Carlos, I would expect good planning and setting up expansions that follow the plan. There's a problem with putting in everything, you can't! There's always more and more to put in so at some point, the programmers have to say, that's enough, we've got to debug what we've got and freeze new content. Plus, if they put in all you want, would you pay $159 for it? If not, then there's not enough money to pay for the programmers and development costs, someone has to pay...

Here what can happen to a game that tries to put in too much, it's a fascinating story...

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_duke_nukem/



To videogame fans, that logo is instantly recognizable. It’s the insignia of Duke Nukem 3D, a computer game that revolutionized shoot-’em-up virtual violence in 1996. Featuring a swaggering, steroidal, wisecracking hero, Duke Nukem 3D became one of the top-selling videogames ever, making its creators very wealthy and leaving fans absolutely delirious for a sequel. The team quickly began work on that sequel, Duke Nukem Forever, and it became one of the most hotly anticipated games of all time.

It was never completed. Screenshots and video snippets would leak out every few years, each time whipping fans into a lather — and each time, the game would recede from view. Normally, videogames take two to four years to build; five years is considered worryingly long. But the Duke Nukem Forever team worked for 12 years straight. As one patient fan pointed out, when development on Duke Nukem Forever started, most computers were still using Windows 95, Pixar had made only one movie — Toy Story — and Xbox did not yet exist.

On May 6, 2009, everything ended. Drained of funds after so many years of work, the game’s developer, 3D Realms, told its employees to collect their stuff and put it in boxes. The next week, the company was sued for millions by its publisher for failing to finish the sequel.

EA sold 100,000,000 copies of the sims, so at $49 a pop that comes to $4,900,000,000 (just under 5 BILLION dollars) for just one title on one of their labels. So its not those niggly programmer costs that kept certain things out of Sims 3. The profit margin on sims is enormous and the sims series has been a cash cow for EA for a decade now which is partly why they have so much money and for a number of years have been buying up other gaming companies and gaming sites. They have so many titles on so many labels, in fact EA is so large that they have more than they can handle and will be cutting back titles by 20%--not because they can't afford them but because of logistics--EA has just too much product (hundreds of titles) for one company to handle effectively. Lesser earning game titles will be either sold off or discontinued. So do not worry about TS3 breaking EA's piggy bank. EA has more cash and product than they know what to do with.

And why shouldn't people voice the things they want in TS3? People on this thread are not whining with a sense entitlement but rather voicing their opinions and complaints as consumers who bought a product and found it in some ways lacking. People are able to voice their opinions in a free society (free speech is not exactly a hallmark of communism). And what people want in TS3 is no more than what is already in other EA titles. EA also puts out APB--have you seen the graphics on that game or the characters you can create in it? Whoa! The level of individualization is outstanding and EA didn't spend money developing that game they bought it already developed -- however, they will spend their money marketing it. Kaching, kaching.

The reason Duke Nuke EM Forever failed is because, as the article says, "... he (Broussard) did not appear to have an endgame — an overall plan for what the finished product would look like, and thus a way to recognize when it was nearing completion. “I remember being very impressed by the features. It was incredibly cool technology,” says the developer hired in 2000. “But it wasn’t a game.” It was like a series of tech demos “in a very chaotic state.” Broussard was chasing the technology and threw away a lot of money and time in doing so. You can't continually chase the technology because it is ever evolving--at some point Broussard should have picked a game engine and locked down the game so it could be completed. That game's failure to materialize had nothing to do with the cost of creating a game--but everything to do with indecision.

Um, the game never once cost 50 dollars, and an enormous number of those sales were LOOOOOOOOONG after release, and collection packs.

That said most of you have serious entitlement issues and I'll leave it at that. You do not magically deserve everything you desire and EA is not obligated to give it to you.

Uh, yes the game cost $49.00 (actually $49.99 and the special edition version was a whopping $69.99)

You have serious reading comprehension issues.

I can't really take your comments serious as you don't recognize the difference between "sims 3 discussion forum" and "sims 3 love-in forum".

...I wasn't talking about the sims 3, genius. You dare say I have reading comprehension issues when you cant even tell what post I'm responding to?

