I don't think they're skinny. They just don't do the best job of highlighting what all they add, in functionality. For instance, you might miss the fact that you get an object that allows you to sell paintings on the street, from CL, because it's not really obvious, nor is it directly highlighted in the city theme (though it is loosely related to the city theme, there's nothing I can think of that's really going to point you at it in-game, short of looking through every object you get from the pack, one at a time).
With GPs, it's easier to wrap your head around what all they added and it's usually a more focused theme, with every addition centering around that theme, so it seems more meaty.
I'm inclined to think it's a mental trick believing that the expansions are thin. It's a gap in perception that hinders, rather than helps, with peoples' perception of expansions. I think they need to do a better job in advertising expansion features (in-game or out) and highlighting the little things.
That's not to say there isn't room for improvement (there certainly is) but I think calling the expansions thin is mostly rooted in the perception that there's not enough to sink your teeth into, or because of straight up missing features that are contained in it. As an example, if you just see City Living as, "The beginning and end of this pack is living in San Myshuno," it's going to seem like it has a pretty short shelf-life, hinging on how quickly you tire of the experience of your sims living in a city. And it's going to seem pretty thin because as soon as you tire of living in the city and move out, you're going to feel like the pack no longer has anything to offer you.
But it does have features that can be enjoyed outside of the city. Some examples that come to mind: Karaoke, Keyboard, Singing, Yard Sale, Painting Sale, Murals, Basketball Hoop, the 3 new careers which have special "work from home" functionality.
So... I'm not convinced that they are thin. I think they just don't sell themselves all that well.
No.. please no. Every single release from Maxis no matter if it's a $10 stuff pack, or a $40 expansion, has a supercharged marketing campaign attatched to it. They sell the key points, the 'big picture stuff' so to speak. They aren't going to market a table you sell objects out of, that content already exists and it came from their first expansion pack. Aside from that, what exactly does a retail table bring to the big picture? It's a small detail, side content if you will. Not something that was included to close the deal.
There is a lot of gimmicks in this game. That might be an extreme sounding word, but it is the honest truth. Apartments? They lack some pretty basic functionality, and aside from the aesthetics operate no differently than any other lot in any other world with the exception of build mode which was severely cut down. Lot traits? The good ones aren't actually lot traits but objects that were placed in specific spots in specific apartments that the user can't move, delete, or use anywhere else. Gimmick.
Before each and every pack releases they have went over 99% of what we're gonna get. They always say "oh we never show off everything" but let's be honest - that 1% never amounts to anything remotely major, or even that important. Their expansion packs are downright skin and bone, it has nothing to do with the marketing or players not realizing what's there. It boils down to Maxis providing a whole lot of superficial content and features and hyping them up far beyond their usefulness.
I don't think they're skinny. They just don't do the best job of highlighting what all they add, in functionality. For instance, you might miss the fact that you get an object that allows you to sell paintings on the street, from CL, because it's not really obvious, nor is it directly highlighted in the city theme (though it is loosely related to the city theme, there's nothing I can think of that's really going to point you at it in-game, short of looking through every object you get from the pack, one at a time).
With GPs, it's easier to wrap your head around what all they added and it's usually a more focused theme, with every addition centering around that theme, so it seems more meaty.
I'm inclined to think it's a mental trick believing that the expansions are thin. It's a gap in perception that hinders, rather than helps, with peoples' perception of expansions. I think they need to do a better job in advertising expansion features (in-game or out) and highlighting the little things.
That's not to say there isn't room for improvement (there certainly is) but I think calling the expansions thin is mostly rooted in the perception that there's not enough to sink your teeth into, or because of straight up missing features that are contained in it. As an example, if you just see City Living as, "The beginning and end of this pack is living in San Myshuno," it's going to seem like it has a pretty short shelf-life, hinging on how quickly you tire of the experience of your sims living in a city. And it's going to seem pretty thin because as soon as you tire of living in the city and move out, you're going to feel like the pack no longer has anything to offer you.
But it does have features that can be enjoyed outside of the city. Some examples that come to mind: Karaoke, Keyboard, Singing, Yard Sale, Painting Sale, Murals, Basketball Hoop, the 3 new careers which have special "work from home" functionality.
So... I'm not convinced that they are thin. I think they just don't sell themselves all that well.
No.. please no. Every single release from Maxis no matter if it's a $10 stuff pack, or a $40 expansion, has a supercharged marketing campaign attatched to it. They sell the key points, the 'big picture stuff' so to speak. They aren't going to market a table you sell objects out of, that content already exists and it came from their first expansion pack. Aside from that, what exactly does a retail table bring to the big picture? It's a small detail, side content if you will. Not something that was included to close the deal.
There is a lot of gimmicks in this game. That might be an extreme sounding word, but it is the honest truth. Apartments? They lack some pretty basic functionality, and aside from the aesthetics operate no differently than any other lot in any other world with the exception of build mode which was severely cut down. Lot traits? The good ones aren't actually lot traits but objects that were placed in specific spots in specific apartments that the user can't move, delete, or use anywhere else. Gimmick.
Before each and every pack releases they have went over 99% of what we're gonna get. They always say "oh we never show off everything" but let's be honest - that 1% never amounts to anything remotely major, or even that important. Their expansion packs are downright skin and bone, it has nothing to do with the marketing or players not realizing what's there. It boils down to Maxis providing a whole lot of superficial content and features and hyping them up far beyond their usefulness.
That's purely subjective. Well, most of your post is, but my point is on that. If the TLC trait and associated objects were unlocked, I'd promptly remove them and never use them again. Fortunately I can use gnomes to counter most of it, but that's two of three slots used up that I'd prefer have other things. I have a feeling every 'good' lot trait you'd list is one I'd rarely if ever use.
But hey, it's easy to call what you don't like 'gimmicks', isn't it?
In my opinion, the only expansion that really looks like an expansion is Get To Work. Get Together and City Living are empty expansions with little gameplay. Get Together comes down to a simple group system that allows us to do a series of activities already present in the game. Additional gameplay, especially with interactive objects, were very few. City Living is a weak expansion as well. Few lots are available to build, especially if we take into account that players are desperately asking for producers to make worlds with more free lots, and so far absolutely no world has managed to have a total of 30 lots available. The new activities that this expansion brings are few as well, a lot of variety of food stalls, and little variety of interactive objects. No REALLY new interactive object, just content we seen in the past. It's no wonder people feel that The Sims 4 expansions are weak and shallow in content. They are increasingly feeling that content is being even more fragmented.
I hope, VERY SINCERELY, that in the Pets Expansion Pack come more than just dogs, cats and horses. Because if it is to do exactly the same thing as in The Sims 3 Pets, it is better not to do it, because I want something new, not the same repeated thing.
No.. please no. Every single release from Maxis no matter if it's a $10 stuff pack, or a $40 expansion, has a supercharged marketing campaign attatched to it. They sell the key points, the 'big picture stuff' so to speak. They aren't going to market a table you sell objects out of, that content already exists and it came from their first expansion pack. Aside from that, what exactly does a retail table bring to the big picture? It's a small detail, side content if you will. Not something that was included to close the deal.
