Absolutely not. If you ask me, this whole toddler fiasco is a load of crap. It seems to me that EA could have added toddlers to the game a long time ago when they saw people were so upset about it and they still haven't done it. The game has been out for over a year. They have had time to do it. I honestly feel like they are holding off on bringing toddlers back on purpose. They want to make people so desperate for toddlers that when they finally bring them back everyone will be grateful. It's the same thing that they did with pools. When pools were brought back everyone was so happy, when really the reaction should have been nothing because they should have included pools in the first place. When they bring back toddlers I won't be ecstatic, because toddlers should have been included in the first place. I'm not going to be joyous and happy and pay more money for something that should have been included in the base game anyway.
I would buy a generations style EP but only if toddlers were patched in simply because without them being patched in it is pretty likely that the only interactions they will ever get will be what comes with that single EP. If they in fact never come (and I still believe they will, I haven't completely lost faith in the company yet, though it is wearing thin) then I'm sad to say this will likely be my last sims game which makes me very sad.
Saying "not to be rude", then blatently being rude does not excuse rude behavior.
No I would not buy it. It's just one of the many missing features of this game and even if it ever did become available, it still would never fix the mess that is TS4.
I would buy it on sale most likely unless it had items I really wanted like in the last two expansion packs. I'm slightly more interested in designing then playing the sims, I had Get To Work for about a month before I played with the new interactions.
No, I refuse to pay for a life stage rather spend that money on a another game.
Omen by HP Intel®️ Core™️ i9- 12900K W/ RGB Liquid Cooler 32GB Nvidia RTX 3080 10Gb ASUS Ultra-Wide 34" Curved Monitor. Omen By HP Intel® Core™ i7-12800HX 32 GB Nvidia 3070 Ti 8 GB 17.3 Screen
I would definitely buy! I'm not one to protest stuff like this and I understand why everyone is, but I can't seem to bring myself to feel wronged or cheated in any way about the lack of toddlers. I still love them though and if they released an expansion with them I would most likely try to get it as soon as possible. Also, I don't think what else is included in this theoretical expansion pack would matter to me... I would buy it irregardless. I seem to be a minority though! Much respect to all of you who no-doubt have more self-respect than I do! Lol
Toddlers should come in a FREE patch just like ghosts did!!! shouldn't have to pay for a life stage that was supposed to be in base game in the first place!!
I would definitely buy! I'm not one to protest stuff like this and I understand why everyone is, but I can't seem to bring myself to feel wronged or cheated in any way about the lack of toddlers. I still love them though and if they released an expansion with them I would most likely try to get it as soon as possible. Also, I don't think what else is included in this theoretical expansion pack would matter to me... I would buy it irregardless. I seem to be a minority though! Much respect to all of you who no-doubt have more self-respect than I do! Lol
I think the reason that most people are against the idea of toddlers being given to us in an expansion pack, besides the fact that they should have been included in the base game to begin with, is that the toddlers would be limited to that one expansion pack, and more than likely wouldn't fit in with the other expansion packs.
This might be fine for those who don't want toddlers and wouldn't have a problem with skipping that particular expansion pack, but it wouldn't do at all for those who would buy that expansion pack, but wouldn't be able to have toddler interactions in previous expansion packs or in future ones, since the animations for the toddlers probably wouldn't be included in future expansion packs.
To me, selling us toddlers in an expansion pack would be too much like Maxis telling us: "There's your stinkin' toddlers, are you happy now?" and expecting us to smile and be grateful for it. The whole concept just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
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!
I would definitely buy! I'm not one to protest stuff like this and I understand why everyone is, but I can't seem to bring myself to feel wronged or cheated in any way about the lack of toddlers. I still love them though and if they released an expansion with them I would most likely try to get it as soon as possible. Also, I don't think what else is included in this theoretical expansion pack would matter to me... I would buy it irregardless. I seem to be a minority though! Much respect to all of you who no-doubt have more self-respect than I do! Lol
I think the reason that most people are against the idea of toddlers being given to us in an expansion pack, besides the fact that they should have been included in the base game to begin with, is that the toddlers would be limited to that one expansion pack, and more than likely wouldn't fit in with the other expansion packs.
This might be fine for those who don't want toddlers and wouldn't have a problem with skipping that particular expansion pack, but it wouldn't do at all for those who would buy that expansion pack, but wouldn't be able to have toddler interactions in previous expansion packs or in future ones, since the animations for the toddlers probably wouldn't be included in future expansion packs.
