Talk:The Sims 3/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

File:Sims 3 House construction.jpg

Why is my house picture being removed? Someone said it messed up the article, but I don't think it did. Sorry if I'm being clueless. --Cmputer 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That someone is me. In journalism, it is OK to push a portion of text of a single paragraph to include a picture, but it must not exceed it. Not only this picture exceeds a paragraph, but it completely exceeds multiple sections. This is what I meant by "screwing up the layout of the article". You'll never see this in a newspaper, book, magazine, etc. because it's visually disturbing.

Still, the picture is too tall. You can't really put it anywhere without using most of the article's height, unless you force it to be like 40 pixels high, but then we couldn't see anything! :) -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. --Cmputer 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS X

Somebody has put the Mac OS in the OS area of the infobox as well as the opening paragraph. If I don't see a citation, I am GOING to remove it. I googled, and nothing came up. Johnnywalterboy (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to delete the Mac OS of the platform section at least consider this. Aspyr have supported The Sims 1 and 2 in making the game and all of its expansions format for Mac. Why would you think they wouldn't make The Sims 3. A game that has sold 100 million copies. format for mac. The reason the Mac OS hasn't been confirmed is that the producers are only worrying about the Windows version of the game and they pay Aspyr to format the game for the Mac. That is also why the Mac version comes out 2 - 3 months after the Windows version. And a few months ago people didn't have much to go on when they said Windows was a platform for the game. EA never confirmed it. for all we knew it could have only been for linux (lol). But that was not the case because people went with what was strongly believed to be true. And Mac is. Look at the history for the game if you still can't comprehend.--121.220.158.52 (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I seconed that because The Sims series are a pretty popular game sequel. It would be more than likely they will have a Mac formated version of the game. If you look at The Sims 2, all of their games (not the stuff packs) have a Mac version for them. Same with The Sims 1. --58.169.218.147 (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Least it's more trusworthy than putting iPhone, Ngage 2.0 & Playstation 3. I can't believe you alowed that to be there in that infobox for months on this article but not accept Mac OS X as being in there.--121.220.139.235 (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone just put iPhone back on the platforms infobox. You would think if they are having the game on the iPhone that the there would definately be a Mac version.--139.168.218.71 (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I added iPhone to the platforms infobox. I added a press release as a source/citation. I have to agree that unless there is a press release by EA or Aspyr or anyone else that Mac OS X needs to stay out of the platforms. And just because TS3 will be on iPhone doesn't mean it will be on Mac; EA has released Scrabble, Sudoku, and SimCity on iPhone, but they aren't present on Mac OS X. Wakka092 (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true, Aspyr has done this in the past versions. And, if it's going to Apple iPhone. But this is Wikipedia! For something like platforms, you NEED acitation. If it's SO likely that The Sims 3 will be for Mac OS X, you should have no problem citing a source! Johnnywalterboy (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs

The original Sims 3 article said that only 4 sims needs will be returning. However, this has been proven incorrect by Snooty Sims, who even have a screen shot on it . I am not sure where this information was gathered from? (JoshB (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Snooty Sims is a Fan Site and should not be used as a source whether the information is true or not. Dark verdant (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the Sims 2 disscussion it said Snootysims is a reliable source 82.33.125.160 (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if SnootySims IS reliable, wikipedia has a strict policy on fansites, and that is that they CAN NOT serve as citations. Johnnywalterboy (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said in the "Snooty Sims" section below, but it seems I was the only one in favor of removing all "Snooty Sims" citations (and related statements). That's why I left it there. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Name of the developer

I have seen the name of the developer changed many times, but they still use the same source, a record from gamestop listing the developer as EA Redwood Shores. Either the name or the source needs to be changed, because they don't match up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.28.83 (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a constant debate regarding EA workplaces. Same goes for "EA Vancouver" vs. "EA Blackbox". Many EA related pages have this issue between Wikipedian. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Contribute = Deletion

If you ever help The Sims 3 article on Wikipedia , your infomation will get deleted at some stage within a month. I have reserched more information then the users that think they can control wikipedia (the people that delete your information i shall say). you provide a citation, no it will still get deleted. you put infomation in that is confirmed , um no still deleted. even if its something everybody knows about the game? Deleted!

Another thing why is half the article gone?? it just disappeared ! well whats the point of contributing to this article then when all the infomation will get deleted?? If those people that think they can control wikipedia know enough about The Sims 3 they can write the whole thing themselves. If it wern't for the people that contributed to this article, there would be hardly a thing on it. Just be cautious , ok, because only 1/5 of what u wrote will still be ther in a month, thats if its even there.

One last thing there is a wikipedian that knows nothing about The Sims 3 yet he has an award for being a good editor. Great another person that can delete information that gives a vague reason to detete the information.

It's not really worth the effort to write anything about The Sims 3 , well the good thing is that it stays there for a couple of hours or days.

Good on you Wikipedia , you encourage people to contribute. Yet the users that have been there for years abuse there privelages and delete your information, even if a citation is provided, even if its true, even if its well known, even if its confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.92.142 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons why this can happen. The main reason is because of Wikipedia rules (is this allowed? is this following the standards? is this a personal opinion? is this really related to the article?). Other reasons are repetitiveness (has it already been mentionned in the article?), source realibility (in my opinion, SnootySims has never been categorized as a reliable source because it's a fanpage), unecessary information (I still hate the 'Game Editions' table), article layout, etc.

We can see your frustration by all the comments you've added to this talk page and hope you can understand why some work you've done may have been reworked or removed. It might be easy to take it personally, but please don't. Wikipedia is a team effort and I'm sure your contributions have helped somewhere at some time. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know! I totally understand. why does this happen even if you still if you follow the rules and everything?--58.170.82.77 (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't now. Could you show me a modification you've made that was removed by giving me the date-time of it? -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

False Citations

Someone put that sims could go barefoot, with a citation so people would think it is true. The citation goes the the official site, where it says nothing of this. Please remember that placing these false-citations in order to prove a point is a form of vandalism, and I will report the next user or IP to do this. Johnnywalterboy (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When the citation was added there was a page on the site which clearly showed a barefooted sim. That page has since been changed when the site was updated. The citation was merely out of date rather than an act of vandalism. 196.209.202.105 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone mentioned that changing Sim height is available, which has not been verified, with a citation to the official site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.117.121 (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnnywalterboy, even if information were true and had a citation it would still get deleted, I'm sorry but some people think they can control everything even if the person has done the right thing. so following the rules is just as much of a crime as breaking them? thats what some users do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.92.142 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar issues

There are some issues with this page. People are putting "gameplay", when gameplay is not a word. Please put game play or game-play.

Gameplay is spelled correctly, or at the very least, it's commonly known and acceptable. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive lack of sources, Please Delete

... Even though you reverted it, its still going to need sources. Otherwise it's going to be deleted anyway. Carlo V. Sexron 01:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please fix the references. Baaaaw 14:56 12 March 2008 (GMT)

Well it's users like you I'm sick of. Even if you provide a source its still going to get deleted because users think they can control everything, even if its true and a citation is provided it will get deleted. users abuse there privlages.124.177.186.200 (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Page Crash

Every time I try to get onto this page, my IE window crashes. 80.43.38.108 14:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

IE, lol. 58.165.27.1 (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Whats so funny about IE? IE = Internet Explorer, 58.165.27.1 if you don't know what it means why laugh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.92.142 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he's laughing that someone's using IE, not because he didn't know what it meant. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.78.69 (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Criterion Software?

The article says that Criterion is developing the game. I found several web sites that mentioned this, but their own website is totally silent about this. So it seems unlikely that they are really developing it. Maxis itself is a development studio and The Sims is their flagship product. It seems more likely that they are developing it and Criterion is providing some technical support (if, for example, they are using RenderWare as their graphics engine). Can someone find a verifiable (and accurate) reference for this statement? Otherwise I say it needs to be removed and it should be assumed that Maxis is developing the game. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I only get ONE real hit for "Criterion" and "The Sims 3" (the rest are for "The Sims 3" and "criteria"). It is a Sims fansite, here, totally unreliable. No press releases, nothing on Criterion's website, nada. Therefore, I'm removing it and changing it to Maxis. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some editors keep coming in and adding Criterion and RenderWare back into the article without references. Without verifiable references, it didn't happen. Leave it out until it has a reference. Like I said above, I can't find any reliable reference that supports either RenderWare or Criterion. If you have a reference for either, great. Add it back in, but include the reference. Until then, I will keep reverting the changes. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maxis is hard at work on Spore. It's highly unlikely that they will be working on The Sims 3 as well. All "The Sims" games are now made by "The Sims Division", which is a department created within EA and headed by Rod Humble. I'll try and find a source for that... -- JayTee

Actually we don't know who is working in The Sims 3, it is better put "TBA" in the developer line. Razor 18:00 Brazilian time, march 22, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.207.145.101 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, all we need is a reference. Last time I talked to Virg, she said she had transferred from The Sims to Spore, so it's possible they outsourced this product ("outsourced" to another EA studio). But without a ref, it's just a rumor. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Site is Down...

