Welcome to
Mod The Sims
Online: 3943
News:
Have an account? Sign in:
pass:
If you don't have an account, why not sign up now? It's free!
Other sites: SimsWiki
Reply  Replies: 262 (Who?), Viewed: 25407 times.
Search this Thread
Old 14th Sep 2018, 9:53 PM Defaultwhy is ea so bad tho? #1
Hunterr
Original Poster

Test Subject

Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 5


im not trying to defend anyone but why?


i havent been paying attention to that stuff
Old 14th Sep 2018, 10:06 PM #2
Squidconqueror
Inventor

Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 903


Once upon a time they used to be a great video game company that made good video games like Need For Speed,Medal Of Honor,Battlefield from the PS2 era and more but greed had corrupted them.
Old 14th Sep 2018, 10:36 PM #3
Inge Jones
One horse disagreer of the Apocalypse

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,346
Thanks: 9182 in 18 Posts
20 Achievements


Companies at the top of the market generally have a lot of naysayers. I am sure they're really no better or worse than any other successful game company.

"You can do refraction by raymarching through the depth buffer" (c. Reddeyfish 2017)
Old 14th Sep 2018, 11:56 PM #4
Keysmash
Test Subject

Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 56


They have a habit of acquiring smaller studios with great IPs, changing what made said IPs great in order to fit EAs business model, then when the games underperform because fans don't like the new direction they murder the smaller studio and abandon the IP.
Old 15th Sep 2018, 3:45 AM #5
Ive
Scholar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,569
Thanks: 656 in 3 Posts
5 Achievements


Quote:
Originally Posted by Keysmash
They have a habit of acquiring smaller studios with great IPs, changing what made said IPs great in order to fit EAs business model, then when the games underperform because fans don't like the new direction they murder the smaller studio and abandon the IP.


Like Bullfrog.
Luckily Two Point Hospital was just released, created by the makers of Theme Hospital and it's done great.

So this could lead to two things:
Other companies see that simulation is a needed genre and we will see even more.
EA realises that making a good game and doing it well will earn them more money than cutting down on content.

TS3 aliens? Finally! Now give us OFB and proper apartments, damnit! - EA, you are breaking my heart. - I give up.
Old 15th Sep 2018, 3:50 AM #6
lil bag2
Mad Poster

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,585
Thanks: 1 in 1 Posts
2 Achievements


Quote:
Originally Posted by Keysmash
They have a habit of acquiring smaller studios with great IPs, changing what made said IPs great in order to fit EAs business model, then when the games underperform because fans don't like the new direction they murder the smaller studio and abandon the IP.


Yeah, this is pretty much the nice version of what the issue with EA is. If you got time, I'd also highly suggest checking out YongYea videos. That gives you a pretty good idea of what this company is all about. They're pretty much the embodiment of those stereotypical greedy, immoral corporations you see on TV. If you still need more of an explanation, this comedic video also sums it up pretty well.

People are not exaggerating when they say this company goes beyond the typical corporate bullshit. They wrote the book on it.

The Receptacle still lives!
Old 15th Sep 2018, 4:46 AM #7
HarVee
Alchemist

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,807
Thanks: 216 in 4 Posts
5 Achievements


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidconqueror
Once upon a time they used to be a great video game company that made good video games like Need For Speed,Medal Of Honor,Battlefield from the PS2 era and more but greed had corrupted them.


Once upon a time 2005 and the begining years of the 7th gen happened.

...

Or as I like to informally dub it "The end of the Golden Age [of video gaming]."

I don't wanna come between
I don't wanna ruin your love
But Derrick is a strange machine
Old 15th Sep 2018, 10:07 AM #8
Motorcitydude
Forum Resident

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 672


Because they can. They're bad and there's no consequence for it.
Old 15th Sep 2018, 11:20 AM #9
HarVee
Alchemist

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,807
Thanks: 216 in 4 Posts
5 Achievements


Quote:
Originally Posted by Motorcitydude
Because they can. They're bad and there's no consequence for it.