To me, selling us toddlers in an expansion pack would be too much like Maxis telling us: "There's your stinkin' toddlers, are you happy now?" and expecting us to smile and be grateful for it. The whole concept just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I tell you another reason I think they should be free. There was zero mitigation in price for how empty the base game was for those of us who bought early. They hid that emptiness with refusing to give pre release copies for review because I think they knew it would shock some customers. The price I paid was not justified at all with the experience I had. Premium game price for a half finished game.
I would definitely buy! I'm not one to protest stuff like this and I understand why everyone is, but I can't seem to bring myself to feel wronged or cheated in any way about the lack of toddlers. I still love them though and if they released an expansion with them I would most likely try to get it as soon as possible. Also, I don't think what else is included in this theoretical expansion pack would matter to me... I would buy it irregardless. I seem to be a minority though! Much respect to all of you who no-doubt have more self-respect than I do! Lol
I think the reason that most people are against the idea of toddlers being given to us in an expansion pack, besides the fact that they should have been included in the base game to begin with, is that the toddlers would be limited to that one expansion pack, and more than likely wouldn't fit in with the other expansion packs.
This might be fine for those who don't want toddlers and wouldn't have a problem with skipping that particular expansion pack, but it wouldn't do at all for those who would buy that expansion pack, but wouldn't be able to have toddler interactions in previous expansion packs or in future ones, since the animations for the toddlers probably wouldn't be included in future expansion packs.
To me, selling us toddlers in an expansion pack would be too much like Maxis telling us: "There's your stinkin' toddlers, are you happy now?" and expecting us to smile and be grateful for it. The whole concept just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The best part is, toddlers would likely even be isolated from the rest of the world, too. Why do I say that? Because it happened with Young Adults in Sims 2.
I would definitely buy! I'm not one to protest stuff like this and I understand why everyone is, but I can't seem to bring myself to feel wronged or cheated in any way about the lack of toddlers. I still love them though and if they released an expansion with them I would most likely try to get it as soon as possible. Also, I don't think what else is included in this theoretical expansion pack would matter to me... I would buy it irregardless. I seem to be a minority though! Much respect to all of you who no-doubt have more self-respect than I do! Lol
I think the reason that most people are against the idea of toddlers being given to us in an expansion pack, besides the fact that they should have been included in the base game to begin with, is that the toddlers would be limited to that one expansion pack, and more than likely wouldn't fit in with the other expansion packs.
This might be fine for those who don't want toddlers and wouldn't have a problem with skipping that particular expansion pack, but it wouldn't do at all for those who would buy that expansion pack, but wouldn't be able to have toddler interactions in previous expansion packs or in future ones, since the animations for the toddlers probably wouldn't be included in future expansion packs.
To me, selling us toddlers in an expansion pack would be too much like Maxis telling us: "There's your stinkin' toddlers, are you happy now?" and expecting us to smile and be grateful for it. The whole concept just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The best part is, toddlers would likely even be isolated from the rest of the world, too. Why do I say that? Because it happened with Young Adults in Sims 2.
That's exactly what I, and several other players, have been trying to explain to those who say "Oh, yes, we'll get them in an expansion pack."
It's a bad idea. Not only would it break the continuity of family play, but you'd have to choose to send the baby to a separate location right after it aged up to toddler. An easy way to do it would be for the baby to poof out and end up in the separate location, such as a daycare center, and then the player has the choice to take the whole family to visit the toddler or just send one family member to visit the toddler...thus breaking the connection between family members and the toddler. The only way they were able to add young adults to Sims 2 was to send their teen to university where they became a YA right after they got there.
But some people refuse to see that.
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!
I'm so sorry but I have to say something.
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
I'm so sorry but I have to say something.
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
Think about it logically in this aspect: Tying a life stage to a world is the only way they have ever added a life stage to the base series without making it base game. The only way. So, given they very likely haven't, we have to look at the available data of what they do know and extrapolate.
So, unless they have somehow learned some new tricks for making games, it's a fair bet toddlers are not coming at all simply because a toddler world would be worse than no toddlers at all.
I'm so sorry but I have to say something.
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
Think about it logically in this aspect: Tying a life stage to a world is the only way they have ever added a life stage to the base series without making it base game. The only way. So, given they very likely haven't, we have to look at the available data of what they do know and extrapolate.
So, unless they have somehow learned some new tricks for making games, it's a fair bet toddlers are not coming at all simply because a toddler world would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand people who say they'll be tied to a world. It's either they make them full fledged or they don't at all. They won't be tied to a world. If developers can't do toddlers and integrate them fully, then they aren't coming.
I'm so sorry but I have to say something.
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
Think about it logically in this aspect: Tying a life stage to a world is the only way they have ever added a life stage to the base series without making it base game. The only way. So, given they very likely haven't, we have to look at the available data of what they do know and extrapolate.