...has anyone noticed? It is down! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.88.55 (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There were a lot of technical issues on the first couple days. The site crashed for lots of people. It seems to be fixed for the most part. Phoenix1304 (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For me, it just wouldn't display, but reloading would fix it. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Maxis or Redwood Shores?

Yes, i previouslly here Maxis was on the development of The Sims 3, and now i see EA Redwood Shores, i don't understand. who is developing, EA Redwood Shores or Maxis? help me please! (i think it is better put TBA.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.207.145.101 (talk • contribs)

Maxis is the part of EA Redwood Shores. (look here - Maxis) --Monthstay (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

While they were acquired Maxis refers to the team who works with Will Wright, in most cases, rather than an actual developer. The official developer most game sites have is EA Redwood Shores, which is the Sims division of EA. Maxis, the name, is not used at all and is not the developer. Source: http://www.gamespot.com/games.html?type=company&mode=79643&sort=title&letter=T&dlx_type=all&sortdir=asc 71.96.70.197 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Console release?

Did EA specify if this game will be released for consoles yet or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage1989 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The best place to check for this type of information is The Sims 3 website linked to in the article. That being said, no. But, FWIW, the site doesn't say anything about what platform the game will be released for, but generally everyone assumes Windows, I guess. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Engine and Developer?

Wait, TS3 is using RenderWare as the graphics engine? Since when?? Also, has nobody read the Games For Windows article on TS3 and could possibly tell us who is developing TS3? Presumably it would be Maxis but it could be EA redwood or some other studio, unverified report gives it as being Criterion (which makes no sense whatsoever) and rampant speculation has given way to the possibility that TS3 is being developed by a 3rd party. I'm guessing the game magazine coverage of TS3 would clear up who the developer actually is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.187.40 (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm... the developer is Maxis! and... i think it is really the RenderWare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.89.171 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxis refers to the team who works with Will Wright, in most cases, rather than an actual developer. The official developer most game sites have is EA Redwood Shores, which is the Sims division of EA. Maxis, the name, is not used at all and is not the developer. Source: http://www.gamespot.com/games.html?type=company&mode=79643&sort=title&letter=T&dlx_type=all&sortdir=asc 71.96.70.197 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can Maxis really be considered the developer?

This is to add to 74.215.187.40's concern. Maxis.com now only redirects to the Spore website. No articles about this game even mention that Maxis is developing it, including this article's references.[1][2] Not to mention that none of the recent Sim games have the Maxis symbol either. I do not feel that this article should assume that the Maxis subsidiary, specifically, is working on this game. Given the available public information, we only know that some part of EA is working on it, and nothing more. To assume that the same developer who made previous games in the series has been shown incorrect in cases such as SimCity Societies.Therefore, I feel that the Developer box should not specify a subsidiary, whether that means to simply have it say "Electronic Arts" or have it ommitted until more solid evidence of the developer is made publically available. --C. Raleigh (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as I mentioned above. I feel more comfortable leaving it blank until we hear specifically who worked on it. But EA isn't exactly forthcoming about who develops their individual products (for example, do you know who developed Rise of the Witch King and Kane's Wrath? It wasn't EA-Los Angeles, but they take the credit). If you feel obligated to put in a developer, I'm fine with EA Games. I won't touch it, but it would be nice to find out who really developed it. EA is a big entity and just saying "EA Games" is about as specific as saying you live in "America" as opposed to "123 Maple Tree Way, Gable Groves, CA". — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxis refers to the team who works with Will Wright, in most cases, rather than an actual developer. The official developer most game sites have is EA Redwood Shores, which is the Sims division of EA. Maxis, the name, is not used at all and is not the developer. Source: http://www.gamespot.com/games.html?type=company&mode=79643&sort=title&letter=T&dlx_type=all&sortdir=asc 71.96.70.197 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong company infos !

Maxis is dead since they are in EA, since 2007 the Maxis logo was removed from The Sims franchise ! It's no longer Maxis but it's EA Games only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.208.241 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am completely aware of this, as pointed out in my comment below. If EA themselves no longer consider Maxis as the developer, so should this article. I am not certain why Frecklefoot is insistant on reverting the developer entry, as there is clearly not enough evidence supporting the current implication that Maxis is being credited as its own entity. I may discuss this issue with Frecklefoot or the Sims WikiProject later on. --C. Raleigh (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pssh. Okay, I guess I miss the idea of Maxis getting credit for their own products, even though they are now a wholly-owned subsidiary of EA (and have been for a long time). I thought they still got separate development credit for the Sim products (and MobyGames says they do too). But go ahead and put the EA Games stuff back in, I won't touch it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what Frecklefoot is saying. I myself wish the original Maxis was still the one responsible for the Sims series, but now the Sims team is completely assimilated with EA. At least we still have Will Wright's Spore team, which does still have some degree of autonomous control from EA. I also think EA is now crediting the Spore team as the new Maxis (since Wright is in it), though I cannot say for sure. --C. Raleigh (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So you wrote wrong infos, why you don't put the name all the companies bought by EA ;) ? Actually the original Maxis team doesn't completely work on the Sims series, I think most of them works on Spore so it's mainly the EA team who works on the Sims franchise, it's more logical to put the EA Games name instead of Maxis, don't you think ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.125.69 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxis refers to the team who works with Will Wright, in most cases, rather than an actual developer. The official developer most game sites have is EA Redwood Shores, which is the Sims division of EA. Maxis, the name, is not used at all and is not the developer. Source: http://www.gamespot.com/games.html?type=company&mode=79643&sort=title&letter=T&dlx_type=all&sortdir=asc 71.96.70.197 (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sims 3 on PS3

An anonymous user keeps on adding PlayStation 3 to the platforms that the game will be released on. I've been reverting the edits because the user doesn't provide a proper source for this information (well, no source at all) but has anyone actually heard any specific info about this? All I've heard is that the "franchise" is being released on Wii and PS3 though didn't specifically state "The Sims 3". Swanny92 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading an interview of the game concerning multiple platforms, and the interviewee stated that at this point the developer is focusing on making the game "the best it can be," so that implies that they are only concerned with the PC version at the moment. --C. Raleigh (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the game can be ported verbatim to any game consoles. The game is really designed for use with a mouse. As can be seen with the current console titles, they use the same brand, but are different games. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there's a proof the game will also be Released on PS3 and X360.
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/strategy/thesims3/index.html and http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/strategy/thesims3/index.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.68.8.165 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I hardly call that "proof", but rather assumptions on GameSpot's part. There is no reliable evidence that it is slated for either platform. I'd wait for a press release or some other official announcement by EA. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I just removed it from the platform list, as further information and less assumption is needed.Sage1989 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good external source

Lots of juicy info here: http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/sims-3/307400-latest-sims-3-news.htmlAutonova (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Release date

December 15th, 2009 is the release date for The Sims 3, you can found it here: http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?pager.offset=3&cId=3168651 -- Iblis Trigger (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I rather have an official statement from EA than something coming out of some unknown editor. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is far too much speculation with these kinds of articles. Gamesites and shops like gamestop, etc generally don't get that much of a heads up that a game is coming, not before it is announced by the company. Let's not forget how many times amazon and the rest revised their release date of TS2 before it was out.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of Stuff

When I say a bit, I mean a lot... :D http://www.snootysims.com/thesims3index.php?id=info Look at it - it has tons of information... :) 21:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Also, Here is some news on the "TRAIT" system... Adverserial Artistic Athletic Brave Charismatic

Childish  Clumsy  Commitment Issues  Conversationalist  Creative 
Cursed  Daredevil  Dreamer  Easily Bored  EVIL 
Excitable  Family-Oriented  Flirty  Fortunate  Friendly 
Frugal  Genius  Gloomy  Good Sense of Humor  Good  
Green Thumbs   Gourmet  Grumpy  Handy  Hot-Headed 
Hydrophobic  Idealistic
 Inappropriate  Insensitive  Kleptomaniac 
Light Sleeper  Loner  Lucky  Mooch  Natural Cook 
Neat  Nice  Nosy  Outdoorsperson  Over-Emotional 
Paranoid  Partier  Perfectionist  Pizza Lover  Playful 
Romantic  Rude  Schmoozer  Shy  Slob 
Socialite  Tramp  Unforgiving  Unlucky  Vegeterian 
Whiney
 Workaholic  Worrywart 

Those are all the currently confirmed Traits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurotom1234567890 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I can easily create a similar page saying "They will have the ability to kidnap you and eat you". My point is: If it's not official from EA, it can only be rumours. Anyone can build such a "trait" list. -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh... Sorry... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurotom1234567890 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I heard that Vain or vanity would be one of them. In an interview with one of the creators, he said his wife was helping him create him, and she picked a whole bunch of nice stuff and then 'vain'. I was laughing. We know EVIL, klepto, workaholic, over-emotional for sure right? Like in videos and interviews and such. There's that same sorta list here too: http://www.thesims3.fangree.co.uk/articles.php?article_id=7 Pretty much the same. Thanks for the site btw! (LadyCakeage (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

I heard that the Sims have to learn how to read. Is that relevent? http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/sims-3/307400-latest-sims-3-news.html (LadyCakeage (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

Music

People who are adding songs to the list along with "Citation needed" don't understand what it means. "Citation needed" = "Where did you get that info?". Don't add the song *WITH* "Citation needed", but specify where you got the info. If you don't, your addition to the article will be considered unsourced and removed. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it entirely. It's pure drivel when every song has the tag next to it. I'll watchlist it and remove any more additions. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiplayer and Blu-ray format?