Taxes? Maybe. Though I guess that's just a consequence of running a legally recognized business.

I don't wanna come between
I don't wanna ruin your love
But Derrick is a strange machine
Old 16th Sep 2018, 2:06 AM #11
Gargoyle Cat
Mad Poster

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,691
1 Achievements

Old 16th Sep 2018, 3:25 AM #12
mithrak_nl
Inventor

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,001


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsearchably
- They've been known to acquire small studios (usually by force) and run them into the ground.

- Their games are monetized in virtually every way imaginable and often overpriced.

- They openly defy the government even when told to their faces that what they're doing is illegal.

- They're leftist fanatics, the only thing they care more about than money is being politically correct.

- Their idea of PR consists of either donating a million dollars to bullshit "anti-bullying" charities, milking tragedies like the Jacksonville shooting or calling their customers "uneducated idiots" because they actually know their history.

Basically they are not very nice.


It always boils down to business strategy to earn as much as possible. Not politics. A public company like EA choses a path of least resistance to max sales. They owe that to their shareholders. It is all about cost and risk assessment. If they are politically correct in an outspoken way, it is just about public perception and they think they can gain something with that. A public company is not a person or some cult.
Old 16th Sep 2018, 4:38 AM #13
simmer22
Mad Poster

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,353
Thanks: 3 in 1 Posts
3 Achievements


I don't have a lot of EA games beside Sims-related ones and a few PS2 games. What I have noticed is what everyone is saying - the quality has gone down ever since EA stuck their nose into other people's (gaming) business.

The PS4 games were entertaining (at the time - I was probably a bit easier to please back in my teens), but (as it goes with every EA game now) repetitive and sometimes a little too easy, and rarely felt like the "challenge everything" splash screen. I did get good at Quidditch, though... I also had one of the earlier motion activated games with a camera, and after playing it a few times it got annoying (wiping away on the screen, making hamburgers, or other weird tasks) mostly because the camera barely worked. I ended up using the PS2 mostly as a DVD player, to be honest.

TS1 was alright, but I think I got into it a bit late, because TS2 was already around the corner by the time I bought that one collection disc (Double deluxe or some such). It even ran on our dinosaur of a computer (the one we had before I got my first laptop, back in the days when families owned one computer per household - we had two, but that other old fossile wasn't much to brag about even if I played my first Sims game on it, SimTown, which I think is possibly 2nd place in "amount of time spent playing a Sims game" after TS2). Back then you didn't really have to worry about graphics, though - as long as the computer had the right Windows version it was mostly fine.

TS2 is still my favorite game. Probably because the original Sims team started the work. After a while it did become apparent that someone else wanted to grab some more money with all the SPs and EPs, though - but at least the game got a fairly good start, they had some more or less original ideas, and the graphics had a huge upgrade from TS1. I also give them bonus points for adding in Bodyshop and Homecrafter, making sure this game was a sandbox game you could actually make your own content in.

TS3... I did sort of like it when it came out, and I have the EPs, but somewhere along the way the game got a bit too heavy for my laptop, and because the last EP screwed everything up I haven't played it for a while. Nowadays I mostly use it for 3t2 conversions, to be honest. The Store, with overhyped content that seemed amazing in videos but had maybe 1-2 functions when really playing with it (on a game that lagged so bad and had so many bugs I couldn't play a family more than 5-6 saves before it got corrupted), made me seriously doubt EA's handling of Sims as a franchise.

TS4 is just a laughable concept in itself, and it's like they've gone back in time - and not in a good way. I did get the basegame and first EP to see what the fuss was about (mostly due to the hospital content of GTW, but eh), and while I've occasionally had the urge to get more EPs it usually passes after seeing videos of extatic simmers playing the obviously lacking but overhyped extensions with little and not particularly well thought-out content in a style I'm not all that hyped about. Sure, there's been some nice ideas in the game, but the amount of ridicolous handling of the game and extra packs the team is puking out much too often for there to be any quality behind it pretty much confirms EA is just in it for the money.

