I think EA and Maxis greatly discredit the power of "hype" and how teasers and "this is what we're working on" videos can really build up a burning desire in players for that content. I've played many different online games, and they periodically release teasers and even really early versions of bits from upcoming content, and even something as mediocre as a plant that might be found in the world can spark people to get excited wondering what kind of world might spawn such a plant, and so forth. Even Pokémon has taken this approach after the last like 8 years of having the entire Pokedex datamined when early copies/demos got out - with Sun/Moon they started slowly releasing new Pokémon over the course of like 3 months as the global release date approached, and this was an amazing way to get people excited for the new games. EA and Maxis should really take this approach when it comes to Sims content. It doesn't even have to be something big - like I mentioned above, even something mediocre like a counter or a chair could spark imaginations and give us something to theorize and get excited about.
Their inability to do this, which is fairly simple in my eyes, tells me that there's probably a lot of inconsistent upheaval in their production queues, or that EA doesn't have faith in the product to the point where they think building hype will result in a let down.
According to statements from the devs, there are actually legal obligations to adhere to that restrict their ability to talk about future content. It goes beyond company policy. I believe Grant said it was tied into Federal restrictions. I'm not sure exactly what those laws and restrictions say, but that's what was explained.
I remember that, and that's what they say, yet other companies have no issues. World.of warcraft can talk about free patch content half a year before its release, as can most mmo's that use live service formula. So if sims 4 is a live service, what's the reasoning here?
I don't claim to know the answer to that because I'm not a game developer. But it could have to do with one of many reasons. It could be because EA seems to function and plan their years and content within the quarters of each fiscal year, so their financial reports are probably also quarterly (I think I saw something about this from a dev once, but I only vaguely remember the details) and this might put restrictions on them that another company who does reports yearly or bi-annually or whatever, doesn't have. A huge company like EA has a lot of financial idiosyncrasies to juggle and if they stand to risk losing multi-millions of dollars from publicly releasing information that they then don't deliver, or that even gets altered and can be claimed it wasn't "as promised", you can best believe that they are going to clamp down and make certain that this kind of error doesn't happen.
I can assure you that businesses have a lot of taxation and income rules and laws to deal with. I ran a small business for several years and the accounting was way more complicated than I wanted to deal with, lol. And that was just a simple business with no employees or anything, and it gets a lot more complicated as a business grows and expands. When it comes to corporate and big money companies, the complications are going to multiply, and then you have certain types of businesses that have their own special sets of laws to consider.
So, again, I don't know the exact reasons for this, but I don't really find it hard to believe, either. And I have a feeling that even if we got the long answer to this question, many of us probably still wouldn't understand it, lol.
I think you're on to something with the quarterly reports. Both of these companies are publicly-traded, and you do have to be very careful about making promises that don't deliver - if the SEC doesn't come down on you, you could face a stockholder suit. Also, there is a bit of a difference between talking about a patch expected in a year and a half, and stating that paid content is coming next quarter. If you can't deliver in time for the quarter's end, you've got a problem, and software development doesn't always conform to marketing timetables. (Bugs happen.)
I totally get the whole quarter thing. Maybe they should call it a teaser instead of a quarterly teaser. This way they are not put on any kind of time frame. The reason she gave of about possibly not fulfilling the quarter promise is easily resolved by a name change. Gaming companies do this all the time. CD Project Red showed their first trailer of Cyberpunk back in 2012 and the game still is not out seven years later...lol If we need an American\EA example, they released the first Anthem teaser trailer in like 2017 and it is coming out this month. How is it other games can do this but the SEC is going to coming down on the Sims for doing it? Something feels off about that unless expansions are considered DLC and there are different rules for that.
No, it's not resolvable by a name change. The SEC has legally-mandated regulations specific to publicly traded software companies about what can be promised in one quarter but not delivered in that quarter. (Back in '15, when this issue first blew up in Sims world, I had a link to the regulation details.) The quarter exists whether you use the word or not. And EA has clearly decided to play it safe on the SEC regulations.
So why are they able to announce other games years before something is release?? What exactly are the regulations? Is it because the expansions are considered DLC and have difference regulations?
The SEC regulations that I looked at have to do with updates, not add-ons: with changes to the original software. If what is said will be changed in the base software isn't actually what that software is sold as by the end of that quarter, the company cannot claim that quarter's new sales of the base software; it has to postpone them in the accounting. This means a bunch of revenue that can't be accessed or reported to investors as revenue for that quarter. EA seems to have decided that neither the internal sudden revenue allocation changes nor the investor fallout are worth it. Some other companies may have made other decisions on this or are not publicly traded companies on US stock exchanges.
Maybe I am misunderstanding...LOL Sorry @luthienrising. So the regulations have nothing to do with Expansions, Game Packs or stuff packs because they would be considered add-ons only Patches\updates, right?? If this is the case, the whole reason behind no teasers seems to be invalid.
Also I gave an EA example of the announcement of Anthem in 2017 but I am assuming because it is a new IP, there are different regulations around that.
I think the problems with paid DLC comes with the patches that we get. We very often get a patch right before EPs and GPs that actually does alter the base game. They are constantly updating and retrofitting the base for new content. So this would fall under the exact same technicalities as free content.