The article on The Sims 3 says that their might be online multiplayer and also says TS3 may be released on Blu-ray. Yet neither are given a citation. Where's the citation or source for this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.120.106 (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think someone's being a little cheeky.--121.220.139.235 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

C-Class

Theres a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sims/The_Sims_3#C-Class to move this article to C-Class.HereFord 01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

World wide release

The release date has indeed been confirmed, but this releasedate is not really a world wide release. North America gets the game on February 20th, whereas (some countries in) Europe will get it 1 day earlier, on the 19th. This is confirmed on the official Dutch EA Sims 2 site. This is because game releases in The Netherlands generally happen on a Thursday! -Jort227 (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, one is an official press release from EA stating "worldwide" release and the other one from an official EA website. Hard to say who's right and who's wrong, but still, we're talking about a possible 1 day difference. No need to sound the alarm :) -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sims 2 local sites says February 19, 2009 for : Netherlands, Sweden, Finland & Norway ! -- Iblis Trigger (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

About Australia, just there is the EB Games Australia announcement which said February 12, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iblis Trigger (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is true that this article said the game was coming out Feb 12 in Australia but, it turns out the speculation was just that.--121.220.139.235 (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Game editions

First, I hate that table :) Second, it's confusing. It now says the release date is Feb 19 at Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Norway... "Except: Netherlands, Sweden, Finland & Norway". Huh? -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

With this table getting more confusing than anything else, I decided to clean it up by sorting out the release dates. This made me realize that the two set of dates were the same, so I put them in a single column instead of two. I then realize that the dates were identical to the already mentionned dates in the infobox, so I removed the "Windows Release Date" column completely to be left out with almost nothing. I converted the table to text. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's too early to use a table, but it looks good on the TS2 wiki page -- Iblis Trigger (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing about this Hereford *sigh* The first row is regarding the standard version which is already defined in the article's infobox, and that leaves the second row by itself. I'd say this table is useless and should be removed. -- Lyverbe (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That section needs cleaned up or put in quote tags, it reads like a marketing release which isn't appropriate for here.--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that section needs to be removed :) But if it has to stay, it does need to be redone. It was a lot worse yesterday before I edit it when it was clearly ripped text from some ad. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3?

Well for one Sims 3 for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 were TBA, and for two, when will there releace date be annouced because it was confirmed that it would be on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 alot earlier in the year at it's annoucement on March 19th 2008, and that has been taken down, just needs more info on console versions. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sims 3 on Wii?

Will The Sims 3 be released for Wii? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theface102 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it say "Wii" in the infobox next to "Platforms"? :P No, there's no plan to release it for the Wii. Maybe it's due to the complexity of the game. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Snooty Sims

Whats up with the red Snooty Sims wikilink in the bottom? 212.59.23.166 (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm?.--SkyWalker (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It was there. I removed it. Look in the change history. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had enough of this "Snooty Sims" site. It's being used as a reference everywhere, but correct me if I'm wrong: It's a fansite. Fansites are NOT considered valid sources in Wikipedia. I was about to consolidate the dozen "Snooty Sims Sim 3 Preview" references and wondered if all of them (and related info) should instead be removed to follow Wikipedia rules. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed for a removal, I would rather see accurate or no information rather than heresay. Dark verdant (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already said this above, in the Sims 2 disscussion, they say, and I quote, 'SnootySims has been a well-known site in the Sims Community for more than five years. It has been a reliable source for the new flyers in the past. There's always a risk that a source is inaccurate, but the same can be said about any non-fiction book and those are usually accepted as excellent sources. If we're at a reasonable level of certainty that the flyer is real, then it is a publication by EA of an upcoming expansion and therefore a valid reference.'for proof go here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Sims_2#The_Sims_2:_Apartments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.125.160 (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Such a comment signed by an inactive account doesn't look interesting. But hey, I'm just expressing my opinion on Snooty Sims to see how the majority feels about it. I'm not in favor of using it as some official source of information, but if I'm alone in this, we'll keep using it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Snooty Sims is a fan site due to fans acess it but it is mosty a referance site which adds updated news.(i.e. read the Q&A from ign.com <click here> or 2 new screenshots added from the sims3.ea.com). Wikipedians in general think this web site is not an appropriate soure but what about the sources the information comes from? and what if they have information proved by pictures and such? (i.e. Snooty Sims proved The Sims 3 will have six mood metors with a picture of the interface)--121.220.139.235 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sims 3 producer day

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/sims-3/354695-sims-3-producer-day-report-pictures-pg-2-a-2.html (Taken from a Sims 3 Producer Day ALL FACTUAL)Alex250P (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I first thought of undoing this change since it looks like forum stuff, but I suppose it could be used to improve the article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Producer walkthrough

Walkthrough - has gameplay info. JAF1970 (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I added information to this article(after watching producer walkthroughs), mentioning all the things in the game but most of the information still got deleted, i even cited it. Well users think they can delete my information and give a vague reason for doing so. I contribute to wikipedia, do the right thing and still get punished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.92.142 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Box art and caption

Don't go into a revert war over this. This is one of the reasons why talk pages exist. Describe why you prefer a box rather than the other. -- Lyverbe (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to pull down the current picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thesims3cover.jpg of and away from the article. It has not been confirmed by EA (or any operative associated with The Sims 3). In fact EA or any others of thats sort haven't even published a box art cover. At www.ea.com > http://findgames.ea.com/?search=the+sims+3&skin=ea it reads "Box art coming soon". Okay so why is there a cover art on this wikipedia article? It's not the real deal. I thought wikipedia had a strict policy against speculation? I don't care if amazon.com had a box art on The Sims 3 that was there for a while; So what? It's not a reliable source. ---- Untill it has been confirmed I think the picture should be taken down and hopefully (Much Appreciated if) a user can upload the lettering of The Sims 3 (the title I mean with the diamond behind it).--121.220.200.243 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Any objections? -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here. People are starting to believe that the cover posted in the article is the real thing, When it hasn't even been confirmed in any way that's reliable. --124.182.210.216 (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What about using this? [[3]] I reckon thats the sort of thing that should be on the article if there is no confirmed Box Art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.217.187 (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"if you have a reason [to remove the box art], state it in your edit" - No, no, no. The edit is not a place to chat. The box art has been removed and we'll be going into a revert war again. I started this discussion 2 months ago, discuss it here and not in the edit. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The person still made a good point. "Box Art Removed. Because its not the box art for the central product. The Sims 3 Lettering is more apporpriate. It doesn't need to be a cover of something, unless it is the official cover." The collection edition box was the one posted and got taken down. Anyway i coppied this because this is were it belongs. doesn't it?--121.215.175.135 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The collectors edition is the only box-art available at this time. Hereford 23:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah Hereford again. "See talk page" - now that's what I call a team effort. So you have decided for us all that the change you made is THE solution. No discussion, no consensus, no agreement. *sigh*

I don't think you understood what I meant by going into a revert war. Let me explain the problem: You think you have THE solution, but someone else thinks he also has THE solution... but it's not the same as yours. Why do you think your solution is better? "See talk page" while imposing a change is not how Wikipedia works, it is how a revert war works.

Stupid box art. Can't we just leave it blank until the game is released in 6 weeks?! Of couse, I could apply that as a comment in the article and title my change "See talk page". -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no confirmed box art! I feal like stoping on a box right now. The game is still in development. When there is a game in development it sholdn't be apropriate to post an unconfirmed box art untill the developer or producer has confirm it. Because box art can leak onto the web easy.

All a game site has to do is go by that as the cover and "bam" it ends up on wikipedia. eg --"I'm going to Pre-Order the game. Look at that I have stumbled across the official cover art. All I had to do is go to a gaming site. Well time to put that on wikipedia." No! Just because there is a cover doesn't mean it's the cover. (Hopefully that will be avoided by the semi-Protection act.)

