Two questions:
1) Couldn't they make the game compatible with both? kind of like this:
2) Aren't most games 32 bit currently? (I don't know all that much about computers) What would be the main advantage of it being 64 bit?

Yes, most are. However, TS3, as written, manages its allotted memory space poorly. Also, unlike other games, TS3 allows for lots of highly detailed objects, along with an attempt at complex AI (note, I said "attempt") with lots of sims that should be controlled in "real time". As such, it frequently exceeds the inherent memory limitation allotted for 32 bit programs, in practice, around 3.2~3.5 GB of RAM. That results in nasties like Error 12 on saving, or CTD occurring mid-game. If the engine ran as a 64 bit program, that memory limitation would be lifted, and the game could use as much memory as you would have available, which these days, is typically 8 GB or more. It appears that rather than building a more robust engine, EA is opting on remaining a 32 bit program, requiring "low end" hardware only. In order to do so, they are essentially "dumbing down" the system by lowering graphic detail, which is not a direction most players, around here at least, are particularly happy with. Most games try to improve graphics and game play with each new generation of a franchise, but that pattern seems to not be the choice management made on developing 4.



Yes, they could. But that means having a "high end" graphics set, and a "lower end" set. While technically feasible, and some games achieve the ability to scale to available hardware quite well, as has already been alluded to in this and other threads, EA does not appear to accept that those with higher end systems should be allowed to benefit with higher quality renderings and performance over those with entry level, 5 year old hardware. Go figure.

Look, nobody is disagreeing that EA's upper management are the kind to keep you in a deep pit, threatening that if you don't rub the lotion on your skin you'll get the hose again. I don't know the exact amount of freedom Gurus have or the input they can give to the games but I'm about 90% sure they're not in chains in a sweatshop being forced to post on the official forums about great new Store deals whilst the CEO sings No Bad News . I still question a lot of their choices which I'm certain had little to no input or care from the higher ups. The memories is a major one, something that I had wanted for a while but found to be so poorly done. "Do you want to share your memory of That One Time You Went To The Park And It Was Kind Of Alright, Whatever on Facebook!?" Which would be followed by an annoyed sigh, a click of the no button and a dramatic search to find where to disable this was in the options. Not to mention that they bloated the save files. (The Facebook thing was probably demanded by the executives but the rest I'm presuming were the designers.)

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the Gurus or actually think of them as enemies - Which should have been obvious in my first post - but I feel like there's enough criticism to pass around. (And praise, because I have enjoyed playing Sims 3.)

Also, if any Gurus are reading this, I'm sorry but I'm going to picture your workplace as being the musical sweatshop from The Wiz. Don't argue, it's happening. It's already begun.

Fully agree. It's becoming clear that they don't care about the core franchise players, it's "all about the benjamins". It seems all the decisions they have made and are making is about increasing cash flow and losing a comparatively small population of core franchise players is a sacrifice they are willing to make. I'm really waiting for more information on the new sharing system they are working on. If they are going to let people sell their creations to other players, how much of a cut will EA take? Will you able to download creations from other sites besides EA's and get them into your game or will all of them have to go through EA's new system? Lots of info yet to come.

I do believe most games are still 32-bit. However, most games also don't guzzle RAM like Sims games do.

64-bit allows the game to use copious amounts of memory without crashing (>4GB if you have it).
32-bit is limited to using 4GB. Normally, that would sound like a lot, but at least with TS3, it guzzles RAM and also has all kinds of memory leaks. It's not unusual for RAM usage to swell well above 3GB if you do a lot of traveling in one game session. In my experience, once TS3's memory usage exceeds 2.4GB or so, it will NOT save. It'll get Error Code 12. I monitor TS3's RAM usage and almost every time I see 2.4GB or greater RAM usage, I can reliably predict it's not going to save.
64-bit should give it a lot more headroom and eliminate lack of RAM problems like that.
Allowing the game to use more RAM is no substitute for optimizing code and eliminating memory leaks, but it's always good to have extra insurance.

We are in 2013 some game already enter the 64bit era such as

BF4
NFS Rivals
COD Ghost
and in the future...
Watch Dog
GTA V

Most computer in today is support 64bit , Most CPU is 64bit capable (except some Intel Atom I don't sure) and 64bit windows should be default operating system since computer in the market have 4GB RAM or more.

I think Sims 4 will have their time 4-5 years , If in 2019 it's still 32 bit that is quiet ... not good.

She was blessing their souls?

