Talk:The Sims 3

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: [1]

found directly from EA website ([2]) —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[3] 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 [4]. And here's the reference used [5] 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[6]ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ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: [7]. 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)

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)

Incorrect System Requirements: Needs to be changed!

Please use the following information to accurately update the requirements table.

Source: http://thesims3.ea.com/view/pages/feature6.jsp

The Sims 3 requires at least the following:

FOR WINDOWS XP

• 2.0 GHz P4 processor or equivalent
• 1 GB RAM
• A 128 MB Video Card with support for Pixel Shader 2.0
• The latest version of DirectX 9.0c
• Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2
• At least 6.1 GB of hard drive space with at least 1 GB of additional space for custom content and saved games

FOR WINDOWS VISTA

• 2.4 GHz P4 processor or equivalent
• 1.5 GB RAM
• A 128 MB Video Card with support for Pixel Shader 2.0
• Microsoft Windows Vista Service Pack 1
• At least 6.1 GB of hard drive space with at least 1 GB of additional space for custom content and saved games

For computers using built-in graphics chipsets under Windows, the game requires at least:

• Intel Integrated Chipset, GMA 3-Series or above
• 2.6 GHz Pentium D CPU, or 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo, or equivalent
• 0.5 GB additional RAM

FOR MAC OS X

• Mac OS X 10.5.7 Leopard or higher
• Intel Core Duo Processor
• 2 GB RAM
• ATI X1600 or Nvidia 7300 GT with 128 MB of Video RAM, or Intel Integrated GMA X3100.
• At least 6.1 GB of hard drive space, with at least 1 GB additional space for custom content and saved games
• This game will not run on PowerPC (G3/G4/G5) based Mac systems, or the GMA 950 class of integrated video cards.

Windows Supported Video Cards

NVIDIA GeForce series FX 5900, FX 5950 6200, 6500, 6600, 6800 7200, 7300, 7600, 7800, 7900, 7950 8400, 8500, 8600, 8800 9300, 9400, 9500, 9600, 9800 G100, GT 120, GT 130, GTS 150 GTS 250, GTX 260, GTX 280, GTX 285, GTX 295

ATI Radeon(TM) series 9500, 9600, 9800 X300, X600, X700, X800, X850 X1300, X1600, X1800, X1900, X1950 2400, 2600, 2900 3450, 3650, 3850, 3870 4850, 4870

Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) GMA 3-Series, GMA 4-Series

Laptop versions of these chipsets may work, but may run comparatively slower. Standalone cards that are installed in vanilla PCI slots (not PCIe or PCIx or AGP), such as some GeForce FX variants, will perform poorly.

Integrated chipsets such as the ATI Xpress and the NVIDIA TurboCache variants may default to settings that are higher than what would be optimal for them. Graphics settings can be lowered to improve performance.

The NVIDIA GeForce FX series is unsupported under Vista.

MAC OS X Supported Video Cards

NVIDIA GeForce series 7300, 7600 8600, 8800 9400M, 9600M GT GT 120, GT 130

ATI Radeon(TM) series X1600, X1900 2400, 2600 3870, 4850, 4870

Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) GMA 3-Series —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseaem8 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the requirements for Mac. While your link doesn't work, that's probably because EA just changed their entire TS3 site. I'll get a working one to add as a reference when I have the chance tonight, or someone else can if they want to.

ETA: The new link is at http://www.thesims3.com/game/systemreq, but oddly enough, they no longer list the system requirements for Mac... Does anyone know if Amazon.com is verifiable enough to be used as a source for game system requirements? It has the exact same information posted above. -- Amber ^{(talk + contribs)} 20:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Prequel? Huh?

"Within the series' chronology, it is a prequel to both The Sims and The Sims 2, as well as spin-offs such as The Sims: Bustin' Out." I think the statement is supposed to be sequel. Since I'm not sure I'm leaving this for someone else to fix. or it is supposed to read, its prequels are... Please clarify.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What the editor meant that to mean, I believe, is that TS3 is a prequel in regards to the actual in-game storyline. I have read an interview confirming this, so when I get a chance I'll add in a citation. That phrase could use better wording, though, as I see why you were confused.

ETA: Added 'in-game' to the sentence for clarification. Will get it cited ASAP, or someone else can if they get a chance first. -- Amber ^{(talk + contribs)} 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And cited! -- Amber ^{(talk + contribs)} 22:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The word "prequel" is a portmanteau of pre and sequel. It means a sequel that is set chronologically before the original work. It does not mean a work to which some other work is a sequel. The Sims 3 is just about to be released; it could not have any sequels yet, pre- or otherwise. 4.245.110.231 (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed this sentence, since the cited source tied to it specifically contains the words "I wouldn't read it as a prequel." A better way to put this would be something along the lines of "There are younger versions of the Maxis-made sims from other Sims titles." I don't think it would be reasonable to use either of the words prequel or sequel to refer to The Sims titles, since the real story is the one the player creates, and may be set before, after, simultaneously with, or unrelated to any story said player may have created with previous titles. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 04:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put the phrase back in, reworded for brevity. The TS3 storyline starts a half-generation prior to TS1, and a whole generation prior to TS2. According to the definition of prequel, that makes TS3 is a prequel; that's a fact. Do we really need to cite a source for this readily verifiable fact? And yes, technically storyline in The Sims series is ultimately player-created, but it is undeniable that there is nevertheless a strong continuity in the setting. Ben Bell, the producer of TS3 cited by Amber, is not an authority on English language and cannot redefine words to suite his vision; just because he "wouldn't read it as a prequel" doesn't mean it isn't one. And yes, I agree that "There are younger versions of the Maxis-made sims from other Sims titles" would be the most precise and neutral way to put it, but it is awkward and convoluted for anyone not familiar with TS. o (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