(must read this paragraph) Nevertheless forget about putting a cover art there till time comes to. Put the logo The Sims 3 there instead. Cities XL is a game in development. On wikipedia it has the logo of the game there instead due to the fact that there is no confirmed box art. The Sims 3 has no confirmed box art. Why does this have to differ!? (by the way that question was more of a statement than a question)--58.170.93.131 (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Characters?

I am not sure if we have an article on characters from this franchise, but a reference I recommend if we do is “The Sims 3: The Rise and Fall of Arnie the Sim,” Game Informer 187 (November 2008): 106-107. As the title of the article suggests, this preview of the game focuses on that character. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Producer Walktroughs Count As Reliable Information?

Do information from Producer Walkthrough Videoes (Gameplay Videoes) count and information that can be added to this article? since it is very likely to be in the final product of The Sims 3 game.

There are things here and there that could be mentioned in the article but i'm affraid that the information might possibly get deleted. So do they count as information that could be added toward The Sims 3 article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.215.153 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Videos are as valid as any other source, just as long as it's from official people. A statement from some unknown fan on YouTube is not a reliable source, but it is from an offical producer of the game. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So if the information is coming from the producers mouth and you see it moving then it's a reliable source??--58.170.82.77 (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, it's even better than anything else because websites can be made by anyone compared to a video of official people themselves. If the timestamps can be added to the ref comment (ie. "Mentionned at 8h32s in the clip"), it would help too. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Developer Solution

How about this:

Since there is so much fuss about who's making the game would it be resonable to just say "EA" is developing the game? Maxis is part of EA and Redwood Shores, Blackbox ect. are different studios all operated by EA. So EA seems like a trueful and perfect compromise to put. Bizub4 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to discuss about it and, once a consensus has been reached, then we make the change. You made the change then proposed a solution. That's not how it works. Also, you didn't provide some ref to support your claim. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As expected, the fight is starting again (thanks Bizub4). Do NOT change the developer field until a consensus has been reached in the talk page. At the very least, provide a reference to your statement. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

EA is above Maxis Studios, it's just which one do you put as the developer. EA or Maxis? Electronic Arts for this game is the video game publisher and Maxis Studios at Redwood Shores is the video game developer. Maybe people keep changing it because they don't know how to differentiate between the two.

I admit I got confused what they ment by the two at first but i just looked them up in wikipedia and now I know. I'm almost complelely certain that Maxis Studios or just plain Maxis is the game developer and it may be likely to you too if you read these internal articles. "Discuss on Talk Page before you make any changes." Look here: video game publisher; video game developer . 124.177.186.200 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It says here > The Sims Series < "The Sims series is developed by Maxis and published by Electronic Arts". Doesn't that answer everything?--121.214.217.15 (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. First of all, the source is from Wikipedia and it's not considered a reliable source since it's written by people like you and me who have the freedom to write anything they want. Second, it's possible that development team changes in the middle of a serie (for example, mid-90's game "Descent" completely changed the team from Parallax to Volition between "Descent II" and "Descent III").

Those who strongly believe it's Maxis need to provide solid refs that it's Maxis, and those who think it's EA must do the same. People have been changing this thing for weeks without giving any proof of what they're saying, and that's the cause of the revert war.

If what 124.177.186.200 said above is true (again, no solid source to support what is said), then Maxis is the developer. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I know the part about where it is located is true because before the French visited the studio they did quick video scenes around San Fransisco. And Redwood City is nearby. So the part about it being in Redwood Shores is true. A sign out the front reads Electronic Arts 250 Shoreline Drive. In The Sims 3 recording studio a sign also says Electronic Arts. This is the actual place where they develop and produce The Sims 3 because the developing floor matched the one seen months ago on the official Sims 3 Website when there was a video called 'Behind The Scenes'. I'm only telling you what I saw and I didn't see Maxis writen anyware that doesn't automaticly mean that Maxis is out of the picture, but it could. http://www.jeuxvideo.com/reportages-videos-jeux/0000/00000171/les-sims-3-le-rendez-vous.htm --58.170.116.215 (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Also, according to Gamespot at http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/thesims3/tech_info.html?tag=tabs;summary, it clearly says that the developer is "EA Redwood Shores". I'd go for these sources. Lets wait until friday for any objections. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sims 3 preview video

There's a kind of preview of The Sims 3 available on The Times Online website and features one of its producers. I haven't contributed to this article (haven't even read it yet) so I'd rather add the link here than in the article itself. It just discusses main features etc. :) londonsista ^Prod 02:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image caption.

File:NewUPCTheSims3.jpg

A predicted Sims 3 screen including a new style UPC. The UPC is split up. Note the time is in the top-left corner. Also note the time interface is back at the bottom in its usual place, game displayed at a recent press coverence, also some of the interface has changed since this picture was taken

I read this image caption and wonder, WTF is a UPC? - 218.111.48.86 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to bring this up again because it demonstrates how much Wikifag bureaucracy has affect logic on what course of action to take. This comment was originally posted in a harsh manner to find out if someone would actually add an explanation of an abbreviation that is obviously not known to a lot of people into the image caption. Instead, this topic was removed not long after (having been cited as forum spam) [4] and its question was left unresolved, while the image was deleted altogether due to fair use guidelines a week or two later [5]. Thanks, fellow Wikifaggots. You have demonstrated once again that Wikipedia is muddled in too much rules and guidelines that it couldn't figure out what to actually do. - 60.50.251.21 (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Article

Just so everyone knows; Internet Explorer 6 users can't view or click the "hide/show" link. For instance I go to view the System Requirements on this article. Well I can't because the "hide/show" doesn't come up.--60.231.219.21 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

...and you are still using IE because...? :) It's time to move forward and switch to Firefox! But your point is interesting thought. Since the "System Requirements" is pretty big and has its place in the infobox, I don't believe it should be repeated in the article. Perhaps we could add something in the "Development" section saying "The game is set to run on average PC settings" with a ref to the system requirements page? -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ESRB description

From ESRB: Rating summary: This is a life simulation game in which players can customize and control avatars (Sims) through several stages of life and its daily activities. Players are free to pursue a variety of goals as they observe and attempt to influence and nurture families of Sims. These avatars often interact socially, which can sometimes lead to mild flirtation or more intimate encounters. Players can choose to "try for a baby" or "WooHoo" with another Sim – the later option being available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples. These two actions cause the selected avatars to jump into bed and go under the covers, where they wriggle, giggle, and moan until confetti bursts over the bed. Sims characters need to maintain their health and hygiene and do so by eating, exercising, bathing, and using the toilet, which is depicted by a blurred, pixilated effect and trickling sounds. Avatars can also vomit, emit flatulence, and wet themselves if no toilet is available or offered. As in real life, Sim characters can die of old age; they can also die as a result of neglect or starvation. Certain animations depict the avatars dying in fires, drowning in pools, and getting electrocuted by household appliances.

There's some info there not in the article (ie. same sex marriage and sex return in The Sims 3, etc.) JAF1970 (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not actually state same sex marriage, it does whoever state same sex sex. 86.89.102.98 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it'll just have gay sex, without Sims 2's marriage and adoption options? JAF1970 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No :) I'm only saying that the text you quoted does not state that.I'm pretty sure that it will be possible,but the text just does not say that,my point with that is, that the text shouldn't be used to support the marriage part in the article. 86.89.102.98 (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Release date

Someone keeps changing the release date to March 26th. From everything I've read, it's still February 20. Is this March release date some valid rumor or is the guy just a vandal? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If the user doesn't provide a reliable source, it remains Feb. 20 since this date does have a reliable source. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

iPhone release date in infobox

I added "iPhone OS" release date as TBA the infobox. Samurai Cerberus, you removed it. Why? -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

iPhone has been confirmed. On a side note, please put new topics UNDER the old ones, it's common courtesy.

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Look at the date it was posted compare to other posts in this page. This was fresh from an archive creation and it WAS the first message back then. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Technicals

Don't suppose we could get some more information on the technical aspects, the engine it's running and such, or any information on how it was developed. Just something on a more technical side, as this article focuses on the in-game features too heavily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.110.97 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Old Discussions?

Ummm....what exactly happened to all the old discussions for this page? Some of them WERE still in progress. It's very rude to just go about removing discussions nilly willy as if you own this page or something! And, it's not protocal to EVER remove discussions, unless it's your userpage and you choose to do so. Keep this in mind, okay? Thanks! Johnnywalterboy (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I apologize! I didn't see the archive! Sorry! Wow, silly me! Again, sorry! Johnnywalterboy (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, the archives should have been done better than just a complete move/rename of the talk page. When I do them, I only archive the topics that haven't been touched for at least a month. We also lost the history. Not neat. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When I archive a page, I always take the current content and cut & paste it to an archive page. Archiving in-progress conversations shouldn't be done, however. The history can still be accessed. It's right here on this page. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as everything still exists in one form or another, I think the current talk page is fine. Most of the archived discussions were resolved anyway. 75.28.55.71 (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

in-game info? citation needed still?

