EA Explains Sims 4′s Pool-less, Toddler-less Oblivion

By Nathan Grayson on July 9th, 2014 at 11:00 am.

NO TODDLERS OR KINGS ONLY MAN

To hear some incensed fans tell it, The Sims 4 without pools or toddlers is a barren hellscape, an empty, rotten womb where fun is but a dim memory. I think those people might be overreacting just a smidgen bit, but you know, everyone’s got their priorities. It’s totally fair to wonder what exactly drove EA and The Sims Studio to yoink two staple features from the series, though, and now the team has explained itself. Kinda.

Writing on the Sims blog executive producer Rachel Franklin said that The Sims 4 necessitated a lot of brand new tech, much of which was built from the ground-up. New (though seemingly unrelated) features, then, took center stage while others got pushed to the margins. As a result pools and toddlers ended up on the cutting room floor.

“The fact is, we owe you a clearer explanation for why pools and toddlers will not be in The Sims 4 at launch, so here goes. It begins with new technology and systems that we built for this new base game for The Sims – a new AI system, new animation system, new audio positioning tools, new locomotion logic, new routing intelligence and much more are all entirely new in this game. The vision for The Sims 4 is a new experience that brings your Sims to life in deeper and uniquely personal ways – through emotions, personality traits, behaviors and interactions. To do that, our technology base needed a major upgrade.”

“So the bottom line is that when we sat down and looked at everything we wanted to do for this game, all the new tech we wanted to build into it, the fact was that there would be trade-offs, and these would disappoint some of our fans. Hard pill to swallow, believe me, but delivering on the vision set out for The Sims 4 required focus. Focus on revolutionizing the Sims themselves. So, rather than include toddlers, we chose to go deeper on the features that make Sims come alive: meaningful and often amusing emotions; more believable motion and interactions; more tools in Create A Sim, and more realistic (and sometimes weird!) Sim behavior. Instead of pools, we chose to develop key new features in Build Mode: direct manipulation, building a house room-by-room and being able to exchange your custom rooms easily, to make the immediate environment even more relatable and interactive for your Sim.”

It doesn’t exactly add up to a nice, tidy equation, but that’s EA’s story and they’re sticking to it. Some of the new features do sound pretty neat, though. Not so much the number of new animations (which Franklin spent quite a bit of time talking about), but the ability for Sims to multitask is a much-needed addition.

I mean, who only does one thing at a time anymore? Right this very moment I’m polishing off this post, checking Facebook on my phone, and fending off the pack of weirdly intelligent wolves that organizes raids on my home, darting in and out of the cruel San Francisco fog like furry, four-hundred-fanged dancers. I think they’re trying to reclaim Golden Gate Park and all the surrounding lands, but I honestly couldn’t say. They strike without warning, meaning, or mercy.

Anyway, The Sims 4 looks kinda neat, but I have no idea whether or not it will actually be any good. Here’s hoping, of course. It’s been a few years since I dove into a Sims game, so maybe it’s time to pop in and see what’s new.

Also, for the record, I did the whole agonizing pool execution thing a couple times back in the day, but my conscience screamed at me afterward. Meanwhile, I have a cousin who just spent hours and hours drowning Sims, and she’s one of the nicest people I know. I don’t know what any of this says about anything. There are some interesting recent studies on how people of different dispositions react to these sorts of things in games, but not when it comes to the outright torture of tiny human-like creatures.

I’m actually really interested to understand this: if you torture(d) Sims, why do you do it? What sorts of feelings do you experience while doing it? What about after? What makes it “fun”? Or if not fun, then engaging?

, , .

90 Comments »

  1. Premium User Badge

    Lakshmi says:

    If only they’d been packs of intelligent apes, you’d have been so much more timely with your joke.

    I can live without toddlers, but I really will miss pools. Landscaping is 90% of the fun. Destroying the lives of my sims the other 10%.

    • Sleepy Will says:

      See, I’m the other way round, I don’t care about the lack of pools but how do you miss out an entire lifestage? From baby to child just seems wrong to me – but perhaps thats because my kid is a toddler right now!

      • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

        I instead think that the removal of toddlers might actually push me to have my sims procreate more!

        On a more serious note, aside from the fact that EA’s explanation is generally terrible PR drivel and nothing else, what they really fail to mention was the meaning of “not at launch”.