After that I've not been interested in the other Sims games. I was never a big fan of Sims City, and the web games and other spinoffs mostly annoy me (they can make playable babies with clothes and whatnots in the Freeplay version, but not in the basegame. That's just wrong. Also, the "pay or wait endlessly" for things to happen is a sure way to make me not want to play it - i've grown very tired of those games over the years because I can't bother to pay to make things happen in those games because it's just money out of the window).

I just hope that if TS5 is ever in the planning, the teams behind the games get their butt content together and make a great game, not just another mostly empty cash grab.
Last edited by simmer22 : 16th Sep 2018 at 4:48 AM.
Old 16th Sep 2018, 9:07 AM #14
mixa97sr
Theorist

Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,177
Thanks: 657 in 9 Posts
5 Achievements


Pay to make thing happen faster in the game. Pay to progress in the game. Yeah, mobile gaming... I don't understand the point of it. It's such an obvious company's scheme to just keep raking in money...

And in FreePlay I actually understand it a bit because you get new content with completition of quests, a whole chunks of the game. But it's just OVERPRICED. I'd rather pay the game once than in pieces. And putting in months (years even!) of work to unlock the whole game is not an option any normal person would do. how do you even enjoy a game like that then.

And don't get me started on newer gen FTP mobile games... you don't PAY to get content. You pay for the thing to finish faster and get ingame money. With which you can buy any new cosmetic the game offers. And that's about it... It's like worse than doing a JOB. You wait, then you do it again, keep doing that repetitive thing over and over in order to buy nothing of substance and then again. Or pay money for one time, but then keep doing it again... Like, who in their right mind would call that a GAME!? And I just can't stand a people who call that a FUN GAME.

Problem with EA is not only that they are shifting to mobile gaming... They are shifting the mobile gaming practice to their PC platform games. And it is disgusting. They are the most influential gaming company, setting trends in the gaming industry and seeing them fully go out of their way to change the face of the gaming industry to suit them not even caring about the gamers but 'consumers' is disgusting and sad.
Old 16th Sep 2018, 10:31 AM #15
Mondenkind
Forum Resident

Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 722


My personal beef with them is that they keep such a tight budget for their development teams, even for AAA titles, that love to detail just goes out of the window because they think we don't care for that anyway or we can buy that with additional content.
Look at a lot of japanese games, they have such a rich atmosphere and they aren't even all made with the whole world as customers in mind.

Basically, they go for lowest cost for highest profit and slowly change the whole industry in that direction . It's like B movies were suddenly advertised as cinema blockbusters.
Old 16th Sep 2018, 10:47 AM #16
Gargoyle Cat
Mad Poster

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,691
1 Achievements


Quote:
Originally Posted by mithrak_nl
It always boils down to business strategy to earn as much as possible. Not politics. A public company like EA choses a path of least resistance to max sales. They owe that to their shareholders. It is all about cost and risk assessment. If they are politically correct in an outspoken way, it is just about public perception and they think they can gain something with that. A public company is not a person or some cult.


EA is very much about politics just as Wall Street is all about politics. Even gurus will occasionally spout political BS. CA prides itself in being a tree-hugging state, but yet, they burn down all the trees because they don't take care of environmental business such as doing controlled burns so they don't have wild fires and millions of dollars in property don't burn down. And before anybody believes that EA is out for justice for anything, ask them to return the cash to Treasury they now get for life via the big ol' tax cut they got this year. A single mother of 2 that makes 50K a year now pays in at a higher tax bracket than EA does. I have yet to hear EA complain about such matters and or how they are going to fight for justice for the little people.

Choosing the path of the least resistance? EA certainly does that. That is why more than half of EA's profits come from micro-transactions. They can no longer rely on talent and prefer to never leave a person's wallet. It doesn't matter if a person is 10-years old or 100, just keep dumping cash into their pockets and they'll claim to love said people forever....or until they no longer give them money that is.