I think EA and Maxis greatly discredit the power of "hype" and how teasers and "this is what we're working on" videos can really build up a burning desire in players for that content. I've played many different online games, and they periodically release teasers and even really early versions of bits from upcoming content, and even something as mediocre as a plant that might be found in the world can spark people to get excited wondering what kind of world might spawn such a plant, and so forth. Even Pokémon has taken this approach after the last like 8 years of having the entire Pokedex datamined when early copies/demos got out - with Sun/Moon they started slowly releasing new Pokémon over the course of like 3 months as the global release date approached, and this was an amazing way to get people excited for the new games. EA and Maxis should really take this approach when it comes to Sims content. It doesn't even have to be something big - like I mentioned above, even something mediocre like a counter or a chair could spark imaginations and give us something to theorize and get excited about.
Their inability to do this, which is fairly simple in my eyes, tells me that there's probably a lot of inconsistent upheaval in their production queues, or that EA doesn't have faith in the product to the point where they think building hype will result in a let down.
According to statements from the devs, there are actually legal obligations to adhere to that restrict their ability to talk about future content. It goes beyond company policy. I believe Grant said it was tied into Federal restrictions. I'm not sure exactly what those laws and restrictions say, but that's what was explained.
I remember that, and that's what they say, yet other companies have no issues. World.of warcraft can talk about free patch content half a year before its release, as can most mmo's that use live service formula. So if sims 4 is a live service, what's the reasoning here?
I don't claim to know the answer to that because I'm not a game developer. But it could have to do with one of many reasons. It could be because EA seems to function and plan their years and content within the quarters of each fiscal year, so their financial reports are probably also quarterly (I think I saw something about this from a dev once, but I only vaguely remember the details) and this might put restrictions on them that another company who does reports yearly or bi-annually or whatever, doesn't have. A huge company like EA has a lot of financial idiosyncrasies to juggle and if they stand to risk losing multi-millions of dollars from publicly releasing information that they then don't deliver, or that even gets altered and can be claimed it wasn't "as promised", you can best believe that they are going to clamp down and make certain that this kind of error doesn't happen.
I can assure you that businesses have a lot of taxation and income rules and laws to deal with. I ran a small business for several years and the accounting was way more complicated than I wanted to deal with, lol. And that was just a simple business with no employees or anything, and it gets a lot more complicated as a business grows and expands. When it comes to corporate and big money companies, the complications are going to multiply, and then you have certain types of businesses that have their own special sets of laws to consider.
So, again, I don't know the exact reasons for this, but I don't really find it hard to believe, either. And I have a feeling that even if we got the long answer to this question, many of us probably still wouldn't understand it, lol.
I think you're on to something with the quarterly reports. Both of these companies are publicly-traded, and you do have to be very careful about making promises that don't deliver - if the SEC doesn't come down on you, you could face a stockholder suit. Also, there is a bit of a difference between talking about a patch expected in a year and a half, and stating that paid content is coming next quarter. If you can't deliver in time for the quarter's end, you've got a problem, and software development doesn't always conform to marketing timetables. (Bugs happen.)
I totally get the whole quarter thing. Maybe they should call it a teaser instead of a quarterly teaser. This way they are not put on any kind of time frame. The reason she gave of about possibly not fulfilling the quarter promise is easily resolved by a name change. Gaming companies do this all the time. CD Project Red showed their first trailer of Cyberpunk back in 2012 and the game still is not out seven years later...lol If we need an American\EA example, they released the first Anthem teaser trailer in like 2017 and it is coming out this month. How is it other games can do this but the SEC is going to coming down on the Sims for doing it? Something feels off about that unless expansions are considered DLC and there are different rules for that.
No, it's not resolvable by a name change. The SEC has legally-mandated regulations specific to publicly traded software companies about what can be promised in one quarter but not delivered in that quarter. (Back in '15, when this issue first blew up in Sims world, I had a link to the regulation details.) The quarter exists whether you use the word or not. And EA has clearly decided to play it safe on the SEC regulations.
Nah although that's probably true to a large extent, EA has also used those SEC regulations to avoid having to answer certain types of queries at the time, i.e. toddlers. I'm only mentioning this because some of the things they told us they couldn't do or talk about because of those regulations, they did actually end up doing or talking about at a later date, post toddlers. So yes, although I'm sure they've got a role to play in all this, seems the main reason QTs stopped is simply because the constant flow of content stopped too. And well, if there isn't anything to show ... Not saying that's worse, it's just something that irked me a little at the time
Monthly Maxis was introduced to communicate with us in a new way but I don't feel like this is communication. I really don't care about the game influencers no offense to anyone and I don't really care about how they got their start on the sims...again no offense. I love the Gurus but I want game information otherwise, I don't need to see a show.
I want to know what is on the horizon even if it is a picture that we can speculate about. Sure we may be disappointed when we find out the truth of what the pack is about but it is better than patting our feet while waiting six months for a morsel of information. The speculation is part of the fun. When we got the expansion pack in Sims 2, the next pack hint was in there and we could get even more excited. Sims 3, when they did twitch we usually got a hint or something. I never wanted to miss a video. My favorite hint was the sim in the boat for sims 3. I don't get excited when I hear the Maxis Monthly is coming.
