As I said on my other thread if they did fix family play me personally would gain more trust that would make me hopeful of them fixing things and buying future games including the sims 5 if we ever see itl
Some people really do go on like these threads and topics about toddlers or family play like their invading his/her inbox lol!
The people who don't like the topics.who put a gun to his/her head to enter it?
I do think the gurus already know that toddlers and family play are wanted tho!
It would be interesting to see how many simmers stuck around this game if they saidv no toddler's and preteens for the sims 4 lol!
Don't give up hope tho
Imagen what the haters would be like it they took somthoing out or decided not to make somthing they love lol!
I wonder what the game would be like if they did not gives us the patches?
We just want a part of the game put back in and I would personally be supportive of other things you guys want.
If you want toddlers and want them to be noticed or added, just boycott the game yourself eventually the money, sales and complaining will increase so bad that they'd probably just give in
In reality, for every person who doesn't buy the base game there are at least 3 others who will. And I suspect all that will happen when the complaints increase and the sales decline, is that Maxis will drop the pc version of the Sims 4 like a hot potato and come up with a mobile/tablet version of The Sims similar to The Sims Freeplay, only it won't be based in real time, but it will be heavily quest based.
That's when Maxis becomes labelled a Mad Man and I'm sure no one is going to the phone app for Sims 4 or anything more, sims free play is just enough. That'd just be the end of the franchise... why would you continue supporting a franchise and there's well over tons of people for play in the game, but the play isn't added? instead they introduce," were limited, certain funds." then why develop this game? if you invest more then your sales would go up and you'd have enough money to fix your engine and the game. It's all business, they don't give no dam. Sims 3 got as much stuff on the 2nd going onto the 3rd year. Game lacks hell of bad.
My point is... your just saying deal with it because it might end the whole game? well Ig that's the case.
No, I'm not saying "deal with it", even though you think that's what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that realistically, a boycott won't work, since players keep buying the base game; either those players who couldn't afford it at the time of release, or waited until there was a sale, or new players who run across it online and decide to give it a go. Every one of those is a sale and money in EA's pocket.
And I'm also saying that EA's reaction isn't necessarily going to be: "Oops, we messed up, we'd better get to work on The Sims 5". If EA wants to move the game in another direction, then the decline in sales would be the perfect excuse for them saying that the fans have lost interest in the PC version so let's move on to the online mobile/tablet version. That's what I'm saying.
And you're right. If you want to make money, you have to be willing to spend money. EA needs to be willing to invest in this game if it wants the sales to go up and to see fans start liking the game again to the point where they're willing to spend the money on it again.
Some of us are still boycotting--at least 500 of us in this forum. And honestly, it's not even boycotting! We're just not buying a game we don't want! Please don't assume that we're all idiots who feel compelled to buy stuff we don't like If the numbers of fans buying the game is high because the fans like TS4, then that works out for EA--and it might result in massive disappointment for us in the long run for having to sit out this entire iteration, but high sales sure don't mean players who dislike the game are being suckered.
EA isn't getting a dime from me until I get improved family play and toddlers. I don't even play this game anymore (playing TS2). When they deliver the game that I enjoy, I will buy all of the EPs and SPs and GPs, and I will throw my full support into the game. For me this is the whole point of being a squeaky wheel about the family play and toddler issues. After all, why complain if there is no chance whatsoever of TS4 (or TS5) successfully carrying on this franchise?
Unfortunately, you're helping to kill the series.
What has EA done in the past with video game series that lost a lot of sales? It's killed them. Most video game companies do that. It's easier to just drop a series than to try to figure out where it went wrong. So, most just kill a failing series.
Huh? That makes no sense
What should I infer from this comment? Buy a product I don't want because I think it suhcks?!
It's getting hung up on a word. There really is zero difference to not buying and communicating why than to boycott and telling them why.
It's all on a premise that EA are that spiteful that if customers mention that word they'll trash their own work on toddlers to spite their customers.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And if they trash their own work out of spite that is their responsibility-not that of their customers.
Nah, they like money. If they can turn a profit with this game, they'll keep milking it for all its worth. And they are well aware of what will bring in more revenue to this prize cow--odds are they are working on it right now
Also, not buying something now because I don't like it doesn't mean never buying product once it's fun. I'm a collector fan.
So am I. I've already explained this @nanashi-sims the word doesn't matter-all it says is people *want* to buy but currently the situation prevents them doing so.
Simply refusing to buy? That's not a boycott. And calling it such opens up what you have to say to be ignored. It makes you a combatant because boycotts are never truly lacking in antagonism. And the antagonism often comes from both sides.
Welcome to a healthy dose of why EA is ignoring you.
I've gone out of my way to help EA. They chose not to do anything with that and it's their prerogative. But it's not up to other customers to accuse people of not buying the game because they aren't happy with the state of it of being antagonistic and having a bad attitude. Which is the narrative you are trying to give across.
Click that link I posted. Look directly at a real boycott. You'll understand exactly why.
Whether you intend it or not, things like what that link shows are what the word "boycott" conjure for a company. The replies they give are based off that image. Are they spiteful and antagonistic replies? Oh yes. But they're also the kind of replies you give when dealing with a true boycott. And by calling what you are doing a boycott, that kind of antagonistic relationship is what you're volunteering for and taking part in... even if you don't know it.
That's why I pointed out that it's antagonistic... because I know how companies respond to boycotts. It's not the mentality of people wanting to solve a problem, but the mentality of a fort under siege. Because of what real boycotts involve. Do you understand now? How would you respond if you felt under siege? Would you be friendly to those who have you under siege, or hostile? Would you be willing to take actions just to spite them?
And that is the issue at play. And why it is I spent the last few pages talking about it. Because I know what is going on and the kind of replies that happen. I've been there, on both sides of the line.
You want EA to listen to you? Fine. I'm telling you how to accomplish that. Because all they will likely do is glance at your posts and skim them; I expect them to do that with all posts not reported. If they spot you saying you boycott them? Right to the ignore pile, move on to the next. Because, realistically, that's probably all they have time for.
Yeah, it sucks. But welcome to dealing with a big corporation.
If you want toddlers and want them to be noticed or added, just boycott the game yourself eventually the money, sales and complaining will increase so bad that they'd probably just give in
In reality, for every person who doesn't buy the base game there are at least 3 others who will. And I suspect all that will happen when the complaints increase and the sales decline, is that Maxis will drop the pc version of the Sims 4 like a hot potato and come up with a mobile/tablet version of The Sims similar to The Sims Freeplay, only it won't be based in real time, but it will be heavily quest based.
That's when Maxis becomes labelled a Mad Man and I'm sure no one is going to the phone app for Sims 4 or anything more, sims free play is just enough. That'd just be the end of the franchise... why would you continue supporting a franchise and there's well over tons of people for play in the game, but the play isn't added? instead they introduce," were limited, certain funds." then why develop this game? if you invest more then your sales would go up and you'd have enough money to fix your engine and the game. It's all business, they don't give no dam. Sims 3 got as much stuff on the 2nd going onto the 3rd year. Game lacks hell of bad.
My point is... your just saying deal with it because it might end the whole game? well Ig that's the case.
No, I'm not saying "deal with it", even though you think that's what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that realistically, a boycott won't work, since players keep buying the base game; either those players who couldn't afford it at the time of release, or waited until there was a sale, or new players who run across it online and decide to give it a go. Every one of those is a sale and money in EA's pocket.
And I'm also saying that EA's reaction isn't necessarily going to be: "Oops, we messed up, we'd better get to work on The Sims 5". If EA wants to move the game in another direction, then the decline in sales would be the perfect excuse for them saying that the fans have lost interest in the PC version so let's move on to the online mobile/tablet version. That's what I'm saying.
And you're right. If you want to make money, you have to be willing to spend money. EA needs to be willing to invest in this game if it wants the sales to go up and to see fans start liking the game again to the point where they're willing to spend the money on it again.
Some of us are still boycotting--at least 500 of us in this forum. And honestly, it's not even boycotting! We're just not buying a game we don't want! Please don't assume that we're all idiots who feel compelled to buy stuff we don't like If the numbers of fans buying the game is high because the fans like TS4, then that works out for EA--and it might result in massive disappointment for us in the long run for having to sit out this entire iteration, but high sales sure don't mean players who dislike the game are being suckered.
EA isn't getting a dime from me until I get improved family play and toddlers. I don't even play this game anymore (playing TS2). When they deliver the game that I enjoy, I will buy all of the EPs and SPs and GPs, and I will throw my full support into the game. For me this is the whole point of being a squeaky wheel about the family play and toddler issues. After all, why complain if there is no chance whatsoever of TS4 (or TS5) successfully carrying on this franchise?
Unfortunately, you're helping to kill the series.
What has EA done in the past with video game series that lost a lot of sales? It's killed them. Most video game companies do that. It's easier to just drop a series than to try to figure out where it went wrong. So, most just kill a failing series.
Huh? That makes no sense
What should I infer from this comment? Buy a product I don't want because I think it suhcks?!
It's getting hung up on a word. There really is zero difference to not buying and communicating why than to boycott and telling them why.
It's all on a premise that EA are that spiteful that if customers mention that word they'll trash their own work on toddlers to spite their customers.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And if they trash their own work out of spite that is their responsibility-not that of their customers.
Nah, they like money. If they can turn a profit with this game, they'll keep milking it for all its worth. And they are well aware of what will bring in more revenue to this prize cow--odds are they are working on it right now
Also, not buying something now because I don't like it doesn't mean never buying product once it's fun. I'm a collector fan.
So am I. I've already explained this @nanashi-sims the word doesn't matter-all it says is people *want* to buy but currently the situation prevents them doing so.
Simply refusing to buy? That's not a boycott. And calling it such opens up what you have to say to be ignored. It makes you a combatant because boycotts are never truly lacking in antagonism. And the antagonism often comes from both sides.
Welcome to a healthy dose of why EA is ignoring you.
It's not the boycott you're describing. I agree. That is also why I say that it's not a real boycott, but using the word "boycott" is technically not incorrect.
boycott play
verb boy·cott \ˈbȯi-ˌkät\
Popularity: Top 20% of words
Simple Definition of boycott
: to refuse to buy, use, or participate in (something) as a way of protesting : to stop using the goods or services of (a company, country, etc.) until changes are made
Sure there are no picket signs, but we don't need them. We only need to keep our purse strings closed to make our point. And if change occurs we'll open them back up.
Earlier when players would announce "I'm out" other players would jeer at them and imply that they wouldn't be missed. Even EA jumped on the "vocal minority doesn't matter" bandwagon in that interview and stated telemetry was driving their vision. So that is why I encouraged everyone here who refused to buy the game to share this information to show that it adds up. Are we trying to convince people to boycott, nope. Are we waving picket signs, nope. But we are refusing to buy until changes are made... and since this isn't some moral issue... the only change we need is for the game to be FUN.
EA ignoring me doesn't cost me any money. So at the end of the day, the only one who will lose out is EA--because I already don't have a game to play; there's nothing else for me to lose here in expressing my discontent with this iteration.
Technically accurate isn't going to help you any. They likely won't care. Why should they? They have hundreds of posts to read each day, and likely only a handful of hours to do it in. They probably skim everything. They see a mention of you boycotting, it conjures an image like what I linked, they toss that post or even your entire account in the ignore pile and move on. They probably don't have time to read every post. So, they have to go on what their skimming produces. I wouldn't even be surprised if the developers themselves only read preselected topics, due to how busy they are.
So, yes, how you label yourself matters. Because you cannot count on them to read why you use the label. They likely don't have the time.
It's your choice. Do you want to post things you want changed... or just complain and be ignored?
Um... I think you're missing one big glaring factor here: most of us posted what we wanted changed when we bought the base game. However, when sales went up because of GTW (I bought it too). EA got cocky again and pretty much decided TS4 was awesomesauce and needed no other changes. Money matters more than words. The words are done so that history will show if this franchise fails that fans gave EA every chance to improve the game.
I don't really get how in one post you argue that we're killing the game, viz. taking down the #1 best-selling PC franchise as "boycotters" and in another post that we don't matter because we're "boycotters". How does your one argument align with your other?
It doesn't make any sense and I'm frankly tired of trying to explain it and understand their weird train of thought where one concept negates the other. It's not getting through so I'm going to say really look at what I've posted if you want answers. If it's not good enough well I don't care.
One minute the argument is the company is so spiteful they act like petulant children and throw out their own work to spite their former customers who are unhappy so there's no point asking for anything.
Next it's those customers they lose don't matter at all, then next minute they do and EA has to find out but only if they don't stop buying.
Then it's that customers should stop expecting any sort of quality from any game because all the games companies have such poor products and customer experience that everyone needs to accommodate that sort of behaviour just because 'it's how it is' in the industry. Adjust your expectations to bottom level for premium products.
If any of the spiteful claims or claims of the industry are that bad are an accurate picture of the landscape then I'm more than happy to do no further business with games companies. But I don't believe it's the case anyway.
