www.linkedin.com/pub/sam-player/1/2a9/179
I think that everyone know the game needs to take some drastic measures as time is running out fast, the recent RF interview and reaction to Spooky Stuff shows that things are not improving...
A product is a product. No company is entitled to my business. If a product falls short i really don't care why. I can only vote with my wallet.
yes
unfortunately that still doesn't produce a comparable steak
i wonder if the changes in charge of Maxis would have taken place if there wouldn't be Cities Skylines or Cities XXL
Actually, my point was just that consumers have the right to get value for their money no matter what the product. If I'm served a substandard product, it doesn't matter to me WHY it was bad. As a consumer, my only concern is that I didn't get value for my money.
And if I'm paying $70 for a game, I expect it to be of a certain quality. If the game producer ran into issues, that falls under the "not my concern" category. Back when I worked, it never would have occurred to me to tell a client that I was sorry I didn't do the work they contracted me to do because of any reason. Had I tried that, I would have lost a client and my boss would not have been amused.
an actual right contains justiciability
the best you can really expect is your 70$ back
i doubt it very much that simmer can claim in court a better sims game
but i suspect you don't want just your money back, you want what every disappointed simmer wants, indeed a better gaming experience
& additionally simmers are on the mercy of that only one supplier out there,
nobody can do anything about that really
if other companies don't build other life simulations, then there is only that one, which worsens the outlook for a better sims game
because EA can dictate what they develop & how they twist that franchise to whatever other genre or cost effective production or dreams to conquer the mobile gaming
i hope for some reason within EA, that they care for their own revenues & get it managed to transform that care to better quality of sims gaming
because their plans about sims online were also just hopes, same as their plans about mobile gaming & cross platform simming, just hopes
maybe that's why they rely so much now on that telemetry, to get away from hopes towards facts, only telemetry is not gaming facts, it shows just a portion of how this game can be played
i think the best insight into what makes this franchise great is to know this game as a player
& to be skilled to a critical self examination io not to be blinded by the love for what one is developing, not to be blinded by Pygmalion's love
& i think the idea behind this franchise has a big potential,
that idea is what makes me hopeful that the devs still care enough to improve even TS4 to a simming status & not just design an entertaining game titled TheSims
a competition to this franchise would show EA that there is money to make, fans to gather, popularity to gain
same as CitiesSkylines shows it to them that a city builder can be done better
I must be wording this very badly as you're not debating the points I actually am trying to make and debating ones I am not meaning at all. I'm not talking about legal rights. Just as if I go to a restaurant and order a rare steak, I expect a rare steak, for a AAA game, I expect the same quality as other AAA games. Steak analogy one step further -- I will have different expectations of a $10 steak and a $70 steak. Now, legally, I don't even have the right to return the software unlike any other product, but that doesn't mean I will continue to support the company.
I understand that Sims has no direct competitor in the same genre (though since I play different genres of games, I do have choice). I understand that EA is out to maximize profits. I also understand that video games are purely entertainment, not a life necessity
And in fact, I don't disagree with you. A competitor would definitely be good for the series (and I said that already).
My point is this -- I was responding to someone talking about the difficulties EA when producing the Sims. I KNOW they ran into problems and ran out of resources. However, that is not my problem. I do not care what issues they had during production, I only care about the end product. To me, "Well, this happened and that happened and of course that affected the game" loses all relevance the minute they still charge the exact same thing as they would have a product that didn't run into those issues.
Bear in mind, they can charge whatever they want for a product. But it makes me sad when consumers then justify shortcomings of the product by making excuses for the company instead of questioning why those shortcomings are there and asking for resolution (bug fixes, addition of promised features). I don't care about their issues -- I care about what they actually delivered.
The Sims Studio is now under EA mobile (or is that Maxis as a whole?), and Rachel has just been promoted to run the whole shebang. I think what they've had in mind all along was converting the Sims into some kind of online experience, and the poor reception that the PC version of the game has gotten this time around, is just the excuse they're looking for.