So, unless they have somehow learned some new tricks for making games, it's a fair bet toddlers are not coming at all simply because a toddler world would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand people who say they'll be tied to a world. It's either they make them full fledged or they don't at all. They won't be tied to a world. If developers can't do toddlers and integrate them fully, then they aren't coming.
That's what we're saying. The ONLY way that they could be put into an expansion pack without having to rewrite the base game code when it comes to life stages is to put them in a special environment like they did the Young Adults in Sims 2 University. You're not thinking logically if you have the idea that by offering them in an expansion pack, they'll somehow be slotted into the life stages automatically...baby, toddler, child, etcetera, without having to make massive changes to the base game code.
Ain't gonna happen. It's either make an expansion pack with a daycare center, plus activities for other life stages, or not bother with them because of having to rewrite the base code, and the gurus have already stated that they didn't want to "shoehorn" toddlers in (Y'all should have, then you wouldn't be having these problems).
As it is now, the ONLY way to put them in and the easiest way is to confine them in an expansion pack that contains a special environment for them such as a daycare center. That way it doesn't interfere with the game play of those who don't want toddlers and won't bother buying that expansion pack. So, yes, they're going to be put in a separate world if we have to pay for them.
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!
I'm so sorry but I have to say something.
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
Think about it logically in this aspect: Tying a life stage to a world is the only way they have ever added a life stage to the base series without making it base game. The only way. So, given they very likely haven't, we have to look at the available data of what they do know and extrapolate.
So, unless they have somehow learned some new tricks for making games, it's a fair bet toddlers are not coming at all simply because a toddler world would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand people who say they'll be tied to a world. It's either they make them full fledged or they don't at all. They won't be tied to a world. If developers can't do toddlers and integrate them fully, then they aren't coming.
That's what we're saying. The ONLY way that they could be put into an expansion pack without having to rewrite the base game code when it comes to life stages is to put them in a special environment like they did the Young Adults in Sims 2 University. You're not thinking logically if you have the idea that by offering them in an expansion pack, they'll somehow be slotted into the life stages automatically...baby, toddler, child, etcetera, without having to make massive changes to the base game code.
Ain't gonna happen. It's either make an expansion pack with a daycare center, plus activities for other life stages, or not bother with them because of having to rewrite the base code, and the gurus have already stated that they didn't want to "shoehorn" toddlers in (Y'all should have, then you wouldn't be having these problems).
As it is now, the ONLY way to put them in and the easiest way is to confine them in an expansion pack that contains a special environment for them such as a daycare center. That way it doesn't interfere with the game play of those who don't want toddlers and won't bother buying that expansion pack. So, yes, they're going to be put in a separate world if we have to pay for them.
This is why they need to patch them in. Nobody wants that. That sounds horrible. I don't even think the clowns on here who are always saying that "toddlers will be EP only" want that.
I'm so sorry but I have to say something.
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
Think about it logically in this aspect: Tying a life stage to a world is the only way they have ever added a life stage to the base series without making it base game. The only way. So, given they very likely haven't, we have to look at the available data of what they do know and extrapolate.
So, unless they have somehow learned some new tricks for making games, it's a fair bet toddlers are not coming at all simply because a toddler world would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand people who say they'll be tied to a world. It's either they make them full fledged or they don't at all. They won't be tied to a world. If developers can't do toddlers and integrate them fully, then they aren't coming.
That's what we're saying. The ONLY way that they could be put into an expansion pack without having to rewrite the base game code when it comes to life stages is to put them in a special environment like they did the Young Adults in Sims 2 University. You're not thinking logically if you have the idea that by offering them in an expansion pack, they'll somehow be slotted into the life stages automatically...baby, toddler, child, etcetera, without having to make massive changes to the base game code.
Ain't gonna happen. It's either make an expansion pack with a daycare center, plus activities for other life stages, or not bother with them because of having to rewrite the base code, and the gurus have already stated that they didn't want to "shoehorn" toddlers in (Y'all should have, then you wouldn't be having these problems).
As it is now, the ONLY way to put them in and the easiest way is to confine them in an expansion pack that contains a special environment for them such as a daycare center. That way it doesn't interfere with the game play of those who don't want toddlers and won't bother buying that expansion pack. So, yes, they're going to be put in a separate world if we have to pay for them.
This is why they need to patch them in. Nobody wants that. That sounds horrible. I don't even think the clowns on here who are always saying that "toddlers will be EP only" want that.
Nobody wants that. It would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Yes, by all evidence, our only option for getting toddlers: A life stage in their own world. And that's the problem. Life stages cannot be simply patched in.
