And if your computer cannot run a 64 bit application, you can still play the Sims 3, or the Sims 2. But there is no need to punish everyone else because you do not want to purchase a new computer.

Look at it like this: a 32 bit game is old technology. And it is getting older and more obsolete every day.

By the same token, we will probably have to live with the Sims 4 for another 4 to 5 years after it is released. That is, we are not likely to see the Sims 5 until 2019 or 2020. And who wants to be playing a 32 bit game in 2020?

By the time 2020 rolls around, your current computer is going to be in some scrap heap somewhere, and the computer you own in 2020 will be capable of doing much more than your computer can do today. And you will be pulling your hair out because the Sims 4 is slow and clunky.

To make a groundbreaking change, the Sims 4 not only will have to take advantage of the technology available today, but will need to anticipate the technology of 2020.

If you want to stick with a 32 bit game, you might as well stick with the Sims 3.

This is 2013, its a new year. New Hardware. Nobody is going to be punished just because you refuse to upgrade.
So your saying we have to stick with el cheepo 2005 graphics just because you cant upgrade?




Ill tell you mine:

Its too much of a massive change from Win7. Removing the Start Orb is inconvenient. For finding your files you have to go all out of your way to access the explorer.

Next, many games refuse to work. The Sims 2 and the sims stories games as some of many.

Its also terribly buggy and has major issues on my PC, which runs all other OS systems just fine. I hate how microsoft forced a TABLET OS on a DESKTOP.

I said it before and will say it again and many times over: Windows 8 should of been called Windows Tablet Edition.

Jesus, Mary & Joseph. Why must you constantly act like everyone has $800+ dollars to put into a new computer just to play one lousy video game?

Most people have other problems to worry about more than if they can play the latest Sims game.

No, but people know the game is a year away - time enough to at least start saving money. And even if they ultimately can't afford it at relase-date, they can save another year and then buy it. But everyone here knew that a TS4 game was probably going to come out, and based on the previous games, had a decent idea what year, so could have started saving already if they'd liked (which I don't really agree with, because the game might have been always online and people not wanted it). But that $800 machine doesn't allow you to play just one game - it allows you to play many games you would not have otherwise been able to play. And if someone can't afford it, even in two or three years, that's unfortunate - but that doesn't mean that everyone that can afford it should have to deal with a game that is significantly subpar compared to other (non-EA) games coming out at the same time. Playing computer games generally means upgrading every few years - that's just the nature of the beast. When computers stagnate, so will minimum requirements.

Really, the best of both worlds is to have like 7 levels of performance, with it functioning on lower-end systems on one end but really taking advance of the power of higher-end systems on the other. Including in graphics. But I don't play enough games to know how doable/realistic that idea is. Even so, you have to aim somewhere for a goal - not minimum specs, but recommended specs - and I don't want that to be too low.

That is my problem with Windows 8 but I think it was created with tablets in mind. I hate having to get apps to get an ease accessing programs and to do simple tasks on your computer. Really I have taking to pinning everything to the toolbar, something I had to get use to because it looks so "junk" filled.

About the cost of upgrading, whether or not people should be upgrading, etc....I don't think anyone was lobbying for the game not taking advantage of new technology or wanting the game to run on a comp from 2005 or whatev'. This thread is about when and how you should upgrade. My computer is fairly new and reasonably powerful and I will probably be able to upgrade with no problems if I need to.

But people having responsibilities to their children, families, themselves, etc...doesn't make them cheap or tightfisted it just makes them poor or working class like most people these days. If EA wants to make a game that plenty of people can use that's great because people deserve to have fun and enjoy their lives. If you have the money to upgrade and buy all the latest most modern tech then perhaps you should do that and buy better, fancier more exlusive games and leave us limited, working folk over here by ourselves. Furthermore its not the broke people's fault if EA decides to make a game that they can access, its EA's fault so direct your outrage at them.

Now since we don't actually know what tech the game will even be on at this point arguing and the creation of further ill-will on the subject is unnecessary. And while I will continue to talk about how we might go about upgrading our computers to play I won't talk about the hypothetical people that are not able to upgrade their computers any further.

The good news is even Microsoft has seen the error in their ways, and it appears (no promises, but the rumor mill is pretty good on this one) that with Win 8.1 (Win 8 Rebooted?) the chicklets will be gone from the desktop OS, there will be a Start button, and if you use a mouse and keyboard like lowly humans and not a Minority Report display, you will finally have something that works like Win 7 did. About freaking time, too.