There is a lot of gimmicks in this game. That might be an extreme sounding word, but it is the honest truth. Apartments? They lack some pretty basic functionality, and aside from the aesthetics operate no differently than any other lot in any other world with the exception of build mode which was severely cut down. Lot traits? The good ones aren't actually lot traits but objects that were placed in specific spots in specific apartments that the user can't move, delete, or use anywhere else. Gimmick.
Before each and every pack releases they have went over 99% of what we're gonna get. They always say "oh we never show off everything" but let's be honest - that 1% never amounts to anything remotely major, or even that important. Their expansion packs are downright skin and bone, it has nothing to do with the marketing or players not realizing what's there. It boils down to Maxis providing a whole lot of superficial content and features and hyping them up far beyond their usefulness.
Ok, so...
1) Just because you don't like a feature doesn't make it a gimmick, or less of a feature that time was spent on. So in regards to the argument about "thinness," calling something a gimmick means nothing. Gimmick or no, content is content. I could call most of the stuff in TS2 packs gimmick and it means exactly the same for the thinness argument; nothing.
2) Most people don't watch them go over "99% of what we're gonna get." And when I talk about "marketing," I don't necessarily mean plastered billboard type ads. That's why I mentioned "in-game." There's a lot of stuff in this game that is easy to miss, especially in something as large as an expansion pack. It's debatable whether calling more attention to that stuff is a good thing - some might argue that it's better for the bits to be something you discover organically - but the reality is, it's easy for people to miss them. That's why I made the point with regards to the perception that EPs are thin.
3) As for the "big picture," most content added in all packs is "small detail, side content" and I don't see any reason to believe that that hasn't been the case in every sims game, since the start. However, each piece of "small detail, side content" is meant to be part of a larger picture, which is, itself, what is supposed to close the deal; the larger picture. Vampires is sold on having Vampires in your game. Beyond that, it's also sold on the experience of being a Vampire, which includes a lot of "small detail, side content" relating to being a Vampire. A retail table does relate to living in a city, as it fits with the idea of a pop-up table used for selling wares on the street.
You are welcome to make an argument about thinness comparing actual number of features or "small detail, side content," but simply calling features you don't like gimmicks is not the way to do it.
Even a perception of "thinness" is potentially a problem for the dev team to consider, however, regardless of whether the EPs are objectively thin. How people perceive the content and what they get out of it is far more important than a numbered list of features. The point is, we need to keep a distinction between opinion and fact. Opinion can be valuable for feedback to the devs, but it's not fact. As long as we're clear on that, there's no problem.
I don't think they're skinny. They just don't do the best job of highlighting what all they add, in functionality. For instance, you might miss the fact that you get an object that allows you to sell paintings on the street, from CL, because it's not really obvious, nor is it directly highlighted in the city theme (though it is loosely related to the city theme, there's nothing I can think of that's really going to point you at it in-game, short of looking through every object you get from the pack, one at a time).
With GPs, it's easier to wrap your head around what all they added and it's usually a more focused theme, with every addition centering around that theme, so it seems more meaty.
I'm inclined to think it's a mental trick believing that the expansions are thin. It's a gap in perception that hinders, rather than helps, with peoples' perception of expansions. I think they need to do a better job in advertising expansion features (in-game or out) and highlighting the little things.
That's not to say there isn't room for improvement (there certainly is) but I think calling the expansions thin is mostly rooted in the perception that there's not enough to sink your teeth into, or because of straight up missing features that are contained in it. As an example, if you just see City Living as, "The beginning and end of this pack is living in San Myshuno," it's going to seem like it has a pretty short shelf-life, hinging on how quickly you tire of the experience of your sims living in a city. And it's going to seem pretty thin because as soon as you tire of living in the city and move out, you're going to feel like the pack no longer has anything to offer you.
But it does have features that can be enjoyed outside of the city. Some examples that come to mind: Karaoke, Keyboard, Singing, Yard Sale, Painting Sale, Murals, Basketball Hoop, the 3 new careers which have special "work from home" functionality.
So... I'm not convinced that they are thin. I think they just don't sell themselves all that well.
No.. please no. Every single release from Maxis no matter if it's a $10 stuff pack, or a $40 expansion, has a supercharged marketing campaign attatched to it. They sell the key points, the 'big picture stuff' so to speak. They aren't going to market a table you sell objects out of, that content already exists and it came from their first expansion pack. Aside from that, what exactly does a retail table bring to the big picture? It's a small detail, side content if you will. Not something that was included to close the deal.
There is a lot of gimmicks in this game. That might be an extreme sounding word, but it is the honest truth. Apartments? They lack some pretty basic functionality, and aside from the aesthetics operate no differently than any other lot in any other world with the exception of build mode which was severely cut down. Lot traits? The good ones aren't actually lot traits but objects that were placed in specific spots in specific apartments that the user can't move, delete, or use anywhere else. Gimmick.
Before each and every pack releases they have went over 99% of what we're gonna get. They always say "oh we never show off everything" but let's be honest - that 1% never amounts to anything remotely major, or even that important. Their expansion packs are downright skin and bone, it has nothing to do with the marketing or players not realizing what's there. It boils down to Maxis providing a whole lot of superficial content and features and hyping them up far beyond their usefulness.
That's purely subjective. Well, most of your post is, but my point is on that. If the TLC trait and associated objects were unlocked, I'd promptly remove them and never use them again. Fortunately I can use gnomes to counter most of it, but that's two of three slots used up that I'd prefer have other things. I have a feeling every 'good' lot trait you'd list is one I'd rarely if ever use.
But hey, it's easy to call what you don't like 'gimmicks', isn't it?
What does telling me my opinion is subjective do? Restate the obvious? Not everything I don't like about the game falls into the gimmick zone for me. Features that really don't do much, but are used as a prominent selling point are.
Because of people praising everything EA make even if it's terrible, and if someone dare criticize an EP saying it feels empty (or any packs for that matter), people reply by saying ''WELL IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T BUY IT'', people on this forum are really not open to criticism (not everyone, but a majority), people seem to think that if we criticize a pack or say we are not satisfy with it that EA will get mad and stop to make packs.
People need to realize that EA is a company, not a friend, we pay for a product so we have the right to criticize the product and speak up if we are not happy about it.
I feel like EA got really lazy, and the community is to blame for it. The community have no standards, and I think some people don't even realize it, I mean I've seen many people say for example that they are not interested in bowling, but say they will buy the pack anyway. Why? Why people buy packs they have no interest it? People need to wake up and realize that they don't owe EA anything.
EA is so lazy that they don't even bother fixing bugs and glitches and let the community do it with mods, the bowling pack is not even out yet that I already see people spotting bugs and glitches from the stream, and say ''man I hope someone make a mod to fix that'', I'm sorry, but that's not normal.