Andrew Wilson lives in the world of cult-like thinking. He surrounds himself with henchmen that go around telling the world that people that play video games don't know what they want, they need to be told what they want.
Old 16th Sep 2018, 7:08 PM #17
simmer22
Mad Poster

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,353
Thanks: 3 in 1 Posts
3 Achievements


Paying for progressing in the game is just wrong, and can even be damaging. I did play Sims Social for a while, but the whole thing got ridicolous when I couldn't progress because those who sometimes played the game quit, and you needed likes/clicks or money to progress, and the timed events got less and less time - and since I wasn't willing to throw away money to progress in these games, I stopped playing. The other games I played were "pay if you want" such as Candy Crush and Farmville and the like, but I realized back when my laptop started having problems that I'd become too addicted to those games, so I (thanks to my faltering laptop) quit the rest of them. These games are addicting, and if you do step over the line and start paying to progress faster, you're basically screwed, because that's money spent you'll not get the chance to enjoy. It's basically like buying an ice cream and throwing it in a trash bin without even tasting it. A lot of these games are geared towards children, which is even worse. No wonder there's a lot of young people who can't handle their money nowadays. I haven't tried the newer games, but they do strike me as a little in the same gate as the Sims Social game. Having to wait real-time for things to happen in one of the games strikes me as the "wear them out till they pay" strategy.

EPs/SPs/GPs and Store content is somewhat different, because you get that content to play with as much as you want. It's not about progressing in the game, but adding in new content, and you're free to choose whether or not to buy them. Still, these packs should be worth the money you buy. For TS4 they've mostly been overpriced and varying degrees of disappointing, and you can't really get them for a good price on a sale unless you're really vigilant on the sites that sell them, because they're digital downloads (I actually have CD versions of mine, but the install didn't go throguh so I had to fix the game via oigin, which is really suspicious - maybe some screwed-up copy protection again, though the issues started with the last TS3 EP). Another thing I liked with TS2 an TS3 is that if you waited a bit you could get them a bit cheaper at a sale (some of those games were also a bit overpriced, to be honest).
Last edited by simmer22 : 17th Sep 2018 at 12:52 AM.
Old 16th Sep 2018, 7:14 PM #18
mithrak_nl
Inventor

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,001


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle Cat
EA is very much about politics just as Wall Street is all about politics. Even gurus will occasionally spout political BS. CA prides itself in being a tree-hugging state, but yet, they burn down all the trees because they don't take care of environmental business such as doing controlled burns so they don't have wild fires and millions of dollars in property don't burn down. And before anybody believes that EA is out for justice for anything, ask them to return the cash to Treasury they now get for life via the big ol' tax cut they got this year. A single mother of 2 that makes 50K a year now pays in at a higher tax bracket than EA does. I have yet to hear EA complain about such matters and or how they are going to fight for justice for the little people.

Choosing the path of the least resistance? EA certainly does that. That is why more than half of EA's profits come from micro-transactions. They can no longer rely on talent and prefer to never leave a person's wallet. It doesn't matter if a person is 10-years old or 100, just keep dumping cash into their pockets and they'll claim to love said people forever....or until they no longer give them money that is.

Andrew Wilson lives in the world of cult-like thinking. He surrounds himself with henchmen that go around telling the world that people that play video games don't know what they want, they need to be told what they want.


I was just talking about the political correctness when it comes to game features (which I was responding to) from EA. That is about public perception as business strategy, not political ideology. Every decision, also anything they do in terms of political correctness or supporting charities, is about public perception. This boils down to business strategy. It is about tickling their shareholders and potential customers for more sales. When they support a political campaign, it is not about political ideals, it is about securing support from a politician. Privately a CEO could have very different political ideas.

Never get fooled by PR from a public company. It is always about the money. This is just how it works.