I'm so sorry but I have to say something.
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
Think about it logically in this aspect: Tying a life stage to a world is the only way they have ever added a life stage to the base series without making it base game. The only way. So, given they very likely haven't, we have to look at the available data of what they do know and extrapolate.
So, unless they have somehow learned some new tricks for making games, it's a fair bet toddlers are not coming at all simply because a toddler world would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand people who say they'll be tied to a world. It's either they make them full fledged or they don't at all. They won't be tied to a world. If developers can't do toddlers and integrate them fully, then they aren't coming.
That's what we're saying. The ONLY way that they could be put into an expansion pack without having to rewrite the base game code when it comes to life stages is to put them in a special environment like they did the Young Adults in Sims 2 University. You're not thinking logically if you have the idea that by offering them in an expansion pack, they'll somehow be slotted into the life stages automatically...baby, toddler, child, etcetera, without having to make massive changes to the base game code.
Ain't gonna happen. It's either make an expansion pack with a daycare center, plus activities for other life stages, or not bother with them because of having to rewrite the base code, and the gurus have already stated that they didn't want to "shoehorn" toddlers in (Y'all should have, then you wouldn't be having these problems).
As it is now, the ONLY way to put them in and the easiest way is to confine them in an expansion pack that contains a special environment for them such as a daycare center. That way it doesn't interfere with the game play of those who don't want toddlers and won't bother buying that expansion pack. So, yes, they're going to be put in a separate world if we have to pay for them.
Except you have no proof this is the ONLY way they can do it.
I'm so sorry but I have to say something.
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
Think about it logically in this aspect: Tying a life stage to a world is the only way they have ever added a life stage to the base series without making it base game. The only way. So, given they very likely haven't, we have to look at the available data of what they do know and extrapolate.
So, unless they have somehow learned some new tricks for making games, it's a fair bet toddlers are not coming at all simply because a toddler world would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand people who say they'll be tied to a world. It's either they make them full fledged or they don't at all. They won't be tied to a world. If developers can't do toddlers and integrate them fully, then they aren't coming.
That's what we're saying. The ONLY way that they could be put into an expansion pack without having to rewrite the base game code when it comes to life stages is to put them in a special environment like they did the Young Adults in Sims 2 University. You're not thinking logically if you have the idea that by offering them in an expansion pack, they'll somehow be slotted into the life stages automatically...baby, toddler, child, etcetera, without having to make massive changes to the base game code.
Ain't gonna happen. It's either make an expansion pack with a daycare center, plus activities for other life stages, or not bother with them because of having to rewrite the base code, and the gurus have already stated that they didn't want to "shoehorn" toddlers in (Y'all should have, then you wouldn't be having these problems).
As it is now, the ONLY way to put them in and the easiest way is to confine them in an expansion pack that contains a special environment for them such as a daycare center. That way it doesn't interfere with the game play of those who don't want toddlers and won't bother buying that expansion pack. So, yes, they're going to be put in a separate world if we have to pay for them.
Except you have no proof this is the ONLY way they can do it.
The proof: Only time they added a life stage that wasn't in at launch, it had its own separate world. That was Sims 2. They've added no life stages outside of launch since.
Now, before you point to Freeplay... Freeplay is by an entirely different studio. What they're capable of has no bearing on Sims 4.
I'm so sorry but I have to say something.
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
Think about it logically in this aspect: Tying a life stage to a world is the only way they have ever added a life stage to the base series without making it base game. The only way. So, given they very likely haven't, we have to look at the available data of what they do know and extrapolate.
So, unless they have somehow learned some new tricks for making games, it's a fair bet toddlers are not coming at all simply because a toddler world would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand people who say they'll be tied to a world. It's either they make them full fledged or they don't at all. They won't be tied to a world. If developers can't do toddlers and integrate them fully, then they aren't coming.
That's what we're saying. The ONLY way that they could be put into an expansion pack without having to rewrite the base game code when it comes to life stages is to put them in a special environment like they did the Young Adults in Sims 2 University. You're not thinking logically if you have the idea that by offering them in an expansion pack, they'll somehow be slotted into the life stages automatically...baby, toddler, child, etcetera, without having to make massive changes to the base game code.
Ain't gonna happen. It's either make an expansion pack with a daycare center, plus activities for other life stages, or not bother with them because of having to rewrite the base code, and the gurus have already stated that they didn't want to "shoehorn" toddlers in (Y'all should have, then you wouldn't be having these problems).
As it is now, the ONLY way to put them in and the easiest way is to confine them in an expansion pack that contains a special environment for them such as a daycare center. That way it doesn't interfere with the game play of those who don't want toddlers and won't bother buying that expansion pack. So, yes, they're going to be put in a separate world if we have to pay for them.
