TS3 was to include weather.
gtachampion:
Quote from: Buzzler on 2009 September 03, 17:00:08
There's only one setback: Most of the customers are sheeples, and they don't mind getting fucked by EAxis over and over again, they might not even notice. Even if they consider a feature uncomplete/unconvincing/borked/whatever they still cling to their hope EAxis would fix/improve it in the future, i.e. with the next EP, despite years of contrary experience.
Unfortunately we all have to be sheeples to a certain degree. Until someone else comes out with a game that rivals The Sims but it's worth playing in base form, we have to stick with what we can get. Fortunately we have geniuses like Pescado to make it a playable game and all the creators who make awesome creations so we can ignore the fugly EA crap. If there is another game out there, please direct me to it! Otherwise we have to take the base game and make something of it.
Therefore I still insist that EA doesn't care because they don't have to (until they get some competition....Pescado??)
Quote from: J. M. Pescado on 2009 September 04, 08:23:24
Me, I take more of an Empire view: I see a company more as my Empire and manage in a way that it is stays intact and under my rule, and seek to crush my enemies.
All hail...King Pescado! I definitely agree. That is the way the company I work for is run.
tjstreak:
I really don't have a problem with a company offerering optional features. What I object to is the wait if those features actually are available.
I guess EA could have offered the program with all expansions already added in as part of the program. Of course there would be a lot of bellyaching when they charged $500.00 for the program. So would you rather pay for the program in bits and pieces choosing what options you really want, or would you rather pay a lot of money upfront and be forced to take options that you really don't want to pay for?
When I buy a car, I can buy the basic model, or I can purchase options like air conditioning, power steering and power brakes, a stereo system and so forth. Of course, I do not expect to pay the same for a car without air conditioning as I would with a car with it.
So a lot of the whining about EA seems to be coming from people who want something for nothing. Yes, I know gamers are fucking cheapass tightwads who don't want to pay for anything, and who whine incessantly if they get it for free.
I don't mind paying for it because I get more fun per dollar than just about anything else I do. But if it is available now, why not let me purchase it now rather than dribbling it out in bits and pieces over the next few years?
Quite frankly, I want EA to make a lot of money off of this. You see, if they make a lot of money, they will keep on making supplements and improvements to the game. If they don't make money, the game dies.
Czezechael:
Quote from: tjstreak on 2009 September 14, 17:22:15
I really don't have a problem with a company offering optional features. What I object to is the wait if those features actually are available.
I don't know as that's the debate here; as far as I can tell it more has to do with EA withholding a procedural obvious-to-include feature to charge money for later, rather than the morality of them doing this. I think it's crap that they've axed pianos, hot tubs, and weather - of which the first two were just kinda implied by previous games, and the last one would have just been nice to not have to pay ~$30 for, especially since they've already got the base work down for it.
It's not immoral or horrible or anything, it's just stupid and disappointing and likely points to some kind of pathetic flaw in the human race, that we're content to keep waiting and paying for things that have already been done, even though a nicer alternative would be including the old stuff from the start and then, I don't know, adding legitimately new things to the series.
Plus, games don't necessarily die when official support for them falls out; a lot of the games I've played tend to have some overtly fanatical fans lying about in some country making half-bad/half-good unofficial patches and expansions for them. If a game does die, well, either it was simply too complicated for fans to sufficiently support, or it obviously wasn't worth keeping alive if nobody wanted to bother.
chann:
Quote from: tjstreak on 2009 September 14, 17:22:15
Quite frankly, I want EA to make a lot of money off of this. You see, if they make a lot of money, they will keep on making supplements and improvements to the game. If they don't make money, the game dies.
EA not making money from making a good or improved game. They're profiting from the massive amount of money they shovel into marketing, which apparently "excuses" them from making any more than a functioning game that will visually appeal to their audience and impress game reviewers. Quantity over quality.
Feature hiding is only one symptom of the issue. I think most people are realistic enough to know they'll never get everything the first time around.
StormchaserOne:
You people have forgotten SIMs 2 base game so quickly. Majority of the EPs were already in base game it is the expansions which activate them. With Wanton which JB found would be used for a Nightlife Expansion. Weather Season Expansion. Adventure Bon Voyage. Found Pets for a Pet Expansion. SIMs makes expansions because they do not want a base game running $150. Clothes and Objects only Packs are last minute additions which are not planned out. And, there maybe a SIMs 4 around the corner if Expansions are a failure.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page