Disclaimer: I am specifically talking about the big publishers like EA that are public companies. Not small private companies like indie developers etc. The latter can afford to be about whatever ideal they personally find important. And I don't know what Wall Street has to do with this. It is not even a company, just a location.
Old 16th Sep 2018, 9:50 PM #19
Gargoyle Cat
Mad Poster

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,691
1 Achievements


Quote:
Originally Posted by mithrak_nl
I was just talking about the political correctness when it comes to game features (which I was responding to) from EA. That is about public perception as business strategy, not political ideology. Every decision, also anything they do in terms of political correctness or supporting charities, is about public perception. This boils down to business strategy. It is about tickling their shareholders and potential customers for more sales. When they support a political campaign, it is not about political ideals, it is about securing support from a politician. Privately a CEO could have very different political ideas.

Never get fooled by PR from a public company. It is always about the money. This is just how it works.

Disclaimer: I am specifically talking about the big publishers like EA that are public companies. Not small private companies like indie developers etc. The latter can afford to be about whatever ideal they personally find important. And I don't know what Wall Street has to do with this. It is not even a company, just a location.


Having gay sims sucking face in a trailer regardless of how anybody feels about it is a political agenda. Not only is it a agenda in game, but they also make a issue of such things on their twitter feed.

Quote:
Earlier this weekend, our friends and partners came together to celebrate #MTLPride. We’re proud of our LGBT+ employees and all those brave enough to support them in the continued fight for justice.


https://twitter.com/EA/status/1031404417386332160

EA also has a agenda when it comes to Wall Street, or that thing you insist is just a place that has no bearing on what EA does.

EA, like all the other big gaming companies, have lobbyists who make a career of being a fly in Washington D.C. It is there that they spend all of their time rubbing elbows with members in Congress in hopes to get something in return for their contributions. The only members of Congress that will get those contributions are those that align themselves with EA's political ideology which in this case is Democrats.

Congress writes the laws in the US and also contributes to how the stock market functions. Sitting on top of Congress in the case of Wall Street is the Federal Reserve. Investors and publicly traded companies are not regulated from thin air, they are regulated from D.C and a really big building in New York. If that building of no importance according to you disappeared tomorrow, the US economy along with EA's stocks would go with it. All of the people that make the stock market churn and occasionally throw up also have agendas, just like Congress and the Federal Reserve.

If EA were as innocent as you'd like me or anybody else to believe, they would be a private company. There would be no need to rub elbows with the corrupt souls that run the Banana Republic and they'd also leave their political agendas out of game. It is your perception that EA is innocent, not fact.
Old 17th Sep 2018, 12:16 AM #20
mithrak_nl
Inventor

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,001


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle Cat
Having gay sims sucking face in a trailer regardless of how anybody feels about it is a political agenda. Not only is it a agenda in game, but they also make a issue of such things on their twitter feed.



https://twitter.com/EA/status/1031404417386332160

EA also has a agenda when it comes to Wall Street, or that thing you insist is just a place that has no bearing on what EA does.

EA, like all the other big gaming companies, have lobbyists who make a career of being a fly in Washington D.C. It is there that they spend all of their time rubbing elbows with members in Congress in hopes to get something in return for their contributions. The only members of Congress that will get those contributions are those that align themselves with EA's political ideology which in this case is Democrats.

Congress writes the laws in the US and also contributes to how the stock market functions. Sitting on top of Congress in the case of Wall Street is the Federal Reserve. Investors and publicly traded companies are not regulated from thin air, they are regulated from D.C and a really big building in New York. If that building of no importance according to you disappeared tomorrow, the US economy along with EA's stocks would go with it. All of the people that make the stock market churn and occasionally throw up also have agendas, just like Congress and the Federal Reserve.

If EA were as innocent as you'd like me or anybody else to believe, they would be a private company. There would be no need to rub elbows with the corrupt souls that run the Banana Republic and they'd also leave their political agendas out of game. It is your perception that EA is innocent, not fact.