If you want toddlers and want them to be noticed or added, just boycott the game yourself eventually the money, sales and complaining will increase so bad that they'd probably just give in
In reality, for every person who doesn't buy the base game there are at least 3 others who will. And I suspect all that will happen when the complaints increase and the sales decline, is that Maxis will drop the pc version of the Sims 4 like a hot potato and come up with a mobile/tablet version of The Sims similar to The Sims Freeplay, only it won't be based in real time, but it will be heavily quest based.
That's when Maxis becomes labelled a Mad Man and I'm sure no one is going to the phone app for Sims 4 or anything more, sims free play is just enough. That'd just be the end of the franchise... why would you continue supporting a franchise and there's well over tons of people for play in the game, but the play isn't added? instead they introduce," were limited, certain funds." then why develop this game? if you invest more then your sales would go up and you'd have enough money to fix your engine and the game. It's all business, they don't give no dam. Sims 3 got as much stuff on the 2nd going onto the 3rd year. Game lacks hell of bad.
My point is... your just saying deal with it because it might end the whole game? well Ig that's the case.
No, I'm not saying "deal with it", even though you think that's what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that realistically, a boycott won't work, since players keep buying the base game; either those players who couldn't afford it at the time of release, or waited until there was a sale, or new players who run across it online and decide to give it a go. Every one of those is a sale and money in EA's pocket.
And I'm also saying that EA's reaction isn't necessarily going to be: "Oops, we messed up, we'd better get to work on The Sims 5". If EA wants to move the game in another direction, then the decline in sales would be the perfect excuse for them saying that the fans have lost interest in the PC version so let's move on to the online mobile/tablet version. That's what I'm saying.
And you're right. If you want to make money, you have to be willing to spend money. EA needs to be willing to invest in this game if it wants the sales to go up and to see fans start liking the game again to the point where they're willing to spend the money on it again.
Some of us are still boycotting--at least 500 of us in this forum. And honestly, it's not even boycotting! We're just not buying a game we don't want! Please don't assume that we're all idiots who feel compelled to buy stuff we don't like If the numbers of fans buying the game is high because the fans like TS4, then that works out for EA--and it might result in massive disappointment for us in the long run for having to sit out this entire iteration, but high sales sure don't mean players who dislike the game are being suckered.
EA isn't getting a dime from me until I get improved family play and toddlers. I don't even play this game anymore (playing TS2). When they deliver the game that I enjoy, I will buy all of the EPs and SPs and GPs, and I will throw my full support into the game. For me this is the whole point of being a squeaky wheel about the family play and toddler issues. After all, why complain if there is no chance whatsoever of TS4 (or TS5) successfully carrying on this franchise?
Unfortunately, you're helping to kill the series.
What has EA done in the past with video game series that lost a lot of sales? It's killed them. Most video game companies do that. It's easier to just drop a series than to try to figure out where it went wrong. So, most just kill a failing series.
Huh? That makes no sense
What should I infer from this comment? Buy a product I don't want because I think it suhcks?!
It's getting hung up on a word. There really is zero difference to not buying and communicating why than to boycott and telling them why.
It's all on a premise that EA are that spiteful that if customers mention that word they'll trash their own work on toddlers to spite their customers.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And if they trash their own work out of spite that is their responsibility-not that of their customers.
Nah, they like money. If they can turn a profit with this game, they'll keep milking it for all its worth. And they are well aware of what will bring in more revenue to this prize cow--odds are they are working on it right now
Also, not buying something now because I don't like it doesn't mean never buying product once it's fun. I'm a collector fan.
So am I. I've already explained this @nanashi-sims the word doesn't matter-all it says is people *want* to buy but currently the situation prevents them doing so.
Simply refusing to buy? That's not a boycott. And calling it such opens up what you have to say to be ignored. It makes you a combatant because boycotts are never truly lacking in antagonism. And the antagonism often comes from both sides.
Welcome to a healthy dose of why EA is ignoring you.
I've gone out of my way to help EA. They chose not to do anything with that and it's their prerogative. But it's not up to other customers to accuse people of not buying the game because they aren't happy with the state of it of being antagonistic and having a bad attitude. Which is the narrative you are trying to give across.
Click that link I posted. Look directly at a real boycott. You'll understand exactly why.
Whether you intend it or not, things like what that link shows are what the word "boycott" conjure for a company. The replies they give are based off that image. Are they spiteful and antagonistic replies? Oh yes. But they're also the kind of replies you give when dealing with a true boycott. And by calling what you are doing a boycott, that kind of antagonistic relationship is what you're volunteering for and taking part in... even if you don't know it.
That's why I pointed out that it's antagonistic... because I know how companies respond to boycotts. It's not the mentality of people wanting to solve a problem, but the mentality of a fort under siege. Because of what real boycotts involve. Do you understand now? How would you respond if you felt under siege? Would you be friendly to those who have you under siege, or hostile? Would you be willing to take actions just to spite them?
And that is the issue at play. And why it is I spent the last few pages talking about it. Because I know what is going on and the kind of replies that happen. I've been there, on both sides of the line.
You want EA to listen to you? Fine. I'm telling you how to accomplish that. Because all they will likely do is glance at your posts and skim them; I expect them to do that with all posts not reported. If they spot you saying you boycott them? Right to the ignore pile, move on to the next. Because, realistically, that's probably all they have time for.
Yeah, it sucks. But welcome to dealing with a big corporation.
If you want toddlers and want them to be noticed or added, just boycott the game yourself eventually the money, sales and complaining will increase so bad that they'd probably just give in
In reality, for every person who doesn't buy the base game there are at least 3 others who will. And I suspect all that will happen when the complaints increase and the sales decline, is that Maxis will drop the pc version of the Sims 4 like a hot potato and come up with a mobile/tablet version of The Sims similar to The Sims Freeplay, only it won't be based in real time, but it will be heavily quest based.
That's when Maxis becomes labelled a Mad Man and I'm sure no one is going to the phone app for Sims 4 or anything more, sims free play is just enough. That'd just be the end of the franchise... why would you continue supporting a franchise and there's well over tons of people for play in the game, but the play isn't added? instead they introduce," were limited, certain funds." then why develop this game? if you invest more then your sales would go up and you'd have enough money to fix your engine and the game. It's all business, they don't give no dam. Sims 3 got as much stuff on the 2nd going onto the 3rd year. Game lacks hell of bad.
My point is... your just saying deal with it because it might end the whole game? well Ig that's the case.
No, I'm not saying "deal with it", even though you think that's what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that realistically, a boycott won't work, since players keep buying the base game; either those players who couldn't afford it at the time of release, or waited until there was a sale, or new players who run across it online and decide to give it a go. Every one of those is a sale and money in EA's pocket.
And I'm also saying that EA's reaction isn't necessarily going to be: "Oops, we messed up, we'd better get to work on The Sims 5". If EA wants to move the game in another direction, then the decline in sales would be the perfect excuse for them saying that the fans have lost interest in the PC version so let's move on to the online mobile/tablet version. That's what I'm saying.
And you're right. If you want to make money, you have to be willing to spend money. EA needs to be willing to invest in this game if it wants the sales to go up and to see fans start liking the game again to the point where they're willing to spend the money on it again.
Some of us are still boycotting--at least 500 of us in this forum. And honestly, it's not even boycotting! We're just not buying a game we don't want! Please don't assume that we're all idiots who feel compelled to buy stuff we don't like If the numbers of fans buying the game is high because the fans like TS4, then that works out for EA--and it might result in massive disappointment for us in the long run for having to sit out this entire iteration, but high sales sure don't mean players who dislike the game are being suckered.
EA isn't getting a dime from me until I get improved family play and toddlers. I don't even play this game anymore (playing TS2). When they deliver the game that I enjoy, I will buy all of the EPs and SPs and GPs, and I will throw my full support into the game. For me this is the whole point of being a squeaky wheel about the family play and toddler issues. After all, why complain if there is no chance whatsoever of TS4 (or TS5) successfully carrying on this franchise?
Unfortunately, you're helping to kill the series.
What has EA done in the past with video game series that lost a lot of sales? It's killed them. Most video game companies do that. It's easier to just drop a series than to try to figure out where it went wrong. So, most just kill a failing series.
Huh? That makes no sense
What should I infer from this comment? Buy a product I don't want because I think it suhcks?!
It's getting hung up on a word. There really is zero difference to not buying and communicating why than to boycott and telling them why.
It's all on a premise that EA are that spiteful that if customers mention that word they'll trash their own work on toddlers to spite their customers.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And if they trash their own work out of spite that is their responsibility-not that of their customers.
Nah, they like money. If they can turn a profit with this game, they'll keep milking it for all its worth. And they are well aware of what will bring in more revenue to this prize cow--odds are they are working on it right now
Also, not buying something now because I don't like it doesn't mean never buying product once it's fun. I'm a collector fan.
So am I. I've already explained this @nanashi-sims the word doesn't matter-all it says is people *want* to buy but currently the situation prevents them doing so.
Simply refusing to buy? That's not a boycott. And calling it such opens up what you have to say to be ignored. It makes you a combatant because boycotts are never truly lacking in antagonism. And the antagonism often comes from both sides.
Welcome to a healthy dose of why EA is ignoring you.
It's not the boycott you're describing. I agree. That is also why I say that it's not a real boycott, but using the word "boycott" is technically not incorrect.
boycott play
verb boy·cott \ˈbȯi-ˌkät\
Popularity: Top 20% of words
Simple Definition of boycott
: to refuse to buy, use, or participate in (something) as a way of protesting : to stop using the goods or services of (a company, country, etc.) until changes are made
Sure there are no picket signs, but we don't need them. We only need to keep our purse strings closed to make our point. And if change occurs we'll open them back up.
Earlier when players would announce "I'm out" other players would jeer at them and imply that they wouldn't be missed. Even EA jumped on the "vocal minority doesn't matter" bandwagon in that interview and stated telemetry was driving their vision. So that is why I encouraged everyone here who refused to buy the game to share this information to show that it adds up. Are we trying to convince people to boycott, nope. Are we waving picket signs, nope. But we are refusing to buy until changes are made... and since this isn't some moral issue... the only change we need is for the game to be FUN.
EA ignoring me doesn't cost me any money. So at the end of the day, the only one who will lose out is EA--because I already don't have a game to play; there's nothing else for me to lose here in expressing my discontent with this iteration.
Technically accurate isn't going to help you any. They likely won't care. Why should they? They have hundreds of posts to read each day, and likely only a handful of hours to do it in. They probably skim everything. They see a mention of you boycotting, it conjures an image like what I linked, they toss that post or even your entire account in the ignore pile and move on. They probably don't have time to read every post. So, they have to go on what their skimming produces. I wouldn't even be surprised if the developers themselves only read preselected topics, due to how busy they are.
So, yes, how you label yourself matters. Because you cannot count on them to read why you use the label. They likely don't have the time.
It's your choice. Do you want to post things you want changed... or just complain and be ignored?
Um... I think you're missing one big glaring factor here: most of us posted what we wanted changed when we bought the base game. However, when sales went up because of GTW (I bought it too). EA got cocky again and pretty much decided TS4 was awesomesauce and needed no other changes. Money matters more than words. The words are done so that history will show if this franchise fails that fans gave EA every chance to improve the game.
I don't really get how in one post you argue that we're killing the game, viz. taking down the #1 best-selling PC franchise as "boycotters" and in another post that we don't matter because we're "boycotters". How does your one argument align with your other?
It doesn't make any sense and I'm frankly tired of trying to explain it and understand their weird train of thought where one concept negates the other. It's not getting through so I'm going to say really look at what I've posted if you want answers. If it's not good enough well I don't care.
One minute the argument is the company is so spiteful they act like petulant children and throw out their own work to spite their former customers who are unhappy so there's no point asking for anything.
Next it's those customers they lose don't matter at all, then next minute they do and EA has to find out but only if they don't stop buying.
Then it's that customers should stop expecting any sort of quality from any game because all the games companies have such poor products and customer experience that everyone needs to accommodate that sort of behaviour just because 'it's how it is' in the industry. Adjust your expectations to bottom level for premium products.
If any of the spiteful claims or claims of the industry are that bad are an accurate picture of the landscape then I'm more than happy to do no further business with games companies. But I don't believe it's the case anyway.
Let me summarize:
This all hinges around what a boycott is. Nanashi posted the general definition, but that's not what a real life boycott is.
Simply not buying something is not a boycott. A boycott involves not only not buying, but trying to recruit other people to not buy and disrupt business so they can't ignore you. And on a lot of businesses, it works
And that's the issue. EA and video game companies like it are spiteful to boycotts. Because of what the real ones are and what they involve. EA, in particular, has never given a Sims boycott what they asked for. So not only do they not matter, but very likely the only effect they have is to inspire the company not to do something out of sheer spite.