Except you have no proof this is the ONLY way they can do it.
The proof: Only time they added a life stage that wasn't in at launch, it had its own separate world. That was Sims 2. They've added no life stages outside of launch since.
Now, before you point to Freeplay... Freeplay is by an entirely different studio. What they're capable of has no bearing on Sims 4.
I'm so sorry but I have to say something.
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
Think about it logically in this aspect: Tying a life stage to a world is the only way they have ever added a life stage to the base series without making it base game. The only way. So, given they very likely haven't, we have to look at the available data of what they do know and extrapolate.
So, unless they have somehow learned some new tricks for making games, it's a fair bet toddlers are not coming at all simply because a toddler world would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand people who say they'll be tied to a world. It's either they make them full fledged or they don't at all. They won't be tied to a world. If developers can't do toddlers and integrate them fully, then they aren't coming.
That's what we're saying. The ONLY way that they could be put into an expansion pack without having to rewrite the base game code when it comes to life stages is to put them in a special environment like they did the Young Adults in Sims 2 University. You're not thinking logically if you have the idea that by offering them in an expansion pack, they'll somehow be slotted into the life stages automatically...baby, toddler, child, etcetera, without having to make massive changes to the base game code.
Ain't gonna happen. It's either make an expansion pack with a daycare center, plus activities for other life stages, or not bother with them because of having to rewrite the base code, and the gurus have already stated that they didn't want to "shoehorn" toddlers in (Y'all should have, then you wouldn't be having these problems).
As it is now, the ONLY way to put them in and the easiest way is to confine them in an expansion pack that contains a special environment for them such as a daycare center. That way it doesn't interfere with the game play of those who don't want toddlers and won't bother buying that expansion pack. So, yes, they're going to be put in a separate world if we have to pay for them.
Except you have no proof this is the ONLY way they can do it.
The proof: Only time they added a life stage that wasn't in at launch, it had its own separate world. That was Sims 2. They've added no life stages outside of launch since.
Now, before you point to Freeplay... Freeplay is by an entirely different studio. What they're capable of has no bearing on Sims 4.
Have they said anything about adding toddlers yet, in an expansion or patch?
No.
How does that prove it's the only way ?
If I go to the supermarket once, using one route, it does not mean there's only one way to go there.
Programming and going to the market have as much in common as trying to decipher Ancient Egyptian and juggling oranges do. They're so completely unrelated that the market analogy is nonsense.
And, yes, that's the nice way of putting it. There's no nicer way of stating it that doesn't lose something in the communication.
Programming is the art of trying to explain to an extremely literal-minded creature with a completely alien mentality exactly what you want it to do... and often, what you end up telling it to do and what you wanted it to do are not the same thing. There are numerous examples, depending on the coding language, of there only being one way to do something and have the computer actually do it. And when you create a video game engine, you're often eliminating other choices in how to do things just during the engine design... meaning that anything you add on after is going to be trapped in one way to do things.
Now, on top of that, studios have styles. The end result of their project shows the combined efforts of the teams, and they tend to have set ways of doing code that they pass on. Even when they create new game engines, they keep certain aspects of how things must end up when going from one project to another.
Now, on top of all of that, they had indicated with Sims 3 that adding a new life stage is not possible. And they've indicated the Sims 4 engine is even more restrictive than the one for Sims 3. And in many ways, Sims 3 engine was more restrictive than Sims 2. And if they had left open adding a life stage when that has never existed in the past, we would have heard about it during the talk in the final few months before the game came out as they tried to salvage customers.
So, yeah. That's how I know, and that's how it proves it.
I'm so sorry but I have to say something.
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
Think about it logically in this aspect: Tying a life stage to a world is the only way they have ever added a life stage to the base series without making it base game. The only way. So, given they very likely haven't, we have to look at the available data of what they do know and extrapolate.
So, unless they have somehow learned some new tricks for making games, it's a fair bet toddlers are not coming at all simply because a toddler world would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand people who say they'll be tied to a world. It's either they make them full fledged or they don't at all. They won't be tied to a world. If developers can't do toddlers and integrate them fully, then they aren't coming.
That's what we're saying. The ONLY way that they could be put into an expansion pack without having to rewrite the base game code when it comes to life stages is to put them in a special environment like they did the Young Adults in Sims 2 University. You're not thinking logically if you have the idea that by offering them in an expansion pack, they'll somehow be slotted into the life stages automatically...baby, toddler, child, etcetera, without having to make massive changes to the base game code.