gameplay info

that bit in the neighborhood exploration article that reads "There will also be a setting that restricts their actions to minor things like showering, eating, and going to the bathroom." doesn't really need to be in that particular section does it? it seems like that should be under gameplay. im not changing it because im not really sure why the editor put it there... corazón del fuego 14:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disciple of God (talk • contribs)

IGN Review error

The video review gives The Sims 3 an 'Outstanding' 9.0 score, whereas the text review gives it 8.9... anyone else seeing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishistheice (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lost features?

Are we sure that the basic things such as hot tubs and diving boards are gone, or is this just "verified" through the leak version? 99.141.204.79 (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC) (Interrobang^2)

I dunno who wrote that but I don't see a reference for it so it's an unverified claim. Jozal ^(talk) 22:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I've removed the Lost Features section all together because we're trying to not add too much detail and also because it's unsourced. Jozal ^(talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested, yes there are no hot tubs or diving boards in the game, at least not yet. You can use the game itself as a source I suppose, if you think it's notable to include. I would vote that it's not; while major game features are certaintly worthy of inclusion (to a point, don't want to get too detailed) I can't see how it's notable to mention what's not in the game. For example, there are no ballistic missiles in the game either, are we going to mention that? As for mentioning what used to be in the game and now is not, I wouldn't call diving boards and hot tubs that major. The lack of sliders for comfort and environment, sure. 67.176.101.205 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It can be considered "lost feature" when if to TS2. It makes sense since the game otherwise inherits all of its predecessors' features. But yes I don't think this is very notable either way. o (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it can be agreed that this topic is not notable and should therefore not be in the article. Jozal ^(talk) 16:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy and Paste?

It seems that most of the fourth paragraph ("On March 23...") in the Release section was copied directly from here. Shouldn't it be rewritten? 67.162.250.53 (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a complete copy, though it could be rewritten to sound less like the source. When I have time I'll rewrite it, but if someone else wants to then go ahead. Jozal ^(talk) 11:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Minimum Requirements

Can you still install and play the game with only 512mb ram I know it doesn't meet the miniumu requirements but I have another game like that (The final heroes of might and magic 5 expansion pack) and it still runs perfectly with graphic levels up to the max.I need to know this so I can play the game.Darkside2000 (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't a forum, it's a place to discuss improvements to the article. I'd suggest asking on a proper Sims forum such as this one. Jozal ^(talk) 12:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that rule but I only asked here as my system has a website blocker that stops me from accessing the forums needed for the info. If anyone can, please send the answer on my talk page and delete this question from the talk page.Darkside2000 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Look under the minimum requirements on the article page or on this very talk page. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 15:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

European Release

In Europe (at least in Spain) the get released on June 4th, not in June 5th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.137.81 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

USK Germany Rating

"Freigegeben ab 6. Jahren" -> 6 Years --91.19.241.28 (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Realese Europe!

It's the 4th June! Not the 5th!! --91.19.241.28 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Die Sims 3

Hej de:Die Sims 3 is the right german Wikipage... Not de:Die Sims#Die Sims 3.. Please anybody edit that.. ||| Greetings, 213.162.66.140 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed, thank you. –xeno^talk 23:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Speed bug

• A major bug in the game is that the 3- and 4-speed play don't work - they are both the same as 2-speed. There has been much discussion on the web about when a patch for this might be released - does anyone have any real info about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marthiemoo (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a bug. This only occurs when the preformance options are too high. 82.46.73.110 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, it is a bug. 65.175.193.146 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that's strictly true - if you read the forum posts there's a lot of people with high-end gaming machines who have the same problem, even when performance options are at their lowest. Marthiemoo (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that this should be included. The facts are that:

a) This fits the definition of a software bug, such that it is a fault in the programming which causes an "incorrect or unexpected result" b) A number of reviewers (I'll do some research as to exactly who) have noted this bug, and we have to assume that as game reviewers their hardware is designed to gain optimal performance from the game, and that they have tried ways of attempting to solve this issue (i.e. setting their graphics settings lower)

Given that we have people to source who have experienced this, and that it fits the above definition, that it should be included. If no one staunchly objects, I'll add it to the article later tonight. MrCrawford (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Production budget

It would be interesting to see what EA's production budget for this game was. Is this information available anywhere? A quick Google search turns up nothing relevant. --63.70.164.200 (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If that information has been released, it is the sort of information that is released in Electronic Arts' statements to stockholders. Check the corporate website. -Verdatum (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?