Also I feel like a lot of people don't play other games than the Sims 4, and have no experience really, people that think that City Living worth 40$ are insane. (I'm no saying that people that enjoy the pack are insane, I'm just saying that the pack doesn't worth that much)
But yea people need to stop being scared of criticizing, people need to stop feeling like they owe EA, if people love the game and the packs fine, but they need to stop telling people that criticize it ''If you don't like it don't buy it''.
I only have a mild interest in the bowling itself, but I want the pack for all the furniture. I love the retro look and I can see it going well in starter homes, which I prefer to build and play in. The CAS stuff is nice too. The bowling is just another fun venue to go to now and then for me. Might be a club thing to explore for a bit too. But there's more to the pack than just the bowling lane item for me. That's mostly the icing on the cake, so to speak. I'd still get the pack if the lane wasn't there, because it's not the only thing there.
Because of people praising everything EA make even if it's terrible, and if someone dare criticize an EP saying it feels empty (or any packs for that matter), people reply by saying ''WELL IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T BUY IT'', people on this forum are really not open to criticism (not everyone, but a majority), people seem to think that if we criticize a pack or say we are not satisfy with it that EA will get mad and stop to make packs.
People need to realize that EA is a company, not a friend, we pay for a product so we have the right to criticize the product and speak up if we are not happy about it.
I feel like EA got really lazy, and the community is to blame for it. The community have no standards, and I think some people don't even realize it, I mean I've seen many people say for example that they are not interested in bowling, but say they will buy the pack anyway. Why? Why people buy packs they have no interest it? People need to wake up and realize that they don't owe EA anything.
EA is so lazy that they don't even bother fixing bugs and glitches and let the community do it with mods, the bowling pack is not even out yet that I already see people spotting bugs and glitches from the stream, and say ''man I hope someone make a mod to fix that'', I'm sorry, but that's not normal.
Also I feel like a lot of people don't play other games than the Sims 4, and have no experience really, people that think that City Living worth 40$ are insane. (I'm no saying that people that enjoy the pack are insane, I'm just saying that the pack doesn't worth that much)
But yea people need to stop being scared of criticizing, people need to stop feeling like they owe EA, if people love the game and the packs fine, but they need to stop telling people that criticize it ''If you don't like it don't buy it''.
I don't know who you're speaking to, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and there is "a majority" who thinks that if we criticize a pack, EA will get mad and stop making packs. I don't know who would actually think this since EA is a business, not a friend doing favors, but anyway...
We'll assume for a second that that's accurate. Your reasoning starts falling down a well from there. "EA got really lazy and the community is to blame for it." So this majority is believing that EA is going to get mad and stop making packs (an absurd belief, right?) but it's perfectly reasonable to believe that EA got lazy because the community has no standards (another "majority," I assume). Apparently the community only has power of influence when it suits the point you're wanting to make?
As for bugs and glitches, objectively, the Sims team has fixed many. There's also many they haven't been able to fix, or are currently trying to fix. Is it worth complaining about? Sure, if you want to. Saying they are lazy and don't bother, however, is not being entirely honest about the situation.
Regarding playing other games and City Living's price? I don't remember if I paid full price or not, but I don't think $40 is unreasonable if you have the spending money and are into the content. Implying people are insane for thinking it's worth that price, however, is just getting off on the wrong foot. People have all kinds of different perceptions about money and if you get deep enough into it, money is a construct we use to exchange goods and services in the first place. Basically, the question becomes, "Is it worth it to you?" And the answer is, "It's nobody's business whether you say yes or no, unless you wish to tell them about it."
I used to play this online game that had tons of microtransactions. They had gamble crates, where you can buy them in bulk and you have a chance to get rare items (but mostly common items) out of them, out of a select pool of items. There were people who spent hundreds of dollars opening them, trying to get the rare items in them. I knew because some of them went to the forums to complain about it. No doubt there were others who swallowed their complaining and just kept buying.
So excuse me if $40 for a set amount of 100% optional content doesn't shock my system; content that is exactly what it says on the tin, the details of which can be found out pretty easily prior to buying, and which isn't shoved in your face (unlike some online games, where microtransactions are shoved in your face regularly, sometimes on top of pressuring you to pay a subscription fee just to maintain access to things you already paid for). Especially considering the sales they've had that slash CL down to half the price, less than a year after its release. Heck, some of those sales I'm pretty sure were less than three months after its release.
I'm not scared of criticizing EA. I just don't have a lot to complain about in regards to this particular game.
As for "don't like it don't buy it," I don't know who's saying that, but if you have a problem with somebody who says that, why not just construct an argument against what they are saying and reply to them? Instead of making sweeping generalizations about the majority of players and proclamations you can't back up about what EA is doing. There are situations where variations on "don't like it don't buy it" are nothing short of rude and unhelpful, and there are situations where it's part of a larger point that may have something useful or constructive to say.
Despite everything I'm saying against your points, I do agree that the number of bugs and glitches is not something that people usually forgive and forget about with other games. Unfortunately, it's my understanding that the sims series has a history of letting bugs stay alive for inordinate amounts of time and that they're actually doing better than they used to in squashing them regularly, due to the patching cycle. But there's still a lot of room for improvement there.
@Triplis
I think you're onto something with how straightforward and accessible content is. When I buy a SP or a GP, most of the content is constrained in a focus theme and it's far easier to get a grasp of what's been added, but in an EP, it's not uncommon to rediscover content I forgot about one or two years later. Since I'm playing rotational, and I tend to play rather slowly anyway, I don't give a try at all the new content of an EP in the first month after release. Sure, there's the marketing campaign, but it's a long time ago now, and when I'm playing, I'm not watching the marketing video.
I think there may be ways in-game to "advertise" this content, perhaps with the whims system, or through the messages you get. While they get a bit spammy sometimes, I also enjoy how it drives my story and suggests content.
Complaining again Do you not realize that we haven't had GP in the past and the EP feel like they always do. Though I do think that some of the SP content could have been in the EP.
You say i'm complaining, i just say what i think. When you start a sentence with ''complaining again'' it's sure i don't want answer nicely.
But you are stating the EP feel skinny is that not complaining that you want more to them?
As for bugs and glitches, objectively, the Sims team has fixed many. There's also many they haven't been able to fix, or are currently trying to fix. Is it worth complaining about? Sure, if you want to. Saying they are lazy and don't bother, however, is not being entirely honest about the situation.
Okay then, either they are lazy or suck at it, the musical chair issue have been around since pretty much the start, still isn't fixed, but a modder have fixed it, so how come EA cannot fix something after 2 years and half, while a modder can? Do they just give up if someone make a mod for it?
Some bugs and glitches have been around since a long time and I feel like they don't even acknowledge it, dude they waste time fixing a 🐸🐸🐸🐸 shadow on a stuff pack chair, but yet they still haven't fixed the reward of the friend of the world aspiration, the beloved trait is broken since as long as I can remember (probably since the start). Their priorities are really not what it should be bugs and glitches wise, to me an aspiration reward from the base game should be fixed asap, way before a single chair shadow from a stuff pack.