How does all this "Citation Needed" business work when the game is released? How do you provide a ref for something that is in the game but not on web pages? Do you provide a ref saying in-game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.224.50 (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I believe you cannot use the primary material as a source so you won't be able to use it as a reference. However I imagine once the game has been released, everything that is important to know regarding in-game features will be on the Sims 3 official website. I imagine you could also use the game guide as that should contain everything you need to know as well. Dark verdant (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a strange policy. So you can't cite a book on a page about that book to say something is in the book? You have to wait until someone online says that thing is in the book to cite that website so you can add a fact to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.175.158 (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maxis involvement

I'm a little surprised that this article doesn't mention why it's being developed by EA Redwood Shores rather than Maxis. Is there any known reason? (Other than Spore.) RobertM525 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look in the archives. This issue has been discussed many times in different sections. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wants and Fears...

Saw this in the gameplay section... "The Want and Fear system of The Sims 2 is replaced by Wants and Fears." I think that could do with rewording/clearing up! Does anyone know what the wants and fears system is replaced by, or is there a better way of putting it/explaining it if it's actually the same? Pheebalicious (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's replaced by wishes. A Sim will have wishes appear as they go about their daily business. It might be something small, like they see their neighbour's TV and wish for a better TV. It might be something bigger, like a wish to marry a certain Sim. The player can then fulfil the wish, and the Sim will get a small positive moodlet.

The player can also choose to "promise" to fulfil a wish. If they fulfil a promised, the Sim will still get a positive moodlet, and they will also earn Lifetime Happiness Points. However, if the player fails to fulfil a promise, the Sim will get a negative moodlet.

So while there is no penalty for failing to fulfil a wish, there is a penalty for failing to fulfil a promise.

For a better explanation, see: http://thesims3.ea.com/view/pages/blog.jsp?author=Lyndsay%20Pearson#WishesandLifetimeHappiness Tinkerbell1987 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Release date TBA?

I don't think it's accurate at this stage to describe the release date as TBA. The EA UK site never had the release date added to the page, but the only official word regarding the date straight from EA is the 20th August news article. Also, on another official EA Sims 3 site advertisement 2 of 9 on the front page still shows a release date of 20/2/09, with less than a month to go before the release date. I'm aware that there has been much speculation regarding the release date today, sparked by the following comment:

"We are currently evaluating the launch window. The game looks great and in the near future we'll have more information."

This comment has appeared on some gaming news sites, but none of them seem to cite a source. Some say it was a "statement" issued by EA, but they do not say who issued the statement, and I couldn't find it anywhere other than this handful of gaming news sites (for example, it does not appear on EA's press site). The uncertainty should be discussed in this article (which I am unable to edit), but I think to change the release date in the right column until the information actually comes from EA is to repeat what is, for now, just a rumour.

Tinkerbell1987 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK site had the release date. It was changed to TBA this weekend. I rather go with the latest official changes than old news. Of course, if I'm alone thinking this way, bring it back to Feb. 20 until we have another official press release or something. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't edit the page, and the release date says 2/20/08, not 2/20/09 as it should be. Can someone change this? --Koyo123 01:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koyo123 (talk • contribs)

Mesaana: "Added release date. Confirmed by official EA website." The source I provided was also from an official EA website, and it said TBA. My argument is as good as yours. I'm wondering how old news makes it better than recent news? -- Lyverbe (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard: EA's website http://www.eagames.co.uk/game/the-sims-3/ says TBA, http://thesims3.ea.com/ says 2009, the 20th Feb date stems from a 20th August 2008 press release, and until recently that was accurate, but when all the EA sites have now taken down that date and replaced with it TBA/2009, since that is much more recent than the 20th Feb release date announcement I don't think listing it as being released then is correct. 86.160.126.231 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.229.148 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The {{editsemiprotected}} template is for making specific requests; if this refers to the request by 86.160.126.231 above, that change has now been made. —Snigbrook 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here it is from the official The Sims 3 website. The release date is Feb 20th. Does this count or has it been refuted somehow? I think if they changed their minds, they would've taken it down. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked in Game the other day, and they said the release date was 20th February, although Amazon.co.uk and Game.co.uk both say June! I really don't know, but I hope it's February. KillerKat (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The first rule is to stick with whatever the publisher themselves say, so we'll do that. As for hoping, I'd rather expect that the game is released in June and if it's released in February, then great, rather than hoping it's in February and then being disappointed when it's in June. Gary King (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

TBA and Delay Settling

I have edited the Release Date to 'TBA' because as of now, nobody is sure that the date is even in February or further.

And I have added that the 'Debate settling' meeting will be held on the 3rd of February after it is settled a new date will be displayed in place of TBA --Erhama (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed some of this text - the wording is speculative and unencyclopedic. Achromatic (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Meeting? What meeting? Who, where, what time? I agree with Achromatic as to the removal of the speculative text. However, I'm not sure that the date is correct. In one edit, he said Amazon lists the release date. While that is verifiable (though he didn't ref it), they are probably basing their release date on erroneous information too. EA is the only ref we can really trust on this one, and it sounds like they're being mum. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. People write all kinds of date coming from anywhere. If I need to trust either Amazon or the official site, call me crazy, but I'll go with the official site. Currently, the official site says TBA. There shouldn't even be a debate regarding the release date. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The "meeting" is EA's quarterly conference call with shareholders. It is likely that they will discuss things likely to impact on their profits in the next quarter - for example, the delay of a major game such as The Sims 3. EA have not specified whether they will confirm the release date in that meeting, although it seems likely. It is all rather speculative, but I do still feel that without an announcement from EA to the contrary, the only accurate "official" release date is the one which was set in August in a press release. Tinkerbell1987 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And, as I stated above, Feb 20th is still on their The Sims 3 website here. If they changed it, I think they would've taken it down. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The 20th February date is still on that page, but it's a news item, only intended to be correct when it was published, so I don't expect (and wouldn't want) it to be updated with new information. —Snigbrook 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've searched several reliable sources, including the Sims 3 official site, and they all list February 20, 2009 as the release date for the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madsmaddie2 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone on the Official Site and it reads "comming in 2009!" Where on the site is February 20th 2009? What section? http://thesims3.ea.com/view/pages/ce_preorder.jsp - States dates about terms and conditions of the Colectors Edition. But nothing about February 20th I've found.--60.231.215.37 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it. http://thesims3.ea.com/view/pages/newsItem.jsp?item=346181212 - That is from a long time ago. Still, if the developers felt they needed more time then they would have taken it down.--60.231.215.37 (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This was addressed above by Snigbrook: "it's a news item, only intended to be correct when it was published, so I don't expect (and wouldn't want) it to be updated with new information." If it really were the 20th, I don't think EA would be so coy about the actual release date: that's not good marketing. EA knows marketing. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben Bell (Executive Producer) recently said "February 2009" @ http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8o4P-ss7_70 ten seconds in. This vedio is very recent.--121.220.192.146 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Video is recent because it was posted on Jan 24th? That doesn't make it new news! There's a difference between "posting" and "recording" time. It could have been recorded six months ago, so yeah, he could have said "Feb. 2009", but it could be old news. -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if you're maintaining that the date has not officially been changed to TBA, I doubt anyone could deny that the date IS in question right now, and we're all waiting for an announcement to settle the matter. (In other words, waiting for it To Be Announced. See what I did there?) Hopefully such an announcement will come on Monday. Also, using a news release that's clearly dated August 2008 as evidence that the date has not been changed in the last few weeks is ridiculous. Propaniac (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

EA are not confirming a Release Date until they are 100% sure its ready for production, they have said "20th February 2009" but that was last year, and EA think there could be a delay - EA will confirm if there is/isnt a delay later today 2pm (PST). DJBoddington (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a delay has been confirmed on EA's press site. They have The Sims 3 pegged for June 09: http://www.ea.gamespress.com/ - I think this now counts as an "official" enough source to put this on the page, if somebody able to edit it would do so? Tinkerbell1987 (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I don't see anything on that page about The Sims 3. Could you provide a more direct link (instead of to the aggregate page)? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

They've changed it again. It said June 2009: The Sims 3 in the left column when I posted that, but now they've taken that information down. I'm sure the information will reappear later on, it was probably just posted too soon. Tinkerbell1987 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The ship date (not release date) is now officially 2nd June 09. Check here on the official site: http://thesims3.ea.com/view/pages/news.jsp?month=2&year=2009 Tinkerbell1987 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's official. (And pardon me while I sob about having to wait another FOUR MONTHS before this game that was supposed to be out in SEVENTEEN DAYS. I'm heartbroken.) Propaniac (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's official enough for me. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That news page isn't showing any text for me, besides the layout, images, etc. Gary King (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it's broken right now. Try back in a couple of hours. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now their website is completely broken. I assume this news is really disappointing a lot of people, including myself. Gary King (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If the EA press release isn't working, a Google News Alert search for "Sims 3" will come up with several articles posted this afternoon about the release date change. Propaniac (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The release date is June 02 2009 http://www.thesims3.net , not June 05 2009. Someone has also locked this? 23:20, 4 February 2009(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesims3expert (talk • contribs)