Ain't gonna happen. It's either make an expansion pack with a daycare center, plus activities for other life stages, or not bother with them because of having to rewrite the base code, and the gurus have already stated that they didn't want to "shoehorn" toddlers in (Y'all should have, then you wouldn't be having these problems).
As it is now, the ONLY way to put them in and the easiest way is to confine them in an expansion pack that contains a special environment for them such as a daycare center. That way it doesn't interfere with the game play of those who don't want toddlers and won't bother buying that expansion pack. So, yes, they're going to be put in a separate world if we have to pay for them.
Except you have no proof this is the ONLY way they can do it.
The proof: Only time they added a life stage that wasn't in at launch, it had its own separate world. That was Sims 2. They've added no life stages outside of launch since.
Now, before you point to Freeplay... Freeplay is by an entirely different studio. What they're capable of has no bearing on Sims 4.
Have they said anything about adding toddlers yet, in an expansion or patch?
No.
How does that prove it's the only way ?
If I go to the supermarket once, using one route, it does not mean there's only one way to go there.
Programming and going to the market have as much in common as trying to decipher Ancient Egyptian and juggling oranges do. They're so completely unrelated that the market analogy is nonsense.
And, yes, that's the nice way of putting it. There's no nicer way of stating it that doesn't lose something in the communication.
Programming is the art of trying to explain to an extremely literal-minded creature with a completely alien mentality exactly what you want it to do... and often, what you end up telling it to do and what you wanted it to do are not the same thing. There are numerous examples, depending on the coding language, of there only being one way to do something and have the computer actually do it. And when you create a video game engine, you're often eliminating other choices in how to do things just during the engine design... meaning that anything you add on after is going to be trapped in one way to do things.
Now, on top of that, studios have styles. The end result of their project shows the combined efforts of the teams, and they tend to have set ways of doing code that they pass on. Even when they create new game engines, they keep certain aspects of how things must end up when going from one project to another.
Now, on top of all of that, they had indicated with Sims 3 that adding a new life stage is not possible. And they've indicated the Sims 4 engine is even more restrictive than the one for Sims 3. And in many ways, Sims 3 engine was more restrictive than Sims 2. And if they had left open adding a life stage when that has never existed in the past, we would have heard about it during the talk in the final few months before the game came out as they tried to salvage customers.
So, yeah. That's how I know, and that's how it proves it.
None of that proves that this is the only way, especially when it's a different game, different game engine and a different programming language for the simulation part.
And they never said TS4 engine was more restictrive. It was about beard and CAS.
The point is that there will not be an expansion of babies. If EA did, who would lose money would be it. And this would happen because, from the time that babies are limited to an expansion pack, producers could not create more content related to babies in other expansions, and only lose more money. Babies come for update, will be part of the base, and will gain new content in the future.
I'm so sorry but I have to say something.
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
Think about it logically in this aspect: Tying a life stage to a world is the only way they have ever added a life stage to the base series without making it base game. The only way. So, given they very likely haven't, we have to look at the available data of what they do know and extrapolate.
So, unless they have somehow learned some new tricks for making games, it's a fair bet toddlers are not coming at all simply because a toddler world would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand people who say they'll be tied to a world. It's either they make them full fledged or they don't at all. They won't be tied to a world. If developers can't do toddlers and integrate them fully, then they aren't coming.
That's what we're saying. The ONLY way that they could be put into an expansion pack without having to rewrite the base game code when it comes to life stages is to put them in a special environment like they did the Young Adults in Sims 2 University. You're not thinking logically if you have the idea that by offering them in an expansion pack, they'll somehow be slotted into the life stages automatically...baby, toddler, child, etcetera, without having to make massive changes to the base game code.
Ain't gonna happen. It's either make an expansion pack with a daycare center, plus activities for other life stages, or not bother with them because of having to rewrite the base code, and the gurus have already stated that they didn't want to "shoehorn" toddlers in (Y'all should have, then you wouldn't be having these problems).
As it is now, the ONLY way to put them in and the easiest way is to confine them in an expansion pack that contains a special environment for them such as a daycare center. That way it doesn't interfere with the game play of those who don't want toddlers and won't bother buying that expansion pack. So, yes, they're going to be put in a separate world if we have to pay for them.
Except you have no proof this is the ONLY way they can do it.
The proof: Only time they added a life stage that wasn't in at launch, it had its own separate world. That was Sims 2. They've added no life stages outside of launch since.
Now, before you point to Freeplay... Freeplay is by an entirely different studio. What they're capable of has no bearing on Sims 4.
Have they said anything about adding toddlers yet, in an expansion or patch?
No.
How does that prove it's the only way ?
If I go to the supermarket once, using one route, it does not mean there's only one way to go there.