        Sure, sure, i think we all know what that means, but it doesn’t rule out a simple patch down the line. As cynic as EA grown us to be, i want to think they can’t be stupid enough to not see the obvious PR disaster if it’s not a patch but a DLC.

        • Baines says:

          I think EA sees the looming PR disaster and simply doesn’t care.

          EA is already hated. It is such a solidified view that almost nothing EA can do will change it. They could turn over a new leaf, becoming the best publisher on the planet, and they’d still be hated for years to come and any even imagined slight would still be blown into an “evil EA” story.

          On the flipside, they can’t go much lower, either. Not without delving into flat out criminal actions.

          And EA knows, regardless of how people complain, their games still sell.

          EA gains nothing by being “good”. EA probably sees itself losing little by being “bad”. Any negative PR from their actions is just a drop in the bucket, and EA probably sees detractors eagerly standing by with waterguns even if EA doesn’t supply its own water.

        • monomer says:

          But… but… that isn’t PR drivel… it’s a clearly written explanation of the development realities they face, and it comes from a person, not the elusive “EA” corporate entity.

          Sometimes I’m not sure what gamers expect from press statements, or don’t recognize that a developer can’t just blurt out everything about the game’s production all willy-nilly; this one seemed to assume their audience would understand the meaning of having too many features for your budget/schedule, and spoke about production problems that are totally in the realm of possibility for a game studio. Seems reasonable to me, as opposed to something that completely lies about why they were cut.

          Unless you’re in the camp that thinks they ARE lying and could fit them in just fine, but want to sell them later as DLC. I don’t buy that, but I guess if that’s how folks feel then they would assume this statement is a load of crap.

          • The Random One says:

            It sounds a lot like “there is no way SimCity [2013] will work without being online all the time, because of all the changes we’ve done to the engine”, which was PR talk being disguised as developer talk.

            (Then again, I suppose saying Simcity 2013 doesn’t work without being online is not a lie. It doesn’t. In fact, even when it’s online it doesn’t work. *rimshot*)

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            I’ll give you that the explanation for toddlers felt more plausible, as they are a far different thing than the rest of the lifestages. With the emotion system and all the new stuff there is also more work to do to make everything fit with them and so on.

            The pools, along with swimming animations ( and i presume a whole clothing section ) and the various ties with a different core structure of the game MIGHT be some work, i don’t deny that, but it’s impossible to buy the fact that the game absolutely must not be delayed by even a single month, and that you can see promo pictures and trailers with SPACESHIPS.

            I understand that they have shareholders and so on breathing down their neck, sure, but we’re not talking about any random EA game there, this is extremely big for them and going the extra mile might repay for their extra expenses both now and in the future, especially knowing how much they really need to clear their image.

            Really, all i’m saying there is that it’s saddening to see them take easy shortcuts again.

  2. Premium User Badge

    Mungrul says:

    The only correct answer to “Why would EA remove features from a new entry in an existing and established franchise?” is “To sell them later”.

    • Torn says:

      The proof will be in the pudding.

      Free expansions adding missing toddlers and/or pools? No fucking chance.

      EA’s shareholders and directors love money, not fans.

      • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

        At some point of the consumer dissatisfaction spectrum you start crossing a line though, losing profit AND ruining your image even more, which has chain effects on future games.

        Sure, maybe they can still afford to pull this crap, but for how much?

        • defunct says:

          They’ve been doing it for years. I haven’t bought anything from EA in about 6 years. Or so. Because of their nefarious activities. How much effect has that had? None. But I still won’t buy from them. They can keep on doing this for years AND get worse; and people will still buy from them. Why? Because people are sheep. Baaaa.

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            It didn’t make much effect before because the “informed” are still a minority, but if you alienate people to the point of even reaching the casual customer stuff starts to happen.

            It’s anyone guess when that will happen. Sure, probably never, but if i recall correctly EA is not doing this great anyway. Sure, they are a behemoth compared to most other gaming companies, they’re full of money and all that, but i believe they’d really like to have MORE. It’s hard when you’re out of touch though.

  3. phelix says:

    The AI is too complex for pools. Figures.

    • BobbyDylan says:

      hmmm… this smacks of “the city is too complicated to be offline. All the calculations are done by the cloud”.

      • Tei says:

        Thats not what they are saying.

        This is a rebuild of the game on a new engine. Even EA with their infinite resources can’t build everything on one go, so wait for versions 1.2 or 2.0 because for the first version some features you have on the old engine are not re-implemented yet.