Top it all off, boycotts draw customers. Why? Because people want to know what the fuss is about. So people who wouldn't normally look come. They look. Some of them buy the game. Congrats, your boycott that invovled twenty people and announcements all over Twitter probably ended up with 30 people out of three hundred buying the game. Sure, they lost you... but they're still ten customers ahead in the end. Or, at least, that's how the strategy is supposed to work; sometimes it doesn't and a video game company kills a series out of spite.
Now, what about those people who don't buy and don't boycott? They're not free advertisement, so leaving them loose has no benefit. So EA tries to draw them in. Tries to regain them. Tries to reduce lost sales. Because these people are absolutely not beneficial in any way with being lost like that.
And, yes, the industry as a whole is spiteful to boycotts. Most industries are. It's nothing out of the ordinary.
And, yes, it's okay to ask for quality... but you need to have realistic expectations. No video game anymore is going to be without bugs. No computer program anymore is without bugs. It's a fact of life and something we have to live with. Because, despite the best efforts and trillions of dollars spent to combat them, bugs persist in cropping up.
Does that make it clearer? I know these discussions become as clear as mud when they've proceeded for awhile.
Sorry, maybe because I've had a long day... maybe I'm hungry... no clue, but I cannot make sense of what you're saying, and I genuinely would like to because you're taking the time to share your opinions, but I don't understand you. Here's my problem:
Some of us are still boycotting--at least 500 of us in this forum. And honestly, it's not even boycotting! We're just not buying a game we don't want! Please don't assume that we're all idiots who feel compelled to buy stuff we don't like If the numbers of fans buying the game is high because the fans like TS4, then that works out for EA--and it might result in massive disappointment for us in the long run for having to sit out this entire iteration, but high sales sure don't mean players who dislike the game are being suckered.
EA isn't getting a dime from me until I get improved family play and toddlers. I don't even play this game anymore (playing TS2). When they deliver the game that I enjoy, I will buy all of the EPs and SPs and GPs, and I will throw my full support into the game. For me this is the whole point of being a squeaky wheel about the family play and toddler issues. After all, why complain if there is no chance whatsoever of TS4 (or TS5) successfully carrying on this franchise?
Unfortunately, you're helping to kill the series.
What has EA done in the past with video game series that lost a lot of sales? It's killed them. Most video game companies do that. It's easier to just drop a series than to try to figure out where it went wrong. So, most just kill a failing series.
Then don't spend money on it and say why... but don't call it a boycott. It's not that hard. This isn't rocket science; it's spin control.
Did you miss the part where I said the boycotts are free advertising? It was earlier in the thread and there's a lot of posts, so it's understandable if you did. Boycotts don't matter in fixing the game, but they can do a lot to sell it. Think about the last time you went to see something or bought something just because people protested it and you wanted to know why. Companies like EA count that as part of their marketing strategy. They can ignore the concerns of the boycott while still using it to draw in customers.
Which is it? Are we killing the game? Selling the game? or are we just being ignored? You've made all of these points and by your assertions, TS4 self-proclaimed boycotters are some pretty terrible (but totally awesome) nobodies.
I hope this explains why I'm confused and hopefully you can clear up what you're trying to say.
And I like using the word "boycott"; it's got attitude... that's exactly why we call it boycotting, because of the protestation of the game... we could just call it "conscious consumerism", but as you said it's all about spin control.
Edit: Just read your post and came to a halt at this:
This all hinges around what a boycott is. Nanashi posted the general definition, but that's not what a real life boycott is.
Unless we're a figment of your imagination, this is very much what a real life boycott is. I can boycott EA all by myself and it is still a boycott. It may not be the one you've envisioned (truthfully, I don't envision this either, as I relate boycotting to ethical consumerism), but if we try to redefine age old words based on our own personal filters, we'll end up wandering into "No True Scotsman" land and I don't believe that place is as nice as Brigadoon
Sorry, maybe because I've had a long day... maybe I'm hungry... no clue, but I cannot make sense of what you're saying, and I genuinely would like to because you're taking the time to share your opinions, but I don't understand you. Here's my problem:
Some of us are still boycotting--at least 500 of us in this forum. And honestly, it's not even boycotting! We're just not buying a game we don't want! Please don't assume that we're all idiots who feel compelled to buy stuff we don't like If the numbers of fans buying the game is high because the fans like TS4, then that works out for EA--and it might result in massive disappointment for us in the long run for having to sit out this entire iteration, but high sales sure don't mean players who dislike the game are being suckered.
EA isn't getting a dime from me until I get improved family play and toddlers. I don't even play this game anymore (playing TS2). When they deliver the game that I enjoy, I will buy all of the EPs and SPs and GPs, and I will throw my full support into the game. For me this is the whole point of being a squeaky wheel about the family play and toddler issues. After all, why complain if there is no chance whatsoever of TS4 (or TS5) successfully carrying on this franchise?
Unfortunately, you're helping to kill the series.
What has EA done in the past with video game series that lost a lot of sales? It's killed them. Most video game companies do that. It's easier to just drop a series than to try to figure out where it went wrong. So, most just kill a failing series.
Then don't spend money on it and say why... but don't call it a boycott. It's not that hard. This isn't rocket science; it's spin control.
Did you miss the part where I said the boycotts are free advertising? It was earlier in the thread and there's a lot of posts, so it's understandable if you did. Boycotts don't matter in fixing the game, but they can do a lot to sell it. Think about the last time you went to see something or bought something just because people protested it and you wanted to know why. Companies like EA count that as part of their marketing strategy. They can ignore the concerns of the boycott while still using it to draw in customers.
Which is it? Are we killing the game? Selling the game? or are we just being ignored? You've made all of these points and by your assertions, TS4 self-proclaimed boycotters are some pretty terrible (but totally awesome) nobodies.
I hope this explains why I'm confused and hopefully you can clear up what you're trying to say.
And I like using the word "boycott"; it's got attitude... that's exactly why we call it boycotting, because of the protestation of the game... we could just call it "conscious consumerism", but as you said it's all about spin control.
Edit: Just read your post and came to a halt at this:
This all hinges around what a boycott is. Nanashi posted the general definition, but that's not what a real life boycott is.
Unless we're a figment of your imagination, this is very much what a real life boycott is. I can boycott EA all by myself and it is still a boycott. It may not be the one you've envisioned (truthfully, I don't envision this either, as I relate boycotting to ethical consumerism), but if we try to redefine age old words based on our own personal filters, we'll end up wandering into "No True Scotsman" land and I don't believe that place is as nice as Brigadoon
Ah, yes, we had gotten off track a bit as people had issue with the issue of wording.
Want to know how? The answer is in this link. Let me quote for you the specific complaints:
"Fans are completely frustrated at Electronic Arts for the sheer volume of micro transactions from sites including The Sims 3 Store, poor game play and functionality, as well as the sheer volume of bugs that are impacting the game."
Tell me, how much of that describes what is happening with Sims 4?
Want to know their likely justification for not adjusting on any of that? Probably that particular boycott. They used that boycott to advertise Sims 3, ignored its concerns entirely even when moving on to how they treat Sims 4, and in general didn't bother to treat them as anything worth considering. Now consider how many players not even part of that complained about the same issues, yet also got ignored.
A boycott is always viewed as antagonistic by a company. Always. You have to adapt to that. And, luckily, it's not hard. It's a simple matter of playing the necessities of how businesses run against them. It's a game won by being devious.
Best part about boycotts? A company can always play the victim card. Especially when it comes to gamers.
And, to make it blunt, since I know I am probably not stating it bluntly enough: You're helping kill the game by both selling the game for EA while giving them the tools they need to ignore the very problems you are complaining about as not legitimate. All by using one simple term that is, for corporations, loaded with a past of disruption and trouble.
Also, I'm not the one who started the idea that what you're doing isn't a real boycott; you are. You stated it here, in the bolded text:
Some of us are still boycotting--at least 500 of us in this forum. And honestly, it's not even boycotting! We're just not buying a game we don't want! Please don't assume that we're all idiots who feel compelled to buy stuff we don't like If the numbers of fans buying the game is high because the fans like TS4, then that works out for EA--and it might result in massive disappointment for us in the long run for having to sit out this entire iteration, but high sales sure don't mean players who dislike the game are being suckered.
By your own words, just not buying a game you don't want isn't even boycotting. I let you set that standard and continued to use it across the entire thread. So, the True Scotsman standards were set by your own words. I've merely been holding you to them.
Oh my. Ok, I think you are anthropomorphizing EA the company. It has no feelings. It is a company. Decisions for that company, creative or otherwise, are based on what they believe will best improve their bottom line. Players like to be dramatic, and paint the company as this vindictive creature, but at the end of the day these are business professionals - this is even more true at EA compared to other gaming companies where more decisions are made on a developer level instead of a corporate level.
If I'm so terribly mistaken, then why are we nearly two years in with no toddlers? Games like this typically average a 5 year run; just long enough to develop the next version. That means we're nearly 2/5ths of the way through the run. And top it all off, apparently some of the code necessary to do toddlers is already in the game.
So, given all they had to do was complete something they obviously had already started, like pools, why are we still without toddlers? If they intended to do toddlers at all and had a way to do them outside of an EP, why haven't we seen them yet?
Perhaps the investment required to make toddlers is not worth the projected reward. Perhaps the development team simply doesn't like them, and had no intention of including them from the outset. Perhaps the engine is unable to support them and the team has no idea how to break that news to fans without looking like 🐸🐸🐸🐸. Perhaps they plan on releasing them as paid DLC. Whatever the reason, rest assured it's not an emotional decision just to spite those few simmers who have chosen to boycott the game. The toddler 'code' found in the game files was simply a place holder which would allow for another age stage, it did not prove or disprove what amount of work was done on toddlers, if any, so your argument is not actually based in reality there, sorry.
Others, including EA, have flat-out ignored boycotts; this isn't even the first Sims game to get a boycott. The last one still hasn't had all of their demands met, and that was for Sims 3. You can even read their complaints for yourself here. The only demand they got met was the Store, and that was simply replaced with Sims 4 Stuff Packs. This is Year 4 of boycott efforts against EA over the Sims series. With boycott efforts now extending across two games. If they were going to listen to the boycotts, don't you think they would have started back in 2012 when it became something also done off the forums? And that's not counting the much earlier bugs boycott that started when World Adventures was released; last I checked, every single member of that either left or got banned.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
Just because certain boycotts have not worked in the past does not mean that everyone should stop trying. Nor does it mean that EA didn't look at that boycott, and weigh their options. That boycott focuses in particular on the overpriced dlc and store content. Essentially, that boycott is asking for more for less, calling for an overall improvement of the game's quality and a decrease in price. Honestly, I think that one was doomed to fail. It's too far reaching, and it offers little in the way of reward for EA. I think it is a very different matter to boycott until specific features are added, in this case toddlers. That is just a few hundred players making their reasons public knowledge so that EA can look at it and say 'OK, we have tangible proof here that many simmers will reinvest when we add toddlers.' And before you say it's not big enough to matter, even if it's only 5% of the forum (made up # obviously), if that translates into 5% of all potential customers, then that IS big money, and it's something that devs could point to when making the case for toddlers to the corporate office. Honestly, I am not here to discuss if boycotts work or not, they may well be totally ignored, the only point I am totally sticking to here is that professional companies do not look at a boycott and decide not to add it's requested features simply to spite the customers involved. If I am mistaken, and they *do* base their decisions off of such spiteful and immature behavior, then they deserve to fail, and good riddance to them.
And I've heard that about listening to customers and adjusting sales before where it comes to a video game company. I've heard that about not listening to customers and going under before where it comes to a video game company. I've heard it about EA (Sims 2, 3, and now 4), Nintendo (the Wii), Valve (a lot of things related to Steam and Team Fortress 2), Blizzard (bans, class balance issues, art style of Diablo 3, and so on), Bethesda (V.A.T.S., Skyrim spellcasting), Square-Enix (second half of the Final Fantasy series), and so on. Every single time I've heard it, it's turned out one way: The company and brand were still here later. The people who said it were not.
Okay, well if you want to believe that customers not buying a game doesn't impact the company then I don't know what to say to you. Obviously in those instances not enough players agreed that the issue was important, and the game continued to flourish. Perhaps that will be the case here too... time will tell.
I really don't think all those examples are as applicable as you'd like to think.
Re Blizzard in general Blizzard has made change after change in response to fan requests, and rebalances their classes constantly! Anyone on a Blizzard forum saying that because rogues are underpowered, Blizzard will fail, is just not thinking logically. Blizzard makes about $150 million a MONTH off of WoW, so one tiny issue like one class out of 12 being underpowered for a few months is hardly going to put them out of business, lol! They communicate with their fans, they build off of pre-existing content, and they market themselves amazingly well, so I think that is a whole different situation to what is happening with the sims. If Blizzard came out with World of Warcraft 2, and removed melee combat entirely, maybe we would have a useful comparison.
Re Diablo 3 artstyle If someone made a boycott telling EA to change the artstyle of the sims I would join you in laughing at them. It's too late. Game is made, art style is set. To change it after production is an impossible task, and if you know anyone who thinks other wise, I have a windmill they are welcome to tilt at.