I used to play this online game that had tons of microtransactions. They had gamble crates, where you can buy them in bulk and you have a chance to get rare items (but mostly common items) out of them, out of a select pool of items. There were people who spent hundreds of dollars opening them, trying to get the rare items in them. I knew because some of them went to the forums to complain about it. No doubt there were others who swallowed their complaining and just kept buying.
Dude, you are comparing two different things, crates and DLC/packs have nothing in common, buying crates in MMO is gambling, I don't even know why you tell me you have play an MMO, it's out subject, and crates are gambling which again that have nothing to do with DLC/packs, it's two totally different things.
Especially considering the sales they've had that slash CL down to half the price, less than a year after its release. Heck, some of those sales I'm pretty sure were less than three months after its release.
It have been on sale the week after the release, and have been since, something going on sale that fast and that long isn't a good sign. Vampires have been out for 2 months, there have been no sale for it.
No.. please no. Every single release from Maxis no matter if it's a $10 stuff pack, or a $40 expansion, has a supercharged marketing campaign attatched to it. They sell the key points, the 'big picture stuff' so to speak. They aren't going to market a table you sell objects out of, that content already exists and it came from their first expansion pack. Aside from that, what exactly does a retail table bring to the big picture? It's a small detail, side content if you will. Not something that was included to close the deal.
There is a lot of gimmicks in this game. That might be an extreme sounding word, but it is the honest truth. Apartments? They lack some pretty basic functionality, and aside from the aesthetics operate no differently than any other lot in any other world with the exception of build mode which was severely cut down. Lot traits? The good ones aren't actually lot traits but objects that were placed in specific spots in specific apartments that the user can't move, delete, or use anywhere else. Gimmick.
Before each and every pack releases they have went over 99% of what we're gonna get. They always say "oh we never show off everything" but let's be honest - that 1% never amounts to anything remotely major, or even that important. Their expansion packs are downright skin and bone, it has nothing to do with the marketing or players not realizing what's there. It boils down to Maxis providing a whole lot of superficial content and features and hyping them up far beyond their usefulness.
Ok, so...
1) Just because you don't like a feature doesn't make it a gimmick, or less of a feature that time was spent on. So in regards to the argument about "thinness," calling something a gimmick means nothing. Gimmick or no, content is content. I could call most of the stuff in TS2 packs gimmick and it means exactly the same for the thinness argument; nothing.
2) Most people don't watch them go over "99% of what we're gonna get." And when I talk about "marketing," I don't necessarily mean plastered billboard type ads. That's why I mentioned "in-game." There's a lot of stuff in this game that is easy to miss, especially in something as large as an expansion pack. It's debatable whether calling more attention to that stuff is a good thing - some might argue that it's better for the bits to be something you discover organically - but the reality is, it's easy for people to miss them. That's why I made the point with regards to the perception that EPs are thin.
3) As for the "big picture," most content added in all packs is "small detail, side content" and I don't see any reason to believe that that hasn't been the case in every sims game, since the start. However, each piece of "small detail, side content" is meant to be part of a larger picture, which is, itself, what is supposed to close the deal; the larger picture. Vampires is sold on having Vampires in your game. Beyond that, it's also sold on the experience of being a Vampire, which includes a lot of "small detail, side content" relating to being a Vampire. A retail table does relate to living in a city, as it fits with the idea of a pop-up table used for selling wares on the street.
You are welcome to make an argument about thinness comparing actual number of features or "small detail, side content," but simply calling features you don't like gimmicks is not the way to do it.
Even a perception of "thinness" is potentially a problem for the dev team to consider, however, regardless of whether the EPs are objectively thin. How people perceive the content and what they get out of it is far more important than a numbered list of features. The point is, we need to keep a distinction between opinion and fact. Opinion can be valuable for feedback to the devs, but it's not fact. As long as we're clear on that, there's no problem.
When you make statements claiming that every feature I don't like is considered, by myself, to be a gimmick you have thoroughly missed my point, made an inaccurate assumption of my personal view, and obviously didn't read into the post where the word was used.
There's really no point elaborating further because every criticism against this game is countered with this mindset that if the criticism doesn't work with your opinion then it's false. Whenever someone uses personal perception as an argument against critique you are effectly missing the point. My opinion is my opinion whether you like it or not. I don't need a fact check, when I never claimed to be talking about objective facts. Clearly personal opinion is not welcome here unless you're willing to mold your opinion to avoid upsetting those who like what you're criticizing.
Because of people praising everything EA make even if it's terrible, and if someone dare criticize an EP saying it feels empty (or any packs for that matter), people reply by saying ''WELL IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T BUY IT'', people on this forum are really not open to criticism (not everyone, but a majority), people seem to think that if we criticize a pack or say we are not satisfy with it that EA will get mad and stop to make packs.
People need to realize that EA is a company, not a friend, we pay for a product so we have the right to criticize the product and speak up if we are not happy about it.
I feel like EA got really lazy, and the community is to blame for it. The community have no standards, and I think some people don't even realize it, I mean I've seen many people say for example that they are not interested in bowling, but say they will buy the pack anyway. Why? Why people buy packs they have no interest it? People need to wake up and realize that they don't owe EA anything.
EA is so lazy that they don't even bother fixing bugs and glitches and let the community do it with mods, the bowling pack is not even out yet that I already see people spotting bugs and glitches from the stream, and say ''man I hope someone make a mod to fix that'', I'm sorry, but that's not normal.
Also I feel like a lot of people don't play other games than the Sims 4, and have no experience really, people that think that City Living worth 40$ are insane. (I'm no saying that people that enjoy the pack are insane, I'm just saying that the pack doesn't worth that much)
But yea people need to stop being scared of criticizing, people need to stop feeling like they owe EA, if people love the game and the packs fine, but they need to stop telling people that criticize it ''If you don't like it don't buy it''.
I don't know who you're speaking to, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and there is "a majority" who thinks that if we criticize a pack, EA will get mad and stop making packs. I don't know who would actually think this since EA is a business, not a friend doing favors, but anyway...
We'll assume for a second that that's accurate. Your reasoning starts falling down a well from there. "EA got really lazy and the community is to blame for it." So this majority is believing that EA is going to get mad and stop making packs (an absurd belief, right?) but it's perfectly reasonable to believe that EA got lazy because the community has no standards (another "majority," I assume). Apparently the community only has power of influence when it suits the point you're wanting to make?
I think you missed her point. And before I continue, I want to argue we are practically talking about factual history here. When Sims 4 released, the release was a flop, and SimGurus came to these very forums posting "if it doesn't sell well there won't be a Sims 5." How is this much different from the idea that criticizing packs will cause them to stop making them...? Seems like her argument has some 🐸🐸🐸🐸 good evidence backing it.
When she said EA gets lazy, she means that if consumer demands are low or modest, they may adapt to that by doing less work. Let's say there's a town where the local baker typically bakes two loaves of bread per family per week. One day he doesn't quite hit that deadline and only makes one loaf of bread per family per week, but no one complains. He still loses profit though, but wonders if people would complain if he raised his prices. He does so, no one complains. Maybe he even starts looking if he can make the loaves smaller in size, no one complains. At this point he might either go back to two loaves per week to rake in profit, OR he might be comfortable with his low-stress work schedule and accept that he's now doing less than half the work for the same income. That's what she means.