        Their answer make sense: The first car was not faster than your average horse. When you start from scratch (even with better technology) you have to face the State of the Art of older technology. So your superior new technology may initially look worse

        • Sleepy Will says:

          There are IA specialists snickering at the back (Yes, it’s IA not AI, trust me) because “The AI is to complex for pools” really does make as much sense as “The calculations need to be done in the cloud”.

          What they are really trying to say is either:

          1. Our new AI is horrible, its a mess and it couldn’t handle pools. Expect it to make the AI in Rome 2 look smart on release

          or

          2. We know you suckers will pay for pools, hand over those simoleons!

          • elevown says:

            I didnt understand it to mean they cant have toddlers and pools because of AI limits- he seems to be saying that the new AI and systems, being a lot of work, took most of there time and resources- instead of doing toddlers and pools.

            Ofcourse EA arnt exactly hard up- they could of just put 3 more people on the sims 4 team.. or moved back the release date a bit.

            I guess each project has a set budget /time/stafff etc- and if it turns out doing the AI and new anims etc took far more work than they planned for- maybe EA would rather cut stuff out than throw more resources at it.

            Ofcourse you end up with an unfinished game that way, but i guess they thought pools/toddlers wernt game critical.

        • ansionnach says:

          I seem to remember that the original game had pools in it to start with… and they had to conceptualise, design and implement the whole game from the ground up for the first time then!

          • Premium User Badge

            Nogo says:

            Which is conveniently a thing that still exists.

            Maybe it’s this kind of attitude that leads to an endless cycle of reboots and remakes?

          • ansionnach says:

            Not quite sure what you mean there. Not a fan of remakes and reboots myself when you can just play the original (and I can’t think of a remake that’s actually been superior). Better to do something new… but that isn’t what’s happening here at all.

          • fatgleeson says:

            Your comparison doesnt make sense. There will be new things in this game that weren’t in the first, its a trade off.

          • ansionnach says:

            It makes perfect sense. They have listed the following as things that they decided needed a fresh implementation: AI system, animation system, audio positioning tools, locomotion logic, routing intelligence. These are all things that should not be re-hashed for a sequel and were of course done from scratch for the original game. They also talk about new emotions and behaviour (also things that were new in the original release, since everything was). If there are astonishing new things that demanded the trade-off they haven’t specified them. If their intention wasn’t to babble on and create a smokescreen around what is to become paid DLC, then they haven’t communicated this very well.

        • KraiZor says:

          No they could build the entire game in one go. There is no reason that they have to release it right now. The only reason to release now is s that they can try to force people to buy dlc if they want things that are standard features of this franchise.

  4. Premium User Badge

    drewski says:

    “Because way, way more people will pay for pools in an expansion pack than will pay for a slightly different build mode.”

    Fixed.

  5. Premium User Badge

    hellboy says:

    It really worked out for them when they did this in SimCity.

  6. Premium User Badge

    RedViv says:

    The explanation is still that they prioritised different components over exactly those, so… What has changed from how it worked in the previous sequels?

  7. sabasNL says:

    I don’t call that an explanation.
    I call that saying sorry for taking out features, then bragging about other features that are cool but don’t explain why they removed these features in the first place.

    • rikvanoostende says:

      “Sorry, we’re out of toilet paper. But we have plenty of sandpaper!”

      • statistx says:

        Rather “Sorry we are out of toilet paper, but we have plenty of bullshit”

        • PsychoWedge says:

          It’s more of an internal “Sorry guys, we are out of toilet paper, but we have plenty of fan money coming in.”

    • Shadow says:

      It’s really a non-answer. It’s almost an independent statement boasting about the game’s features. Precede it with whatever inquiry you want: “Why’s there no pools nor toddlers?”, “Tell me about your game.”, “How’s the weather?”

      There’s no justification aside from PROFITS!, just botched priorities. It’s not that the game’s packed full of sensible features and there’s not enough resources to expand the sensibleness. Consider you can apparently build and launch rockets from your backyard in the base version of The Sims 4, but you have no swimming pools. That just doesn’t make any sense, no matter how you look at it.

  8. Premium User Badge

    Bradamantium says:

    You know, I could just almost buy the explanation for toddlers (even though, as far as the Sims is concerned, they’re just smaller humans with gameplay functions attached, so would all that “new” really be so hard to scale to their tiny frames?), but to say that their game is so 110% FRESH NEW STUFF that pits of water in yards are just undoable at this point in time is the height of bullshit.