Xbox 360 and PS3 ports

I belive the Xbox 360 and PS3 ports are TBA, so I will list them aswell as PC and iPhone. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't cite any reference that states that there will be Xbox 360 and PS3 ports. We need a valid, reliable reference to make such a statement. At this point, really only EA is an authority on this, not blogs, Sims fansites, etc. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither console platform has been even hinted at, much less confirmed. Also, given EA's relationship with Nintendo

(SimAnimals, Spore, MySims all released on the Nintendo Wii/DS and PC.) Johnnywalterboy (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they were TBA until a few months ago, but I think they were scrapped for the near future, until they get the PC releace going, The Sims 3 will probally be releaced on consoles, but I doubt it will the Wii, as the Wii is a last generation console, and the Xbox 360 and PS3 are next generation, the Wii is most likely not powerful enough to play a next generation game, that would be like porting GTA 4 over to the Wii, the Wii is simply not powerful enough, which is why I doubt the Sims 3 being ported on to the Wii, but not home consoles all together, expecially when you consider that the Sims 1 and 2 were on home consoles. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how powerful the Wii is it is a current gen console. 86.165.156.154 (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well ok then, how come GTA 4 is a current gen game and never got a port on the Wii, I belive it is because it is to powerful to be releaced on the wii. Care to prove me wrong? mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the appropriate forum to discuss such things. The only things that should be discussed here are ways to improve the article. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok so for now, until EA says anything new about the Sims 3 console ports, the topic is closed? mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No. This isn't the appropriate forum to discuss the power of one console versus another. It isn't up to us to debate or try to second guess why EA may be porting a game from one system to another or why. If it's hotly debated from a reputable source and is noteworthy, it can be referenced and included in the article. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Misspelt surname in reference

The following is listed as a reference: "9. ^ a b Broham, Steve (18 July 2008). "The Sims 3: First Preview". The Sims Resource. http://www.thesimsresource.com/article/sims3. Retrieved on 28 November 2008." This guy's name is Steve Bonham, not Broham, as you can see on The Sims Resource staff page: http://www.thesimsresource.com/helpcenter/staff . Could somebody correct that? Tinkerbell1987 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New Box Art

The new, official box art can be found here: [6]

found directly from EA website ([7]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maleheffer (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SIMS 3 New Realease date In NJ

Well The Sims 3 To My Knowledge Is Being Released February 16th Because OF The Website http://www.gamecrazy.com/games/game.aspx?id=13740&LF=STL So Check it Out um Don't Believe This http://thesims3.ea.com/view/pages/newsItem.jsp?item=1183392783 It Says It SHIPS WORLDWIDE ON JUNE 2ND IF YOU LIVE IN THE NJ AREA THEN IT IS BEING RELEASED FEB 16 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickstarbeckyrr (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That website might not have been updated. If it was a news item that was released after EA's press release, then I would think twice, but in this case, it's most likely outdated. Gary King (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're telling us not to believe an official source? From the actual makers? I don't understand. Why would the first website know what EA don't? Dark verdant (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we've encountered a troll here. He wanted to evoke such a response with his ridiculous post. Don't feed the trolls. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But if I don't feed them they wont be distracted enough for me to cross the bridge. Dark verdant (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read both the wiki troll thing and both of those two posts, and I don't thing this user that you are all are talking about is trolling cos I read those two posts and I think they are pretty beliveable, it may be offial infomation, maybe The Sims 3 is coming out on the 16.2.09, I'lld look into it, but I must note that when I read the Winter '08 argos catoulouge it said The Sims 3 comes out 20.2.09, I recon that someone should look into this. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

GameSpot has updated their release dates to June 2nd; a website that I trust a whole lot more than GameCrazy. Gary King (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Blueeyedbeaty96 SAYS: Were I live the relese date is still Febrary 20th. I'm So exsited I can't wait to play it! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueeyedbeauty96 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I know that the Sims 3 releace date data is meant to be coming from EA and only EA, and I know EA said the releace date is 2.6.09 but, this link[8] on gamespot says that The Sims 3 will be releaced on the 5.6.09 rather than 2.6.09, so that should be considered for change. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, please check this. It's clarified there (by GameSpot). Gary King (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I've checked this and accroding to the infomation givin by gamespot, It states that the Sims 3 releace date is 2.6.09 North America, and 5.2.09 Europe, if that's the case then it should be edited to NA 2.6.09 and EU 5.6.09, if there are no more delays that is. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess we're cool now, after the recent edits. Gary King (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, sure are. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Question?

Why does the picture of the cover have a mac and PC emblem...? Will the disk be a duel platform game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.155.203 (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the game will be formated for both types of computers. Johnnywalterboy (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

System Requirement

The article doesn't include the system requirements, which I think are very important to any computer game. This is what the sims 3 website says: http://thesims3.ea.com/view/pages/newsItem.jsp?item=236875146

FOR WINDOWS XP

Windows XP (Service Pack 2) 2.0 GHz P4 processor or equivalent 1 GB RAM At least 6.5 GB of hard drive space with at least 1 GB additional space for custom content 128 MB Video Card with support for Pixel Shader 2.0 FOR WINDOWS VISTA

Windows Vista (Service Pack 1) 2.4 GHz P4 processor or equivalent 1.5 GB RAM At least 6.5 GB of hard drive space with at least 1 GB additional space for custom content 128 MB Video Card with support for Pixel Shader 2.0 For computers using built-in graphics chipsets, the game requires at least: Intel Integrated Chipset, GMA X3000 or above. 2.6 GHz Pentium D CPU, or 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo, or equivalent 0.5 GB additional RAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.241.177 (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The system requirements are in the Development section, under the heading titled "System requirements". Gary King (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The system requirements in the rubix below are incorrect. Under where it says 'windows' there lies the mac requirements.121.214.217.134 (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Or they are Windows requirements, but it doesn't specify that its non built in graphic chip set which it should.--121.214.217.134 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Mac System Requirements

Where did this come from? It has still not been confirmed by EA that TS3 requires an intel-based Mac. 193.91.240.134 (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It was added here. In any case, I'm assuming that the editor just assumed it, considering there hasn't been software released for the PowerPC in a while I think? At least, nothing too major. Gary King (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reason for the delay

FWIW, if anyone would like to add the (supposed) reasons for the delay, this IGN article mentions it. RobertM525 (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

From the article:

According to Russell Arons, Vice President of Marketing at EA, "The June launch combined with the break-through game the team is building gives us the perfect runway to create awareness for The Sims 3. [It] will be the original IP summer blockbuster of 2009 as we build off the success of the best-selling PC franchise of all time to create awareness with both loyal Sims fans and new players."

So, in short, they gave no reason. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Australia has The Sims 3!

Sp was this game released in Australia already? Or is the sentence in the lead a mistake? Is the fact that they didn't update a past release date for one area one of the most important things about this game?YobMod 11:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a mistake. I highly doubt Australia has it already. It'll be a simultaneous worldwide release. Someone needs to look into this. I'd do it, but I have other fish to fry at the moment. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, If I get a spair minute I'll google this one, but I'm pretty busy like. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry! I'm on it. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Promotion?

I want to nip this in the bud. A user added a "Promotion" section and I copyedited, but then Big Bird removed the whole section (a good move, I think) since the whole section read like a press release from EA. Another user just added it back in again. Should we have it or no? I vote no; it just sounds too much like an ad. At most, it should be a sentence or two, not a whole paragraph. Anyone else? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I vote no too. Perhaps merge it as a single line somewhere in "Release", but I don't believe it's worth having its own section. -- Lyverbe (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, my revert of the Promotion section keeps getting reverted by anons (it looks like different anons, based on the IP addresses). I don't want to break the 3 revert rule. Does anyone else want to weigh in on this? How are we supposed to handle a bunch of anons messing with the article? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we've now reached an agreement to satisfy everyone. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you've shortened the section to just about two sentences as I mentioned above. Thanks, that's all it deserves. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Pets

Pets are included in Sims 3. This should probably be mentioned in the 'features from previous expansion packs' paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.63.140 (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a valid reference? I can't find one apart from speculation on forums. Jozal (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.co.uk has a section called "Manufacturer's Description" on their Sims 3 product page. This information is presumably submitted by EA. It says "Instant expansion: The game includes many feature from the The Sims 2 expansions from the off, including personal inventories, pets, private cars, restaurants and gardening." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.63.140 (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see it. It seems to check out. I'm not entirely sure if Amazon is a verifiable source though. Jozal (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there will not be pets unless Amazon were talking about the fish and insects you could catch. (see the collections blog)82.46.73.110 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

so regular pets weren't mentioned in any sims 3 blogs or anything? corazón del fuego 23:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Development Box

I was just reading and saw that the development box was a bit of a mess yesterday, fixed it up. and wanted to say thanks for whoever changed DRM to software copy protection to make it clear :) -- The One and Only Alborzb (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed?