I agree. But I think the sales are better when there is drought like this. People are starving so much for new content that they'll buy everything even if it's half baked. EA is smart and greedy.
If they really do enjoy making Stuff Packs and Game Packs, then I don't think it would make any sense for them to just suddenly stop making those.
Yes, your right if you enjoy making SP and GPs why would you stop>
But then bosses rule, and what makes the most money is most important in business. If you have a limited number of employees, you may have to send some to work on other things, if other things bring in more money. If that is the case it would make sense.
If you had a company making houses, and you make them Dog houses to match. Now you just got a contract to build Apartments as well, What do you do, hire more people or pull the carpenters off the Doghouses? Which will bring you more money? The added Matching Doghouses or Apartments?
we'll give you a full refund. Just make sure you make your request within 24 hours after you first launch the game, within seven days from your date of purchase, or within seven days from the game's release date if you pre-ordered, whichever comes first.
Who said EA doesn't have a sense of humor
Monthly Maxis was introduced to communicate with us in a new way but I don't feel like this is communication. I really don't care about the game influencers no offense to anyone and I don't really care about how they got their start on the sims...again no offense. I love the Gurus but I want game information otherwise, I don't need to see a show.
I want to know what is on the horizon even if it is a picture that we can speculate about. Sure we may be disappointed when we find out the truth of what the pack is about but it is better than patting our feet while waiting six months for a morsel of information. The speculation is part of the fun. When we got the expansion pack in Sims 2, the next pack hint was in there and we could get even more excited. Sims 3, when they did twitch we usually got a hint or something. I never wanted to miss a video. My favorite hint was the sim in the boat for sims 3. I don't get excited when I hear the Maxis Monthly is coming.
I agree. But I think the sales are better when there is drought like this. People are starving so much for new content that they'll buy everything even if it's half baked. EA is smart and greedy.
yup and be happy for it,
I think the best thing to do is keep bringing in New people. While the old players are busy chatting and complaining but waiting. See, New buyers, Don't Read.??
we'll give you a full refund. Just make sure you make your request within 24 hours after you first launch the game, within seven days from your date of purchase, or within seven days from the game's release date if you pre-ordered, whichever comes first.
Who said EA doesn't have a sense of humor
If they really do enjoy making Stuff Packs and Game Packs, then I don't think it would make any sense for them to just suddenly stop making those.
I don't know... maybe I'm reading too much between the lines of their tweets. But it sounds to me like this iteration of the franchise is winding down pretty steeply.
If they really do enjoy making Stuff Packs and Game Packs, then I don't think it would make any sense for them to just suddenly stop making those.
Yes, your right if you enjoy making SP and GPs why would you stop>
But then bosses rule, and what makes the most money is most important in business. If you have a limited number of employees, you may have to send some to work on other things, if other things bring in more money. If that is the case it would make sense.
If you had a company making houses, and you make them Dog houses to match. Now you just got a contract to build Apartments as well, What do you do, hire more people or pull the carpenters off the Doghouses? Which will bring you more money? The added Matching Doghouses or Apartments?
I'm sorry for my ignorance, I was just trying to contribute to the discussion...
I'm still under the impression that if the fan base is this confused over such an important issue, then their communication as a whole is terrible and needs improvement.
More PR talk that shows nothing but a total disconnect with the community. Hell, I've played many games where developers constantly say what their plans are, what they are working on, even show some pictures of raw design. But nope, none of that here. Because things can change? Sure, the first and only development team that may completely change what pack they are working on at any minute...
What pack are you working on? Nope.
Is X feature in the plans? Nope
What about X bug? Nope
Will you revamp X? Nope
Do you thin- Nope
Nope.
I think it's the EA people on top that are making em push out stuff we don't want but obviously, since I'm terribly ignorant in matters of business, it's probably not the case.
I think it's the EA people on top that are making em push out stuff we don't want but obviously, since I'm terribly ignorant in matters of business, it's probably not the case.
No no, you are on the right track. While I doubt EA as a publisher tells the studio what to develop (it typically isn't the job of a publisher to do that), they certainly impose time-frames, budgets, expectations. So if you throw in together a couple of patches with bug-fixes and a few items here and there, EPs, GPs, and SPs, and you add on to that a publisher telling you that you HAVE to release X amount of content in X period of time well, might not work out that well for the developers themselves. They might have to go for things that are quicker, cheaper, faster to produce.
But sometimes, I wonder how far EAs policies are when it comes to the dev team itself. I've always blamed EA more than the studio, but sometimes I wonder if the dev studio is actually in agreement with said policies. I.E. those tweets. Say for example, with City Living, that EA pushes the studio to release it in X time-frame, so they get down to working on apartments. But wait, we don't have resources and/or time, how about we cut out the ability to create and place your own apartments? Animations for elevators? Cut that too, we are in a rush. That's quite a possible scenario.
I think it's the EA people on top that are making em push out stuff we don't want but obviously, since I'm terribly ignorant in matters of business, it's probably not the case.