1. Your sensivities have nothing to do with whether EA is playing politics with having gays in a trailer. For me it does not matter if it is a heterosexual or homosexual couple that kiss in a trailer. In my eyes it is about public perception and coming across as a progressive company, which tends to score well with the younger demographic. Again this is purely about PR , so sales. And not just selling to gay people or trying to convince you of something (well, beyond buying their product that is).
2. Wall Street is an area inside a financial district with plenty of companies. They are all competitors of each other. There is no global political agenda here beyond lobbying to increase their financial success (aka it always boils down to money). If their goals align, they could ofc collaborate in this effort, but in the end it is all about profits. They rub with whatever politician they can to get what they want. If they don't contact certain politicians it is because of the politician's stance, not the companies. I don't understand why you turn this around.
3. You are basically saying the same as me. Lobbying to get support from politicians for your company's goals. Which is making profit, not sending a political message. Seriously, anyone thinking EA is about sending a politicial message, is naieve.
4. I never said Wall Street has no bearing on EA. I was talking about how EA is a public company, so it should be obvious that it is about shareholders and stock value. I am getting the impression that by saying Wall Street, you actually mean the NY Stock Exchange (or generally the stock market).

I realise now that you simply did not understand my posts. A public company is solely about making money. Not to make the world a better place, or send a political message. No, their goal is to make their shareholders earn a buck (through stock market, which you call Wall Street I suspect). This goal is not morally right or wrong. But their means to reach that goal can be. Something I wrote plenty about in the case of EA. So your 'If EA were as innocent as you'd like me or anybody else to believe' makes no sense when talking about me.

Also, public or private has nothing to do with being 'innocent'. The difference is that a private owner is not dependant on shareholders and a (possibly) a board of directors and could if they want to send a political message with their activities. This was my whole point. For a public company this is much more difficult because of the shareholders. A CEO of a public company is not an absolute ruler like a private owner could be (again not saying they always are).

I don't get it why you insists to talk about EA as if it has a conscience or some hivemind.
Old 17th Sep 2018, 1:41 AM #21
Gargoyle Cat
Mad Poster

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,691
1 Achievements


Quote:
Originally Posted by mithrak_nl
In my eyes it is about public perception and coming across as a progressive company, which tends to score well with the younger demographic.


Oh, okay. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while not gaming companies were also deemed 'progressive' when they spent years handing out mortgages to people that couldn't afford them. It was this way of thinking that caused the crash of stock market crash 2008, but if that is all it takes for you to be impressed, good luck with that. You could have just spelled this out in the first place and we could have avoided this whole conversation. You fully agree with what EA does and anybody see things otherwise is wrong and or doesn't understand. Right.... no.

In the meantime, the horse and pony show run by Andrew Wilson and his ilk will continue. The more investigations the merrier. How many other companies do you know of go out of their way to piss off other countries? Is this deemed progressive too, because I'm not feeling those angelic perception vibes.
Old 17th Sep 2018, 6:53 AM #22
DeservedCriticism
Field Researcher

Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 264


Quote:
Originally Posted by mithrak_nl
1. Your sensivities have nothing to do with whether EA is playing politics with having gays in a trailer. For me it does not matter if it is a heterosexual or homosexual couple that kiss in a trailer. In my eyes it is about public perception and coming across as a progressive company, which tends to score well with the younger demographic. Again this is purely about PR , so sales. And not just selling to gay people or trying to convince you of something (well, beyond buying their product that is).


I really, REALLY hope people keep this in mind in the context of Grant's semi-recent tweets about disabled Sims. That to me just stinks of a manipulative sales tactic.

Before Grant's tweet, EA/Maxis' approach to the disabled community has always been disgustingly bad. Every so often a disabled person turns up on the forums, posts requesting inclusion and a wheelchair or what-have-you, the Sims community itself has an admittedly disgusting outlook on the disabled and reacts negatively, and then eventually the mod team shows up and the thread or thread creator mysteriously disappear. Reasons they've given in the past for closing such threads have been that they don't allow "petitions" or "political threads," but with Sims 4 they've said that in the same breath that they've had people celebrating transgender patches or gay premade sims.

