The Sims 4 Won't Have Pools, Toddlers

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
MCerberus said:
Oh, in case any of you missed it with Poolgate:

EA has "Apologized" for Dungeon Keeper mobile... by saying that their price points were messed up. Yah, they go the route that pretty much goes 'well the young people are used to being fleeced because we keep fleecing them'. And the guy takes about 6 paragraphs to say this and says nothing about shady reviewing practices.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-25-will-ea-learn-from-the-terrible-dungeon-keeper-mobile-game
Eh, the problem was that not paying the money rendered the game unplayable. If they're going to do that then the option to just buy the damn thing should have been available. Instead, they made it a F2P that was entirely hobbled as a game without money and the individual pricing was too steep to make it viable to pay anything close to what would have been retail price and enjoy the game.

Personally, I think F2P games should have a retail purchase version of their games. I'm not going to play the vast majority of them if it costs money but I'm willing to buy a whole experience with one lump sum that lets me know what I'm getting.
 

PirateRose

New member
Aug 13, 2008
287
0
0
I can understand toddlers, it does seem like it's pointless to have a point in between baby and kid. Especially when you just want to get to melodramatic teens. But Pools. Pools!

You can not remove a tradition that has existed since the first game. Where are the teens going to have their wild parties and tragically drown to have a dedication in the yearbook and a lesson about drinking and drugs!?
 

Sansha

There's a principle in business
Nov 16, 2008
1,726
0
0
Oh, for the love of...

EA, at it again. I bought the lot of the Sims 2 expacs, and I never bothered investing in Sims 3. Why would you? Sims 2 has everything you need from a gameplay perspective with a titanic amount of content, no matter how you like to play the game.

I've had the same family in Sims 2 for hundreds of generations and billions of Simoleans... I'm not about to ditch 'em for some fancy graphics and useless gimmicks.
 

Frankster

Space Ace
Mar 13, 2009
2,507
0
0
I remember the first time I booted up Sims 3 like it was yesterday..

Oh how excited I was, only to be confused at the character creation screen and how the haircuts are liked were all gone.
Then I checked the online store to see they were still there, but you had to pay for them.

At that point I swiftly uninstalled sims3 and never looked back.

Seems Sims4 won't be the one to win me over, I can't believe I'm about to say this but.. Sims 2 on my ps2 was more of a complete and entertaining product then sims 3 and soon to be sims 4 I guess.
 

rutger5000

New member
Oct 19, 2010
1,052
0
0
What's the fuss about. I've never bought or played sims 3, and I have managed to live regardless. I imagine that I can do the same with sims 4. I get that you guys are fans, but you'll have to realize that sometimes franchises get killed off. If EA isn't selling a reasonable product for a reasonable product, than just don't buy their product.
 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
rutger5000 said:
What's the fuss about. I've never bought or played sims 3, and I have managed to live regardless. I imagine that I can do the same with sims 4. I get that you guys are fans, but you'll have to realize that sometimes franchises get killed off. If EA isn't selling a reasonable product for a reasonable product, than just don't buy their product.
The point is that people here don't want to see this franchise die, they want to see it expand, improve, and become better with every new sequel - Like it's supposed to. EA should want this as well, but they are once again putting excessive profit and time/budget quotas above quality of their product - A practice they have been reveling in for at least 15 years.

Just not buying the product is fine to say when you don't personally care for it, but I had a looksie through your previous posts and I see you like the Stalker series (which is kind of appropriate since that's a really creepy stalker thing for me to do)
How would you feel if the next Stalker game started removing aspects of the game that had always been available in previous games, and selling them back to you: If they removed the ability to mod, took out several key weapons, turned certain areas into 'pay to access' only etc. - Started referring to the full price game as the "base version" and selling gameplay content that was available for free in previous games to the tune of several hundred dollars to access the full game.

I'm sure you would be annoyed, and want to speak out against the practices, both for the sake of the franchise you liked, and the sake of any future franchises that the company may be tempted to ruin in such a way if this strategy proved profitable.
 

Darkbladex96

New member
Jan 25, 2011
76
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
Pr0 said:
Vault101 said:
Disregard over-hyped guff, acquire Witcher games.

To be fair Obsidian, Bioware and Bethesda have all dropped their share of bollocks over the past few years. I don't like the Bethesda 'style' of RPG that much to be honest but i also thought Dragon Age 2 was like some kind of joke release so what are you gonna to do?
Really? Did you really say that? Just mentioning the title Witcher creates hype. Witcher is one of the most community hype PC RPG's following modded Bethesda games. It's hype train has only gotten longer as it's acquired bandwagon followers. Witcher has become one of 'the games' to have. So, you pretty much just told him to ignore Witchers games, but acquire Witcher games.