Re Bethesda I think Bethesda is very in tune with what their fans want based on how their games turn out. Yes a select few don't like one aspect or another, but I think overall, Bethesda does a good job of catering to the majority. I also don't think people who want features to work differently are wasting their time by letting Bethesda know how they would prefer it. I mean, my favourite mod of all time for Skyrim/Fallout was RTS, and lo and behold F4 comes out and they've integrated the settlement system! It was like something out of a dream quite honestly. Look at how they responded to people asking for realistic needs for Fallout 3; they gave Obsidian the greenlight to add hardcore mode to Fallout New Vegas, and rumour was they hired a modder for the job. People loved it, and now it is the first DLC being discussed for Fallout 4. So I have to say, I don't see the same level of need for change. The sims 4 removed progressive growth for our sims, to me, that's akin to if Bethesda had removed levelling. Something that Bethesda would of course, never do, because they are gamers themselves, and they play, and love their own games. It's tangeable when you play that love and sweat and tears went into the creation of those games. They are innovative, creative industry leaders - something imo Maxis hasn't been in many many years.
So, tell me, in what way is this boycott any different than the previous boycotts EA ignored? And the previous boycotts other video game companies have ignored? What makes this special?
I don't know if the boycott will be successful, I never said I thought it would be, only that I don't believe that it will lead to the company refusing to give us toddlers out of spite. My stance is really that it does no harm, and potentially could do good in that it informs the company so that if they do see a drop in sales they will be able to look to their forum and see that many players are waiting on specific features. The ideal result is that they will then announce said features, and those players who are currently waiting - like me - will return to the fold. My post was actually spurred by this quote of yours from earlier in the discussion:
The boycott path, if successful, leads to the spiteful approach of just killing the series and sitting on the copyright. Both sides are at fault for it, since both sides took actions that were intended to force the other to submit to their viewpoint. And the reason why it tends to fail? It's basically trying to threaten the company, using the threat of not making money.
So you seem to think that if the boycott is successful, the designers will kill the game just to prove a point. I really don't think that logic works, and your examples of boycotts being ignored is by no means proof that a company would do something so petty and self defeating, if anything it proves the opposite. Worst case, the company will ignore the boycott. Best case, they will note the displeasure being voiced by those players and use that feedback to guide future content.
And, yes, it is antagonistic. You're trying to use economic pressure to control a company's decision making. If you're not, then there's a problem with your tactics... as the boycott method of protesting was first created to do exactly that item, and is antagonistic because it is intended to exert customer control over a company they have no ownership of. After all, how would you respond if someone who didn't even work there walked into your job and threatened your paycheck unless you do what they wanted? And yet, that's exactly how a boycott is intended to work towards companies... and why it's so effective with retail chains.
Capitalism is based on economic pressure. That's just the way things work. When a customer chooses not to buy a product they can either fade away, or explain their decision via public forums. Either way, they are no longer buying, which results in a lowered demand for the product. If the company is wise, they will go to those public forums, and they will scour the reviews to determine why their product is not selling, and do what they can to rectify the situation. OR... If they are a bunch of petty children that have no business sense perhaps you are right, and they will shut the business down and go pout in the corner.
Lets look at Simcity 2013, which is the most applicable example here. EA misread their audience, and they did not respond to player comments. They went to far as to say larger map sizes were 'impossible', and that offline play would never be a reality. When modders proved them hilariously wrong, they finally came around and allowed the game to be played off line, but they never addressed the map size issues. They also never addressed early concerns during production raised by hundreds if not thousands of long time fans of the series: The GlassBox engine was disaster from the get go. It was not well received by fans, and it's limitations were painfully obvious even in the early gameplay footage. Dan Moskowitz, the lead gameplay engineer said of the engine: "The citizens in the game are also agents and do not lead realistic lives, they go to work at the first job they can find and they go home to the first empty home they find." They lauded this as an improvement all the while ignoring the cries of fans who told them from early on in development that they were making a huge mistake.
When the game released to a horrific server failure, and terrible reviews, EA forged ahead, saying (in a fashion eerily similar to their response following the release of S4) that players would 'come around' once the server issues were fixed, and that once they were playing they would be happy. Well. Players weren't happy. They filled the forum with unanswered complaints, and frustrations. EA responded with the first and only EP - cities of tomorrow, which solved no problems, and totally ignored that the vast majority of city builder fans want MORE REALISM and MORE IMMERSION and MORE FRIGGING SPACE to build with. Long story short, the game was not as successful as EA needed it to be. Sales fell off, and Maxis shut down their Emeryville location. They weren't shut down because of a boycott, but because of a failure to meet their customer's needs that resulted in loss of sales. What the sims boycott is doing is what some simmers believe to be in the interest of the company. This is not like boycotting North Korea because we disagree with their actions, this is about boycotting a product that did not meet expectations, with the potential to reinvest should improvements be made.
So, what do we take away from Simcity 2013? I would like to think that EA learned some lessons. I would like to see them realize that they are out of touch with their fan base, and start looking to PLAYERS for what the game needs instead of letting manatees pick 5 idea balls from a pile or whatever system they use right now. If they choose instead to shut down the Sims franchise because they cannot be bothered to address their fans' PERFECTLY REASONABLE concerns with the game, then truly the fault lies with them. Not me for not buying beyond the base game, not @nanashi-sims for organizing a boycott, not @sparkfairy1 for running the family play thread, not any player old or new or young or old. EA has before them a salvageable situation, and now it is entirely in their hands how they choose to proceed. If they want to roll over and quit on PC games forever because they think they can make more off mobile games, then that's on them. I would like to think they won't give up so easily, but perhaps I am blinded by my own sentiment over the Sims. One thing I can say is unequivocally true: if they smarten up and start making intelligent choices for the franchise, I'll be the first in line with my money ready.
edited: for spacing - that post was a monster, like seriously if you read the whole thing I'm so sorry, lol. You deserve something nice. Here's a manatee bonking his nose. It will confuse those other jokers who just kept on scrollin'.
edited again to ad a line in the second to last paragraph, sorry, felt it needed to be clarified.
Sorry, maybe because I've had a long day... maybe I'm hungry... no clue, but I cannot make sense of what you're saying, and I genuinely would like to because you're taking the time to share your opinions, but I don't understand you. Here's my problem:
Some of us are still boycotting--at least 500 of us in this forum. And honestly, it's not even boycotting! We're just not buying a game we don't want! Please don't assume that we're all idiots who feel compelled to buy stuff we don't like If the numbers of fans buying the game is high because the fans like TS4, then that works out for EA--and it might result in massive disappointment for us in the long run for having to sit out this entire iteration, but high sales sure don't mean players who dislike the game are being suckered.
EA isn't getting a dime from me until I get improved family play and toddlers. I don't even play this game anymore (playing TS2). When they deliver the game that I enjoy, I will buy all of the EPs and SPs and GPs, and I will throw my full support into the game. For me this is the whole point of being a squeaky wheel about the family play and toddler issues. After all, why complain if there is no chance whatsoever of TS4 (or TS5) successfully carrying on this franchise?
Unfortunately, you're helping to kill the series.
What has EA done in the past with video game series that lost a lot of sales? It's killed them. Most video game companies do that. It's easier to just drop a series than to try to figure out where it went wrong. So, most just kill a failing series.
Then don't spend money on it and say why... but don't call it a boycott. It's not that hard. This isn't rocket science; it's spin control.
Did you miss the part where I said the boycotts are free advertising? It was earlier in the thread and there's a lot of posts, so it's understandable if you did. Boycotts don't matter in fixing the game, but they can do a lot to sell it. Think about the last time you went to see something or bought something just because people protested it and you wanted to know why. Companies like EA count that as part of their marketing strategy. They can ignore the concerns of the boycott while still using it to draw in customers.
Which is it? Are we killing the game? Selling the game? or are we just being ignored? You've made all of these points and by your assertions, TS4 self-proclaimed boycotters are some pretty terrible (but totally awesome) nobodies.
I hope this explains why I'm confused and hopefully you can clear up what you're trying to say.
And I like using the word "boycott"; it's got attitude... that's exactly why we call it boycotting, because of the protestation of the game... we could just call it "conscious consumerism", but as you said it's all about spin control.
Edit: Just read your post and came to a halt at this:
This all hinges around what a boycott is. Nanashi posted the general definition, but that's not what a real life boycott is.
Unless we're a figment of your imagination, this is very much what a real life boycott is. I can boycott EA all by myself and it is still a boycott. It may not be the one you've envisioned (truthfully, I don't envision this either, as I relate boycotting to ethical consumerism), but if we try to redefine age old words based on our own personal filters, we'll end up wandering into "No True Scotsman" land and I don't believe that place is as nice as Brigadoon
Ah, yes, we had gotten off track a bit as people had issue with the issue of wording.
Want to know how? The answer is in this link. Let me quote for you the specific complaints:
"Fans are completely frustrated at Electronic Arts for the sheer volume of micro transactions from sites including The Sims 3 Store, poor game play and functionality, as well as the sheer volume of bugs that are impacting the game."
Tell me, how much of that describes what is happening with Sims 4?
Want to know their likely justification for not adjusting on any of that? Probably that particular boycott. They used that boycott to advertise Sims 3, ignored its concerns entirely even when moving on to how they treat Sims 4, and in general didn't bother to treat them as anything worth considering. Now consider how many players not even part of that complained about the same issues, yet also got ignored.
A boycott is always viewed as antagonistic by a company. Always. You have to adapt to that. And, luckily, it's not hard. It's a simple matter of playing the necessities of how businesses run against them. It's a game won by being devious.
Best part about boycotts? A company can always play the victim card. Especially when it comes to gamers.
And, to make it blunt, since I know I am probably not stating it bluntly enough: You're helping kill the game by both selling the game for EA while giving them the tools they need to ignore the very problems you are complaining about as not legitimate. All by using one simple term that is, for corporations, loaded with a past of disruption and trouble.
Also, I'm not the one who started the idea that what you're doing isn't a real boycott; you are. You stated it here, in the bolded text:
Some of us are still boycotting--at least 500 of us in this forum. And honestly, it's not even boycotting! We're just not buying a game we don't want! Please don't assume that we're all idiots who feel compelled to buy stuff we don't like If the numbers of fans buying the game is high because the fans like TS4, then that works out for EA--and it might result in massive disappointment for us in the long run for having to sit out this entire iteration, but high sales sure don't mean players who dislike the game are being suckered.
By your own words, just not buying a game you don't want isn't even boycotting. I let you set that standard and continued to use it across the entire thread. So, the True Scotsman standards were set by your own words. I've merely been holding you to them.
(truthfully, I don't envision this either, as I relate boycotting to ethical consumerism)
No argument there, I've acknowledged this now twice over as you can see above and I'll say it one more time: I don't think boycotting a product because it's not fun is a real boycott. That being said, this is just my opinion, so I'm not going to use it to redefine a word and then in turn use the redefinition to base an entire argument's premise on. I think that's what you're doing here and I'm just giving you a heads up that it's fallacious and it will invalidate your arguments. I can't determine if what you're saying is even sound if from the get go it is already invalid, yeah?
"Fans are completely frustrated at Electronic Arts for the sheer volume of micro transactions from sites including The Sims 3 Store, poor game play and functionality, as well as the sheer volume of bugs that are impacting the game."
There is no TS4 store (even though one was original planned from day one of roll out). The micro-transactions were either rolled into fuller SPs and GPs, or patched in for free. And there is no open world (which EA insists was the reason for all of the unfixable issues in TS3). One of the biggest pro-TS4 comments is that the new game runs smoothly.
Doesn't this then support the actions of the boycott?
I don't think EA is as spiteful as you depict them to be. I reckon a lot of the issues with TS4 are related to a botched mobile project which EA published anyway knowing this. It has always been and will always be about money. If EA has enough fans buying the game, then there is no need to acknowledge our complaints, but if TS4 isn't living up to its profit expectations, then I'm pretty sure EA will take care of that. This franchise isn't dry yet... it can still be milked. And EA is a very good dairy maid, even if that means listening and reaching to fans (which you can't say they didn't do at the end of 2014).
At this point, I think @TanyaRubirose is just arguing for the sake of arguing...er...sorry, I meant debating for the sake of debating.
I don't really care about the use of the word "boycott" simply because if I state I'm not buying any more expansion packs because they don't interest me and I don't like the direction in which this game is going, the mythical Corporation can still, apparently, get its Sensitive Feelings hurt and perceive my statement that I'm not buying any more expansion packs as a threat to boycott, even if I don't use the word boycott. Especially if I were to state that I'd be more interested in buying again once this feature is added (such as pets or weather)...then the mythical Corporation would say that I'm threatening them, that they don't like my attitude, and so, therefore, they're not going to give me what I want because my attitude towards them stinks.