I am not computer savvy.... but interested to know why they don't make the game 64-bit? What is the problem? Is it because they will be cutting out a number of users? Why? can you not run a 64-bit game on certain setups? Because Error 12 was totally why I can't be bother even booting up my game and it has been a dust collector for the best part of this year.

The upside to 64-bit is all that headspace. There still is an upper limit to RAM, but it's not worth worrying about with any consumer level PC. It's 16 Exabytes, to be exact. Just read that as "enough" for now. Error 12 style errors would be much more rare if you had the RAM to use. In Sims 3, you can have 16GB of RAM and still run out when it has used 2.4GB. In a theoretical 64-bit Sims 3, this wouldn't happen.

The downside is that a 32-bit machine will be unable to understand code written for a 64-bit machine. So, if Sims 4 is 64-bit, it will make it so no 32-bit PC could run it.

However, 64-bit PCs are getting more and more common, so EA might want to gamble on that. On the other hand a 32-bit Sims 4 will run on more PCs than a 64-bit one would. It's all about drawing the minimum requirement line somewhere to ensure the game will be able to do what it should, while still allowing it to run on as many PCs as possible. It's tricky, especially with an audience like the The Sims audience.

While, I 100% think this will be the case, there is a small part of me that is hopeful that maybe the sims 4's graphics will improve over the next year and that maybe EA will remember that not all there fans are running ancient computers.

What I'm always curious about, is how can the devs not realise how badly the Sims runs on high end computers? As most of the gurus say they play the sims at home, and I don't know a single developer that doesn't have a top line system at home.

oh, they know. You can see it during the live broadcasts. especially when they have to sit through all the furniture being greyed out while they wait for textures to load. They certainly won't acknowledge that, however.

And it appears one of the solutions to the slow loading of textures is to eliminate CAST and go with lower res objects and hair to improve performance, instead of optimizing current capabilities and allowing a larger memory footprint by turning to a 64 bit engine. But it seems they don't want to exclude the folks running barely adequate, from a gaming perspective, machine with a 32 bit OS, so they're sticking with a woefully out of date limitation to be all inclusive. IMO, that's the type of short sighted solution that will kill off this franchise over the next several years.

This, exactly this.

I think the current state of the Sims 3 (conceptually and technically barely satisfying) is already the result of such a strategy : prioritize money making at all cost, quick and short term profits instead of a broader vision. And I don't see any change of strategy coming for TS4. So, I also expect to see the franchise spiral down during the following years. All this due to the repetition short-sighted decisions by a handle of people placed in positions for which they probably lack the required skills. And balls (figuratively speaking of course).

They've already killed it off for me. Unless I see major improvements in what we've seen thus far, I'm not buying The sims 3.5.

It is especially shortsighted when you think of how many computers are now being made 64 bit. Let's say the Sims 4 runs about the same length of time the Sims 3 did, same number of EP's, and so on. The Base game for Sims 3 came out 2009, it is now just about 2014. By the end of it's 4 or 5 year run, the Sims 4 will seem completely outdated compared to the hardware commonly available at the time, if technology keeps at the pace it is going now. We have all these other companies pushing the edges of what it capable already, hell, even EA will do so when making games for the new consoles. So why let one of their higher profile titles languish in the technological dust?

A series like the Sims, if you are going to expect to release EP after EP for a few years, needs to think ahead.

So, why does The Sims 3 refuse to save once it reaches about 2.4GB in ram usage? I don't really understand.

This is a late response, but I can't help but feel they either want the game to be out of date 5 years from now (to make the new game look more impressive) or the want a cheaper alternative.

This is current day EA. They're not willing to slug away into their bets selling series; the best selling computer game of all time. It gets no more than it needs. Looks at how the Sims 3 was treated and people ate that up - especially the store content. People are finally starting to see their cracks showing, but not enough people are.

EA has no problem giving us crap on a gold platter and we let them. This needs to stop.

Actually TS3 sold less copies than both 1 and 2

Though I somewhat agree, what right do we have to tell people what they are allowed to spend their cash on?

Sometimes I get dirty looks for playing my Pokemon 3DS (picture) in public. I simply say, "My wallet, my business".

I'm American. Technically, I can say whatever I want. :p

Being serious, I can't directly control who buys what with their money, but I do think it's OK for me to openly suggest that people stop buying something that's not worth the money. It's the same as someone telling us to rush out and buy as many copies as possible, or does the "what gives you the right" rule only apply to someone who their disposition is negative?