As for bugs and glitches, objectively, the Sims team has fixed many.
I'm sorry but this is the most meaningless statement ever. You can apply that game to ANY game that ever had multiple patches applied to it, but that does not mean the game is up to snuff in terms of stability and quality. Plenty of games get plenty of bug fixes and remain buggy or even unplayable. I seem to recall one that was prone to lag, file bloating and even had a couple Expansions with neighborhoods that didn't work due to stuttering and routing issues. I believe it was called SIMS 3. Don't some of those sound similar to problems we have now...?
Regarding playing other games and City Living's price? I don't remember if I paid full price or not, but I don't think $40 is unreasonable if you have the spending money and are into the content.
This same question poses a problem with capitalism as a whole. A hardcore capitalist would tell you "no one ever leaves a trade without having become better off than they were before." What this ignores is cases where one party willfully exploits the ignorance of another in order to fleece them. Another possibility is the exploitation of a monopoly. Gee, doesn't EA have one of those?! I seem to recall they do!
At the very least, we should be logically asking ourselves "If Sims 3 could release a city-themed expansion pack with plenty of content that includes a butler all for $40, why can't Sims 4? Why does Sims 4 need an extra $10?" Or "If Sims 3 can produce an EP with 7-8 careers and multiple self-employed careers, why can't Sims 4? Why does it only have 3 careers, much like one of the least liked Sims 3 EPs?" If your response is "well I'm happy regardless so whatever," then you're willingly inviting EA to test how much they can get away with and just how much they can snip apart an individual pack before people complain, something EA has done before with other game franchises. (Mass Effect 3 for example) In this case, quite frankly, I can understand fully while individuals such as myself would scrutinize those that say "well whatever I'm satisfied" since I also have to pay more when they show no concern, (their apathy affects me in a negative way) but I cannot quite figure out where is the logical motivation for someone to dissuade a person that's trying to argue you should be paying less money for the content you're getting. If I went into a street market and told a buyer they were about to overpay for a product, it's unlikely they'd consider me an annoyance or wish I'd go away, so why does that seem to happen here...?
Yes, a seller can take advantage of a buyer. Why are you trying to dissuade a person encouraging you to review a purchase more critically for your own sake?
I used to play this online game that had tons of microtransactions. They had gamble crates, where you can buy them in bulk and you have a chance to get rare items (but mostly common items) out of them, out of a select pool of items. There were people who spent hundreds of dollars opening them, trying to get the rare items in them. I knew because some of them went to the forums to complain about it. No doubt there were others who swallowed their complaining and just kept buying.
Wow. I don't even know where to start with this...
The very MMO model of business? Exploit the whales. A "whale" is a big spender, and many F2PMMOs actively make it a point to try and treat these guy like VIPs and make them feel special, specifically so they'll keep buying. His entire motivation for buying is a desperate desire to feel special, and that's precisely why he buys those stupid things and precisely why the employees are often willing to "cheat" for the players and provide them with extra aid; strokes their egos, makes them feel special and like VIPS. It's the entire purpose of the business model: crates with tiny chances of success, but the guy knows if he JUST gets that .0005% chance of getting that item, he'll have the strongest character on the server, and have all the VIP attention that comes with it, with guilds and other players BEGGING the guy to be their friend and join their group, etc etc. The employees are often ACTIVELY told to stroke their egos, specifically for that reason: the entire business model is designed to exploit a person's desire to feel special. It's a practical scam. I'm not making this up, I read it in a business report a while ago regarding the company that does chinese localization for Dota2. (<---not an MMO, but the localization company used to work in MMOs)
Let's take a moment to appreciate that you are praising EA and Sims 4 by saying "at least they aren't as bad as those guys running legal scams that feed off people with self-esteem issues."
If that's what your praise is then....I mean gotta be honest, that makes me speechless. I'm very well versed in how the F2PMMO model works because I played some too, had friends that played them and knew the right people to learn about that business model and why it's so prone to employee-assisted cheating. Your own example is both a terrible defense of EA and absolutely DEMOLISHES your previous argument that says "as long as the customer is happy then what's the problem??" Yeah, well, when we're talking about customers that spend $80,000 gambling on an MMO just so they can feel special, I'd say that's great evidence that a customer being happy doesn't mean there can't be a problem.
I think there may be ways in-game to "advertise" this content, perhaps with the whims system, or through the messages you get. While they get a bit spammy sometimes, I also enjoy how it drives my story and suggests content.
That's an interesting thought. It could be helpful to have more of that.
Okay then, either they are lazy or suck at it, the musical chair issue have been around since pretty much the start, still isn't fixed, but a modder have fixed it, so how come EA cannot fix something after 2 years and half, while a modder can? Do they just give up if someone make a mod for it?
Some bugs and glitches have been around since a long time and I feel like they don't even acknowledge it, dude they waste time fixing a plum shadow on a stuff pack chair, but yet they still haven't fixed the reward of the friend of the world aspiration, the beloved trait is broken since as long as I can remember (probably since the start). Their priorities are really not what it should be bugs and glitches wise, to me an aspiration reward from the base game should be fixed asap, way before a single chair shadow from a stuff pack.
Whatever. You're just readjusting to a different form of saying they're bad. You also complete glossed over the part where I agreed with you that people usually aren't all that forgiving of bugs and that this series has a history of struggling with them. It's clear you just want a reason to insult them.
Dude, you are comparing two different things, crates and DLC/packs have nothing in common, buying crates in MMO is gambling, I don't even know why you tell me you have play an MMO, it's out subject, and crates are gambling which again that have nothing to do with DLC/packs, it's two totally different things.
Did you even read your own post? I brought it up because you said you think that a lot of people don't play other games and therefore don't have perspective on the matter. So I brought up another game to point out how playing other games has affected my perspective and not in a way that agrees with you.
It have been on sale the week after the release, and have been since, something going on sale that fast and that long isn't a good sign. Vampires have been out for 2 months, there have been no sale for it.
So let me get this straight. If it's $40, it's overcharging. But if it goes on sale quickly to half price, you can't even acknowledge that that's a good thing, but instead feel compelled to spin it so that it's a bad thing. You are determined to think poorly of them, that much is crystal clear.
I made an effort to look at what you said in depth, in my last post, and find the parts where I agreed, despite being tempted to do otherwise, but I can see it was a waste of time. You want to dislike EA, in detail. That's your prerogative, but now I know not to bother engaging in the future.
When you make statements claiming that every feature I don't like is considered, by myself, to be a gimmick you have thoroughly missed my point, made an inaccurate assumption of my personal view, and obviously didn't read into the post where the word was used.
There's really no point elaborating further because every criticism against this game is countered with this mindset that if the criticism doesn't work with your opinion then it's false. Whenever someone uses personal perception as an argument against critique you are effectly missing the point. My opinion is my opinion whether you like it or not. I don't need a fact check, when I never claimed to be talking about objective facts. Clearly personal opinion is not welcome here unless you're willing to mold your opinion to avoid upsetting those who like what you're criticizing.