So, here you go....I'm supposed to care what the Corporation thinks, so that they won't kill the franchise? Well, guess what....I don't give a dam what the Corporation thinks. As far as I'm concerned, they're calling the shots, they're making the rules, they're making the decisions. And if the customers don't like it? Tough bananas, grandpa...get over yourselves.
"Hey, we're gonna lose a few sales? Big whoop. For every one of you who sees the light and gets fed up with our actions, there's a new chump that sees that Bright and Shiny Sims 4 game and buys it...chaching! So, we don't care that you're not buying or that you're "boycotting", because, clearly, we're gonna do whatever the heck we want, too bad for you if you don't like it."
"And by the way..."(sez the mythical Corporation)"...we hear mobile is all the rage now...thar's money in them thar cell phones and tablets...so we're gonna get in on that market, even if we have to kill this franchise to do it"
I'm sure my little analogy makes sense to some of you. Let he/she who has eyes to read and comprehend, read and comprehend.
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!
Oh my. Ok, I think you are anthropomorphizing EA the company. It has no feelings. It is a company. Decisions for that company, creative or otherwise, are based on what they believe will best improve their bottom line. Players like to be dramatic, and paint the company as this vindictive creature, but at the end of the day these are business professionals - this is even more true at EA compared to other gaming companies where more decisions are made on a developer level instead of a corporate level. Perhaps the investment required to make toddlers is not worth the projected reward. Perhaps the development team simply doesn't like them, and had no intention of including them from the outset. Perhaps the engine is unable to support them and the team has no idea how to break that news to fans without looking like 🐸🐸🐸🐸. Perhaps they plan on releasing them as paid DLC. Whatever the reason, rest assured it's not an emotional decision just to spite those few simmers who have chosen to boycott the game. The toddler 'code' found in the game files was simply a place holder which would allow for another age stage, it did not prove or disprove what amount of work was done on toddlers, if any, so your argument is not actually based in reality there, sorry.
I find it ironic to have all of the same arguments I've used on why toddlers are not coming thrown back at me as to why what I questioned has not come about. Add one point in favor of you getting an awesome mark from me. That, including the sheer size, makes for two points.
Yes, I'm doing the awesome scoring thing to make this a bit less serious, as this entire thing has become way too dour.
The spite thing in reply to boycotts also isn't emotional; it's a developed counter-strategy. The idea is that if the boycott groups only get a Pyrrhic victory at best and get no victory at all most of the time, then the company maintains primary control over their products and licenses. They can do what they want without worrying about the public pressuring them to do what they want to do. Every tactic used as part of it is developed to both control consumer opinion and to limit what damage boycotts can do.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
Just because certain boycotts have not worked in the past does not mean that everyone should stop trying. Nor does it mean that EA didn't look at that boycott, and weigh their options. That boycott focuses in particular on the overpriced dlc and store content. Essentially, that boycott is asking for more for less, calling for an overall improvement of the game's quality and a decrease in price. Honestly, I think that one was doomed to fail. It's too far reaching, and it offers little in the way of reward for EA. I think it is a very different matter to boycott until specific features are added, in this case toddlers. That is just a few hundred players making their reasons public knowledge so that EA can look at it and say 'OK, we have tangible proof here that many simmers will reinvest when we add toddlers.' And before you say it's not big enough to matter, even if it's only 5% of the forum (made up # obviously), if that translates into 5% of all potential customers, then that IS big money, and it's something that devs could point to when making the case for toddlers to the corporate office. Honestly, I am not here to discuss if boycotts work or not, they may well be totally ignored, the only point I am totally sticking to here is that professional companies do not look at a boycott and decide not to add it's requested features simply to spite the customers involved. If I am mistaken, and they *do* base their decisions off of such spiteful and immature behavior, then they deserve to fail, and good riddance to them.
Technically, we got more for less; the Stuff Packs of Sims 4 are, effectively, the premium content Store packs of Sims 3. Only, for about half the price.
Seriously, do the comparisons. I did and was shocked.
The problem with boycotting a video game company is how they sell their products; they don't just have a single store where everything is found and easily boycotted. Instead, you have to deny profit to other stores as well in order to impact them. In short, to truly hurt them, you have to hurt other people as well. They know this, and like to leverage it to be able to ignore online complaints. That's why it takes so many more complaints to alter the course of video game companies than it does other companies.
Plus, pretty much, they do ignore boycotts... because they know a boycott only works if it impacts sales, and the way their business is set up low enough sales will just kill the franchise.
Okay, well if you want to believe that customers not buying a game doesn't impact the company then I don't know what to say to you. Obviously in those instances not enough players agreed that the issue was important, and the game continued to flourish. Perhaps that will be the case here too... time will tell.
It was the case with Sims 3.
I really don't think all those examples are as applicable as you'd like to think.
Re Blizzard in general Blizzard has made change after change in response to fan requests, and rebalances their classes constantly! Anyone on a Blizzard forum saying that because rogues are underpowered, Blizzard will fail, is just not thinking logically. Blizzard makes about $150 million a MONTH off of WoW, so one tiny issue like one class out of 12 being underpowered for a few months is hardly going to put them out of business, lol! They communicate with their fans, they build off of pre-existing content, and they market themselves amazingly well, so I think that is a whole different situation to what is happening with the sims. If Blizzard came out with World of Warcraft 2, and removed melee combat entirely, maybe we would have a useful comparison.
And all of that listening is to the people who don't try a boycott strategy. You can invade another nation's forums and flood them, try to sabotage the forums to bring the site down, organize protests... there's a lot of things you can do. The boycotts? They shut those down quickly.
Re Diablo 3 artstyle If someone made a boycott telling EA to change the artstyle of the sims I would join you in laughing at them. It's too late. Game is made, art style is set. To change it after production is an impossible task, and if you know anyone who thinks other wise, I have a windmill they are welcome to tilt at.
You're three years too late. There already was a Sims 4 boycott over art style. Last I checked, none of those people are here now.
Re Bethesda I think Bethesda is very in tune with what their fans want based on how their games turn out. Yes a select few don't like one aspect or another, but I think overall, Bethesda does a good job of catering to the majority. I also don't think people who want features to work differently are wasting their time by letting Bethesda know how they would prefer it. I mean, my favourite mod of all time for Skyrim/Fallout was RTS, and lo and behold F4 comes out and they've integrated the settlement system! It was like something out of a dream quite honestly. Look at how they responded to people asking for realistic needs for Fallout 3; they gave Obsidian the greenlight to add hardcore mode to Fallout New Vegas, and rumour was they hired a modder for the job. People loved it, and now it is the first DLC being discussed for Fallout 4. So I have to say, I don't see the same level of need for change. The sims 4 removed progressive growth for our sims, to me, that's akin to if Bethesda had removed levelling. Something that Bethesda would of course, never do, because they are gamers themselves, and they play, and love their own games. It's tangeable when you play that love and sweat and tears went into the creation of those games. They are innovative, creative industry leaders - something imo Maxis hasn't been in many many years.
Yeah, talk to the people who hate Bethesda. While I agree with you, they... well... Let's just say they don't and leave it at that.
I don't know if the boycott will be successful, I never said I thought it would be, only that I don't believe that it will lead to the company refusing to give us toddlers out of spite. My stance is really that it does no harm, and potentially could do good in that it informs the company so that if they do see a drop in sales they will be able to look to their forum and see that many players are waiting on specific features. The ideal result is that they will then announce said features, and those players who are currently waiting - like me - will return to the fold. My post was actually spurred by this quote of yours from earlier in the discussion:
The boycott path, if successful, leads to the spiteful approach of just killing the series and sitting on the copyright. Both sides are at fault for it, since both sides took actions that were intended to force the other to submit to their viewpoint. And the reason why it tends to fail? It's basically trying to threaten the company, using the threat of not making money.
So you seem to think that if the boycott is successful, the designers will kill the game just to prove a point. I really don't think that logic works, and your examples of boycotts being ignored is by no means proof that a company would do something so petty and self defeating, if anything it proves the opposite. Worst case, the company will ignore the boycott. Best case, they will note the displeasure being voiced by those players and use that feedback to guide future content.
If you want an example of a game series where a boycott was successful: RollerCoaster Tycoon. It took years of fan begging to get them to uncancel that series. Because, due to boycotts of the last game and the resulting sales, they cancelled it and just sat on the IP. And Atari is much, much less bad about this than EA is.
That's about the only recent title I could find where boycotts had any effect at all. And by recent, I mean "within this century." Yeah.
Capitalism is based on economic pressure. That's just the way things work. When a customer chooses not to buy a product they can either fade away, or explain their decision via public forums. Either way, they are no longer buying, which results in a lowered demand for the product. If the company is wise, they will go to those public forums, and they will scour the reviews to determine why their product is not selling, and do what they can to rectify the situation. OR... If they are a bunch of petty children that have no business sense perhaps you are right, and they will shut the business down and go pout in the corner.
To put EA's business sense in perspective: They have bought and shut down studios simply for being in minor competition with them. Keep that in mind about the company when going forward.
Lets look at Simcity 2014, which is the most applicable example here. EA misread their audience, and they did not respond to player comments. They went to far as to say larger map sizes were 'impossible', and that offline play would never be a reality. When modders proved them hilariously wrong, they finally came around and allowed the game to be played off line, but they never addressed the map size issues. They also never addressed early concerns during production raised by hundreds if not thousands of long time fans of the series: The GlassBox engine was disaster from the get go. It was not well received by fans, and it's limitations were painfully obvious even in the early gameplay footage. Dan Moskowitz, the lead gameplay engineer said of the engine: "The citizens in the game are also agents and do not lead realistic lives, they go to work at the first job they can find and they go home to the first empty home they find." They lauded this as an improvement all the while ignoring the cries of fans who told them from early on in development that they were making a huge mistake.
When the game released to a horrific server failure, and terrible reviews, EA forged ahead, saying (in a fashion eerily similar to their response following the release of S4) that players would 'come around' once the server issues were fixed, and that once they were playing they would be happy. Well. Players weren't happy. They filled the forum with unanswered complaints, and frustrations. EA responded with the first and only EP - cities of tomorrow, which solved no problems, and totally ignored that the vast majority of city builder fans want MORE REALISM and MORE IMMERSION and MORE FRIGGING SPACE to build with. Long story short, the game was not as successful as EA needed it to be. Sales fell off, and Maxis shut down their Emeryville location.
So, what do we take away from Simcity 2014? I would like to think that EA learned some lessons. I would like to see them realize that they are out of touch with their fan base, and start looking to PLAYERS for what the game needs instead of letting manatees pick 5 idea balls from a pile or whatever system they use right now. If they choose instead to shut down the Sims franchise because they cannot be bothered to address their fans' PERFECTLY REASONABLE concerns with the game, then truly the fault lies with them. Not me for not buying beyond the base game, not @nanashi-sims for organizing a boycott, not @sparkfairy1 for running the family play thread, not any player old or new or young or old. EA has before them a salvageable situation, and now it is entirely in their hands how they choose to proceed. If they want to roll over and quit on PC games forever because they think they can make more off mobile games, then that's on them. I would like to think they won't give up so easily, but perhaps I am blinded by my own sentiment over the Sims. One thing I can say is unequivocally true: if they smarten up and start making intelligent choices for the franchise, I'll be the first in line with my money ready.
I would like to think they learned some lessons too. But, you're kinda seeing some of the same stuff with Sims 4 as SimCity. In fact, the Sims franchise is now under the mobile division. Do you think they would have moved the entire franchise there unless they were prepared to shut the series down after Sims 4 didn't make enough sales? That looks to me like they're preparing to move on to Freeplay sequels instead.
So, yeah, I'm a little desperate to stop the doom I know is coming, and am grasping at straws. Including, up to this very moment, refusing to acknowledge the reality I know: Unless something changes, Sims 5 isn't coming.
Sorry, maybe because I've had a long day... maybe I'm hungry... no clue, but I cannot make sense of what you're saying, and I genuinely would like to because you're taking the time to share your opinions, but I don't understand you. Here's my problem:
Some of us are still boycotting--at least 500 of us in this forum. And honestly, it's not even boycotting! We're just not buying a game we don't want! Please don't assume that we're all idiots who feel compelled to buy stuff we don't like If the numbers of fans buying the game is high because the fans like TS4, then that works out for EA--and it might result in massive disappointment for us in the long run for having to sit out this entire iteration, but high sales sure don't mean players who dislike the game are being suckered.
EA isn't getting a dime from me until I get improved family play and toddlers. I don't even play this game anymore (playing TS2). When they deliver the game that I enjoy, I will buy all of the EPs and SPs and GPs, and I will throw my full support into the game. For me this is the whole point of being a squeaky wheel about the family play and toddler issues. After all, why complain if there is no chance whatsoever of TS4 (or TS5) successfully carrying on this franchise?
Unfortunately, you're helping to kill the series.
What has EA done in the past with video game series that lost a lot of sales? It's killed them. Most video game companies do that. It's easier to just drop a series than to try to figure out where it went wrong. So, most just kill a failing series.
