Forum Announcement, Click Here to Read More From EA_Cade.
Sims 4 is the best selling base game of the franchise.
Pamtastic72
Posts: 4,545 Member
Gallery ID: Pamtastic72 If I'm not here, I'm here: Spoutible: https://spoutible.com/Pamtastic72Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pamtastic72/Threads: https://www.threads.net/@pamtastic72Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/pamela072-blogTwitter/X 
: https://twitter.com/Pamtastic72
: https://twitter.com/Pamtastic724
Comments
ĴØIŇ UŞ ĆØŇŞUΜ€ ŦĦ€ FŘUIŦ ØF ŦĦ€ ΜØŦĦ€Ř ΔŇĐ KŇØŴ P€ΔĆ€
lol
That's what I'm wondering - if it's the "best-selling" game of the franchise then why all the cut corners?The budget seems so small.
They recycle a lot of content and animations too. I'm genuinely curious what's going on.
***
Oh yes, it was bunk beds. From what I understand from the video, after investigation, bunk beds were found to be MORE expensive than murphy beds, like really expensive, and we couldn't have both, because they might have had to teleport Sims into the bunk beds or something to cut down on the cost.
So the Sims 4 has made over a billion dollars? I'm not very good at math. Does this report mean the murphy bed cost something like 999 million dollars to make and there was just nothing left over in the budget for a ladder?
Don't get me wrong, I love the game and I plan to buy the tiny living pack this week, but if they're doing so well, financially, then they should stop acting like starving street orphans straight out of a Charles Dickens novel and splurge a little on the objects they know we want. Just saying.
It seems more likely that the parent company decides how and where revenue is allotted, and less likely that an in-game item required just shy of $1 billion US to develop.
Revenue is not the same as cost... but still, the revenue that Maxis seems to generate does not really seem to reflect the scope they have for their packs. Especially stuff packs which apparently do not even have game engineers assigned (which was one reason they said they could not do bunk beds or ladders for tiny living).
If true, that is the right of EA to allocate their money where they see fit. However while I do believe the Sims franchise brings them in a nice chunk of change, I don't believe that change gets put back into the Sims franchise as much as it should or could.
I think EA sees the Sims as that game that doesn't need a huge budget but will pull in big cash.
Perhaps that is why the devs talk of a tight/small budget.
This is all theory based on rumor I heard once upon a time but I do think it's something to consider.
Unfortunately this out of the developers hands if so.
EA are still paying for 200 developers, so that's no small sum to pay every month. But I get the impression that either Maxis or EA do not want to invest too much into the sims4. They would rather that the game is a live-service which provides smaller updates consistently. They would rather release bunk beds or ladders over a year, than release them all with one pack.
If you compare object stuff packs in other games, there is no "one hero object" rule and the packs are designed to be cohesive based on the content theme in order to fulfill customer satisfaction. I really think their problem is that they create rules that don't need to exist and that they undervalue the stuff packs deliberately because they are only $10. Maybe they already know at some point they might want an in-demand object as a selling feature for a more expensive pack. Or maybe they just want to unleash an online store on us, and so are holding objects back that clearly belong with the themes already released.
Overall I think Sims 4 was amazing with the graphics and gameplay and there's no reason they couldn't have made double what they made in sales. Players are rejecting to buy as many expansion, game and stuff packs based on the quality of what's being included and the objects that they feel are missing. Quality is important. Also, someone told me that the FIFA games for EA make almost a billion dollars a year with in-app sales alone and I have a hard time believing someone is not eyeing the objects we want the most as little pots of gold for a future online store. I guess only time will tell.
Having worked for 20 years in a department that is consistently profitable but got no IT or product support from the company, I can totally believe this. Companies don't always allocate the most resources to the areas that earn a predictable return. And money gets siphoned off for projects that are ultimately abandonned or that reach the market and flop.
I wish more people realised this too, instead of trashing the developers because they didn't get what they want.
Anyway, nice to see the Sims 4 doing well though. A lot of people are really enjoying it so it's good to see that it's one of the best sellers
^^This, one million times this. There are things I want added to the game, and there are various ideas that I've had pop up in my head that I think would improve the game. But I've had lots of fun with Sims 4 thus far, and the addition of the gallery to consoles has really helped in that these past two weeks.
Trust me, I get having critiques of the game and wanting it to be better. But some folks it seems want to hate-play the game. Of course, being a wrestling fan and having visited numerous wrestling related message boards and comments sections, I'm kind of used to that train of thought by now.
Here's hoping that EA gives the team a bit of a bigger budget, and maybe a bonus
Yeah, it's called Less For More.
To my mind, this explains that big survey several days ago about improved relationships for sims, and winter sports and the like. If this series is selling so well still and now that they’re no longer anchored to 32 bit machines, perhaps they’re looking to ways to make the game deeper and to start adding some of the things people have been clamoring for because they can see the potential for a long life expectancy for this iteration. I for one truly hope so after yesterday’s less than stellar news about an online version. 🙁