Sorry, Erpe, but in response to the post where you tried to warn of the dangers of EA shutting down the Sims 4, and in response to EA's assertion that the PC game will continue, I'd have to say that's not sufficient reason to keep on supporting the Sims 4 by continuing to throw money at it. In fact, I have a real credibility issue with EA and its promises of continued PC support for the Sims 4. In short, liar liar pants on fire, EA.
Just watch...they'll make the announcement after the first of the coming year...AFTER Christmas. We might get an additional stuff pack, another game pack, and maybe some more freebies, but I strongly suspect that it's bye-bye Sims 4, given Rachel's strong commitment and background in mobile games.
EA Marketing Department Motto:
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally) I Took The Pledge!
Update: An EA representative reached out to Polygon to clarify that while Franklin will oversee all Maxis development in her new role, including The Sims 4 and "some other projects," EA is not currently moving the mobile games SimCity BuildIt or The Sims FreePlay under Franklin's purview. In essence, the rep said, this change doesn't mean Maxis games will be shifting away from PC. We've edited the story to reflect this.
Comments
It is too bad that there isn't competition. That would make for a better game.
yes
unfortunately that still doesn't produce a comparable steak
i wonder if the changes in charge of Maxis would have taken place if there wouldn't be Cities Skylines or Cities XXL
Agreed. I think this is probably one of the major reasons why TS4 is the way it is. EA and Maxis have grown complacent in regards to The Sims since they know there really isn't any competition out there. They assume sims players will just buy and accept whatever they put out there simply because they have nowhere else to go. Without the incentive to do better than the next guy, well we get what we got.
This was not my point. My point is that MY test for whether or not they're listening to fans is what they do for the sims 5. A lot of the biggest requested things from fans cannot be added to the sims 4 because of the limited game engine (so say the devs), like open world, cast, and color wheel. Fans want these but they're impossible to add, so it's unfair for me to say that they're not listening since they haven't added these to the game. Now, if they don't add them to the sims 5, then I'd have the proof I need that they're not listening to fans like many ppl already think.
Ur point abt how u don't think dissappointed fans are thinking abt the sims 5 is irrelevant, because I never said, implied, or insinuated that. I agree with you, very few fans, like me, are already thinking abt the sims 5, and its because the sims 4 is so bad that we've stopped playing, so the sims 5 can't come quick enough for me, a very long five years. 4, now. I might completely lose interest by then!
Yeah, not. The employees aren't work-for-hire type employees. They'll get paid the same amount regardless of what they work on; working on this game is in their pay, regardless of what aspects they work on. It's not a matter of cost, but time, according to the devs and the blog. Rachel Franklin's own comments contradict ur post. She said in a post on The Sims official blog that the reason for leaving out toddlers and pools in the base game was because they had a choice to create that stuff or work on making emotions more robust, and they chose to work on emotions (not multitasking like you say in another post) and patch in toddlers and pools later. Other devs have told fans that it comes down to prioritizing what they work on, because they can't work on it all at the same time. She heavily implied that they didn't have time to add all the base game stuff, and I'm assuming this is because of the focus being shifted from Olympus to an offline game, and that only gave them approximately 2-3 years to create the offline version when they'd already spent a few years working on Olympus.
I've jokingly said that they will give us toddlers 4 years in, but after reading Franklin's interview, I have good reason to believe that's true, and yes, I do think they'll patch in toddlers, not make us buy them as part of a pack. If they do then Franklin is the biggest, provable liar in the game world.
What makes this game a success is the combination of new and old fans, not just one group. If only new customers mattered then EA shouldn't worry abt patching the game until we have a full base game, because newbies won't care since they have nothing to compare the new game to. They can add pools, toddlers and basements to a stuff pack and make ppl buy it instead of patching it for free. Most ppl complaining abt the missing elements are old fans, not newbies, and if EA didn't care abt old fans then Franklin wouldn't have taken the time to make a blog post explaining the decisions not to have pools and toddlers in the base game, because old fans were the only ones complaining because this was before the game went on sale, and newbies don't know what to expect.