You apparently haven't spent any time with Windows 8 at all. There's a tile on the Metro UI by default that takes you to the normal desktop with normal shortcuts and icons. The only time I see the Metro desktop with the tiles is when I boot the OS. After booting I click the desktop tile taking me to the desktop and that's where I'm at generally for the rest of the time I'm logged on. There's also a folder icon on the toolbar that takes you straight to windows explorer. Even when I'm playing with the Metro UI, the apps save a step. For example when I boot my PC and get to the Metro UI,I don't have to open my browser and then go to the Gmail website to access my mail. I just click the tile for the Gmail app and I'm right there. Same with Facebook, Netflix, etc. I'm not trying to convince anyone about Windows 8, but people who want to complain about it should actually at least play with a little beyond what you see from 60 seconds on a tv commercial

If TS3 had been 64-bit, there would have been FAR fewer crashes as the Error Code 12s during saving and I'm sure a good deal of the CTDs are directly related to running out of memory since 32-bit apps are limited to 2GB (or 3GB with some tricks). I wish they had come out with a 64-bit version of TS3 because it would have greatly improved stability and reliability. I got to where I could predict when it was going to crash simply by monitoring its RAM usage.

Most computers under 10yrs old should be able to handle 64-bit, but for some reason or another, a lot of people are still running a 32-bit OS. Chances are, just to go to 64-bit would require just upgrading the OS and not new hardware.

Looks like SimCity requires DuoCore or AMD 64-bit. So maybe the same will be true with Sims 4.

There is one huge problem with making games for 10 year old computers....The game will have the same issues that Sims 3 had. It will have to be a simpler game and we will all complain. Graham said that they reached the limits with the Sims 3 engine. To surpass those limits they need to make either a leaner, simpler gamer OR a game that will require a little bit more power.

I agree with GnatGoSplat. Upgrading the OS is probably all that will be required. For those with really old computers who can barely run Sims 3, they may need to upgrade. And remember, most graphics intensive games are not recommended for laptops. I certainly hope EA doesn't concentrate on making a game just for laptops! If they do, I hope it is a side project. Sorry, but while there are a lot of people who can't afford a new computer, there are a lot of us who don't want to spend money on a game that doesn't run well on our desktops.

By the way, there are some great alternative places to buy used computers. CowBoom is great. I bought a cell phone there and it was fabulous but I had to return it because of a design flaw, nothing to do with the fact that it was used. CowBoom was very nice to work with so I would highly recommend them. There are other places like them out there as well. Also, you could learn to build or upgrade or build your own system...not as hard as it seems and you can save a lot of money. Now...if you insist on a laptop, I recommend one with a very good graphics card..and as we are finding out for my son (college student in multimedia/digital arts), those can cost a lot of money new.

My husband and I haven't a lot of money. We have three kids at home, one in college, an adult daughter who is newly single with two kids and we are helping her as well as my elderly mother PLUS we are now paying for a brand new roof! We upgrade our own computers and we self-taught ourselves how to do this as well as troubleshoot...since so many toss out computers that can be easily upgraded or fixed. Most folks have friends who can help them learn or actually do the work for you.

As indie game developers, we have had to tell folks that their 10 year old computer might not work for our engine. That is tough, especially when a few of those folks are our team members! Unfortunately, gaming is one of those hobbies that will always require the influx of money.

Hopefully, EA can find a middle ground. Most games are built to take advantage of new and old hardware as well as the last few OS iterations.

Just to add to that, but those processors would be considered entry level on any machine bought in the last 3 years or so, making that a pretty low requirement. Rian is correct; you cannot make a game run well unless you either build a leaner, simpler game, or go with more processing power. Computer graphics chips have also advanced quite a ways since TS3 was developed. Even the mobile video chipsets these days are quite powerful. It is not unreasonable to hope that EA will take advantage of what is reasonably contemporary in their design plan. Memory is also plentiful. I'm not sure you could find an entry level machine with less than 4 GB of memory these days, if not more.

While I do feel for those folks who would be financially strapped to replace a 10 year old machine that is barely running TS3, I would suggest that if you like the hobby of computer gaming, you need to budget for a modest investment in upgrading or replacing hardware every several years. It is not reasonable to expect a software company to develop a modern game for decade old systems.

But I'll bet they do

A truer statement never made.

You can put together a bare bones gaming pc that will run most modern games OK, especially TS3, and likely TS4 for $500. If you want to step up, for $700, you could have a decent machine. No bragging rights, but as long as you're only using 1 monitor at 1920X1080, it can be done. While we would all like some super, overclocked, exotically cooled, multi-video card $2,500 wet dream, the truth is, for TS3/4 it would be overkill. The current game engine can't take advantage of something like that, and I'll lay odds right now that TS4 will not have steep hardware requirements.