Because in my opinion, none of these games deserve the hype they get.
 

wasabinewt

New member
May 5, 2014
27
0
0
DeathQuaker said:
I think an indie developer could make a respectable profit if they started developing a life simulator in a different vein... go deep rather than broad. Don't worry about the housebuilding or whatever, but get into the details of building a person's relationships or careers, with lots of choices to make (not just random opportunities or skill challenges), for a handful of careers. Make a game with a fully fleshed out family or street, rather than a world full of mannequins. I'd back it if someone kickstarted it.
THIS. I think at this stage The Sims needs competition. An alternative. It would probably never be as big as the Sims, but there is a want for this kind of game...From a developer/publisher that is invested in giving you a full experience without expecting the customer to buy several expansion packs.
 

rutger5000

New member
Oct 19, 2010
1,052
0
0
Hero in a half shell said:
rutger5000 said:
What's the fuss about. I've never bought or played sims 3, and I have managed to live regardless. I imagine that I can do the same with sims 4. I get that you guys are fans, but you'll have to realize that sometimes franchises get killed off. If EA isn't selling a reasonable product for a reasonable product, than just don't buy their product.
The point is that people here don't want to see this franchise die, they want to see it expand, improve, and become better with every new sequel - Like it's supposed to. EA should want this as well, but they are once again putting excessive profit and time/budget quotas above quality of their product - A practice they have been reveling in for at least 15 years.

Just not buying the product is fine to say when you don't personally care for it, but I had a looksie through your previous posts and I see you like the Stalker series (which is kind of appropriate since that's a really creepy stalker thing for me to do)
How would you feel if the next Stalker game started removing aspects of the game that had always been available in previous games, and selling them back to you: If they removed the ability to mod, took out several key weapons, turned certain areas into 'pay to access' only etc. - Started referring to the full price game as the "base version" and selling gameplay content that was available for free in previous games to the tune of several hundred dollars to access the full game.

I'm sure you would be annoyed, and want to speak out against the practices, both for the sake of the franchise you liked, and the sake of any future franchises that the company may be tempted to ruin in such a way if this strategy proved profitable.
Getting a bit personal there. I'd shrugged it off if that happened. I'd like to play the other S.T.A.L.K.E.R. but I only played the first, if the others sucked than that'd be a bummer, but nothing more than that. Same for the Elder Scrolls and what they did with Sid meisers civ 5. Sucky sequels don't change the enjoyment I had from the earlier version.
Honestly if you get worked up because a franchise doesn't developed the way you'd like, than you're going to have loads of problems with dealing the disappointments you're going to face in life.
 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
rutger5000 said:
Honestly if you get worked up because a franchise doesn't developed the way you'd like, than you're going to have loads of problems with dealing the disappointments you're going to face in life.
I see where you are coming from, but I think there's a distinction to be made between being unable to deal with disappointments in your hobby if something doesn't go your way, and criticizing the negative business practices companies experiment and push out at the expense of the customer and to the detriment of the product they are selling.

Sure, if this was purely an artistic issue it could be argued that we were just dealing with the disappointment badly, but it's an issue with the deteriorating value of released games - the view of the full price game as a 'base' model (Maxis' words to describe The Sims 4) to be added onto through microtransactions and DLC that customers have to pay through the nose for, not a fully functioning game in its own right but a starter kit that you must flesh out with your wallet.

There's a difference between complaining about superficial elements in a game that can be objective, and complaining about deliberately destructive business practices aiming to make the consumer pay more for a worse product.
 

rutger5000

New member
Oct 19, 2010
1,052
0
0
Hero in a half shell said:
rutger5000 said:
Honestly if you get worked up because a franchise doesn't developed the way you'd like, than you're going to have loads of problems with dealing the disappointments you're going to face in life.
I see where you are coming from, but I think there's a distinction to be made between being unable to deal with disappointments in your hobby if something doesn't go your way, and criticizing the negative business practices companies experiment and push out at the expense of the customer and to the detriment of the product they are selling.

Sure, if this was purely an artistic issue it could be argued that we were just dealing with the disappointment badly, but it's an issue with the deteriorating value of released games - the view of the full price game as a 'base' model (Maxis' words to describe The Sims 4) to be added onto through microtransactions and DLC that customers have to pay through the nose for, not a fully functioning game in its own right but a starter kit that you must flesh out with your wallet.

There's a difference between complaining about superficial elements in a game that can be objective, and complaining about deliberately destructive business practices aiming to make the consumer pay more for a worse product.
This treat is 5 pages long. To me that is too much attention for this kind of a problem. Yes EA is deliberately selling a faulty product, so they can overcharge on additions to fix that product. Yeah I suppose that sucks if you're a fan of the games, but I don't think it's something you're supposed to get worked up about. Simply act like sims 4 (and perhaps 3) never came out, and that the franchise came to a satisfying end several years ago. Problem solved.
 