This game doesn't just depend on new players, and EA is NOT entitled to my money or my good reviews or my word-if-mouth, and if they still want old fan money then they'd better darned well care abt what old fans want. I'd bet anything that the majority of ppl playing the sims 4 are old fans, not ppl who are new to the franchise.
The last part of #4 doesn't make sense to me and because of it, I can't respond.
Your argument is based on the false premise that toddlers will be sold through a game pack when they've already said it will be added through a free patch. Now, they might sale an additional XP, stuff, or game pack to go with it, something that caters to family players, like what they did with basements. Toddlers missing is the biggest complaint abt the game, so there are more than enough ppl who have voiced that they want toddlers. They not only speak for themselves, but they speak for many, many more who don't say anything, so I'm not sure how anyone who has been following the sims 4 news since before it was released could ever think that there might not be enough ppl who want toddlers. Seriously??
Sure, there are a few who have said they don't care for them, but the majority want them, and I'm pretty confident in that. In fact, Franklin and another EA exec say they were surprised abt the backlash for the toddlers and pools, so obviously there were enough complaints to get their attention and have Rachel make a blog post defending their decision to patch them in later. How do u think companies like EA get fan feedback?? They don't have to hear from every single fan who plays the game, but when most ppl online are telling them something then they'd better believe that they speak for a whole lot of other ppl who didn't get the chance to voice their opinions, and there are a lot of sims players who are online expressing their discontent for no toddlers than those who say they hate toddlers.
The servers are still up and running, so there's nothing keeping them from still offering online only play. The offline option came a good year after the game's release and the server failures were over by then, so to say that the offline mode is all because of the server issues in the beginning is wrong. They also looked into making the world's bigger and gave a detailed write-up to fans abt why that was impossible, and said they'd tried everything possible to make them bigger. Now, was this because of the server issues a year earlier or because they were trying to quell fan discontent.
My point in making that comparison is that EA has shown that it will capitulate to what fans want when it starts affecting their pocketbooks (offering offline a year after the server problems and trying to make the world's bigger). It has nothing to do with whether sims fans play SimCity or know abt the SimCity problems or whatever your point was (it was confusing and didn't make sense). The server problems were solved way b4 offline was made available.
Actually, my point was just that consumers have the right to get value for their money no matter what the product. If I'm served a substandard product, it doesn't matter to me WHY it was bad. As a consumer, my only concern is that I didn't get value for my money.
And if I'm paying $70 for a game, I expect it to be of a certain quality. If the game producer ran into issues, that falls under the "not my concern" category. Back when I worked, it never would have occurred to me to tell a client that I was sorry I didn't do the work they contracted me to do because of any reason. Had I tried that, I would have lost a client and my boss would not have been amused.
1. EA could fire the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to save the expenses for their wages.
2. EA could fire some other employees and let the employees in Maxis do their work.
3. EA could omit to hire new employees for another project and let the employees in Maxis do the work.
4. EA could just use the now unoccupied employees in Maxis to start a new project which EA otherwise would have postponed until later.
No matter which of those options EA would have chosen then the expenses to make the TS4 basegame would have increased by approximately the accumulated wages for all employees still working on the basegame during the extra months that EA had added to the development time.
Actually the expenses would have been even higher because I have omitted the expenses for renting the place where the game was developed during those months. If EA had to rent another place and hire new employees for another game that Maxis instead could have developed then all those expenses would have to be added to the costs for postponing the release date to add more content to the game.
I don't know if it was the emotions or the multitasking that was the main cause for the team to omit toddlers and simplify other things too. Only that a guru told us that especially the multitasking had been very tricky to make.
I am not sure if you have understood Rachel correctly. But I will have to see EA allow her to give us toddlers for free now before I will be able to believe it.