I run on a nice system. I invested in upgrading the video card (the first one was OK, but I really like the faster Nvidia I got) and a fast second HD for my data (I always keep my data on a second physical drive, upgrading a computer is so much faster when you just move all your data over and install your programs on the new, clean c drive). Next I'll invest in an SSD for my C drive. I have quite a bit on my C drive, so I really need a 500 GB SSD, which are still a bit expensive, but even if I did it today with a nice Samsung on sale for ~$320 (about the best price I've sen so far) I'll have sunk about $1,200 into hardware, which given the video card was just a few months ago, means that's spread out over a year. Not cheap. And overkill for just TS3, but I do use it for other things as well.

Are there systems out there that would blow mine away? Sure. But for my needs, I'm just about at the sweet spot of investing enough to get really good play, and the cost for incremental improvement in performance is not worth it, for me. Still, for several hundred dollars less, I could still assemble a decent machine. BTW, when I say assemble, I'm not just talking about build your own. There are decent builders out there who offer you lots of customization without hitting you with an exorbitant premium for being a "gaming" machine. It's just a matter of spec'ing the system to come in on or under budget with the components that offer the best bang for the buck.

But yes, there will be some folks who would like a shiny new game engine capable of great rendered graphics and really smart AI to run on a single core machine with 2 GB of memory and XP as the OS.

Problem? So just because we have the money and you dont we have to suffer with dated games? I dont think so.

Also due to being a new generation, they need to leave 32/86 bit behind. The Sims 3 had some issues on 64 bit. 64 bit is the standard now. It should be exclusive to 64 bit systems.

I have owned my computer with Windows 8 for 6 months now so I do know how to navigate around it to find my desktop. Yeah, I can access certain functions through apps, but it doesn't work the same as accessing with a browser, I want more functions than an app offers. Just my choice. Happy for you that you like working programs with apps, but I don't need to feel like I am using my tablet when I am on my desktop. So excuse me for not catching on immediately, but I did learn what I needed in my own time with a bit of research and "playing with it beyond watching a commercial on TV".

Everyone has a preference I'm just pointing out the fallacy of what you posted. You don't have to use an app to access programs and you don't have to pin everything to a taskbar in Windows 8. The old style desktop is still there with all the normal icons and shortcuts

However, there are certain tasks that can only be performed through the Metro interface, which, to me, is pretty annoying. If 8.1 finally allows you to "ignore" the chicklet interface while using a monitor/keyboard/mouse, I will consider it for my primary OS. However, I have to agree with Lewis on 8's design flaws, however unlike her, who has moved over completely onto 8, I still prefer to boot with 7 for "normal" use.

Like what?

Like change your default apps around so you're not launching the chicklet apps, manually lose the lock screen (which looks plain stupid on a pc monitor that's not a touchscreen), change your search button, what else? You can't even do proper cutting and pasting between metro apps and "regular" apps. That's nuts.

They make you work too hard to just get to a desktop and the programs you want. Effectively, it feels like their way or the highway, which is why it has had such lousy adoption in the pc community. And that's why they're now making a big deal about how in 8.1 you won't have to deal with metro if you don't want to. How many medium to large corporate networks outside of Redmond do you know that are running Win 8 on clients? (I'm sure there are lots of little networks with a few pc's that were just bought that came with Win 8, so that's what they went with by default) That's why Win 8 is getting this makeover. Maybe there are lots of tablets and phones being purchased right now, with fewer pc sales, but there are a hell of a lot of pcs' installed out there that aren't getting upgraded to 8 because of the issues involved, which means lots of sales MS is failing to make.

But we're OT with this. The issue that's appropriate to this thread is the need for games, in particular, TS4, to be developed for modern hardware and OS's to provide us with an improved product over TS3.

You guys know that A) you can set the desktop view as default so you never see metro, and B) if you click where the start button should be you'll get the regular old start menu, right? :P

How, exactly, are you "suffering"? If you don't like the way a game looks, you don't have to get it. First World problems, here.

EA sells to many different countries, with some vast differences in the level of technology that is commonly available for a reasonable price. Therefore, they try to make the make so it is playable by as large a group as possible. More customers = more money.

My default apps all have shortcuts on the desktop, not the metro ui



I found that out the first week I used it. My 10 year old hates the metro ui

There is a specific market that buys Sims games, and EA knows this. It's not the people with the latest hardware for sure. Expect minimal not to be to much higher than the Sims 3 myself, though better hardware will of course make the game run/look better just like the Sims 3.

I'll probably wait until I get my tax returns the year that it comes out to buy upgrades for my computer and the game or gradually save up. I don't mind that so much, really. I need to upgrade it anyway to even play Sims 3, since it's been hard on the old girl since Pets came out. It's been a couple of years since I did my last upgrade anyway so it's something that I'd need to do, whether for a sims game or not.

I think that's right on the money and that'll probably be why I'll end up not buying it. Gaming technology has passed TS3 by. If EA continues to develop to the least advanced tech, they won't get my money