FFHAuthor

New member
Aug 1, 2010
687
0
0
Am I so F'ing old that I can actually say 'I remember when the new game in a series meant more features, not less.'?

AM I THAT OLD?
 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
rutger5000 said:
This treat is 5 pages long. To me that is too much attention for this kind of a problem. Yes EA is deliberately selling a faulty product, so they can overcharge on additions to fix that product. Yeah I suppose that sucks if you're a fan of the games, but I don't think it's something you're supposed to get worked up about. Simply act like sims 4 (and perhaps 3) never came out, and that the franchise came to a satisfying end several years ago. Problem solved.
But the problem isn't solved because EA will just take this exploitation method and exert it on another franchise. And another. And another.

I've seen EA destroy several of my favourite franchises with their anti-consumer bollocks.

It first happened to me with Command and Conquer. The games got steadily full of more crap until C&C 4 killed the franchise. Then EA managed to ruin the Knights of the Old Republic franchise through a terribly executed F2P MMO. Then Medal of Honor got lobotomised for the Modern Military Shooter crowd and canned, Simcity limped into sale with possibly the worst DRM shambles of a system that there has ever been, Battlefield has now become Starship Troopers because the bugs are bigger threats to the gameplay than the human enemies!

And I shudder with abject horror as I wait to hear what will become of the most excellent Star Wars Battlefront franchise.

EA have been reducing deadlines, cutting content, and selling it back as DLC since 1999 (Command and Conquer Tiberium Sun had several key mechanics left out due to time restraints from EA changing deadlines, they were later included in the expansion pack 'Firestorm') This practice of "we can take this out and sell it back later" has literally been going on for at least 15 years, and maybe if we had been firmer with them back then, we could have seen a new Sims with more content and better quality today.

Thanks to the outcry over Simcities always online requirement we will hopefully not be seeing that type of DRM appearing soon in an EA game. Our complaints have resulted in more customer control and better quality for the next few EA games at least.

EA are trying their hardest to make us pay more money, for less content in our games, making DLC more necessary to a player. They also want to make microtransactions necessary through adding gameplay mechanics that providing a purely manufactured level of frustration and boredom to force us to pay them more money to attempt to wring some enjoyment out of their games.

If no one stands up and calls them out on this they would have done it years ago. 5 pages of comments is nothing in relation to how many people actually play the Sims, but by providing this protest we are showing that we do have opinions on how videogame companies should act morally in relation to the quality of their games and the service they provide as players, and it has been proven to elicit responses, and changes from videogame companies.
 

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
Hey look, it's every next-gen game ever. Less features. Less gameplay. More money. And graphics that age worse and worse the more you try to "improve" them. Welcome to the fucking future.

I wonder if they'll claim it's an MMO just so they can have DRM servers that don't work.
 

A-D.

New member
Jan 23, 2008
637
0
0
FFHAuthor said:
Am I so F'ing old that I can actually say 'I remember when the new game in a series meant more features, not less.'?

AM I THAT OLD?
Welcome to the Club. The Membership Card is in the mail, please pull up a rocking chair, or lawn chair and have a seat. The cane is of course complimentory to all new members. Now repeat our motto "Get off my lawn". Practice this until it sounds cranky and as if you are about to cough up a lung.

Seriously though, no you arent the only one to remember those times, which ironically arent over yet, its just when it comes to The Sims as a series this seems to be a fact that each new game has less features than the previous one but equally has more expansion packs. I mean look at Sims 2, it has 8 Expansion Packs, how many does Sims 3 have?
 

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
Hey, wait a minute. Why don't we just mod the original Sims until the graphics are current?
 

Andrew_C

New member
Mar 1, 2011
460
0
0
Sims 4 is also limited to 3 floors and no basements (Sims 3 allows 5 above ground and 5 below). And they have included curved fences but somehow curved walls are not technically possible.

A-D. said:
Seriously though, no you arent the only one to remember those times, which ironically arent over yet, its just when it comes to The Sims as a series this seems to be a fact that each new game has less features than the previous one but equally has more expansion packs. I mean look at Sims 2, it has 8 Expansion Packs, how many does Sims 3 have?
11 full expansions, (ie they added new gameplay, often of questionable quality) 9 "Stuff Packs" and 6 or 7 Towns. And then there is all the stuff only available for points on the Sims Store.
 

DalekJaas

New member
Dec 3, 2008
1,028
0
0
This is actually ridiculous, it is so obvious that they are now cutting normal content for their absurd amount of DLC. Realistically I think things like pets and university should be included in the base game! More, not less!
 

MattRooney06

New member
Apr 15, 2009
737
0
0
When did this trend of lying begin? Like, I'm sure there weren't this many lies going around int he industry previously.....It's laughable that they think anyone would believe this