No no, you are on the right track. While I doubt EA as a publisher tells the studio what to develop (it typically isn't the job of a publisher to do that), they certainly impose time-frames, budgets, expectations. So if you throw in together a couple of patches with bug-fixes and a few items here and there, EPs, GPs, and SPs, and you add on to that a publisher telling you that you HAVE to release X amount of content in X period of time well, might not work out that well for the developers themselves. They might have to go for things that are quicker, cheaper, faster to produce.
But sometimes, I wonder how far EAs policies are when it comes to the dev team itself. I've always blamed EA more than the studio, but sometimes I wonder if the dev studio is actually in agreement with said policies. I.E. those tweets. Say for example, with City Living, that EA pushes the studio to release it in X time-frame, so they get down to working on apartments. But wait, we don't have resources and/or time, how about we cut out the ability to create and place your own apartments? Animations for elevators? Cut that too, we are in a rush. That's quite a possible scenario.
It’s funny that you think there are separate people in EA that impose time-frames, budgets on the studio. The people that impose time-frames, budgets are in the studio and they’re part of the dev team.
People love to think EA and Maxis as two separate entities, when in reality they are one and the same. If EA needs to someone to manage the studio’s budget/time frames, then this person would be working at the studio and they are part of the dev team.
I think it's the EA people on top that are making em push out stuff we don't want but obviously, since I'm terribly ignorant in matters of business, it's probably not the case.
No no, you are on the right track. While I doubt EA as a publisher tells the studio what to develop (it typically isn't the job of a publisher to do that), they certainly impose time-frames, budgets, expectations. So if you throw in together a couple of patches with bug-fixes and a few items here and there, EPs, GPs, and SPs, and you add on to that a publisher telling you that you HAVE to release X amount of content in X period of time well, might not work out that well for the developers themselves. They might have to go for things that are quicker, cheaper, faster to produce.
But sometimes, I wonder how far EAs policies are when it comes to the dev team itself. I've always blamed EA more than the studio, but sometimes I wonder if the dev studio is actually in agreement with said policies. I.E. those tweets. Say for example, with City Living, that EA pushes the studio to release it in X time-frame, so they get down to working on apartments. But wait, we don't have resources and/or time, how about we cut out the ability to create and place your own apartments? Animations for elevators? Cut that too, we are in a rush. That's quite a possible scenario.
It’s funny that you think there are separate people in EA that impose time-frames, budgets on the studio. The people that impose time-frames, budgets are in the studio and they’re part of the dev team.
People love to think EA and Maxis as two separate entities, when in reality they are one and the same. If EA needs to someone to manage the studio’s budget/time frames, then this person would be working at the studio and they are part of the dev team.
There's a difference between publisher and developers. They are two separate entities, not one. A common practice I've seen is when indie/early access titles launch (without a publisher), then after some time if the project is a success a developer might make an offer. Sometimes it goes well, other times it turns detrimental when a publisher lays its hands on a project.
No, no one from EA will be part of the dev team. They are simply the publisher, Maxis is a subsidiary. A publisher sells a product. EA sells what Maxis makes to put it in simple terms. As a publisher, with their duty being to sell, they typically work on things like marketing, partner management, sales, budget, time-frames. And Maxis does what a game development studio does, develop the game with the resources they are provided.
I think it's the EA people on top that are making em push out stuff we don't want but obviously, since I'm terribly ignorant in matters of business, it's probably not the case.
No no, you are on the right track. While I doubt EA as a publisher tells the studio what to develop (it typically isn't the job of a publisher to do that), they certainly impose time-frames, budgets, expectations. So if you throw in together a couple of patches with bug-fixes and a few items here and there, EPs, GPs, and SPs, and you add on to that a publisher telling you that you HAVE to release X amount of content in X period of time well, might not work out that well for the developers themselves. They might have to go for things that are quicker, cheaper, faster to produce.
But sometimes, I wonder how far EAs policies are when it comes to the dev team itself. I've always blamed EA more than the studio, but sometimes I wonder if the dev studio is actually in agreement with said policies. I.E. those tweets. Say for example, with City Living, that EA pushes the studio to release it in X time-frame, so they get down to working on apartments. But wait, we don't have resources and/or time, how about we cut out the ability to create and place your own apartments? Animations for elevators? Cut that too, we are in a rush. That's quite a possible scenario.
It’s funny that you think there are separate people in EA that impose time-frames, budgets on the studio. The people that impose time-frames, budgets are in the studio and they’re part of the dev team.
People love to think EA and Maxis as two separate entities, when in reality they are one and the same. If EA needs to someone to manage the studio’s budget/time frames, then this person would be working at the studio and they are part of the dev team.
There's a difference between publisher and developers. They are two separate entities, not one. A common practice I've seen is when indie/early access titles launch (without a publisher), then after some time if the project is a success a developer might make an offer. Sometimes it goes well, other times it turns detrimental when a publisher lays its hands on a project.
No, no one from EA will be part of the dev team. They are simply the publisher, Maxis is a subsidiary. A publisher sells a product. EA sells what Maxis makes to put it in simple terms. As a publisher, with their duty being to sell, they typically work on things like marketing, partner management, sales, budget, time-frames. And Maxis does what a game development studio does, develop the game with the resources they are provided.