Suddenly Grant tweets that and now discussion of the topic seems to be allowed. I have a really tough time believing that EA/Maxis did a full 180 on this though. I mean look, I'm disabled, but yeah, there's serious development issues involved with trying to include disabled sims. That's a nightmare that demands all kinds of custom animation work and unique AI. I understand fully why they'd want to skip such a feature and in most cases I'd encourage them to so they can focus resources elsewhere. For me it's never been about getting the feature included, but rather about EA/Maxis providing a straightforward answer and doing so with respect. (aka no threads or users involved with the topic mysteriously disappearing when most aren't looking; that's been their policy since Sims 3) It's always felt like EA/Maxis treats the disabled community like shit because that's also what a good portion of their fanbase does; no need to show respect to a group their paying customers have no interest in, right?

Now it seems better with discussion being allowed, but the thing is the actual difficulties of developing such a feature haven't changed. I think Grant is full of shit and they have zero intent to actually include disabled Sims in Sims 4. I think the very purpose of that tweet was simply to score political points with the same old crowd while teasing interested parties enough to keep them playing. I personally find it pretty disgusting to manipulate customers via the use of minority groups, so I really hope that if we see Sims 4 conclude without any disabled Sims, people hold them accountable for it. That'd be a clear example of just trying to manipulate people's political alliances to push sales.
Old 17th Sep 2018, 12:19 PM #23
Gargoyle Cat
Mad Poster

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,691
1 Achievements


If EA left the politics out of the game, there would be no need to have said discussions in the first place. People seem to forget why sims speak simlish. Simlish was created to be a fictional, universal language that didn't have any roots or ties to any specific country. The game itself was never meant to have a political agenda. Those days are gone though.

What gets me about this whole so-called politically correct ordeal is they do things then turn around and contradict themselves. They removed the insane trait ( while leaving the insane icon) because it was deemed offensive, but adult sims can push and shove kids. What kind of messaging is that? Last time I checked, it has never been politically correct for adults to walk around pushing kids around. This of course is just one example.

There are no burglars in the game because it is said that they will act like a trigger, but vampires can just walk into a sims house at any time. So I guess their point is as long as they portray a bad person as a fictional character even though they claim to be against a specific behavior, that behavior will get a pass as long as it is portrayed in a way that they deem acceptable.

This "Do as I say, not as I do" bullshit starts to stink after awhile. I personally would never want to be used a form of a sales pitch, but that's just me. For a game that has a less than stellar history to begin with, I don't see this trend going well...

EDIT:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeservedCriticism

Now it seems better with discussion being allowed, but the thing is the actual difficulties of developing such a feature haven't changed. I think Grant is full of shit and they have zero intent to actually include disabled Sims in Sims 4. I think the very purpose of that tweet was simply to score political points with the same old crowd while teasing interested parties enough to keep them playing. I personally find it pretty disgusting to manipulate customers via the use of minority groups, so I really hope that if we see Sims 4 conclude without any disabled Sims, people hold them accountable for it. That'd be a clear example of just trying to manipulate people's political alliances to push sales.


And the minute fan fictions or and or YouTube videos start popping up with these sims being 'abused' in some way, there will be endless screaming. The same thing will happen should they decide to add sims with mental disorders. Be careful what you wish for. Being represented as it were may not prove to be a nice one would like to think.
Last edited by Gargoyle Cat : 17th Sep 2018 at 2:14 PM. Reason: After thought...
Old 17th Sep 2018, 2:51 PM #24
SneakyWingPhoenix
Mad Poster

Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 3,392


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle Cat

Well damn. Finland and Belgium gets a big whooping respect from me.

P.S. Sorry for my bad english.
Old 17th Sep 2018, 3:40 PM #25
Gargoyle Cat
Mad Poster

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,691
1 Achievements


Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyWingPhoenix
Well damn. Finland and Belgium gets a big whooping respect from me.


The longer this stuff in the headlines, the more of a ripple effect we're going to see. Every country has a right to protect their citizens from predatory practices whether it be the gaming industry or otherwise. People at EA think they're above the law. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Reply


Section jump:


Powered by MariaDB Some icons by http://dryicons.com.