I was just scanning through the articles when I noticed a citation needed label. I read the statement and I feel there is no need for it. It simply says: items can be rotated freely. Any Sims 3 fan that does some surfing will find this, its common knowledge. If you still feel the need for a citation, I can tell you that the same statement can be found on the official Sims 3 site, in a blog (pre-creators camp) I do believe. Also, on a help note, there is a paragraph under Sunset valley about the sims in the neighborhood, I've tried to edit it but I still don't think its up to wikipedia's standards, so editing would be appreciated. Haecandrome (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Any Sims 3 fan" is the key here. A reader does not have to be a fan of the article's subject to read it. What is obvious to you and me might be completely new to someone not familiar with the game. Take a look at the Need for Speed Undercover article and see the amount of references and "citation needed" - It's full of them. Citations are required.

Also, please start new discussions at the bottom of a talk page per WP:TP#Formatting. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh God did I write that, I must have been having an off day? Either way excuse my stupidity. I've added the reference but there is a break in the URL stopping the link from working. http://thesims3.ea.com/view/pages/blog.jsp?author=Feisal Maroof, as you can see, "Feisal" and "Maroof" are seperated by a space, any ideas on how to stop this? Haecandrome (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

http://thesims3.ea.com/view/pages/blog.jsp?author=Feisal%20Maroof . Also, please use the Show Preview button to test your changes. -- Lyverbe (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Curious, I tried the ol' %20, oh and I did use Show Preview a number of times, only to come back and see faliure. Haecandrome (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

DRM/copy protection

Why has no one mentioned DRM/copy protection in the article?

According to this: http://www.info.ea.com/artwork/2009/04/na-1-20090430170416/140a2bf666582fd4/ts3_store_faq_final_04_30_09.doc

Q: Is there copy protection on the disc?

A: Yes, we have the same level of copy protection on disc as what shipped with the original The Sims 2 base game.

Q:How is copy protection for The Sims 3 different than for Spore?

A: The key difference is no online authentication required to play the retail disc product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hintswen (talk • contribs) 05:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Uhh... it is? See here [9]. And here's the reference used [10] Jozal (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

oh oops, I just did a search for DRM on the page and didn't actually read it >_> Hintswen (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough :) Jozal (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Contains SecuROM Copy protection as well as Serial protection as is pretty much standard for all EA games. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Since your comment is not sourced, I'll assume you're talking out your ass. according to the official website (thats the source) SecuROM is only for the online downloads of the game and is not an issue with the store bought copy unless online purchases through the store are in play.

SecuRom is indeed packaged with the hard copy (disk version) of the game. It's also a stealth install job. You'll have to hunt it down to remove it once you install the game. Fun times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.149.175 (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What you mean to say is that The Sims 3 retail is still "protected" by SecuROM, but only as a disk based protection!? I thought they will be back with SafeDisc? Can anyone verify this? In that case I won't buy the game. Triadwarfare (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Tidy Up

As we are now only a few weeks away from the release of The Sims 3, and more information about the game is being released thanks to the many reviews being posted on-line I have tidied up the article a little Darth Jadious (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

...and how telling us this in the talk page will improve the article? regardless, you've only made minor changes and one of them has a typo. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Lyverbe on this, though thanks for trying. Jozal (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pirated version

Hi, I have added a note on the "Release" section referring to the pirated version that appeared online. I have added a citation with a link to a site hosting the NFO file for the release, nothing illegal and no links to the actual game, just the proof that the game has been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.37.204.171 (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It has been edited and moved, you may readd the NFOHump link as proof now. Iforget2020 (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Software piracy is not something that should be "advertised" in Wikipedia. I know the purpose is not to advertise it, but mentionning it does the job. Also, the fact that the pirated version is available doesn't reveal anything about the gameplay or development of the game itself. We don't need proof that it has been pirated, we need this fact to be hidden. Almost every software on earth has been pirated, yet no software article ever talks about it. It's just not encyclopedic material. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I assume you are already hard at work deleting any articles mentioning things like war and crime. We wouldn't want to encourage anyone to wage war or commit crimes. In fact, who is to say what should or shouldn't be encouraged by Wikipedia? The safest thing to do is to shut down the entire site. Or maybe this article could just stop being edited by EA shills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.162.239 (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. I think we should request semi-protection on this page. IP's keep adding the leak info back in. Jozal ^(talk) 16:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have filed a request for page protection here. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 16:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just why isn't it significant? The Sims 3 is a prominent title. One of the most prominent of the year, undoubtedly. The fact that it leaked, working, in its entirety a full fortnight and then some ahead of its Gold Date is more than notable; that is, unless you suggest we knock a few lines off of this section: Spore (game)#Controversy. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 17:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional Note: Apparently Ars believes it is notable[11]ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 17:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added info on the pirated leak, with information from a reliable news source. If you think "this fact needs to be hidden," you are not operating within the spirit of Wikipedia, see WP:CENSOR. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bdb484 makes a very good point. I hadn't thought about that so thanks for pointing it out. Jozal ^(talk) 17:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bdb484 has actually completely misinterpreted the guideline. WP:CENSOR means I can say "fuck" on Wikipedia, it doesn't mean I can add whatever I want to an article and then claim censorship when it's removed. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case WP:CENSOR means you need a very good reason for removing notable information. Not wanting to promote piracy doesn't cut it. 65.80.232.12 (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Tried to find something in Wikipedia rules that prevents encouraging software piracy, but couldn't find anything. I see this like a news website informing anyone waiting for Sims 3 that there's a pirated version available. Ah well. -- Lyverbe (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Samurai Cerberus has reverted edits three times. He has been warned of violating WP:3RR.. any additional reverts by him should be reported if I don't catch it. Thanks. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 18:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to get out of hand. I think we should try and reach a consensus on whether or not the information about the leak should be included. Until then, it should be left out of the article. Jozal ^(talk) 18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Information about a leak/pirate release should not be included unless EA comments on it. It happens to every game, Sims is no different. It simply isn't notable. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."--Teoh Han Hui 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaks hapon all the time we don't needs it Smurai Chaos Wolf☃ 19:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The arguments against including the information about the leak are pretty absurd:

1. Beyond covering naughty words, WP:CENSOR also covers the removal of information because a user thinks a fact "needs to be hidden."
2. Arguing that it's not notable because it happens to every program makes it non-notable is also not grounded in any actual rule or guideline. If it were, we wouldn't mention that Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, because that happens to every person who wins a presidential election. And we'd take out that Mark Twain died, because hey, everyone dies eventually. And let's not mention that Steve Jobs was born, because really, what notable person wasn't born?
3. Probably the least helpful is the claim that the leak "is NOT NOTABLE unless commented on by EA." EA doesn't get decide what is and isn't in its articles anymore than any other company or person. If they could, I guarantee the Sarah Palin and Kim Jong-Il pages would look a lot different.

On top of all this, it's worth noting that WP:N is the rule for article topics, not for the content of the articles themselves. I haven't heard anyone provide any solid reasoning here for removing the information. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to "hide" the information, it's simply not worth including. I'm pretty sure the it-happens-to-everything is something I read in a discussion about some other leaked game (maybe Spore (2008 video game), which has...no references to the leak), can't remember though. You're being totally obtuse with the everybody-lives-dies argument. If you wish to include it, I suggest you bring it up on WT:VG. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Obtuse was kind of the point of what I was saying. When you think about what the suggestion would actually mean if it were applied anywhere else, it becomes clear that it makes no sense. I'd also agree with your argument that no one's trying to hide the information. Except for this: [12]. So my question is this: Is there some reason (grounded in WP policy, preferably) that this shouldn't be included, aside from WP:DONTLIKEIT? — Bdb484 (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, there's a slight problem with your statement Falcon, as the very game you noted (Arguably the most pirated game of 2008 and the most anticipated PC title of 2008) indeed does, as noted above, note its cracking and being made available prior to its street date: Spore (game)#Controversy. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 00:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone someone remove the part in the "Leaked" article where it names the torrents of the leak and the site where you can obtain it? I would do it myself but the page is protected. Requiem One (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. It seems someone removed the whole section entirely. Requiem One (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had no idea what that person was thinking, putting that in. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 01:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the thing that makes this instance particularly notable over piracy/leaks with other software is not so much the fact that it happened (as previously stated, that happens with just about any software), but moreso the fact that it happened prior to the official release date. (66.235.241.102 (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Not really. Sims 2, and plenty of other games and pretty much every big movie was available before it's release since 2003 pretty much. Sims 2 about a month early on torrents. 209.40.210.222 (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Please post all reliable sources here so we can resolve the notability issue (which as far as I'm concerned is the only issue). 65.80.232.12 (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll start it off with the scene's own release NFO for it. If you remove it, you're naive to be frank. I mean, if your saying a simple 5k nfo file is equivalent to the game then... I'll also throw in a few news articles. They begin now.