What do you expect people to say when you use phrasing like?
There is a lot of gimmicks in this game. That might be an extreme sounding word, but it is the honest truth.
That sure doesn't sound like, "Here's my opinion."
Also, you're being extremely hyperbolic to jump from one post you don't like to, "Every criticism against this game is countered with this mindset that if the criticism doesn't work with your opinion then it's false." You're just repeating what you did before... taking perception and/or opinion and portraying it as fact.
And apparently you decided to gloss over the part where I said:
Even a perception of "thinness" is potentially a problem for the dev team to consider, however, regardless of whether the EPs are objectively thin. How people perceive the content and what they get out of it is far more important than a numbered list of features. The point is, we need to keep a distinction between opinion and fact. Opinion can be valuable for feedback to the devs, but it's not fact. As long as we're clear on that, there's no problem.
You could have just read that and said, "Oh. As long as we're clear on that, there's no problem. Well what I said was intended as opinion and that's always how I intend it, no matter how it sounds, so there's no problem here." But nope, you made a sweeping generalization about "every criticism against the game."
I fee like the only EP that feels skinny was Get together. I don't it could just be me because I see more people prefer Get together over Get to work but I am just the opposite. To me it kinda felt like Get together focused to much on groups which isn't a bad thing but it just seemed to be the key feature to the pack and I am just meh about it. So far it's just my least favorite EP at the moment.
I think you missed her point. And before I continue, I want to argue we are practically talking about factual history here. When Sims 4 released, the release was a flop, and SimGurus came to these very forums posting "if it doesn't sell well there won't be a Sims 5." How is this much different from the idea that criticizing packs will cause them to stop making them...? Seems like her argument has some 🐸🐸🐸🐸 good evidence backing it.
What are you talking about? There are always people around the official sites for any forum that complain about the products released, for a variety of reasons. If criticism was the automatic death knell of a game, there wouldn't be any games left. Ludicrous.
When she said EA gets lazy, she means that if consumer demands are low or modest, they may adapt to that by doing less work. Let's say there's a town where the local baker typically bakes two loaves of bread per family per week. One day he doesn't quite hit that deadline and only makes one loaf of bread per family per week, but no one complains. He still loses profit though, but wonders if people would complain if he raised his prices. He does so, no one complains. Maybe he even starts looking if he can make the loaves smaller in size, no one complains. At this point he might either go back to two loaves per week to rake in profit, OR he might be comfortable with his low-stress work schedule and accept that he's now doing less than half the work for the same income. That's what she means.
Speaking of people missing the point, you obviously misunderstood the point I was making there. You can go back and reread and try to follow along if you like. I'm not going to explain it. You're a relentlessly curious guy, you can figure it out.
I'm sorry but this is the most meaningless statement ever. You can apply that game to ANY game that ever had multiple patches applied to it, but that does not mean the game is up to snuff in terms of stability and quality. Plenty of games get plenty of bug fixes and remain buggy or even unplayable. I seem to recall one that was prone to lag, file bloating and even had a couple Expansions with neighborhoods that didn't work due to stuttering and routing issues. I believe it was called SIMS 3. Don't some of those sound similar to problems we have now...?
Do people just struggle with reading or what? Once again, somebody entirely glossed over the part where I acknowledged the sims' poor reputation history with bugs. I was also making that statement in replying to someone actually claiming that EA doesn't bother to fix bugs. As if they've never fixed any. So no, it's not meaningless in context, which is pretty important (context).
This same question poses a problem with capitalism as a whole. A hardcore capitalist would tell you "no one ever leaves a trade without having become better off than they were before." What this ignores is cases where one party willfully exploits the ignorance of another in order to fleece them. Another possibility is the exploitation of a monopoly. Gee, doesn't EA have one of those?! I seem to recall they do!
At the very least, we should be logically asking ourselves "If Sims 3 could release a city-themed expansion pack with plenty of content that includes a butler all for $40, why can't Sims 4? Why does Sims 4 need an extra $10?" Or "If Sims 3 can produce an EP with 7-8 careers and multiple self-employed careers, why can't Sims 4? Why does it only have 3 careers, much like one of the least liked Sims 3 EPs?" If your response is "well I'm happy regardless so whatever," then you're willingly inviting EA to test how much they can get away with and just how much they can snip apart an individual pack before people complain, something EA has done before with other game franchises. (Mass Effect 3 for example) In this case, quite frankly, I can understand fully while individuals such as myself would scrutinize those that say "well whatever I'm satisfied" since I also have to pay more when they show no concern, (their apathy affects me in a negative way) but I cannot quite figure out where is the logical motivation for someone to dissuade a person that's trying to argue you should be paying less money for the content you're getting. If I went into a street market and told a buyer they were about to overpay for a product, it's unlikely they'd consider me an annoyance or wish I'd go away, so why does that seem to happen here...?
Yes, a seller can take advantage of a buyer. Why are you trying to dissuade a person encouraging you to review a purchase more critically for your own sake?
Ah, so this isn't about the broader point of what EA is doing. It's all about you and your perception and your life. If you perceived the packs to be providing more than enough content, you'd probably be on the other side of the aisle, asking me why I'm complaining when we have it so good.
I've seen this argument come up before about comparisons to past sims games/packs and I've never actually seen proof provided (which is what is needed for the argument to work) that the TS4 packs are objectively "thinner." Every time, cherrypicked examples are trotted out, like, "This pack had a butler in it and TS4 put the butler in a stuff pack." As if the entirety of the differences between EP and EP is whether each did or didn't have a butler.
If you are seriously going to use an argument like that, you have to go in depth. This wannabe academic nonsense of pulling out one or two examples to sound authoritative is tiresome and tired.
Wow. I don't even know where to start with this...
The very MMO model of business? Exploit the whales. A "whale" is a big spender, and many F2PMMOs actively make it a point to try and treat these guy like VIPs and make them feel special, specifically so they'll keep buying. His entire motivation for buying is a desperate desire to feel special, and that's precisely why he buys those plum things and precisely why the employees are often willing to "cheat" for the players and provide them with extra aid; strokes their egos, makes them feel special and like VIPS. It's the entire purpose of the business model: crates with tiny chances of success, but the guy knows if he JUST gets that .0005% chance of getting that item, he'll have the strongest character on the server, and have all the VIP attention that comes with it, with guilds and other players BEGGING the guy to be their friend and join their group, etc etc. The employees are often ACTIVELY told to stroke their egos, specifically for that reason: the entire business model is designed to exploit a person's desire to feel special. It's a practical scam. I'm not making this up, I read it in a business report a while ago regarding the company that does chinese localization for Dota2. (<---not an MMO, but the localization company used to work in MMOs)
Let's take a moment to appreciate that you are praising EA and Sims 4 by saying "at least they aren't as bad as those guys running legal scams that feed off people with self-esteem issues."