Programming and going to the market have as much in common as trying to decipher Ancient Egyptian and juggling oranges do. They're so completely unrelated that the market analogy is nonsense.
And, yes, that's the nice way of putting it. There's no nicer way of stating it that doesn't lose something in the communication.
Programming is the art of trying to explain to an extremely literal-minded creature with a completely alien mentality exactly what you want it to do... and often, what you end up telling it to do and what you wanted it to do are not the same thing. There are numerous examples, depending on the coding language, of there only being one way to do something and have the computer actually do it. And when you create a video game engine, you're often eliminating other choices in how to do things just during the engine design... meaning that anything you add on after is going to be trapped in one way to do things.
Now, on top of that, studios have styles. The end result of their project shows the combined efforts of the teams, and they tend to have set ways of doing code that they pass on. Even when they create new game engines, they keep certain aspects of how things must end up when going from one project to another.
Now, on top of all of that, they had indicated with Sims 3 that adding a new life stage is not possible. And they've indicated the Sims 4 engine is even more restrictive than the one for Sims 3. And in many ways, Sims 3 engine was more restrictive than Sims 2. And if they had left open adding a life stage when that has never existed in the past, we would have heard about it during the talk in the final few months before the game came out as they tried to salvage customers.
So, yeah. That's how I know, and that's how it proves it.
None of that proves that this is the only way, especially when it's a different game, different game engine and a different programming language for the simulation part.
And they never said TS4 engine was more restictrive. It was about beard and CAS.
Different game that uses the same aging-up method, same methods of sims gaining skills, same gardening, same grid for placing things, pretty similar traits system, same moodlets system... I could go on and on.
And, I laughed when she said it's different from Sims 3. If it is, then why do we still have the same menu system for selecting clothing, hair, etc.? All they did was expand it to include body types and allow us to use click and drag instead of sliders.
And, ultimately, she sums it up with this about CAS: " but our tech is more limiting than TS3 was." You see the same thing not just in CAS, but elsewhere. For example, why can't they expand worlds? Because the tech won't allow it. Because it's more limiting across the board, not just in one area.
And if they could patch toddlers in, don't you think they would have done it by now? It would be a massive selling point. They could make it a focus of commercials to draw in simmers they lost. Seriously, if they have the capacity, it makes no market sense to wait this long unless they were never going to do it in the first place... and if they were not going to do it in the first place, they wouldn't even bother to design the engine to allow it.
Comments
Saying "not to be rude", then blatently being rude does not excuse rude behavior.
I think the reason that most people are against the idea of toddlers being given to us in an expansion pack, besides the fact that they should have been included in the base game to begin with, is that the toddlers would be limited to that one expansion pack, and more than likely wouldn't fit in with the other expansion packs.
This might be fine for those who don't want toddlers and wouldn't have a problem with skipping that particular expansion pack, but it wouldn't do at all for those who would buy that expansion pack, but wouldn't be able to have toddler interactions in previous expansion packs or in future ones, since the animations for the toddlers probably wouldn't be included in future expansion packs.
To me, selling us toddlers in an expansion pack would be too much like Maxis telling us: "There's your stinkin' toddlers, are you happy now?" and expecting us to smile and be grateful for it. The whole concept just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally)
I Took The Pledge!
I tell you another reason I think they should be free. There was zero mitigation in price for how empty the base game was for those of us who bought early. They hid that emptiness with refusing to give pre release copies for review because I think they knew it would shock some customers. The price I paid was not justified at all with the experience I had. Premium game price for a half finished game.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
The best part is, toddlers would likely even be isolated from the rest of the world, too. Why do I say that? Because it happened with Young Adults in Sims 2.
That's exactly what I, and several other players, have been trying to explain to those who say "Oh, yes, we'll get them in an expansion pack."
It's a bad idea. Not only would it break the continuity of family play, but you'd have to choose to send the baby to a separate location right after it aged up to toddler. An easy way to do it would be for the baby to poof out and end up in the separate location, such as a daycare center, and then the player has the choice to take the whole family to visit the toddler or just send one family member to visit the toddler...thus breaking the connection between family members and the toddler. The only way they were able to add young adults to Sims 2 was to send their teen to university where they became a YA right after they got there.
But some people refuse to see that.
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally)
I Took The Pledge!
If - a huge if - we get toddlers, they WILL NOT be tied to a world. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. Obviously YA were in S2, because it made sense. You live out your YA years in uni. But how would you even begin to do that with toddlers? What kind of world has only tots? And what would even be the point of having toddlers for family play if you couldn't play them at home? Seriously, just think about it logically.