Again, you only think EA as a publisher, when in fact they are also a developer themselves. The Sims Team is an internal dev team EA has, and they work at EA’s headquarter. They’re not a subsidiary in the same way of what a real subsidiary is. A real subsidiary would function as a company themselves (they just also have a parent company). The Sims team most certainly does not function as a separate entity on its own; instead they’re directly part of EA.
Everyone on the dev team is EA and they directly work for EA. The old Maxis studio is long gone; right now it’s just a name that a group of EA employees choose to call themselves. Making games isn’t the only thing the studio does. They’re also tasked with managing budget and making profits because they’re EA themselves. The head of Maxis for example is also simultaneously an EA Vice President. EA does not need anyone outside the studio to impose budget and time frames because the people in the studio already do that.
SimGuruNinja for instance posted this comment on Reddit.
In regards to us maxis devs being restricted by EA on the number of things and what we can put in the game... totally not true. We control what goes into the game and are restricted by the "normal" things one would expect like time, budget, ESRB concerns, etc. We are EA; they aren't our overlords.
This is in agreement with I said. The studio imposes budget/time frames on itself. Why? Because they are EA themselves.
I think it's the EA people on top that are making em push out stuff we don't want but obviously, since I'm terribly ignorant in matters of business, it's probably not the case.
No no, you are on the right track. While I doubt EA as a publisher tells the studio what to develop (it typically isn't the job of a publisher to do that), they certainly impose time-frames, budgets, expectations. So if you throw in together a couple of patches with bug-fixes and a few items here and there, EPs, GPs, and SPs, and you add on to that a publisher telling you that you HAVE to release X amount of content in X period of time well, might not work out that well for the developers themselves. They might have to go for things that are quicker, cheaper, faster to produce.
But sometimes, I wonder how far EAs policies are when it comes to the dev team itself. I've always blamed EA more than the studio, but sometimes I wonder if the dev studio is actually in agreement with said policies. I.E. those tweets. Say for example, with City Living, that EA pushes the studio to release it in X time-frame, so they get down to working on apartments. But wait, we don't have resources and/or time, how about we cut out the ability to create and place your own apartments? Animations for elevators? Cut that too, we are in a rush. That's quite a possible scenario.
It’s funny that you think there are separate people in EA that impose time-frames, budgets on the studio. The people that impose time-frames, budgets are in the studio and they’re part of the dev team.
People love to think EA and Maxis as two separate entities, when in reality they are one and the same. If EA needs to someone to manage the studio’s budget/time frames, then this person would be working at the studio and they are part of the dev team.
There's a difference between publisher and developers. They are two separate entities, not one. A common practice I've seen is when indie/early access titles launch (without a publisher), then after some time if the project is a success a developer might make an offer. Sometimes it goes well, other times it turns detrimental when a publisher lays its hands on a project.
No, no one from EA will be part of the dev team. They are simply the publisher, Maxis is a subsidiary. A publisher sells a product. EA sells what Maxis makes to put it in simple terms. As a publisher, with their duty being to sell, they typically work on things like marketing, partner management, sales, budget, time-frames. And Maxis does what a game development studio does, develop the game with the resources they are provided.
Again, you only think EA as a publisher, when in fact they are also a developer themselves. The Sims Team is an internal dev team EA has, and they work at EA’s headquarter. They’re not a subsidiary in the same way of what a real subsidiary is. A real subsidiary would function as a company themselves (they just also have a parent company). The Sims team most certainly does not function as a separate entity on its own; instead they’re directly part of EA.
Everyone on the dev team is EA and they directly work for EA. The old Maxis studio is long gone; right now it’s just a name that a group of EA employees choose to call themselves. Making games isn’t the only thing the studio does. They’re also tasked with managing budget and making profits because they’re EA themselves. The head of Maxis for example is also simultaneously an EA Vice President. EA does not need anyone outside the studio to impose budget and time frames because the people in the studio already do that.
SimGuruNinja for instance posted this comment on Reddit.
In regards to us maxis devs being restricted by EA on the number of things and what we can put in the game... totally not true. We control what goes into the game and are restricted by the "normal" things one would expect like time, budget, ESRB concerns, etc. We are EA; they aren't our overlords.
This is in agreement with I said. The studio imposes budget/time frames on itself. Why? Because they are EA themselves.
I think you perceiving it incorrectly. Everyone at Maxis is indeed EA. The whole Maxis label was brought back years ago to coincide with SimCity 5’s release and the call of players to have “Maxis develop The Sims again,” when in reality, it has been the same people all along.
I have no doubt The Sims Studio picks the themes, content, prioritization of development/bug fixes, etc. But they all respond to the corporate EA at the end of the day, most of which are more concerned about money at the end of the day. Which is standard for any company. But there is also such thing as putting out a good product, which would net you more money at the end of the day.
For the people that still play sims 4 can I genuinely ask, how do you do it?
Honestly! There is nothing to do in that game! NOTHING.