  9. ParsecParallax says:

    If EA actually cared about improving the technology and the systems, they would have made it 64 bit, and not 32 bit.

    • grimdanfango says:

      That rather depends whether they expect there to be any benefit to being able to use more than 3GB of RAM…
      If the game never requires close to that amount, there’s basically zero advantage to a 64-bit version. The only case where it would be beneficial is if they were intentionally limiting the resources being loaded into memory to fit inside that limit.
      Not many games bother, because not many applications outside of heavy fluid dynamics simulation require that much RAM.

      • Geebs says:

        Yeah, the Sims gets a weird pass on the “technical difficulties” excuse, because it’s trying to do 3d stuff in a situation where its target market are likely to have the absolute shittiest, most out of date computers around.

      • Shadow says:

        Believe me: once they start piling on expansions, you’re going to wish they had bothered to allow modern hardware to be fully utilised.

  10. Premium User Badge

    Gap Gen says:

    It’s fine, Sims 3 provides all the toddler drowning I need.

  11. Zaxwerks says:

    Sims3 Into the Future £12.50 on Amazon, £30 on Origin. Is EA a company completely out of touch with reality and more interested in their wallets than their customers – hell yeah (duh, no surprise there). The meeting went something like this… “do we delay the release of the game for 1 month and incorporate swimming pools or just release them later in an expansion pack that we will charge £30 for so we can all buy new BMW 7-series?”

  12. grimdanfango says:

    The blindingly obvious and reasonable explanation would be – “We’re writing an entirely new game from the ground up, so it’s obviously beyond even a large development team’s capability to fill it with as much content at launch as the previous game had after years of expansion. We had to pick a subset of content for now, and roll with it”

    Instead they instantly betray the fact that they’re being consciously deceptive by awkwardly spouting something to the effect of “We won’t have that stuff because of all the technical doohickies and complicated spangleywotzits and are you confused yet? we’re not just cynically planning to omit content specifically so we can slap an extra price tag on them later on, really, believe us! Groundbreaking AI, vision, other marketing bullshit!!”

    …they could make life so much easier on themselves.

    • Premium User Badge

      RedViv says:

      Stating that, when it comes down to it, they are doing the same sort of thing as with previous sequels? That this is just how they roll, and it is not a brand new wonderful awesome approach to reaching fantastic heights? Are you nuts? Think how the public with money that matters would react! Scaring the tiny people playing Big Money, outrageous!

    • Frank says:

      Yeah, that would be the sensible way of saying it. And after having said that, they could explain why they’re excited about the new game’s features.

      Maybe the PR person knows what they’re doing, though. Maybe this will hype up the outlets they care about reaching.

  13. YogSo says:

    Instead of pools, we chose to develop key new features in Build Mode: direct manipulation, building a house room-by-room

    Considering that, at its most basic, a pool is just a featureless, squarish room with a negative z-axis instead of a positive one, I call this explanation bullshit.

    • Pharos says:

      While you are, of course, technically correct, generally pools tend to be full of water, which greatly alters how things operate compared to the positive z-axis rooms.

      • Premium User Badge

        RedViv says:

        It’s of course technically correct because the Sims will immediately know how to handle and path through this stuff and how to interact with it in a meaningful way.

        Such an oddly worded explanation.

      • YogSo says:

        Water is just a special transparecy effect or shader applied to the pool “room”, we aren’t talking about a full-fledged simulation here. And RedViv, of course the Sims would had to do a set of pre-defined animations whenever inside this type of “rooms”. My point isn’t that it would be “zero” work to implement those things, what I’m debunking is their explanation that “because with the new technologies we’ve developed we’ve gone to radically new different directions we can’t have these other stuff (like pools) that we’d have to develop more new technology for”. No, as I already said, pools are just rooms, with a few special properties. If you are already doing new stuff with rooms (and also adding the new Sims pre-canned animations for other stuff) the only reason not to add the content for pools isn’t technical or time limitations. It’s just a monetary decision, plain and simple.

  14. Premium User Badge

    c-Row says:

    Wait, you still believe one word they say after the Sim City debacle?

    • SominiTheCommenter says:

      How else the fake outrage and cries of “BETRAYAL!!!” will be posted? Got to feed the monster before slaying it.