Then don't spend money on it and say why... but don't call it a boycott. It's not that hard. This isn't rocket science; it's spin control.
Did you miss the part where I said the boycotts are free advertising? It was earlier in the thread and there's a lot of posts, so it's understandable if you did. Boycotts don't matter in fixing the game, but they can do a lot to sell it. Think about the last time you went to see something or bought something just because people protested it and you wanted to know why. Companies like EA count that as part of their marketing strategy. They can ignore the concerns of the boycott while still using it to draw in customers.
Which is it? Are we killing the game? Selling the game? or are we just being ignored? You've made all of these points and by your assertions, TS4 self-proclaimed boycotters are some pretty terrible (but totally awesome) nobodies.
I hope this explains why I'm confused and hopefully you can clear up what you're trying to say.
And I like using the word "boycott"; it's got attitude... that's exactly why we call it boycotting, because of the protestation of the game... we could just call it "conscious consumerism", but as you said it's all about spin control.
Edit: Just read your post and came to a halt at this:
This all hinges around what a boycott is. Nanashi posted the general definition, but that's not what a real life boycott is.
Unless we're a figment of your imagination, this is very much what a real life boycott is. I can boycott EA all by myself and it is still a boycott. It may not be the one you've envisioned (truthfully, I don't envision this either, as I relate boycotting to ethical consumerism), but if we try to redefine age old words based on our own personal filters, we'll end up wandering into "No True Scotsman" land and I don't believe that place is as nice as Brigadoon
Ah, yes, we had gotten off track a bit as people had issue with the issue of wording.
Want to know how? The answer is in this link. Let me quote for you the specific complaints:
"Fans are completely frustrated at Electronic Arts for the sheer volume of micro transactions from sites including The Sims 3 Store, poor game play and functionality, as well as the sheer volume of bugs that are impacting the game."
Tell me, how much of that describes what is happening with Sims 4?
Want to know their likely justification for not adjusting on any of that? Probably that particular boycott. They used that boycott to advertise Sims 3, ignored its concerns entirely even when moving on to how they treat Sims 4, and in general didn't bother to treat them as anything worth considering. Now consider how many players not even part of that complained about the same issues, yet also got ignored.
A boycott is always viewed as antagonistic by a company. Always. You have to adapt to that. And, luckily, it's not hard. It's a simple matter of playing the necessities of how businesses run against them. It's a game won by being devious.
Best part about boycotts? A company can always play the victim card. Especially when it comes to gamers.
And, to make it blunt, since I know I am probably not stating it bluntly enough: You're helping kill the game by both selling the game for EA while giving them the tools they need to ignore the very problems you are complaining about as not legitimate. All by using one simple term that is, for corporations, loaded with a past of disruption and trouble.
Also, I'm not the one who started the idea that what you're doing isn't a real boycott; you are. You stated it here, in the bolded text:
Some of us are still boycotting--at least 500 of us in this forum. And honestly, it's not even boycotting! We're just not buying a game we don't want! Please don't assume that we're all idiots who feel compelled to buy stuff we don't like If the numbers of fans buying the game is high because the fans like TS4, then that works out for EA--and it might result in massive disappointment for us in the long run for having to sit out this entire iteration, but high sales sure don't mean players who dislike the game are being suckered.
By your own words, just not buying a game you don't want isn't even boycotting. I let you set that standard and continued to use it across the entire thread. So, the True Scotsman standards were set by your own words. I've merely been holding you to them.
(truthfully, I don't envision this either, as I relate boycotting to ethical consumerism)
No argument there, I've acknowledged this now twice over as you can see above and I'll say it one more time: I don't think boycotting a product because it's not fun is a real boycott. That being said, this is just my opinion, so I'm not going to use it to redefine a word and then in turn use the redefinition to base an entire argument's premise on. I think that's what you're doing here and I'm just giving you a heads up that it's fallacious and it will invalidate your arguments. I can't determine if what you're saying is even sound if from the get go it is already invalid, yeah?
"Fans are completely frustrated at Electronic Arts for the sheer volume of micro transactions from sites including The Sims 3 Store, poor game play and functionality, as well as the sheer volume of bugs that are impacting the game."
There is no TS4 store (even though one was original planned from day one of roll out). The micro-transactions were either rolled into fuller SPs and GPs, or patched in for free. And there is no open world (which EA insists was the reason for all of the unfixable issues in TS3). One of the biggest pro-TS4 comments is that the new game runs smoothly.
Doesn't this then support the actions of the boycott?
I don't think EA is as spiteful as you depict them to be. I reckon a lot of the issues with TS4 are related to a botched mobile project which EA published anyway knowing this. It has always been and will always be about money. If EA has enough fans buying the game, then there is no need to acknowledge our complaints, but if TS4 isn't living up to its profit expectations, then I'm pretty sure EA will take care of that. This franchise isn't dry yet... it can still be milked. And EA is a very good dairy maid, even if that means listening and reaching to fans (which you can't say they didn't do at the end of 2014).
Here's the thing: I'm not redefining a word. I'm talking about how organized boycotts actually work. Here's a few images of real-life boycotts:
No redefining going on. Just recognizing the reality of how they operate. And then stating that reality is why the word boycott, even when used correctly in this case, is not gaining the attention you want gained. It's conceptual association common to the word, despite what the word means.
And, actually, no, those items don't speak in favor of that boycott. People have the same complaints about TS4 SPs that they did about TS3 Store content. And there's still ongoing complaints about major unfixed bugs, The boycott wanted those things dealt with entirely.
I don't say EA doesn't listen to fans; in fact, earlier in the thread I made a point that they do, and they have to pick and choose which fans to listen to. I said they don't listen to boycotts. Different issue.
Also, if they were prepared to take actions to save this series instead of just letting it die should sales flop, do you really think it would currently be part of the mobile division?
At this point, I think @TanyaRubirose is just arguing for the sake of arguing...er...sorry, I meant debating for the sake of debating.
I might be. I get that way at times. It's why it is I should stay off certain threads on here.
As for the rest of your post: It's amusing. We know they were going to make Sims 4 an online game, and that didn't pan out for them. Who knows? We may be in luck. But we're not going to get anywhere by using tactics that have been failing for seven years.
So, yeah, I'm calling for a change in strategy... because I very much see this as the last of the main series unless something changes.
@TanyaRubirose Hmm I'm on mobile now so can't dive too deep this time, but I agree that S4 seems to be slipping down a bad path. It's worried me for a while that EA is headed out of PC and over to mobile, and when maxis merged with mobile it pretty much confirmed those fears. I'm very much aware of EA's business practices, but somehow I've always held on to the naive hope that the sims team themselves was tenacious and passionate enough to be an exception.
I guess the real question I have for you is what would you have us do? If not buying is killing the franchise, and boycotts don't work, what do we do? Buy it even though we don't like it in the hopes that they will... What? Have a change of heart with ts5? How can I trust my money won't just fund another lack lustre game? They had all the money in the world after sims 3 and they squandered it. So basically yeah, what would you suggest?
Would you rather have really sucky toddlers right now, or really good toddlers in 2 years?
Well it's going on 2 years so they shouldn't be sucky at this point. They should be awesome and FREE by now.
That's the thing, we've asked EA to take their time and do it right. If you'll see from my other posts, I think toddlers are coming and I think this is what EA is doing.
@esharpmajor Sims 4 was originally headed down another dark path: It was going to become an online game like SimCity. And then SimCity launched and enough of the fanbase cried out against it that EA was forced to change paths with Sims 4.
Yes, this is not a perfect game... but it's better than what it was going to be. That is the power we have. It just has to be wielded in the right way.
What we need is another outcry like that. We need the fanbase to stand up, say they agree that this direction is not good, and say it loudly and constantly. The fanbase doesn't even have to agree on any other detail; just that one item, said as a large group. EA can shrug off protests. They can wave goodbye to people leaving. They can ignore boycotts. But when the large majority of the fanbase stands up and shouts at them, they are forced to do something about it. And, yes, I mean more than just the toddler threads represent.
That is where our power lies. Not in boycotts, protests, complaint threads... but in an overwhelming zerg rush of people saying "This is not right." The only company I've seen dare think they could take that on was Interplay. And look at where they are now.
Would you rather have really sucky toddlers right now, or really good toddlers in 2 years?
Well it's going on 2 years so they shouldn't be sucky at this point. They should be awesome and FREE by now.
That's the thing, we've asked EA to take their time and do it right. If you'll see from my other posts, I think toddlers are coming and I think this is what EA is doing.
I agree. I think they are coming too, but I think EA is polishing them off before they announce it because we all know as soon as they announce toddlers are coming there will be a flood of questions and assumptions being made on this forum.
@TanyaRubirose See isn't that just what the boycott is attempting though? It is not a harmful or violent protest, it is simply a collection of simmers coming together to show their desire for a feature/play style. I think you are simply defining boycott too narrowly. How else should the community come together on this? We speak up when we can on these forums and elsewhere, are you suggesting some sort of coalition? Just not sure what else can be done on our end, tbh.
@esharpmajor Sims 4 was originally headed down another dark path: It was going to become an online game like SimCity. And then SimCity launched and enough of the fanbase cried out against it that EA was forced to change paths with Sims 4.
Yes, this is not a perfect game... but it's better than what it was going to be. That is the power we have. It just has to be wielded in the right way.
What we need is another outcry like that. We need the fanbase to stand up, say they agree that this direction is not good, and say it loudly and constantly. The fanbase doesn't even have to agree on any other detail; just that one item, said as a large group. EA can shrug off protests. They can wave goodbye to people leaving. They can ignore boycotts. But when the large majority of the fanbase stands up and shouts at them, they are forced to do something about it. And, yes, I mean more than just the toddler threads represent.
That is where our power lies. Not in boycotts, protests, complaint threads... but in an overwhelming zerg rush of people saying "This is not right." The only company I've seen dare think they could take that on was Interplay. And look at where they are now.
It wasn't the outcry. It was the sales. Fans were refusing to buy the base game and some who had were taking pictures of destroying their games. The bad reviews and schadenfreude "this game is flop" articles from the gaming zines who EA snubbed at release were also contributing to poor sales. Again, it's all about the money.
@esharpmajor Perhaps I am defining it too narrowly. But, I also look at it this way: No organized boycott in the history of the Sims series has been successful in what it aimed to do. So, I'm not asking people not to buy; I'm asking them to raise their voices.
@nanashi-sims SimCity sales were actually pretty strong up until launch. They made most of their money during that period, if I remember things correctly. And while that one may have tanked, Sims website was full of people saying they didn't want Sims 4 to be an online-only game. Maxis had to accept Sims fans didn't want an online game.
But people *have* raised their voice. For a year and a half. People carried on hoping-advocated for the team-me included. I helped the team a great deal in my own time, communicatibg with the gurus and collating questionnaires they liked that they saw me write because they were neutral. Until RF and Peter Moore started the blame the customer excuses. If you are communicating and those in charge don't have their listening ears on what are customers meant to do?!
The boycott thread was way after the fact. People were *already* not buying and telling them why. They knew. They chose to ignore, ignore, ignore.
Why do you think people are so desperate?! I saw SC2013 and I see a lot of parallels. Go over to their forums and take a look. People are telling EA they want to buy but their refusal to address issues prevents that.
A boycott means nothing more than what people were already doing. You are stuck on a word. If EA are so daft to let that word sway them they have serious issues.
But people *have* raised their voice. For a year and a half. People carried on hoping-advocated for the team-me included. I helped the team a great deal in my own time, communicatibg with the gurus and collating questionnaires they liked that they saw me write because they were neutral. Until RF and Peter Moore started the blame the customer excuses. If you are communicating and those in charge don't have their listening ears on what are customers meant to do?!
The boycott thread was way after the fact. People were *already* not buying and telling them why. They knew. They chose to ignore, ignore, ignore.
Why do you think people are so desperate?! I saw SC2013 and I see a lot of parallels. Go over to their forums and take a look. People are telling EA they want to buy but their refusal to address issues prevents that.
A boycott means nothing more than what people were already doing. You are stuck on a word. If EA are so daft to let that word sway them they have serious issues.
What did Peter Moore say? I actually don't even know who he is.
I tweeted them earlier right after their post and info-graphic came out. They say they did all that because we asked for it but yet they cant give us toddlers or at least a simple yes or no to whether they will be in the game.
Because they haven't flat out decided that won't be in the game, but haven't decided they will be yet. Why say yes or no when they aren't sure.
The devs already said numourous times, that they haven't decided whether or not they will come. Direct quote was "we're looking into Toddlers, but have nothing to announce right now"
In other words, they are exploring concepts right now but have nothing set in stone to announce. Obviously they won't say no if they are looking into it or yes if it's not decided.
But people *have* raised their voice. For a year and a half. People carried on hoping-advocated for the team-me included. I helped the team a great deal in my own time, communicatibg with the gurus and collating questionnaires they liked that they saw me write because they were neutral. Until RF and Peter Moore started the blame the customer excuses. If you are communicating and those in charge don't have their listening ears on what are customers meant to do?!