AND I'm a very creative simmer with my gameplay! But Sims 4 doesn't give you enough solid gameplay like wow
Seriously I've played the death out of sims 2 for years and I can still have more fun with it than with 4
Or maybe it's just because the majority of the sims community left in disappointment so everyone thats left in the forums is little but it's the ones that like it? I dont understand
For the people that still play sims 4 can I genuinely ask, how do you do it? Honestly! There is nothing to do in that game! NOTHING.
I totally agree, I am now bored with my game that I have turned to CC and Mods to at least perhaps spice up my gameplay a little...other than that I am bored again..
I think EA and Maxis greatly discredit the power of "hype" and how teasers and "this is what we're working on" videos can really build up a burning desire in players for that content. I've played many different online games, and they periodically release teasers and even really early versions of bits from upcoming content, and even something as mediocre as a plant that might be found in the world can spark people to get excited wondering what kind of world might spawn such a plant, and so forth. Even Pokémon has taken this approach after the last like 8 years of having the entire Pokedex datamined when early copies/demos got out - with Sun/Moon they started slowly releasing new Pokémon over the course of like 3 months as the global release date approached, and this was an amazing way to get people excited for the new games. EA and Maxis should really take this approach when it comes to Sims content. It doesn't even have to be something big - like I mentioned above, even something mediocre like a counter or a chair could spark imaginations and give us something to theorize and get excited about.
Their inability to do this, which is fairly simple in my eyes, tells me that there's probably a lot of inconsistent upheaval in their production queues, or that EA doesn't have faith in the product to the point where they think building hype will result in a let down.
According to statements from the devs, there are actually legal obligations to adhere to that restrict their ability to talk about future content. It goes beyond company policy. I believe Grant said it was tied into Federal restrictions. I'm not sure exactly what those laws and restrictions say, but that's what was explained.
I remember that, and that's what they say, yet other companies have no issues. World.of warcraft can talk about free patch content half a year before its release, as can most mmo's that use live service formula. So if sims 4 is a live service, what's the reasoning here?
I don't claim to know the answer to that because I'm not a game developer. But it could have to do with one of many reasons. It could be because EA seems to function and plan their years and content within the quarters of each fiscal year, so their financial reports are probably also quarterly (I think I saw something about this from a dev once, but I only vaguely remember the details) and this might put restrictions on them that another company who does reports yearly or bi-annually or whatever, doesn't have. A huge company like EA has a lot of financial idiosyncrasies to juggle and if they stand to risk losing multi-millions of dollars from publicly releasing information that they then don't deliver, or that even gets altered and can be claimed it wasn't "as promised", you can best believe that they are going to clamp down and make certain that this kind of error doesn't happen.
I can assure you that businesses have a lot of taxation and income rules and laws to deal with. I ran a small business for several years and the accounting was way more complicated than I wanted to deal with, lol. And that was just a simple business with no employees or anything, and it gets a lot more complicated as a business grows and expands. When it comes to corporate and big money companies, the complications are going to multiply, and then you have certain types of businesses that have their own special sets of laws to consider.
So, again, I don't know the exact reasons for this, but I don't really find it hard to believe, either. And I have a feeling that even if we got the long answer to this question, many of us probably still wouldn't understand it, lol.
I think you're on to something with the quarterly reports. Both of these companies are publicly-traded, and you do have to be very careful about making promises that don't deliver - if the SEC doesn't come down on you, you could face a stockholder suit. Also, there is a bit of a difference between talking about a patch expected in a year and a half, and stating that paid content is coming next quarter. If you can't deliver in time for the quarter's end, you've got a problem, and software development doesn't always conform to marketing timetables. (Bugs happen.)
I totally get the whole quarter thing. Maybe they should call it a teaser instead of a quarterly teaser. This way they are not put on any kind of time frame. The reason she gave of about possibly not fulfilling the quarter promise is easily resolved by a name change. Gaming companies do this all the time. CD Project Red showed their first trailer of Cyberpunk back in 2012 and the game still is not out seven years later...lol If we need an American\EA example, they released the first Anthem teaser trailer in like 2017 and it is coming out this month. How is it other games can do this but the SEC is going to coming down on the Sims for doing it? Something feels off about that unless expansions are considered DLC and there are different rules for that.
No, it's not resolvable by a name change. The SEC has legally-mandated regulations specific to publicly traded software companies about what can be promised in one quarter but not delivered in that quarter. (Back in '15, when this issue first blew up in Sims world, I had a link to the regulation details.) The quarter exists whether you use the word or not. And EA has clearly decided to play it safe on the SEC regulations.
So why are they able to announce other games years before something is release?? What exactly are the regulations? Is it because the expansions are considered DLC and have difference regulations?
The SEC regulations that I looked at have to do with updates, not add-ons: with changes to the original software. If what is said will be changed in the base software isn't actually what that software is sold as by the end of that quarter, the company cannot claim that quarter's new sales of the base software; it has to postpone them in the accounting. This means a bunch of revenue that can't be accessed or reported to investors as revenue for that quarter. EA seems to have decided that neither the internal sudden revenue allocation changes nor the investor fallout are worth it. Some other companies may have made other decisions on this or are not publicly traded companies on US stock exchanges.