SimmerJay CAS Challenge! ✨
Think about it logically in this aspect: Tying a life stage to a world is the only way they have ever added a life stage to the base series without making it base game. The only way. So, given they very likely haven't, we have to look at the available data of what they do know and extrapolate.
So, unless they have somehow learned some new tricks for making games, it's a fair bet toddlers are not coming at all simply because a toddler world would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand people who say they'll be tied to a world. It's either they make them full fledged or they don't at all. They won't be tied to a world. If developers can't do toddlers and integrate them fully, then they aren't coming.
SimmerJay CAS Challenge! ✨
That's what we're saying. The ONLY way that they could be put into an expansion pack without having to rewrite the base game code when it comes to life stages is to put them in a special environment like they did the Young Adults in Sims 2 University. You're not thinking logically if you have the idea that by offering them in an expansion pack, they'll somehow be slotted into the life stages automatically...baby, toddler, child, etcetera, without having to make massive changes to the base game code.
Ain't gonna happen. It's either make an expansion pack with a daycare center, plus activities for other life stages, or not bother with them because of having to rewrite the base code, and the gurus have already stated that they didn't want to "shoehorn" toddlers in (Y'all should have, then you wouldn't be having these problems).
As it is now, the ONLY way to put them in and the easiest way is to confine them in an expansion pack that contains a special environment for them such as a daycare center. That way it doesn't interfere with the game play of those who don't want toddlers and won't bother buying that expansion pack. So, yes, they're going to be put in a separate world if we have to pay for them.
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally)
I Took The Pledge!
This is why they need to patch them in. Nobody wants that. That sounds horrible. I don't even think the clowns on here who are always saying that "toddlers will be EP only" want that.
Nobody wants that. It would be worse than no toddlers at all.
Yes, by all evidence, our only option for getting toddlers: A life stage in their own world. And that's the problem. Life stages cannot be simply patched in.
Except you have no proof this is the ONLY way they can do it.
The proof: Only time they added a life stage that wasn't in at launch, it had its own separate world. That was Sims 2. They've added no life stages outside of launch since.
Now, before you point to Freeplay... Freeplay is by an entirely different studio. What they're capable of has no bearing on Sims 4.
No.
How does that prove it's the only way ?
If I go to the supermarket once, using one route, it does not mean there's only one way to go there.
Programming and going to the market have as much in common as trying to decipher Ancient Egyptian and juggling oranges do. They're so completely unrelated that the market analogy is nonsense.
And, yes, that's the nice way of putting it. There's no nicer way of stating it that doesn't lose something in the communication.
Programming is the art of trying to explain to an extremely literal-minded creature with a completely alien mentality exactly what you want it to do... and often, what you end up telling it to do and what you wanted it to do are not the same thing. There are numerous examples, depending on the coding language, of there only being one way to do something and have the computer actually do it. And when you create a video game engine, you're often eliminating other choices in how to do things just during the engine design... meaning that anything you add on after is going to be trapped in one way to do things.
Now, on top of that, studios have styles. The end result of their project shows the combined efforts of the teams, and they tend to have set ways of doing code that they pass on. Even when they create new game engines, they keep certain aspects of how things must end up when going from one project to another.
Now, on top of all of that, they had indicated with Sims 3 that adding a new life stage is not possible. And they've indicated the Sims 4 engine is even more restrictive than the one for Sims 3. And in many ways, Sims 3 engine was more restrictive than Sims 2. And if they had left open adding a life stage when that has never existed in the past, we would have heard about it during the talk in the final few months before the game came out as they tried to salvage customers.
So, yeah. That's how I know, and that's how it proves it.
None of that proves that this is the only way, especially when it's a different game, different game engine and a different programming language for the simulation part.
And they never said TS4 engine was more restictrive. It was about beard and CAS.
Different game that uses the same aging-up method, same methods of sims gaining skills, same gardening, same grid for placing things, pretty similar traits system, same moodlets system... I could go on and on.
And, I laughed when she said it's different from Sims 3. If it is, then why do we still have the same menu system for selecting clothing, hair, etc.? All they did was expand it to include body types and allow us to use click and drag instead of sliders.
And, ultimately, she sums it up with this about CAS: " but our tech is more limiting than TS3 was." You see the same thing not just in CAS, but elsewhere. For example, why can't they expand worlds? Because the tech won't allow it. Because it's more limiting across the board, not just in one area.
And if they could patch toddlers in, don't you think they would have done it by now? It would be a massive selling point. They could make it a focus of commercials to draw in simmers they lost. Seriously, if they have the capacity, it makes no market sense to wait this long unless they were never going to do it in the first place... and if they were not going to do it in the first place, they wouldn't even bother to design the engine to allow it.