Of course EA cares about old fans too. But EA knows much more about how big or small a part of the customers they are than we do - and EA knows that the game can't possibly sell well if it is only bought by some of the old customers. Therefore it is vital for EA that such a game also can attract a big number of new customers. Don't forget that people usually get a lot of games which they don't play very much. Therefore a lot of people probably also own an almost unused copy of TS3. But such people aren't likely to have bought TS4 too unless they got tempted by the advertising about "new emotions, new and better multitasking and a completely new build mode". Therefore those things were just vital for EA to include in TS4.
I understand wanting to attract new customers, I really do, but the "old" customers for The Sims isn't some insignificant little number. The Sims has historically been a hugely successful series, as EP and stores sales of TS3 can testify to. Even if they didn't attract a single new customer, but had built TS4 to simply please all the old customers (and done so successfully) the game would have been considered a smashing success by any standard.
/shrug Oh well, too late now, what's done is done.
I would normally agree with you on this, but I can't. Customer retention is a huge deal in a lot of industries, including the one I work in, but until one or two serious competitors emerge this doesn't apply to EA right now.
I'm a newer customer got about eight months of sims 3 quit, not really sure why, and came back a few years later. They didn't appeal to me at all. Quite the opposite. No open world, no cast, no toddlers. I'm more interested in Sims 2 than the newer game and it didn't cost a thing. Even without open world and cast it still has tots and non tied crib babies and yes emotional sims.
From a smart business sense I think it's better to focus on your old customers. Would JJR do well with a book called Harry Gives up Everything and Becomes a Mugggle? I don't think so. You have to know your audience if you want to sell well. It seems obvious to me they don't or they don't care. Which is a shame, I'm glad I did research and didn't get the game I would never shell out eighty bucks for a game anyway. After the interview it's seems it's more about vision, fans don't get it, and the people in charge of the game just don't care.. Bragging about free pools and ghosts, family trees is...shameful, they should have been there to begin with.
The you rule is a joke, I ruled i Sims 3 I enjoyed it because it had limitless option, yes I don't care for rabbitholes still it did't bother me much,I, never paid attention about how many sims were around on a lot but they were never empty, the parks, graveyards had plenty of sims for me. The only thing you rule in Sims 4 is cas but even that is missing a color wheel and I felt limited with the children body/face options, sims 2 options for kids seemed better to me.
Is the game a flop? To some no. I guess it's doing alright since it's still going. Too me...this is my first time learning paying attention to what goes on behind the scenes, reading each simmers pov, it should appeal to everyone since it is the fourth. I'm a Sims 3 player and I can see why people love Sims 2 the most nd why people don't care for Sims 3. Bashing them to makes Sims 4 look better makes no sense since it should stand on it's own and without those two games wouldn't exist. All the fighting that happens here is because the people in charge didn't listen to what fans want and went with what they wanted. Until they can be honest about their mistakes, nothing will change. Giving the last interview I don't see positive change coming anytime soon if at all. And until we get honesty nothing's going to get any better. I have little hope for TS5 with Rachel's promotion. Change is coming. Be afraid..be very afraid..
Forgive, this doesn't make good sense to me. If an employee's project is cancelled, they do not do nothing, they are assigned to a different project. You speak as if EA and Maxis are under the same company: they are not. EA owns Maxis. Maxis is privately held company that has its own expenses and its own financial reports. If EA fired employees who are working on another company's project it will not change what happens at Maxis directly. EA does not Allow Rachel Franklin to do things. She is the head of the project; she makes the decisions.
Your concept of TS3 and TS4 are very much in disagreement with my own. TS4 didn't have a sales pitch until after it was marketed only weeks before it went live. Is truth, the consumer knew very little about it. Much of the preorders came from TS2 and TS3 owners who anticipated what TS4 might be. based on what had been done in the past. There is nothing new about the emotions or the multitasking. Both of those selling points were active in the other sim games. Not to the extreme animation that is used in TS4, but they were there and they were not intrusive. The build tool is a step backwards. They added a couple toys and took away the toy box. It is my opinion that not only was none of those attributes vital, they were not even necessary.