He said The Sims has sold over 100,000,000 copies. Yes, it has. But that's 16 games and, what, 8 stuff packs? That's less than half a million per individual piece, if you simply divide it(though the base games of both TS1 and TS2 have sold amazingly).

The idea is that "They sold 100,000,000 games at 50 dollars each" is completely wrong. Not like that justifies having major entitlement issues. The Sims is not the only thing EA does- they dont take all that profit and go have wild parties, they use it to support their company and their other games. They don't have pure profit they're sitting on to torture the already super-tortured crybaby masses.

You didn't specify and as this is a sims 3 discussion board, logically...



I am.



Yes I dare.

He said...? I said that. It appears YOU don't know what post your responding to.



Actually, they took their profits and went on a feeding frenzy throughout the gaming business world. Any current profit loss is due to overspending on their little shopping spree.

Uh... avoiding the long end of the 'EA is evil and wants our shirts' pole while trying not to get too close to the 'everyone should give EA a chance' end... has anyone considered the middle point that - if all this stuff what we complain about 'not being in the game' then the game would be HUGE?

My base TS2 (all Stuff Packs and expansion packs included) folder is some 15 gigs big... can you IMAGINE the sheer COST and number of disks we'd need to INSTALL all that crap? yell at EA all you want about 'being a bunch of lazy asses' but my god... 15 gigs?! That's not even figuring in the sheer MAGNITUDE of size the graphics and configuration files would be for a game like the sims 3...

I'd rather stick to the stuff packs and expansion packs personally... keep out the stuff I don't want... manage my drive size... because, seriously, 15 gigs thats not even COUNTING the size of the downloads folder -shudder-

As for the bit about no memories... I think I prefer the TS3 version of the subject. Because the huge gaps and duplicated memories the TS2 sims always had drove me NUTS >_<

It's not like we want all those features in the game. Obviously, that would take a lot of space and they'd have to charge more if everything had been included in the base game alone.

But the question is...why add collectibles instead of items that our sims can benefit from? Why allow sims to invest in rabbit holes instead of letting them purchase community lots? Why exclude the piano when they've already got the mesh and animations from the Sims 2?

And it's not like they'd have to start from scratch either. They didn't seem to mind using the same TS2 meshes for beds and bookshelves. So why leave out the hot tub and pool table only to give us a football table, carboard cutout cow (from Riverview) and butterflies that don't have any other function?

They add a lot of things that don't matter much and leave out objects that could have improved the gameplay. And when they eventually release EPs and stuff packs, the player's PC is going to need a lot of space then too. Not to mention the store items that they expect hardcore fans to buy.

Also, someone on MATY mentioned that the new stuff pack is around 4 GB. It's just a stuff pack and it's around 4 GB...with objects that have the same function as any other object in the game. A couch from that stuff pack would have the same function as a couch from the base game. Except it would cost more (in simoleons).

The difference here is we're asking for objects that have different features and EA keeps releasing new meshes that don't add much to the game. Easy on the eyes, sure. But unlike the hot tub or pinball machine, high end furniture and fabulous hairstyles do not add new features.

They're great, but they take up space and do not add new features. So if you're saying that EA chose not to include the piano, etc. because they were trying to save space, then why are they releasing a 4 GB stuff pack?

The only item that I'd consider "new" is the vibrating heart bed and the 6-fish aquarium. Why? Because these existed in past sims games but add something new to the Sims 3. But all those clothes and chairs and tables do not.

Personally, I'd rather have a piano with new music and animations (or at least from TS2 converted for TS3) instead of a "new" coffee table that serves the same function as any other coffee table from the base game.

Spoilers: Most items do not add new features. In expansions, too.

That is my point. If EA's reason for not including certain items or features in the base game because it might "take up space" then why are they releasing stuff pack after stuff pack that do not add anything new other than meshes and recolors?

Would you honestly choose to have a new end table (same as the base, different mesh) than have a hot tub (new mesh, animations and interactions) that is unique when compared to other objects in the current game?

If it were up to me, I'd rather the hot tub take up RAM than another end table that can be replaced by one that already exists in the base game.