  15. SuperRookie says:

    I don’t really mind EA’s policy when it comes to Sims games. It’s like their approach to their Sports games in its annual nature and comforting predictability. FIFA 14 is pretty much going to be the same as FIFA 13 for most people but for others the minor changes are welcome.

    I’ve been playing the Sims games now for going on 15 years, at the rate of 1-2 expansion packs a year and a new version once every 4-5. The point is that each base game is stripped down and remade in a new engine. This is a good thing, The Sims 3 is full of features but is also remains a buggy mess hampered by the premise of it’s old engine which simulates an entire town all at once. While I don’t like marketing talk and evasive press releases about the Sims 4, it’s not that much different from the standard PR talk you’d find anywhere. At this point the only way I’ll know if the new game is any good or not is to get my hands on it and see if it is enjoyable.

    That’s what it comes down to with me. I don’t care if I have to buy something later as long as I enjoy the experience and get value for my money. If I don’t like the Sims 4, I’m not going to buy their “Swimming Toddlers” expansion pack, just like my poor experience with Sim City meant I didn’t buy additional content for that game. EA have a repetitive business model, but until I stop enjoying the product that ends up in my hands I will continue to spend money on it.

  16. madeofsquares says:

    “We’ve also had to remove females.”

    • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

      It would make sense though, if there was only one gender the missing toddlers would easily be explained!

    • Winged Nazgul says:

      Obvious move. Everyone knows they are just an egregious waste of developer time and money that could be spent on more relevant features.

  17. Zorlan says:

    Heh.. rubbish. I call bullshit as many others and wait for that “New Pool™ DLC! The one you’ve all been waiting for!”…

    It’s sad to see game companies and their owners so greedy. Hell, greed sucks.

  18. Eery Petrol says:

    “We owe you a clearer explanation, so here’s the exact same one, but now its diluted with our finest bullshit.”

  19. statistx says:

    Basically I don’t care about them taking pools out, even less about toddlers. My Issue is that it is the whole fucking same as with Sims 2 to 3….features that were added in the previous one, were slowly added in paid DLC. They just mix around with what features you start out with and what features get a DLC.

    ie. Weather

    With Sims it’s not the usual “I complain now and buy it anyway”, cause it is so obvious what they are doing.
    Got Sims 2 with some DLC, then when 3 came out, I only got that one and never touched any of the DLCs and I sure as hell won’t expand Sims 4.

  20. SoundDust says:

    What’s with the pools, anyway? It’s an american thing, right? Never has it crossed my mind to dip my sim in a pool when there’s a lake around. Am I cheap?

    So, no pools in Sims 4, no Shepard in Mass Effect 4.. All this saves so many gamers a lot of money when they can keep happily playing the old games that they like so much..

    • Lanfranc says:

      Pools and Shepard aren’t quite the same thing, are they? I think it’s great they’re trying to tell some different stories in the Mass Effect universe.

      • SoundDust says:

        Sure. ME totally not a good example here, as it’s more of a story thing than a game feature.

  21. Artist says:

    “The fact is, we owe you a clearer explanation for why pools and toddlers will not be in The Sims 4 at launch, so here goes…”
    … We want your money so we sell it to you as additional DLC!

    Plain simple.

  22. noodlecake says:

    What’s everyone’s obsession with minor and trivial features like toddlers and pools? Their explanation is exactly what I thought the actual reason was for omitting those features anyway. I don’t think it’s a lie at all.

    The worst part is they removed “create a style” which added tons of depth to the creation tools of the Sims and allowed for limitless combinations of patterns and colours on every single object and item of clothing in the game. It’s a feature that made The Sims 3 head and shoulders above The Sims 2 and they’ve removed it.

  23. ukpanik says:

    Killing sims is weird and sick. In the first Sims, I created a human zoo in my back yard…to conserve the species.

  24. frightlever says:

    The Sims Franchise is about 14 years old, and has been more or less constantly developed during all that time, worked upon by hundreds of developers and generated. hundreds of millions of dollars in sales.

    Dwarf Fortress has been developed by one guy for twelve years, garnering maybe a third of a million dollars in donations.

    Not sure where I’m going with this.

    • Frank says:

      You mean: these franchises both need to take a break.

      Let Startopia return!

      • Premium User Badge

        RedViv says:

        Bollocks: Where’s the country-building fantasy land simulation with deep RPG systems in the background, the one surely we’ve all waited for forever? A true simulation of being a majestic ruler, not just indirectly playing an RTS!