If that's what your praise is then....I mean gotta be honest, that makes me speechless. I'm very well versed in how the F2PMMO model works because I played some too, had friends that played them and knew the right people to learn about that business model and why it's so prone to employee-assisted cheating. Your own example is both a terrible defense of EA and absolutely DEMOLISHES your previous argument that says "as long as the customer is happy then what's the problem??" Yeah, well, when we're talking about customers that spend $80,000 gambling on an MMO just so they can feel special, I'd say that's great evidence that a customer being happy doesn't mean there can't be a problem.
Your intellectual dishonesty here is disgusting. You act like I praised EA for not "scamming" people and then left it at that.
So excuse me if $40 for a set amount of 100% optional content doesn't shock my system; content that is exactly what it says on the tin, the details of which can be found out pretty easily prior to buying, and which isn't shoved in your face (unlike some online games, where microtransactions are shoved in your face regularly, sometimes on top of pressuring you to pay a subscription fee just to maintain access to things you already paid for). Especially considering the sales they've had that slash CL down to half the price, less than a year after its release. Heck, some of those sales I'm pretty sure were less than three months after its release.
And yes, it is praiseworthy to say that they aren't scamming people because it's all too easy to do so now.
Anyway, the point of comparison was that $40 is a drop in the bucket compared to how much can be spent in the land of game transactions ("so excuse me if it doesn't shock my system"). The point about peoples' purchasing being their business is also 100% true, regardless of whether they're being scammed. It's still their business.
I'm getting real tired of the dishonesty used to argue with my points. You guys really have no idea. You see how I post on the TS4 forums and you think that I'm just some guy who is obsessed with defending EA and is a blind customer who is happy to be scammed. Because, I can only assume, you can't cope with the idea that I have a different perception of how things are being run here and that maybe some of it isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
It's a real problem on the internet, people wanting to see others as only belonging to one group: Ally or Enemy. Well I'm not Ally or Enemy, I'm Human.
@Triplis Beg your pardon, but I must insist you seem to have misunderstood the discussion, both from myself and at least from parts of her initial post. I'm at a complete loss for what I'm supposedly not understanding, and when I reread it definitely seems like you might be the one missing the points or putting words in people's mouths. Great example, she said EA doesn't fix bugs and you seem to think this is a literal affirmation that EA has NEVER DONE ANY PATCH EVER, when 🐸🐸🐸🐸 obviously that's not the case and it makes zero sense for someone to argue that, so she's PROBABLY alluding to the fact that they're not afraid of leaving major bugs in. This is 100% true, we saw it happen in Sims 3 and even select bugs in Sims 4 have existed since release.
I also never said you were praising EA for not scamming people, but I DID highlight that you just took a company that practically scams people, compared it to EA and then said "oh wow look at that, EA's sales model is better." Well...duh? You're practically comparing them to 🐸🐸🐸🐸; what benefit is there to comparing ANYTHING to the worst of the worst when trying to be critical about something? Including such a poor comparison candidate only serves to make the other party look better, intended or no. What's the purpose of even including that if not to A) make EA look good or B.) to make a statement about how jaded you are about paying $40 since you've paid more? You seem to touch on both within your post, and sure enough you yourself even admit that having that scammy MMO as your place of reference makes you less critical of EA. Yeah, that's my point. :P Either way, neither is a great argument and both touch on rebuttals I've already provided. The entire thing is just like "well living on the rim of an active volcano isn't as bad as living in Hell so it really doesn't bother me."
Should also mention that again, beg your pardon, you're the one becoming hostile and hateful here, not me. Acting like some smug jerk and like we're too stupid (<---not smart) to understand your post doesn't suddenly make your points more valid....it just makes you look like a smug jerk. We can discuss better without that, yknow.
I think the expansion packs are just unimpressive in what they set out to do, and often fall massively short in terms of features.
For instance, Get to Work could have been this big pack with tons of new jobs and a lot more open careers. They could have designed these careers to be far more open ended, and player choice oriented, that way we could replay the same careers, yet get a vastly different experience out of them in each Sim life. However, the three few careers are, realistically, horrendously boring and uninspired. Retail features fall so short of TS2's retail features and are, honestly, feel lazily created.
Get Together was a vague concept. I feel they could have went further on expanding the group activities of Sims. Still like the enhanced ability over controlling groups of Sims, but granted, that was a patch feature (as it should've been). We could have used more of these group activities (such as changing clothes together) in the pack. Perhaps holding hands? Playing freeze tag? Things like that.
City Living was a pretty big disappointment, when you compare it to what could have been, as well as the last "city" iterations of the past games. The city is more or less just a backdrop, apartments require loading screens, neighborhoods feel empty and boring, the new jobs aren't that exciting, and... that's pretty much all the pack tries to add..
Just reviewing each pack right now, I feel myself wanting far more from each and every one of them. It should not feel this way, especially so early in the lifespan of a new Sims game that has coincidentally left many people sad/angry over the lack of innovation in its base game.
@Triplis Beg your pardon, but I must insist you seem to have misunderstood the discussion, both from myself and at least from parts of her initial post. I'm at a complete loss for what I'm supposedly not understanding, and when I reread it definitely seems like you might be the one missing the points or putting words in people's mouths. Great example, she said EA doesn't fix bugs and you seem to think this is a literal affirmation that EA has NEVER DONE ANY PATCH EVER, when plum obviously that's not the case and it makes zero sense for someone to argue that, so she's PROBABLY alluding to the fact that they're not afraid of leaving major bugs in. This is 100% true, we saw it happen in Sims 3 and even select bugs in Sims 4 have existed since release.
I also never said you were praising EA for not scamming people, but I DID highlight that you just took a company that practically scams people, compared it to EA and then said "oh wow look at that, EA's sales model is better." Well...duh? You're practically comparing them to plum; what benefit is there to comparing ANYTHING to the worst of the worst when trying to be critical about something? Including such a poor comparison candidate only serves to make the other party look better, intended or no. What's the purpose of even including that if not to A) make EA look good or B.) to make a statement about how jaded you are about paying $40 since you've paid more? You seem to touch on both within your post, and sure enough you yourself even admit that having that scammy MMO as your place of reference makes you less critical of EA. Yeah, that's my point. :P Either way, neither is a great argument and both touch on rebuttals I've already provided. The entire thing is just like "well living on the rim of an active volcano isn't as bad as living in plum so it really doesn't bother me."
Should also mention that again, beg your pardon, you're the one becoming hostile and hateful here, not me. Acting like some smug jerk and like we're too plum to understand your post doesn't suddenly make your points more valid....it just makes you look like a smug jerk.
You never said I was praising EA for not scamming people?
Let's take a moment to appreciate that you are praising EA and Sims 4 by saying "at least they aren't as bad as those guys running legal scams that feed off people with self-esteem issues."
Right.
And are you really going to take this to the petty level of "btw, it's you who is being mean, not me"? I did not use the words hostility and hate. I talked of dishonesty and treating people like enemies, which in this case, has to do with assuming the worst of them and not listening to what they're saying. Furthermore, you're going from saying I'm becoming hostile and hateful to being a "smug jerk." Is this pre-school? I'm ok with being called a smug jerk. I mean, it sounds like something a 12-year-old would come up with in anger, which is probably something that a smug jerk would say.