But yeah competition is required for customer retention. If customers are not happy with any business, they'll leave for something else even in this case it isn't a life sim game. Some even leaving for Fallout 4. Sims isn't the only game around. So many options to entertainment now.
You would think Maxis would learn not to ignore their customers just from SimCity 2013, but I guess not. The Sims 4 did make me appreciate the Sims 3 more. The more Maxis bashes their own creations, the more I like it.
an actual right contains justiciability
the best you can really expect is your 70$ back
i doubt it very much that simmer can claim in court a better sims game
but i suspect you don't want just your money back, you want what every disappointed simmer wants, indeed a better gaming experience
& additionally simmers are on the mercy of that only one supplier out there,
nobody can do anything about that really
if other companies don't build other life simulations, then there is only that one, which worsens the outlook for a better sims game
because EA can dictate what they develop & how they twist that franchise to whatever other genre or cost effective production or dreams to conquer the mobile gaming
i hope for some reason within EA, that they care for their own revenues & get it managed to transform that care to better quality of sims gaming
because their plans about sims online were also just hopes, same as their plans about mobile gaming & cross platform simming, just hopes
maybe that's why they rely so much now on that telemetry, to get away from hopes towards facts, only telemetry is not gaming facts, it shows just a portion of how this game can be played
i think the best insight into what makes this franchise great is to know this game as a player
& to be skilled to a critical self examination io not to be blinded by the love for what one is developing, not to be blinded by Pygmalion's love
& i think the idea behind this franchise has a big potential,
that idea is what makes me hopeful that the devs still care enough to improve even TS4 to a simming status & not just design an entertaining game titled TheSims
a competition to this franchise would show EA that there is money to make, fans to gather, popularity to gain
same as CitiesSkylines shows it to them that a city builder can be done better
EA was originally only a game publisher which published and sold games made by other companies. But after a few years EA began to buy the companies which made the games. EA has done that in at least 25 years now and usually still buy one or two new companies every year. Until now EA has bought 39 such game companies and Maxis is only one of them. Recently EA closed down the Maxis game studio in Emeryville and earlier EA moved the Sims making studio into EA's own headquarter in Redwood Valley. EA has also several times moved other studios belonging to a subsidiary to another division in EA.
Look also at http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/10/02/maxis-head-lucy-bradshaw-promoted-to-senior-vice-president-at-ea.aspx to see that Lucy Bradford (who just now left EA) was promoted to Senior Vice President in EA even though she was the head of Maxis. Rachel Franklin was the head of the Sims studio but because Lucy Bradshaw is now leaving Rachel has been promoted by EA to lead Maxis instead.
So EA owns Maxis and EA decides which projects Maxis should work on. Maxis is an EA subsidiary which means that Maxis is responsible for making the games which EA wants Maxis to make. But EA is still the publisher which market and sell the games. It is also EA who controls the economics in Maxis. So EA decides also how much money Maxis is allowed to use making a certain game - just as EA can cancel such a game at any time if EA assess that the development of the game doesn't go well or if EA decides that the market for such a game has changed in negative way. And yes: EA can replace the person who leads the game development if EA loses confidence to this person's ability to lead the team or to make the game ready for sale for the budgeted money.
If it is Sims games then you don't really have to fear losing customers to competition because there are no similar products from anybody else. So your biggest problem is to attract new customers.
In all my other examples there are alternative very similar products from competitors and in such cases it is much easier to retain customers than to persuade people (who usually buy a similar product from somebody else) to switch to your brand.
The Sims making studio as you call it has been in Redwood City since the Sims 2 at least. During Sims 3 they also had a studio in Salt Lake City where the store content was made and often the eps and such was tested. When I tested Showtime for Sims 3 - I had to report to the Sims Team in Salt Lake City. But they have since pulled the Sims people out of there when they closed the Sims 3 store and rebuilt the studios there solely for mobile apps. Maxis does still have 2 other studios not in the USA too.