      • Premium User Badge

        Harlander says:

        You have to do a fair bit of melting and hammering to get Dwarf Fortress anywhere near the term ‘franchise’, even if you consider the original Slaves to Armok

    • Premium User Badge

      Jackablade says:

      Does it have swimming pools and toddlers?

    • SoundDust says:

      No, the world isn’t ready for Sim Fortress. Procedural generation of moods, outfits, elevator music and.. pools can only lead to chaos.

  25. Premium User Badge

    bonuswavepilot says:

    “…just a smidgen bit…” – aargh!

    smidgen
    smɪdʒɪn
    noun, informal
    a small amount of something.

    ‘Smidgen’ and a ‘bit’ are synonyms, it is not a word you use to modify ‘bit’.

    • Premium User Badge

      Simplisto says:

      You must be new here.

      • Premium User Badge

        bonuswavepilot says:

        Not particularly… Have I missed a running joke, or should I just have come to expect these textual imprecisions?

        I realise it means bugger-all in the scheme of things, but the ‘smidgen bit’ or ‘tad bit’ thing irritates me for some reason.

    • Lanfranc says:

      “it is not a word you use to modify ‘bit’.”

      Looks like it is now! ^_^

      • The Random One says:

        It makes sense. In English a noun can be used as an adjective. So a monster truck is a truck that has the qualities of a monster (I assume those are huge, deadly, capable of climbing on top of cars and bad for the environment), and a smidgen bit is a bit that has the smidgen characteristic of being small and British.

    • frightlever says:

      Someone is being a smidgeon bit grammar Nazi.

  26. Hunchback says:

    When i played The Sims 1, my sims never had enough cash to build a pool, so… who cares :D

  27. iridescence says:

    If do they come out with a DLC for pools and toddlers and loads of people buy it we really have no one to blame but ourselves. They’re barely even hiding their intentions here. There’s some point where you have to say that if you’re going to give away money like a sucker don’t complain when greedy people come to you looking for yet more handouts.

    • Premium User Badge

      Nogo says:

      This is still the post about a virtual doll house simulator from an interactive entertainment publisher, right?

  28. geldonyetich says:

    I can’t say I’ve had much use for toddlers or pools in my Sims games, and my contempt for these features is such that I would see them united and thereby nullify the enjoyment potential of both.

    That said, I think the Sims 4′s primary #1 goal should probably be to introduce a platform stable enough to handle a dozen or so expansions piled on top. The Sims 3′s expansion fever has rendered it a plate spinning machine that has become so unstable that broken crockery cuts all players that cross its path. It’s such a travesty that I wonder if Maxis employees drive to work with one wheel missing from their cars.

  29. Sire says:

    How can this dignify a post? Who actually cares?? Insane people, that’s who. I like the Sims and will definitely play this. If it’s any good. And that will not be dependent on either pools, or toddlers. WTF people?

    • The Random One says:

      If you will like it if it is good, then perhaps the fact that they removed features that were considered to contribute to its quality means the removal of those features will affect how good it is?

      • Grygus says:

        I would agree with that, but… pools and toddlers?

        I do believe that if every person listed the 20 most important things to have in a Sims game that a non-zero amount of those lists would include one or both of “pools” and “toddlers.” However, I can’t help but strongly suspect that most of the lists would include neither, and that even the ones that had them would list them very low on the list.

        This very much feels like manufactured outrage to me. Always online, we can all agree to hate. Leaving out pools and toddlers? I mean… I haven’t really played the Sims since the first one, but I don’t think I would have missed either of these things had they not been included. Is their lack really a hit on the overall quality of the game?

  30. TechnicalBen says:

    “The fact is, we owe you a clearer explanation for why pools and toddlers will not be in The Sims 4 at launch, so here goes…. Muhuhauhauhauhauha MONEYS, ahem I mean ‘Visions’ and totally not a repeat of SimCity5… honest… this time. Signed EA PR.”

    Is all I read of the above quote… Though I may be misreading it?

  31. Hurion says:

    They have probably already finished both, but cut them for the first DLC: Babbys First Swimming Class

  32. Listlurker says:

    Yeah … the first paid expansion pack for Sims 4 will probably be titled “Pools And Toddlers”. Nothing to see here, move along.

  33. ThawedHeart says:

    Seriously though if the had to take away an age group i would have rathered them take away babies, there so annoying. Toddlers were a big thing and really im strongly considering not buying the sims 4