Maybe I am misunderstanding...LOL Sorry @luthienrising. So the regulations have nothing to do with Expansions, Game Packs or stuff packs because they would be considered add-ons only Patches\updates, right?? If this is the case, the whole reason behind no teasers seems to be invalid.
Also I gave an EA example of the announcement of Anthem in 2017 but I am assuming because it is a new IP, there are different regulations around that.
I think the problems with paid DLC comes with the patches that we get. We very often get a patch right before EPs and GPs that actually does alter the base game. They are constantly updating and retrofitting the base for new content. So this would fall under the exact same technicalities as free content.
I'm still under the impression that if the fan base is this confused over such an important issue, then their communication as a whole is terrible and needs improvement.
Definitely agree. This is why I say the maxis monthly is not working.
For the people that still play sims 4 can I genuinely ask, how do you do it?
Honestly! There is nothing to do in that game! NOTHING.
AND I'm a very creative simmer with my gameplay! But Sims 4 doesn't give you enough solid gameplay like wow
Seriously I've played the death out of sims 2 for years and I can still have more fun with it than with 4
Or maybe it's just because the majority of the sims community left in disappointment so everyone thats left in the forums is little but it's the ones that like it? I dont understand
There are people that still find enjoyment, and honestly, I’m a bit envious, because I wish I could have fun with the game. I still feel TS4 has the best looking Sims of the series, and the art style is pretty as well. But there is just zero substance behind it all; EA put zero care into making believable, fun, and unique personalities for them. I have so many great Sims I wish I could explore a vast world with, and tell great stories, but TS4 fails to be the tool to do that.
It seems most people that still play are able to do so by just creating stories in their mind with their Sims. A “green-thumb” Sim that enjoys to do yoga in her free time, etc. To me, that’s not really fun on its own — it should be a small subset of a much bigger picture.
I find TS2 to have given so many hours of gameplay because it was designed as a more open-ended, creative, real life simulator. There was risk, challenge, and meaningful reward. Building long lineages actually meant something and gave benefit to heirs. Sims were expressive, not over the top, and possessed such unique personalities thanks to its personality system. It had creative tools to play the game your way. And there were just so many different ways you could play that no two saves truly felt the same.
For the people that still play sims 4 can I genuinely ask, how do you do it?
Honestly! There is nothing to do in that game! NOTHING.
AND I'm a very creative simmer with my gameplay! But Sims 4 doesn't give you enough solid gameplay like wow
Seriously I've played the death out of sims 2 for years and I can still have more fun with it than with 4
Or maybe it's just because the majority of the sims community left in disappointment so everyone thats left in the forums is little but it's the ones that like it? I dont understand
I'm assuming you mean young but this survey from a year ago shows that the majority of the simmers on this forum that enjoy Sims 4 actually started with one of the earlier versions. It seems to be a common misconception that only younger or newer simmers enjoy the Sims 4.
Comments
I think the problems with paid DLC comes with the patches that we get. We very often get a patch right before EPs and GPs that actually does alter the base game. They are constantly updating and retrofitting the base for new content. So this would fall under the exact same technicalities as free content.
Nah although that's probably true to a large extent, EA has also used those SEC regulations to avoid having to answer certain types of queries at the time, i.e. toddlers. I'm only mentioning this because some of the things they told us they couldn't do or talk about because of those regulations, they did actually end up doing or talking about at a later date, post toddlers. So yes, although I'm sure they've got a role to play in all this, seems the main reason QTs stopped is simply because the constant flow of content stopped too. And well, if there isn't anything to show ...
I agree. But I think the sales are better when there is drought like this. People are starving so much for new content that they'll buy everything even if it's half baked. EA is smart and greedy.
Yes, your right if you enjoy making SP and GPs why would you stop>
But then bosses rule, and what makes the most money is most important in business. If you have a limited number of employees, you may have to send some to work on other things, if other things bring in more money. If that is the case it would make sense.
If you had a company making houses, and you make them Dog houses to match. Now you just got a contract to build Apartments as well, What do you do, hire more people or pull the carpenters off the Doghouses? Which will bring you more money? The added Matching Doghouses or Apartments?
Who said EA doesn't have a sense of humor
yup and be happy for it,
I think the best thing to do is keep bringing in New people. While the old players are busy chatting and complaining but waiting.
See, New buyers, Don't Read.??
Who said EA doesn't have a sense of humor
I don't know... maybe I'm reading too much between the lines of their tweets. But it sounds to me like this iteration of the franchise is winding down pretty steeply.
I'm sorry for my ignorance, I was just trying to contribute to the discussion...
What pack are you working on? Nope.
Is X feature in the plans? Nope
What about X bug? Nope
Will you revamp X? Nope
Do you thin- Nope
Nope.
Great communication skills!
No no, you are on the right track. While I doubt EA as a publisher tells the studio what to develop (it typically isn't the job of a publisher to do that), they certainly impose time-frames, budgets, expectations. So if you throw in together a couple of patches with bug-fixes and a few items here and there, EPs, GPs, and SPs, and you add on to that a publisher telling you that you HAVE to release X amount of content in X period of time well, might not work out that well for the developers themselves. They might have to go for things that are quicker, cheaper, faster to produce.