Hey there. Cheers!

You miss the point.

You act like this is some new terrible strategy. The game is 80% decoration and customization. As a result, a vast, vast majority of things added do absolutely nothing special. Which is not a big deal.

Also, WA was loaded to the brim with items that had new functions, so I really don't think that's fair to complain about in the least.

This wasn't the case in past sims games and yes, I am comparing because it has a huge fan base so it's more than likely that a person playing the Sims 3 has played the previous games as well. Fans have expectations and EA makes money by meeting those expectations.

I never said that expansions didn't include new features. You did:



I was talking about the High End Stuff Pack which according to a MATY source is around 4 GB. If they can release content that would take up that much space and fail to release items that have existed in past sims games then the "oh, players computers won't be able to handle it" excuse would not fly.

First of all, if they cared so much about players being able to run their game and having sufficient disk space, they would choose wisely when it comes to leaving things out.

EA Developer #1: Let's bring back toothbrushing.
EA Developer #2: What about the piano animation?
EA Developer #1: No, that would take too much space.
EA Developer #2: Okay...let's just release an EP with it later since dental hygiene is way more important than a hobby.

Yeah, right. I will admit that toothbrushing would probably take less work but it wasn't even there since the Sims 2. So why bring it back and use the "oh, player needs more RAM" excuse?

Alright.

Let's just get this over with.

Will you shut the hell up about the damn piano?

All you say about the piano is speculation. You have. Absolutely. 100%. No idea. WHy it isnt in the game. You do not. Shut up about it. Stop whining about it every chance you get. We get it. You are crying because the piano isnt in the game.

Also, the stuff pack is only 200mb. Whoever said it was 4GB is a moron, and relying on false information to support already flimsy complaints is not a good habit.

In response to the piano bit, I will quote you and say...fallacial reasoning. How can you prove that I am crying? Do you see tears? If so, I need you to run to the store and get me a box of Kleenex. Thanks.

Now that we got that out of the way, okay, so the stuff pack is 200 MB. That still takes up space, does it not? They could have included (SURPRISE!) a piano and that would have taken less space than several chairs, beds and tables that serve the same function as others of their kind in the base game. The piano doesn't have an alternative (other than the guitar). But if you leave out a dining table from that pack, you have one in the base game to take its place.

We're going to get 200 MB of new meshes that have the same function. Sit, sleep, woohoo, shower, etc.

Do they woohoo differently in the vibrating heart bed? Do they do it upside down? Can they do it on that shiny new coffee table? Can they woohoo in that fabulous loft shower? Can they woohoo against the new windows? Can they woohoo on top of a 5" flat screen plasma TV?

If they are willing to bloat their players' computers with items that do not have new functions, what is the reason for leaving out objects that do?

I'd rather have 4-5 objects that are different from each other than 10 objects that do the same thing.

Examples of "new" objects:

Piano (Play, Listen, Watch, skills, music not the same as the guitar, appropriate for a particular setting or sim with certain traits)

Hot Tub (Group interaction, hygiene boost, make out, woohoo, moodlet, not the same as a pool or bathtub and therefore unique)

Examples of generic "new" meshes:

High End Coffee Table (Same function as any other coffee table)

Leather Couch (Same function as any other couch)

Claeric-to-tactful translation:




... see what I did there? BE NICE OR DON'T POST. I'm tired of having to tell you to dial back the aggression and namecalling.

I already went over the item issue. Most items are not special functional. THe game is extremely customization-oriented, and adding only items that have special functions stifles that. If it was only new function objects the game would be quite empty and bland.

And again, we are not entitled to only new function objects. There is nothing wrong with making objects that are not specially functioning, it's just not something reasonable to take issue with at all. The game is extremely cosmetic.(I also dont think most people would appreciate only getting special objects.)

No, there is no reason why that space couldnt have been used to add the piano. But it wasnt. And you do not know why. There is no sense in continually going on and on about it, we do not know why the piano isnt in the game, but there is just no sense in, every time something comes out, asking why it wasn't the piano.

I was simply using the piano as an example. It was, compared to other missing objects, what I had expected to have been in the base game. I think that's probably what is missing in the Sims 3.