• http://pastebin.ca/1425974
• http://feeds.arstechnica.com/~r/arstechnica/index/~3/8UB2MfTg9eQ/sims-3-leaked-to-torrent-sites-weeks-before-retail-release.ars
• http://www.techdigest.tv/2009/05/pirate_version.html
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/18/sims_3_leaked_online/
• http://www.pcworld.com/article/165086/sims_3_jumps_the_gun.html
• http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2009/05/18/electronic-arts%2526%2523039%3B-%2526quot%3B-sims-3%2526quot%3B-leaked-p2p-ahead-release
• http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91777-Sims-3-Leaked-Online
• http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/15956-Sims-3-leaked-to-torrent-sites.html
• http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/news.phtml/24178/sims-3-leaks-fortnight-before-release.phtml
• http://www.techspot.com/news/34752-The-Sims-3-leaked-two-weeks-ahead-of-release.html
• http://www.casualgaming.biz/news/28615/The-Sims-3-leaks-onto-torrent-sites
• http://www.softsailor.com/news/3064-the-sims-3-leaked-on-torrent-websites-two-weeks-before-its-launch.html
• http://www.inquisitr.com/24193/the-sims-3-leaked/

Would anyone else like any more articles or are we going to continue to pretend this didn't happen? Perhaps we'll act like school children, turning our heads away and ignoring it. Who knows? Maybe it will go away? I may sound like an ass, but seriously people, grow up. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 00:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's not a question of "growing up" or a "enter year 2000" thing, it's mainly a question of importance. I don't see this as information that describes the game in any way. If software piracy would be very rare, then yes, I'd see a reason to mention it because the game would have something unique that deserves attention. Unfortunately, it's not the case because all games end up on the net, yet, it's never mentionned in Wikipedia because it's such a normal thing.

You have to look at Wikipedia like if it was an encyclopedia, not a news website. That's why I personally don't like this "leak" info. -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And is it not encyclopaedia note worthy that a title was leaked, especially a prominent one, a full 2+ weeks prior to? Besides, this user specifically asked for news articles, reliable ones at that, showing that it was leaked and that it was a prominent story. Ars Technica doesn't cover many leaks of PC software. This game is one of those few it does. The same with all the other websites. Likewise, BBC doesn't cover it every single time a movie leaks, nor do most websites, yet how many stories did we see on X-Men Origins: Wolverine leaking a full month prior to its release date? I believe I have seen the point quite clearly and the fact of the matter is that the general population views it as notable else it would've gone without mention like the other dozens of PC, Wii, and 360 games which were leaked this year. I'm sure it will also be prominent when someone is capable of cracking the PS3s copy protection. Are we going to censor that as well, because it happened already to the other 2 competing consoles, yet people have been trying to crack the PS3 for whats going on the 3rd year now? If it is, then I don't know what the hell I joined Wikipedia for. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 02:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say it's hard to take you too seriously when you argue that you're just trying to maintain the integrity of the article by blocking anything that isn't important enough. I can't see how you can argue against including the date the game became available, while leaving in trivia like the fact that a promo disc was released (including a $5 coupon!!!!!!!!!!!). Or that a Sims 2 expansion pack lets you download Sims 3 paraphernalia. Or pretty much anything else under the "Release" header.

Whatever your motives, they don't matter, because the fact is that you are not the arbiter of noteworthiness; independent sources are. And as we can see up above, there are plenty of sources that find the leak notable enough to mention. Let's leave the information in the story and pick a new battle. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think the information should be on here, but Wikipedia isn't a place for my personal opinion. It's about notability, so it should be in the article. Though please can we be careful who we use as references? I'm a little apprehensive about using ZeroSec as one, mostly because it seems to encourage people to download it. Jozal ^(talk) 12:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Reverted. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 14:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What about adding a .png of the NFO by RLD? Would it be allowed as a reference to the Leaked copy section? If the screenshot has already been posted and is the bayIMG link, it is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T0rba (talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Razor1911 never released it. It would never have disseminated as per scene rules regarding duplicate releases. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 00:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, just looked at DB and say RLD rls'd it. fix'd

Just as an update, apparently, The Sims 3 from RELOADED was just a beta edition. Although apparently stable, it was incomplete all the same. Razor1911 just released their own today. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 01:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would think it was notable since it was the entire reason I came to this site, was to read about the leak... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.157.98 (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The article got locked for this? That strikes me as particularly pathetic. Notability? It happened, it has a direct relation to the subject of the article, and so is clearly worth at least a paragraph. Now can you please grow up and stop removing things so the rest of us can go back to correcting grammar without having to ask other people to do it for us. Gazok (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, there was also vandalism and general disruption taking place (as viewable in the pages history). The semi-protection will drop on June 18, 2009, well past the release date of The Sims 3, at which point the article should be pretty solid. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 15:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Sims 3 to per order on Wii

The Sims 3 can not be found right now in stock for the Wii in the per order zone. So if you have any complains well.. blame the internet!!!! I have looked all over he internet and could not find the per order of the Sims 3 in Wii! so if you HAVE found a Sims 3 per order for the WII!!! then please put it on Wikipedia and tell the web site you found it on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.59.48 (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Mac / Windows Requirements

If you look at the system requirements, the mac system lists separate requirements for "XP" and "Vista" - someone must have copy and pasted from the Windows section, so can someone lookup which is correct and sort it? 212.159.77.29 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out and yes, I think it was copied and pasted, quite recently actually. I'll try and fix this in a minute. Jozal ^(talk) 15:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

All done :) Jozal ^(talk) 16:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much detail

I've slapped this with a {{fansite}} tag because this article contians way too much information about details of the game that non-players do not care about. Remember, we write for the avg. person, not a fan. We don't need intricate descriptions about how TS3 is different from TS2. General things. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted your edit until I saw this. I agree. Rolled back my edit to yours. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

but isn't the avg. person going to use simple.wiki? T0rba (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Avg. person meaning a non-gamer. Someone who has no clue what The Sims is about. Simple is for ESL people and children. They would not, for instance, care about how the buy/build grid is now split into fours to enable Sims to place objects at however angle they want, unlike TS2...you get hte idea. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the average person, non-gamer, who has no clue what The Sims is about, be more likely to view The Sims than The Sims 3? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 04:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

while technically there is no such thing as an "average" user (too many different parameters to measure who is in the mean, median or mode), its obvious to me from the first paragraph that this is fan oriented. I dont need to know in the first paragraph that there is a special edition with a usb fob included, or whatnot. thousands of curious people want the basics in the first paragraph, even if they are hardcore gamers or sim 2 fans. i have played sims with some interest, have been obsessed at times with games, (d&d for 4 years, 76-80, so i have cred), but i also respect what WP is trying to do. details like this can be in the body of article, or in external links. im hesitant to do any edits, dont want a revert war, but remember its for the good of the article that it conform to wmos. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

PC Gamer review

It's chock full of info, but I'm not sure what is really news or important. JAF1970 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant. Looks fine to me. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean gameplay info. JAF1970 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok, do you mean the gameplay info posted within the article itself or that which is posted in the Reception section because if its the latter, I personally think it is just fine, but as the former, I don't believe its too much information, per say, I just think it needs to be re-worded because it looks like it could've been written by a PR firm. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 19:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, if you're going to add gameplay info, please remember not to go overboard on the detail. We need to try and keep this article less fansite-ish, per hbdragon88's comment above. Jozal ^(talk) 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one, you can toggle any gameplay feature on or off, such as aging and death. Where would that feature go? JAF1970 (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind - found a place for it. JAF1970 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mac OSX Requirements

Can someone include the system specs for OSX, as described at http://thesims3.ea.com/view/pages/feature6.jsp? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.202.67 (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammar fail.

Under Software Copy Protection: "Some of EA's other recent PC titles, such as, Spore and Dead Space have" should be "Some of EA's other recent PC titles, such as Spore and Dead Space, have". Gazok (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha fixed :) Jozal ^(talk) 18:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Release Dates

The Sims 3 will be released June 4 in Germany and France (Source: http://thesims3.ea.com/view/pages/home.jsp?languageCode=de). So it's not June 5 for all of Europe. --P-Computer (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like whoever added it for Europe meant just the UK. Jozal ^(talk) 14:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider this: http://ea.gamespress.com/product.asp?s=1105 01:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)