But sometimes, I wonder how far EAs policies are when it comes to the dev team itself. I've always blamed EA more than the studio, but sometimes I wonder if the dev studio is actually in agreement with said policies. I.E. those tweets. Say for example, with City Living, that EA pushes the studio to release it in X time-frame, so they get down to working on apartments. But wait, we don't have resources and/or time, how about we cut out the ability to create and place your own apartments? Animations for elevators? Cut that too, we are in a rush. That's quite a possible scenario.
IMO, a mixture of both.
And also, it's not really possible to include EVERYONE's ideas. I like to think that they sometimes listen to the most requested ideas though.
It’s funny that you think there are separate people in EA that impose time-frames, budgets on the studio. The people that impose time-frames, budgets are in the studio and they’re part of the dev team.
People love to think EA and Maxis as two separate entities, when in reality they are one and the same. If EA needs to someone to manage the studio’s budget/time frames, then this person would be working at the studio and they are part of the dev team.
There's a difference between publisher and developers. They are two separate entities, not one. A common practice I've seen is when indie/early access titles launch (without a publisher), then after some time if the project is a success a developer might make an offer. Sometimes it goes well, other times it turns detrimental when a publisher lays its hands on a project.
No, no one from EA will be part of the dev team. They are simply the publisher, Maxis is a subsidiary. A publisher sells a product. EA sells what Maxis makes to put it in simple terms. As a publisher, with their duty being to sell, they typically work on things like marketing, partner management, sales, budget, time-frames. And Maxis does what a game development studio does, develop the game with the resources they are provided.
Again, you only think EA as a publisher, when in fact they are also a developer themselves. The Sims Team is an internal dev team EA has, and they work at EA’s headquarter. They’re not a subsidiary in the same way of what a real subsidiary is. A real subsidiary would function as a company themselves (they just also have a parent company). The Sims team most certainly does not function as a separate entity on its own; instead they’re directly part of EA.
Everyone on the dev team is EA and they directly work for EA. The old Maxis studio is long gone; right now it’s just a name that a group of EA employees choose to call themselves. Making games isn’t the only thing the studio does. They’re also tasked with managing budget and making profits because they’re EA themselves. The head of Maxis for example is also simultaneously an EA Vice President. EA does not need anyone outside the studio to impose budget and time frames because the people in the studio already do that.
SimGuruNinja for instance posted this comment on Reddit.
This is in agreement with I said. The studio imposes budget/time frames on itself. Why? Because they are EA themselves.
I think you perceiving it incorrectly. Everyone at Maxis is indeed EA. The whole Maxis label was brought back years ago to coincide with SimCity 5’s release and the call of players to have “Maxis develop The Sims again,” when in reality, it has been the same people all along.
However, the entirety of EA is not developers. In regards to SimGuruNinja’s comment, who do you think controls the “normal” things? Those are the business people. You know, the people that admitted they would buy smaller developer companies, and meddle with their practice to the point where their products would pale in comparison to their original work? Why would any developer do that?
I have no doubt The Sims Studio picks the themes, content, prioritization of development/bug fixes, etc. But they all respond to the corporate EA at the end of the day, most of which are more concerned about money at the end of the day. Which is standard for any company. But there is also such thing as putting out a good product, which would net you more money at the end of the day.
Honestly! There is nothing to do in that game! NOTHING.
AND I'm a very creative simmer with my gameplay! But Sims 4 doesn't give you enough solid gameplay like wow
Seriously I've played the death out of sims 2 for years and I can still have more fun with it than with 4
Or maybe it's just because the majority of the sims community left in disappointment so everyone thats left in the forums is little but it's the ones that like it? I dont understand
I totally agree, I am now bored with my game that I have turned to CC and Mods to at least perhaps spice up my gameplay a little...other than that I am bored again..
Ahh yeah that is true and makes sense.
Definitely agree. This is why I say the maxis monthly is not working.
There are people that still find enjoyment, and honestly, I’m a bit envious, because I wish I could have fun with the game. I still feel TS4 has the best looking Sims of the series, and the art style is pretty as well. But there is just zero substance behind it all; EA put zero care into making believable, fun, and unique personalities for them. I have so many great Sims I wish I could explore a vast world with, and tell great stories, but TS4 fails to be the tool to do that.
It seems most people that still play are able to do so by just creating stories in their mind with their Sims. A “green-thumb” Sim that enjoys to do yoga in her free time, etc. To me, that’s not really fun on its own — it should be a small subset of a much bigger picture.
I find TS2 to have given so many hours of gameplay because it was designed as a more open-ended, creative, real life simulator. There was risk, challenge, and meaningful reward. Building long lineages actually meant something and gave benefit to heirs. Sims were expressive, not over the top, and possessed such unique personalities thanks to its personality system. It had creative tools to play the game your way. And there were just so many different ways you could play that no two saves truly felt the same.
I'm assuming you mean young but this survey from a year ago shows that the majority of the simmers on this forum that enjoy Sims 4 actually started with one of the earlier versions. It seems to be a common misconception that only younger or newer simmers enjoy the Sims 4.
https://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/931295/for-those-currently-playing-and-enjoying-sims-4/p1