The boycott thread was way after the fact. People were *already* not buying and telling them why. They knew. They chose to ignore, ignore, ignore.
Why do you think people are so desperate?! I saw SC2013 and I see a lot of parallels. Go over to their forums and take a look. People are telling EA they want to buy but their refusal to address issues prevents that.
A boycott means nothing more than what people were already doing. You are stuck on a word. If EA are so daft to let that word sway them they have serious issues.
What did Peter Moore say? I actually don't even know who he is.
Peter Moore: "I got all this stuff," and they forget, "well it's taken me years, to accumulate this." Then you ship Sims 4 - now we just did the expansion pack and everything's starting to feel good about Sims 4 now - but it takes a long time to do that and we always totally underestimate that when we ship a Sims game. You forget what most people now are living with.
Q: Vampires, dogs ...
Peter Moore: Everything! They're on their fifth relationship! The Sims players...They're a hard-core bunch, a very hard-core bunch.
Toddlers and swimming pools! Think of that and all the furore that was.
Again with the excuses that the sims customers are just upset with expansion pack content being missing. They know that is not the case but instead of acknowledging they released an unfinished game (like they did before release anyway but now it's to the press it's a different story) and that people were giving them the benefit of the doubt it's easier to just pretend the customer is unreasonable!
Furore that was?! There is no was. It's still an active issue in the community.
Comments
Some people really do go on like these threads and topics about toddlers or family play like their invading his/her inbox lol!
The people who don't like the topics.who put a gun to his/her head to enter it?
I do think the gurus already know that toddlers and family play are wanted tho!
It would be interesting to see how many simmers stuck around this game if they saidv no toddler's and preteens for the sims 4 lol!
Don't give up hope tho
Imagen what the haters would be like it they took somthoing out or decided not to make somthing they love lol!
I wonder what the game would be like if they did not gives us the patches?
We just want a part of the game put back in and I would personally be supportive of other things you guys want.
It doesn't make any sense and I'm frankly tired of trying to explain it and understand their weird train of thought where one concept negates the other. It's not getting through so I'm going to say really look at what I've posted if you want answers. If it's not good enough well I don't care.
One minute the argument is the company is so spiteful they act like petulant children and throw out their own work to spite their former customers who are unhappy so there's no point asking for anything.
Next it's those customers they lose don't matter at all, then next minute they do and EA has to find out but only if they don't stop buying.
Then it's that customers should stop expecting any sort of quality from any game because all the games companies have such poor products and customer experience that everyone needs to accommodate that sort of behaviour just because 'it's how it is' in the industry. Adjust your expectations to bottom level for premium products.
If any of the spiteful claims or claims of the industry are that bad are an accurate picture of the landscape then I'm more than happy to do no further business with games companies. But I don't believe it's the case anyway.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
Let me summarize:
This all hinges around what a boycott is. Nanashi posted the general definition, but that's not what a real life boycott is.
Simply not buying something is not a boycott. A boycott involves not only not buying, but trying to recruit other people to not buy and disrupt business so they can't ignore you. And on a lot of businesses, it works
And that's the issue. EA and video game companies like it are spiteful to boycotts. Because of what the real ones are and what they involve. EA, in particular, has never given a Sims boycott what they asked for. So not only do they not matter, but very likely the only effect they have is to inspire the company not to do something out of sheer spite.
Top it all off, boycotts draw customers. Why? Because people want to know what the fuss is about. So people who wouldn't normally look come. They look. Some of them buy the game. Congrats, your boycott that invovled twenty people and announcements all over Twitter probably ended up with 30 people out of three hundred buying the game. Sure, they lost you... but they're still ten customers ahead in the end. Or, at least, that's how the strategy is supposed to work; sometimes it doesn't and a video game company kills a series out of spite.
Now, what about those people who don't buy and don't boycott? They're not free advertisement, so leaving them loose has no benefit. So EA tries to draw them in. Tries to regain them. Tries to reduce lost sales. Because these people are absolutely not beneficial in any way with being lost like that.
And, yes, the industry as a whole is spiteful to boycotts. Most industries are. It's nothing out of the ordinary.
And, yes, it's okay to ask for quality... but you need to have realistic expectations. No video game anymore is going to be without bugs. No computer program anymore is without bugs. It's a fact of life and something we have to live with. Because, despite the best efforts and trillions of dollars spent to combat them, bugs persist in cropping up.
Does that make it clearer? I know these discussions become as clear as mud when they've proceeded for awhile.
This:
contradicts this:
Which is it? Are we killing the game? Selling the game? or are we just being ignored? You've made all of these points and by your assertions, TS4 self-proclaimed boycotters are some pretty terrible (but totally awesome) nobodies.
I hope this explains why I'm confused and hopefully you can clear up what you're trying to say.
And I like using the word "boycott"; it's got attitude... that's exactly why we call it boycotting, because of the protestation of the game... we could just call it "conscious consumerism", but as you said it's all about spin control.
Edit: Just read your post and came to a halt at this:
Unless we're a figment of your imagination, this is very much what a real life boycott is. I can boycott EA all by myself and it is still a boycott. It may not be the one you've envisioned (truthfully, I don't envision this either, as I relate boycotting to ethical consumerism), but if we try to redefine age old words based on our own personal filters, we'll end up wandering into "No True Scotsman" land and I don't believe that place is as nice as Brigadoon
Ah, yes, we had gotten off track a bit as people had issue with the issue of wording.
Want to know how? The answer is in this link. Let me quote for you the specific complaints:
"Fans are completely frustrated at Electronic Arts for the sheer volume of micro transactions from sites including The Sims 3 Store, poor game play and functionality, as well as the sheer volume of bugs that are impacting the game."
Tell me, how much of that describes what is happening with Sims 4?
Want to know their likely justification for not adjusting on any of that? Probably that particular boycott. They used that boycott to advertise Sims 3, ignored its concerns entirely even when moving on to how they treat Sims 4, and in general didn't bother to treat them as anything worth considering. Now consider how many players not even part of that complained about the same issues, yet also got ignored.
A boycott is always viewed as antagonistic by a company. Always. You have to adapt to that. And, luckily, it's not hard. It's a simple matter of playing the necessities of how businesses run against them. It's a game won by being devious.
Best part about boycotts? A company can always play the victim card. Especially when it comes to gamers.
And, to make it blunt, since I know I am probably not stating it bluntly enough: You're helping kill the game by both selling the game for EA while giving them the tools they need to ignore the very problems you are complaining about as not legitimate. All by using one simple term that is, for corporations, loaded with a past of disruption and trouble.
Also, I'm not the one who started the idea that what you're doing isn't a real boycott; you are. You stated it here, in the bolded text:
By your own words, just not buying a game you don't want isn't even boycotting. I let you set that standard and continued to use it across the entire thread. So, the True Scotsman standards were set by your own words. I've merely been holding you to them.
@TanyaRubirose
Oh my. Ok, I think you are anthropomorphizing EA the company. It has no feelings. It is a company. Decisions for that company, creative or otherwise, are based on what they believe will best improve their bottom line. Players like to be dramatic, and paint the company as this vindictive creature, but at the end of the day these are business professionals - this is even more true at EA compared to other gaming companies where more decisions are made on a developer level instead of a corporate level.
Perhaps the investment required to make toddlers is not worth the projected reward. Perhaps the development team simply doesn't like them, and had no intention of including them from the outset. Perhaps the engine is unable to support them and the team has no idea how to break that news to fans without looking like 🐸🐸🐸🐸. Perhaps they plan on releasing them as paid DLC. Whatever the reason, rest assured it's not an emotional decision just to spite those few simmers who have chosen to boycott the game. The toddler 'code' found in the game files was simply a place holder which would allow for another age stage, it did not prove or disprove what amount of work was done on toddlers, if any, so your argument is not actually based in reality there, sorry.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
Just because certain boycotts have not worked in the past does not mean that everyone should stop trying. Nor does it mean that EA didn't look at that boycott, and weigh their options. That boycott focuses in particular on the overpriced dlc and store content. Essentially, that boycott is asking for more for less, calling for an overall improvement of the game's quality and a decrease in price. Honestly, I think that one was doomed to fail. It's too far reaching, and it offers little in the way of reward for EA. I think it is a very different matter to boycott until specific features are added, in this case toddlers. That is just a few hundred players making their reasons public knowledge so that EA can look at it and say 'OK, we have tangible proof here that many simmers will reinvest when we add toddlers.' And before you say it's not big enough to matter, even if it's only 5% of the forum (made up # obviously), if that translates into 5% of all potential customers, then that IS big money, and it's something that devs could point to when making the case for toddlers to the corporate office. Honestly, I am not here to discuss if boycotts work or not, they may well be totally ignored, the only point I am totally sticking to here is that professional companies do not look at a boycott and decide not to add it's requested features simply to spite the customers involved. If I am mistaken, and they *do* base their decisions off of such spiteful and immature behavior, then they deserve to fail, and good riddance to them.
Okay, well if you want to believe that customers not buying a game doesn't impact the company then I don't know what to say to you. Obviously in those instances not enough players agreed that the issue was important, and the game continued to flourish. Perhaps that will be the case here too... time will tell.
I really don't think all those examples are as applicable as you'd like to think.
Re Blizzard in general Blizzard has made change after change in response to fan requests, and rebalances their classes constantly! Anyone on a Blizzard forum saying that because rogues are underpowered, Blizzard will fail, is just not thinking logically. Blizzard makes about $150 million a MONTH off of WoW, so one tiny issue like one class out of 12 being underpowered for a few months is hardly going to put them out of business, lol! They communicate with their fans, they build off of pre-existing content, and they market themselves amazingly well, so I think that is a whole different situation to what is happening with the sims. If Blizzard came out with World of Warcraft 2, and removed melee combat entirely, maybe we would have a useful comparison.
Re Diablo 3 artstyle If someone made a boycott telling EA to change the artstyle of the sims I would join you in laughing at them. It's too late. Game is made, art style is set. To change it after production is an impossible task, and if you know anyone who thinks other wise, I have a windmill they are welcome to tilt at.
Re Bethesda I think Bethesda is very in tune with what their fans want based on how their games turn out. Yes a select few don't like one aspect or another, but I think overall, Bethesda does a good job of catering to the majority. I also don't think people who want features to work differently are wasting their time by letting Bethesda know how they would prefer it. I mean, my favourite mod of all time for Skyrim/Fallout was RTS, and lo and behold F4 comes out and they've integrated the settlement system! It was like something out of a dream quite honestly. Look at how they responded to people asking for realistic needs for Fallout 3; they gave Obsidian the greenlight to add hardcore mode to Fallout New Vegas, and rumour was they hired a modder for the job. People loved it, and now it is the first DLC being discussed for Fallout 4. So I have to say, I don't see the same level of need for change. The sims 4 removed progressive growth for our sims, to me, that's akin to if Bethesda had removed levelling. Something that Bethesda would of course, never do, because they are gamers themselves, and they play, and love their own games. It's tangeable when you play that love and sweat and tears went into the creation of those games. They are innovative, creative industry leaders - something imo Maxis hasn't been in many many years.
I don't know if the boycott will be successful, I never said I thought it would be, only that I don't believe that it will lead to the company refusing to give us toddlers out of spite. My stance is really that it does no harm, and potentially could do good in that it informs the company so that if they do see a drop in sales they will be able to look to their forum and see that many players are waiting on specific features. The ideal result is that they will then announce said features, and those players who are currently waiting - like me - will return to the fold. My post was actually spurred by this quote of yours from earlier in the discussion: So you seem to think that if the boycott is successful, the designers will kill the game just to prove a point. I really don't think that logic works, and your examples of boycotts being ignored is by no means proof that a company would do something so petty and self defeating, if anything it proves the opposite. Worst case, the company will ignore the boycott. Best case, they will note the displeasure being voiced by those players and use that feedback to guide future content.
Capitalism is based on economic pressure. That's just the way things work. When a customer chooses not to buy a product they can either fade away, or explain their decision via public forums. Either way, they are no longer buying, which results in a lowered demand for the product. If the company is wise, they will go to those public forums, and they will scour the reviews to determine why their product is not selling, and do what they can to rectify the situation. OR... If they are a bunch of petty children that have no business sense perhaps you are right, and they will shut the business down and go pout in the corner.
Lets look at Simcity 2013, which is the most applicable example here. EA misread their audience, and they did not respond to player comments. They went to far as to say larger map sizes were 'impossible', and that offline play would never be a reality. When modders proved them hilariously wrong, they finally came around and allowed the game to be played off line, but they never addressed the map size issues. They also never addressed early concerns during production raised by hundreds if not thousands of long time fans of the series: The GlassBox engine was disaster from the get go. It was not well received by fans, and it's limitations were painfully obvious even in the early gameplay footage. Dan Moskowitz, the lead gameplay engineer said of the engine: "The citizens in the game are also agents and do not lead realistic lives, they go to work at the first job they can find and they go home to the first empty home they find." They lauded this as an improvement all the while ignoring the cries of fans who told them from early on in development that they were making a huge mistake.