The article as it stands makes the Sims 3 out to be the best game ever, when it is far from. The article does not mention any bugs or any features hyped about but then left out. The game is filled with bugs and gameplay issues that need to be addressed so that this article is not just a long advertisement for the game. 209.40.210.222 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Now THAT is on-topic. However, remember: No original research. Find some reliable, independent, third-party sources that say what you're saying, and you're good to go. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 02:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

http://gameolosophy.com/games/simulation/sims/a-review-of-the-sims-3-an-empty-experience/

"One of the draw backs in a Sims 3 neighborhood is that you can only have one active family at a time. Without the option to turn story progression off, users with multiple families will find the families who are not “active” are growing old, moving, and dying. And this is frustrating to many users, who take pride in growing their many families. After all, they’ve spent hours (sometimes days and months) building up these Sims – having them move away at the drop of the hat is frustrating, to say the least." 209.40.210.222 (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that site passes the verifiability test. Blogs are usually not considered acceptable sources. See the linked page for more info. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Amazon.com has the average user rating of 2.5 of 5. Finally a source to point to in criticism of the game. 209.40.210.222 (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep being picky about this, but Amazon.com's user ratings would be considered a kind of Internet forum, again a source strongly discouraged by policy.

If you're having to stretch this much to find sources, the criticism may not yet have risen to the level of verifiability required for inclusion on Wikipedia. My advice: Head over to Wikia and create your own "Sims 3 Criticism" Wiki - and go for it. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 04:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that there does not yet (as far as I know) appear to be appropriate critisism published by reliable sources, I must point out that "Sims 3 Criticism" Wikia would get rejected. It would appropriately belong in the already existing Sims wikia ( http://sims.wikia.com ).

I would not be the least bit surprised to see such reliable sources created in the future, because these forum criticisms are pretty scathing, and from my personal experience, distressingly accurate. -Verdatum (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about Wikia, thanks for the correction; I was being slightly flip, and for that I apologize. :) And yes, if the game really does have problems, there are bound to be reports in reliable sources before long. I guess it's a matter of patience. And hoping for a patch? Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And wouldn't you know it, there is one! http://www.moreawesomethanyou.com/smf/index.php/topic,15185.0.html It's called the Shiny - Awesomemod, from what I gather. What suprises me is that I fixes a bunch of the problems with the game and it seems to have been made by modders and not EA. I know this might not seem verifiable or notable, but it might become notable since it does seem like a pretty big mod from outside modders. 209.40.210.222 (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

EA Needs Success Story

"The success of 'Sims' is crucial for EA's quarter because 'Godfather 2' sales are looking like they will be embarrassing," says Perry Rod, a money manager who focuses on digital-media investments.

"PC sales provide publishers with the best margins, so there will be considerable upside for the stock if it were to outperform expectations," he adds.

Colin Sebastian of Lazard Capital Markets, who rates EA stock a "hold," notes that "Sims 3" plays a key part in EA's turnaround plan. "It's probably fair to say that a lot is riding on the launch as EA seeks to build back credibility among gamers and investors," he says.

That lost credibility, brought about by a recent inability to control expenses while releasing unimpressive game titles, has led to the stock price being cut in half the past eight months.

" 'Sims' is the most profitable video game that EA owns," Sebastian says. "The third installment is not only important for the bottom line but also in maintaining and hopefully building on the popularity of the franchise."

No wonder EA's "Sims" marketing team is working overtime.

EA needs 'Sims' to be virtual lock Big marketing push backing game firm's top franchise By Paul Bond

May 26, 2009 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/columns/street-talk/e3i4fb04ccd3a536c4110de0ebeed7a4729

Obviously the argument could be made that this has more to do with EA than this article, but still. Thought it was interesting just how important this game is to EA's future. KamikazeHighland (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Request input on potential edit

I've got a minor Conflict of Interest here, since the issue seriously aggravated me, so I'm asking here first. Would it be appropriate to mention in the article the issue currently acknowledged on the official forums about the game not working with Toshiba Laptops for reasons they do not yet understand? It would've been extremely nice to have known that before I purchased a game I can't even play, thanks to their flawed copy protection. -Verdatum (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to mention, if it was backed up by a reliable source. Obviously, forums aren't reliable, so I would say wait for someone/thing reliable to comment on this and then add it. Jozal ^(talk) 20:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Official statements released via forums are reliable. Such is this case here, it is contained in an admin authored locked sticky post. It is also listed under EA's knowledgebase. (However, one possible issue is that these are primary sources.) -Verdatum (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know it was an official statement. Still, as you have said, it may count as WP:PRIMARY. Could you provide a link? Jozal ^(talk) 21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is http://forum.thesims3.com/jforum/posts/list/7210.page but can't confirm, as I'm behind a webfilter at present. -Verdatum (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)