You just said that it is mostly cosmetic and you're right. It looks great, the scenery is breath-taking, but it is lacking in gameplay features because we can recolor the same chair or two different chairs as many times as we like and they'd still have the same function.

The reason I keep mentioning the piano is because it doesn't have a subsitute. An expensive bathtub from the High End pack could be replaced by one from the base game as they are both bathtubs and nothing more.

But the piano is an entirely different object from a chair or table or even a guitar. The guitar is portable but I don't see a reason for the piano to be. The guitar would be appropriate for a particular event and the piano would be appropriate for another. Or they could both be used together, adding a new feature (bands, concerts, etc.)

I don't think it's a matter of going backwards so much as sidewards. There hasn't been that much of an increase in gaming technology (as compared to the jump between The Sims to Sims 2), so if they were to continue down the same path, they would just be remaking the same game over again.

What's the point in doing that? The Sims 2 already exists and people are free to play it as much as they want.

The game was taken down to its core and rebuilt. I'm sure that EA knew they would disappoint some people, but I'm sure they have also gained new players who have never been interested in the Sims before. I'm not a fan of EA (lousy QA, customer service, money-grubbing store) but I certainly understand their decision. After all, the game has been successful financially and has scored very well with critics. No, it's not the be all and end all of PC games, nor is it everything I could have hoped for, but it can't be faulted for not including every last pillar and post in the base game and first EP.

Personally, I like the direction the series is taking. I like the more goal oriented play. It's much more suited to my playing style which is a lot of skilling, collecting, crafting and decorating, and very little in the way of socialization or breeding. I'll trade CAST for a piano and a hot tub any day.

I posted the Duke Nuke Em' Wired article to give some of you guys insight into how much work and money goes into making games and to make you aware of the #1 most common decision every developer has to make. When do we stop upgrading and adding to the game? There's always going to be people who want something more, if the piano was there, someone else would complain about no hot tub (they already do). In the end, the developer simply cannot put EVERYTHING into one game and still charge $50. Add that to the fact that technology moves fast and programming takes time. You try and add everything and you get what happened to 3DR Software...

What dumbfounds me is that some people don't think $49 for all the work that went into Sims 3 is a good value. This is what I can't understand at all. Thousands and thousands of hours went into making that game, you can't even hire a plumber for an hour for $49! Yet people aren't satisfied? I don't know what to call this mentality, so I called it entitlement. In the real world, people have to make money, they have to eat and pay mortgage and rent, and that means selling the game for enough money to cover costs and hopefully make a profit. It is absolutely unreasonable to ask for all the features found in Sims 2 to be programmed into Sims 3 and sold for $49 or even $69. Might as well ask for a BMW for $100. Of course you have a right to ask for features you'd like to see, but the more important question is are you willing to pay for these features? If not, then I am justified in calling you a whiner and crier.

I wouldn't call the $49 the value, it's the price. A company calculates the price from the work/materials etc that went into a product (and probably many other factors).
If I compare the price for TS3 with the price of other games I think it's fair (If you add the years between them, the price for TS3 isn't significant higer than the price I paid for TS1 Base Game.).

For me, the value isn't what went into a product, it's what I'm able to get out of it. Did I get, what I've expected?
From TS3 I've expected to get the same exitement, addiction and years of fun as I got from the other Sims games. In my case, as I posted before, I got disappointed, so for me the value of TS3 is non existent. Others, like you I think, got what they've expected or even something better and they give this game a high value.

Now I hope my definitions of price and value aren't too far away from the official ones. *looks at her dictionary with distrust*

No, you are right. THe value of something is how much it means to YOU.

But the idea is that you cannot say "The game is overpriced" simply because you don't think it is worth it for you personally. The game is not overpriced- it is extremely reasonably priced, as it was thousands and thousands of hours of work. You can say it's not worth it to you, but not that it's overpriced.

Just like how "Value" and "Price" are confusing, that is probably confusing too. Hopefully you get it.

overpriced refers to price, and is claiming it costs too much for what it is
Value refers to what you personally get out of it, and whether or not it is worth the price

Make sense?

It makes sense, thank you.