When the game released to a horrific server failure, and terrible reviews, EA forged ahead, saying (in a fashion eerily similar to their response following the release of S4) that players would 'come around' once the server issues were fixed, and that once they were playing they would be happy. Well. Players weren't happy. They filled the forum with unanswered complaints, and frustrations. EA responded with the first and only EP - cities of tomorrow, which solved no problems, and totally ignored that the vast majority of city builder fans want MORE REALISM and MORE IMMERSION and MORE FRIGGING SPACE to build with. Long story short, the game was not as successful as EA needed it to be. Sales fell off, and Maxis shut down their Emeryville location. They weren't shut down because of a boycott, but because of a failure to meet their customer's needs that resulted in loss of sales. What the sims boycott is doing is what some simmers believe to be in the interest of the company. This is not like boycotting North Korea because we disagree with their actions, this is about boycotting a product that did not meet expectations, with the potential to reinvest should improvements be made.
So, what do we take away from Simcity 2013? I would like to think that EA learned some lessons. I would like to see them realize that they are out of touch with their fan base, and start looking to PLAYERS for what the game needs instead of letting manatees pick 5 idea balls from a pile or whatever system they use right now. If they choose instead to shut down the Sims franchise because they cannot be bothered to address their fans' PERFECTLY REASONABLE concerns with the game, then truly the fault lies with them. Not me for not buying beyond the base game, not @nanashi-sims for organizing a boycott, not @sparkfairy1 for running the family play thread, not any player old or new or young or old. EA has before them a salvageable situation, and now it is entirely in their hands how they choose to proceed. If they want to roll over and quit on PC games forever because they think they can make more off mobile games, then that's on them. I would like to think they won't give up so easily, but perhaps I am blinded by my own sentiment over the Sims. One thing I can say is unequivocally true: if they smarten up and start making intelligent choices for the franchise, I'll be the first in line with my money ready.
edited: for spacing - that post was a monster, like seriously if you read the whole thing I'm so sorry, lol. You deserve something nice. Here's a manatee bonking his nose. It will confuse those other jokers who just kept on scrollin'.
edited again to ad a line in the second to last paragraph, sorry, felt it needed to be clarified.
No argument there, I've acknowledged this now twice over as you can see above and I'll say it one more time: I don't think boycotting a product because it's not fun is a real boycott. That being said, this is just my opinion, so I'm not going to use it to redefine a word and then in turn use the redefinition to base an entire argument's premise on. I think that's what you're doing here and I'm just giving you a heads up that it's fallacious and it will invalidate your arguments. I can't determine if what you're saying is even sound if from the get go it is already invalid, yeah?
There is no TS4 store (even though one was original planned from day one of roll out). The micro-transactions were either rolled into fuller SPs and GPs, or patched in for free. And there is no open world (which EA insists was the reason for all of the unfixable issues in TS3). One of the biggest pro-TS4 comments is that the new game runs smoothly.
Doesn't this then support the actions of the boycott?
I don't think EA is as spiteful as you depict them to be. I reckon a lot of the issues with TS4 are related to a botched mobile project which EA published anyway knowing this. It has always been and will always be about money. If EA has enough fans buying the game, then there is no need to acknowledge our complaints, but if TS4 isn't living up to its profit expectations, then I'm pretty sure EA will take care of that. This franchise isn't dry yet... it can still be milked. And EA is a very good dairy maid, even if that means listening and reaching to fans (which you can't say they didn't do at the end of 2014).
I don't really care about the use of the word "boycott" simply because if I state I'm not buying any more expansion packs because they don't interest me and I don't like the direction in which this game is going, the mythical Corporation can still, apparently, get its Sensitive Feelings hurt and perceive my statement that I'm not buying any more expansion packs as a threat to boycott, even if I don't use the word boycott. Especially if I were to state that I'd be more interested in buying again once this feature is added (such as pets or weather)...then the mythical Corporation would say that I'm threatening them, that they don't like my attitude, and so, therefore, they're not going to give me what I want because my attitude towards them stinks.
So, here you go....I'm supposed to care what the Corporation thinks, so that they won't kill the franchise? Well, guess what....I don't give a dam what the Corporation thinks. As far as I'm concerned, they're calling the shots, they're making the rules, they're making the decisions. And if the customers don't like it? Tough bananas, grandpa...get over yourselves.
"Hey, we're gonna lose a few sales? Big whoop. For every one of you who sees the light and gets fed up with our actions, there's a new chump that sees that Bright and Shiny Sims 4 game and buys it...chaching! So, we don't care that you're not buying or that you're "boycotting", because, clearly, we're gonna do whatever the heck we want, too bad for you if you don't like it."
"And by the way..."(sez the mythical Corporation)"...we hear mobile is all the rage now...thar's money in them thar cell phones and tablets...so we're gonna get in on that market, even if we have to kill this franchise to do it"
I'm sure my little analogy makes sense to some of you. Let he/she who has eyes to read and comprehend, read and comprehend.
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally)
I Took The Pledge!
Origin gtgirl1999
twitter @gtgirl_99
I love giant posts! They give plenty of meat to dig into and a large discussion
@TanyaRubirose
I find it ironic to have all of the same arguments I've used on why toddlers are not coming thrown back at me as to why what I questioned has not come about. Add one point in favor of you getting an awesome mark from me. That, including the sheer size, makes for two points.
Yes, I'm doing the awesome scoring thing to make this a bit less serious, as this entire thing has become way too dour.
The spite thing in reply to boycotts also isn't emotional; it's a developed counter-strategy. The idea is that if the boycott groups only get a Pyrrhic victory at best and get no victory at all most of the time, then the company maintains primary control over their products and licenses. They can do what they want without worrying about the public pressuring them to do what they want to do. Every tactic used as part of it is developed to both control consumer opinion and to limit what damage boycotts can do.
Technically, we got more for less; the Stuff Packs of Sims 4 are, effectively, the premium content Store packs of Sims 3. Only, for about half the price.
Seriously, do the comparisons. I did and was shocked.
The problem with boycotting a video game company is how they sell their products; they don't just have a single store where everything is found and easily boycotted. Instead, you have to deny profit to other stores as well in order to impact them. In short, to truly hurt them, you have to hurt other people as well. They know this, and like to leverage it to be able to ignore online complaints. That's why it takes so many more complaints to alter the course of video game companies than it does other companies.
Plus, pretty much, they do ignore boycotts... because they know a boycott only works if it impacts sales, and the way their business is set up low enough sales will just kill the franchise.
It was the case with Sims 3.
And all of that listening is to the people who don't try a boycott strategy. You can invade another nation's forums and flood them, try to sabotage the forums to bring the site down, organize protests... there's a lot of things you can do. The boycotts? They shut those down quickly.
You're three years too late. There already was a Sims 4 boycott over art style. Last I checked, none of those people are here now.
Yeah, talk to the people who hate Bethesda. While I agree with you, they... well... Let's just say they don't and leave it at that.
If you want an example of a game series where a boycott was successful: RollerCoaster Tycoon. It took years of fan begging to get them to uncancel that series. Because, due to boycotts of the last game and the resulting sales, they cancelled it and just sat on the IP. And Atari is much, much less bad about this than EA is.
That's about the only recent title I could find where boycotts had any effect at all. And by recent, I mean "within this century." Yeah.
To put EA's business sense in perspective: They have bought and shut down studios simply for being in minor competition with them. Keep that in mind about the company when going forward.
I would like to think they learned some lessons too. But, you're kinda seeing some of the same stuff with Sims 4 as SimCity. In fact, the Sims franchise is now under the mobile division. Do you think they would have moved the entire franchise there unless they were prepared to shut the series down after Sims 4 didn't make enough sales? That looks to me like they're preparing to move on to Freeplay sequels instead.
So, yeah, I'm a little desperate to stop the doom I know is coming, and am grasping at straws. Including, up to this very moment, refusing to acknowledge the reality I know: Unless something changes, Sims 5 isn't coming.
Origin gtgirl1999
twitter @gtgirl_99
Here's the thing: I'm not redefining a word. I'm talking about how organized boycotts actually work. Here's a few images of real-life boycotts:
http://www.occupy.com/sites/default/files/hyatt-hurts.jpg
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/2/boycott_2-12-05.jpg
https://holidaysodastreamboycott.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/sodastream-protest.jpg
http://www.boycottworkfare.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Boycott-Worrkfare-Brixton-12-12-2012.jpg
No redefining going on. Just recognizing the reality of how they operate. And then stating that reality is why the word boycott, even when used correctly in this case, is not gaining the attention you want gained. It's conceptual association common to the word, despite what the word means.
And, actually, no, those items don't speak in favor of that boycott. People have the same complaints about TS4 SPs that they did about TS3 Store content. And there's still ongoing complaints about major unfixed bugs, The boycott wanted those things dealt with entirely.
I don't say EA doesn't listen to fans; in fact, earlier in the thread I made a point that they do, and they have to pick and choose which fans to listen to. I said they don't listen to boycotts. Different issue.
Also, if they were prepared to take actions to save this series instead of just letting it die should sales flop, do you really think it would currently be part of the mobile division?
I might be. I get that way at times. It's why it is I should stay off certain threads on here.
As for the rest of your post: It's amusing. We know they were going to make Sims 4 an online game, and that didn't pan out for them. Who knows? We may be in luck. But we're not going to get anywhere by using tactics that have been failing for seven years.
So, yeah, I'm calling for a change in strategy... because I very much see this as the last of the main series unless something changes.
I guess the real question I have for you is what would you have us do? If not buying is killing the franchise, and boycotts don't work, what do we do? Buy it even though we don't like it in the hopes that they will... What? Have a change of heart with ts5? How can I trust my money won't just fund another lack lustre game? They had all the money in the world after sims 3 and they squandered it. So basically yeah, what would you suggest?
Well it's going on 2 years so they shouldn't be sucky at this point. They should be awesome and FREE by now.
That's the thing, we've asked EA to take their time and do it right. If you'll see from my other posts, I think toddlers are coming and I think this is what EA is doing.
Yes, this is not a perfect game... but it's better than what it was going to be. That is the power we have. It just has to be wielded in the right way.
What we need is another outcry like that. We need the fanbase to stand up, say they agree that this direction is not good, and say it loudly and constantly. The fanbase doesn't even have to agree on any other detail; just that one item, said as a large group. EA can shrug off protests. They can wave goodbye to people leaving. They can ignore boycotts. But when the large majority of the fanbase stands up and shouts at them, they are forced to do something about it. And, yes, I mean more than just the toddler threads represent.
That is where our power lies. Not in boycotts, protests, complaint threads... but in an overwhelming zerg rush of people saying "This is not right." The only company I've seen dare think they could take that on was Interplay. And look at where they are now.
I agree. I think they are coming too, but I think EA is polishing them off before they announce it because we all know as soon as they announce toddlers are coming there will be a flood of questions and assumptions being made on this forum.
It wasn't the outcry. It was the sales. Fans were refusing to buy the base game and some who had were taking pictures of destroying their games. The bad reviews and schadenfreude "this game is flop" articles from the gaming zines who EA snubbed at release were also contributing to poor sales. Again, it's all about the money.
@nanashi-sims SimCity sales were actually pretty strong up until launch. They made most of their money during that period, if I remember things correctly. And while that one may have tanked, Sims website was full of people saying they didn't want Sims 4 to be an online-only game. Maxis had to accept Sims fans didn't want an online game.
The boycott thread was way after the fact. People were *already* not buying and telling them why. They knew. They chose to ignore, ignore, ignore.
Why do you think people are so desperate?! I saw SC2013 and I see a lot of parallels. Go over to their forums and take a look. People are telling EA they want to buy but their refusal to address issues prevents that.
A boycott means nothing more than what people were already doing. You are stuck on a word. If EA are so daft to let that word sway them they have serious issues.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
What did Peter Moore say? I actually don't even know who he is.
Because they haven't flat out decided that won't be in the game, but haven't decided they will be yet. Why say yes or no when they aren't sure.
The devs already said numourous times, that they haven't decided whether or not they will come. Direct quote was "we're looking into Toddlers, but have nothing to announce right now"
In other words, they are exploring concepts right now but have nothing set in stone to announce. Obviously they won't say no if they are looking into it or yes if it's not decided.
Insta: https://instagram.com/jkarajs?igshid=oef2ymrand3g
Chief Operating Officer of EA. A very high position within the company.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-07-01-eas-moore
Again with the excuses that the sims customers are just upset with expansion pack content being missing. They know that is not the case but instead of acknowledging they released an unfinished game (like they did before release anyway but now it's to the press it's a different story) and that people were giving them the benefit of the doubt it's easier to just pretend the customer is unreasonable!
Furore that was?! There is no was. It's still an active issue in the community.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1