You know, I still get looks for playing Pokemon in public myself, but that isn't because of the game's lack of quality, more that the game is perceived to be for younger players. However, to compare Pokemon and the Sims is kind of a misdirection, as Pokemon has actually improved in each generation of the game by building on the game mechanics. Breeding, Abilities, more Types combos have been added. Black & White even took the the idea of some attacks having a "physical" component further, by finally making attacks that were purely Special attacks, like Fire types, designated even further, so that certain attacks, like Fire Punch use the Attack stat instead. This opened up even more possible team builds, made previously underused Pokemon much more viable, and added more complexity to a very simple paper-rock-scissor type platform. They took the initial premise, and built upon it. Even the graphics have improved as the gaming systems they are played on have improved. Plus, they actively promote different player's game styles. You can now build a whole team of Bug pokemon, or Fire pokemon, or whatever type you fancy, and still have a balanced and fully playable and enjoyable style. Compare that to the Sims taking away features, making everything bland and substance free, while foisting the same design decor on players by making everything for certain styles, while completely ignoring others.

Thats pretty much the EA strategy. they did it with dragon age 2, the old republic and command & conquer as well.

This, so much.

Sims 1 was a nice beginning but the difference between it and Sims 2 was massive. Graphics were improved upon so much but it was the features that resulted in a lot of players not looking back. Almost all of the expansion packs brought something new*: Weather, university which gave us another age group, apartments, owning businesses, cars and Freetime gave us a lot of smaller activities. Sims 3 had some good changes. The Worlds, in my opinion, were an improvement (glitches aside) and a lot of players welcomed open worlds. I was happy we had Young Adults to play as, I liked the traits. It was a lot of small stuff, but the problem was we lost so much. Babies don't even move and it's disturbing, instead of watching our sims go out at a restaurant they vanish into blackness. Content available on the Store was released "coincidentally" with expansion packs, namely the green house. The dance studio would have also complemented Generations. In short, the bad overshadowed the good.

*When I say nearly all the main exception is Sims 2 Pets. A lot of the features from Unleashed had been moved to other packs and Pets was lagging in the other departments. (Small pets, only one new furniture theme set which in my opinion was the worst, no new neighbourhood, etc.)

That's what I like about the Sims 2 - overall, it was a very mundane (not in a negative sense) and true to life kind of game. There was no glitz and glamour, and they weren't trying to dazzle you with gimmicks and the like to get you to purchase the game, but the game was developed in a different time period in ht e gaming world. In 5 years, a lot changes.

Like you said before, each EP brought something new, and the clone EPs reinvented the wheel. Nightlife was obviously a clone of Hot Date and House Party, with some extra goods thrown into the mix for good fun. It's core addition/mechanic was dating (A proper life simulation mechanic) and the EP circled around that. It kept the focus small, allowing for the game to blossom out from a basic concept, in a addition to the base games itself (which already had relationships and weddings). Restaurants, Bowling Alleys, Nightclubs and Vampires: That's the majority of what it added and it does them all just fine. Certainly, things could have been added to complete the "dating them", but it doesn't really feel like anything's missing. It adds things that are closer to life and can can be taken advantage of both large and small scale.

The Sims 3, however, failed to achieve that, negating the life simulation core for fame, embracing the wish fulfillment aspect of the game (something that's a life simulator mechanic, but not something to develop a series of EPs after). Most of what Late Night had was from older EPs - Nightclubs, Apartments, Vampires, Acting (which could have been fun but is behind a rabbit hole), Being in a band and Being Famous - most of which was watered down to complete the "vision," probably because they were attempting to do too much at one time. The EP is alright and adds what was missing the game (a nightlife), but it lacks true life simulator mechanics and doesn't really add much to the game, and has other EPs doing it's job (Generations and Showtime). When you cram so much into the EP, a lot goes missing. There's also the adult focus - what is there for children to do in Bridgeport? Go to school, catch butterflies in the dome or go to the park. Children can't even get a gig acting.

Totally get what you're saying there, matrix, and I agree.

Returning a bit to the OP topic: While I'm disappointed about the graphics of 4 so far, I'd honestly accept the "new look" if that was the only thing being sacrificed for really smooth, fast, effortless performance, especially if/when beautiful CC comes along.

Unfortunately, I think we have a lot more to lose. What I'm really concerned about is the open world -- even if they keep it, I imagine it composed mostly of rabbit holes. More than that, I fear the neighborhood AI will be the big thing on the chopping block. All those sims routing around and "progressing" (even EA's ridiculous version of it) take a heavy toll on performance, don't they? Not being much of a programmer myself, I'm not sure what possible solutions could be for that, but it makes me very nervous.