They made Sims City and Spore in Emeryville and started Sims there. But the Sims Division at the huge Redwood campus has been in place for a long time, at least 2006 if I recall. Emeryville could not have held the size teams the Sims and Sims city used in that building. Maxis itself has 1500 employees as of June 22, 2015 according to Wall St. Review of Tech companies, with EA itself having 8400 employees. Makes me see EA 4 times bigger than my entire town. That's a lot of people. Shesh.
But I recall when EA gave the Sims their own studios as Will Wright Filmed the entire move and showed it online. It was funny - he was downright giddy.
One other thing - EA or Maxis anyway does sometime choose Team leaders for packs from other EA Divisions I know several of EA's departments who have had their Head people heading an entire EP team - like when Sims 2 Bon Voyage came out, come to find out the one who made and was in charge of BV was actually an EA person who had worked for years on the Tiger Woods Golf and other EA Games Titles. He also made several Sims eps - that was the very talented Sam Player. For EPs the lead on the team can be from anywhere in EA, not just in the Maxis Division.
"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.....
And I remember MaxoidSam (Sam Player) too from the Sims 2 forum. He left to work on another (at the time) unannounced game and later left Maxis too. He is now Head of Product Management at Sports Illustrated Play according to https://www.linkedin.com/pub/sam-player/1/2a9/179
I think that everyone know the game needs to take some drastic measures as time is running out fast, the recent RF interview and reaction to Spooky Stuff shows that things are not improving...
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
I must be wording this very badly as you're not debating the points I actually am trying to make and debating ones I am not meaning at all. I'm not talking about legal rights. Just as if I go to a restaurant and order a rare steak, I expect a rare steak, for a AAA game, I expect the same quality as other AAA games. Steak analogy one step further -- I will have different expectations of a $10 steak and a $70 steak. Now, legally, I don't even have the right to return the software unlike any other product, but that doesn't mean I will continue to support the company.
I understand that Sims has no direct competitor in the same genre (though since I play different genres of games, I do have choice). I understand that EA is out to maximize profits. I also understand that video games are purely entertainment, not a life necessity
And in fact, I don't disagree with you. A competitor would definitely be good for the series (and I said that already).
My point is this -- I was responding to someone talking about the difficulties EA when producing the Sims. I KNOW they ran into problems and ran out of resources. However, that is not my problem. I do not care what issues they had during production, I only care about the end product. To me, "Well, this happened and that happened and of course that affected the game" loses all relevance the minute they still charge the exact same thing as they would have a product that didn't run into those issues.
Bear in mind, they can charge whatever they want for a product. But it makes me sad when consumers then justify shortcomings of the product by making excuses for the company instead of questioning why those shortcomings are there and asking for resolution (bug fixes, addition of promised features). I don't care about their issues -- I care about what they actually delivered.
Sorry, Erpe, but in response to the post where you tried to warn of the dangers of EA shutting down the Sims 4, and in response to EA's assertion that the PC game will continue, I'd have to say that's not sufficient reason to keep on supporting the Sims 4 by continuing to throw money at it. In fact, I have a real credibility issue with EA and its promises of continued PC support for the Sims 4. In short, liar liar pants on fire, EA.
Just watch...they'll make the announcement after the first of the coming year...AFTER Christmas. We might get an additional stuff pack, another game pack, and maybe some more freebies, but I strongly suspect that it's bye-bye Sims 4, given Rachel's strong commitment and background in mobile games.
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally)
I Took The Pledge!
Update: An EA representative reached out to Polygon to clarify that while Franklin will oversee all Maxis development in her new role, including The Sims 4 and "some other projects," EA is not currently moving the mobile games SimCity BuildIt or The Sims FreePlay under Franklin's purview. In essence, the rep said, this change doesn't mean Maxis games will be shifting away from PC. We've edited the story to reflect this.