A smug jerk would also probably tell you that you have clear problems with calming down and digesting what other people say before you go into full-boar pedantic-overlord mode (there, I came up with a special name for you, too). Half the posts you make, you sound like you think you're a king sitting on a thrown, talking down to stupid peasants. I, being a smug jerk, am not always going to sit there and take being talked down to. I have important smug jerk business to get up to, like being a smug jerk to people.
Also, let's forget the stuff I said about me being Human. That's too much to cope with. We can just think of me as the Smug Jerk. That's a lot easier to handle, I'm sure.
Dude, you are comparing two different things, crates and DLC/packs have nothing in common, buying crates in MMO is gambling, I don't even know why you tell me you have play an MMO, it's out subject, and crates are gambling which again that have nothing to do with DLC/packs, it's two totally different things.
Did you even read your own post? I brought it up because you said you think that a lot of people don't play other games and therefore don't have perspective on the matter. So I brought up another game to point out how playing other games has affected my perspective and not in a way that agrees with you.
You bring up an other type game that couldn't be more different, MMOs' cash cow is the gambling crates. If you want to bring up an other game bring a game that have a base game and DLCs/packs, you are pretty much comparing The Sims 4 to going to the Casino, and then use that to say that EA is better.
You bring up an other type game that couldn't be more different, MMOs' cash cow is the gambling crates. If you want to bring up an other game bring a game that have a base game and DLCs/packs, you are pretty much comparing The Sims 4 to going to the Casino, and then use that to say that EA is better.
Incidentally, that other game also has EA as a parent company.
Comments
No.. please no. Every single release from Maxis no matter if it's a $10 stuff pack, or a $40 expansion, has a supercharged marketing campaign attatched to it. They sell the key points, the 'big picture stuff' so to speak. They aren't going to market a table you sell objects out of, that content already exists and it came from their first expansion pack. Aside from that, what exactly does a retail table bring to the big picture? It's a small detail, side content if you will. Not something that was included to close the deal.
There is a lot of gimmicks in this game. That might be an extreme sounding word, but it is the honest truth. Apartments? They lack some pretty basic functionality, and aside from the aesthetics operate no differently than any other lot in any other world with the exception of build mode which was severely cut down. Lot traits? The good ones aren't actually lot traits but objects that were placed in specific spots in specific apartments that the user can't move, delete, or use anywhere else. Gimmick.
Before each and every pack releases they have went over 99% of what we're gonna get. They always say "oh we never show off everything" but let's be honest - that 1% never amounts to anything remotely major, or even that important. Their expansion packs are downright skin and bone, it has nothing to do with the marketing or players not realizing what's there. It boils down to Maxis providing a whole lot of superficial content and features and hyping them up far beyond their usefulness.
That's purely subjective. Well, most of your post is, but my point is on that. If the TLC trait and associated objects were unlocked, I'd promptly remove them and never use them again. Fortunately I can use gnomes to counter most of it, but that's two of three slots used up that I'd prefer have other things. I have a feeling every 'good' lot trait you'd list is one I'd rarely if ever use.
But hey, it's easy to call what you don't like 'gimmicks', isn't it?
I hope, VERY SINCERELY, that in the Pets Expansion Pack come more than just dogs, cats and horses. Because if it is to do exactly the same thing as in The Sims 3 Pets, it is better not to do it, because I want something new, not the same repeated thing.
1) Just because you don't like a feature doesn't make it a gimmick, or less of a feature that time was spent on. So in regards to the argument about "thinness," calling something a gimmick means nothing. Gimmick or no, content is content. I could call most of the stuff in TS2 packs gimmick and it means exactly the same for the thinness argument; nothing.
2) Most people don't watch them go over "99% of what we're gonna get." And when I talk about "marketing," I don't necessarily mean plastered billboard type ads. That's why I mentioned "in-game." There's a lot of stuff in this game that is easy to miss, especially in something as large as an expansion pack. It's debatable whether calling more attention to that stuff is a good thing - some might argue that it's better for the bits to be something you discover organically - but the reality is, it's easy for people to miss them. That's why I made the point with regards to the perception that EPs are thin.
3) As for the "big picture," most content added in all packs is "small detail, side content" and I don't see any reason to believe that that hasn't been the case in every sims game, since the start. However, each piece of "small detail, side content" is meant to be part of a larger picture, which is, itself, what is supposed to close the deal; the larger picture. Vampires is sold on having Vampires in your game. Beyond that, it's also sold on the experience of being a Vampire, which includes a lot of "small detail, side content" relating to being a Vampire. A retail table does relate to living in a city, as it fits with the idea of a pop-up table used for selling wares on the street.
You are welcome to make an argument about thinness comparing actual number of features or "small detail, side content," but simply calling features you don't like gimmicks is not the way to do it.
Even a perception of "thinness" is potentially a problem for the dev team to consider, however, regardless of whether the EPs are objectively thin. How people perceive the content and what they get out of it is far more important than a numbered list of features. The point is, we need to keep a distinction between opinion and fact. Opinion can be valuable for feedback to the devs, but it's not fact. As long as we're clear on that, there's no problem.
What does telling me my opinion is subjective do? Restate the obvious? Not everything I don't like about the game falls into the gimmick zone for me. Features that really don't do much, but are used as a prominent selling point are.
People need to realize that EA is a company, not a friend, we pay for a product so we have the right to criticize the product and speak up if we are not happy about it.
I feel like EA got really lazy, and the community is to blame for it. The community have no standards, and I think some people don't even realize it, I mean I've seen many people say for example that they are not interested in bowling, but say they will buy the pack anyway. Why? Why people buy packs they have no interest it? People need to wake up and realize that they don't owe EA anything.
EA is so lazy that they don't even bother fixing bugs and glitches and let the community do it with mods, the bowling pack is not even out yet that I already see people spotting bugs and glitches from the stream, and say ''man I hope someone make a mod to fix that'', I'm sorry, but that's not normal.
Also I feel like a lot of people don't play other games than the Sims 4, and have no experience really, people that think that City Living worth 40$ are insane. (I'm no saying that people that enjoy the pack are insane, I'm just saying that the pack doesn't worth that much)
But yea people need to stop being scared of criticizing, people need to stop feeling like they owe EA, if people love the game and the packs fine, but they need to stop telling people that criticize it ''If you don't like it don't buy it''.
We'll assume for a second that that's accurate. Your reasoning starts falling down a well from there. "EA got really lazy and the community is to blame for it." So this majority is believing that EA is going to get mad and stop making packs (an absurd belief, right?) but it's perfectly reasonable to believe that EA got lazy because the community has no standards (another "majority," I assume). Apparently the community only has power of influence when it suits the point you're wanting to make?
As for bugs and glitches, objectively, the Sims team has fixed many. There's also many they haven't been able to fix, or are currently trying to fix. Is it worth complaining about? Sure, if you want to. Saying they are lazy and don't bother, however, is not being entirely honest about the situation.
Regarding playing other games and City Living's price? I don't remember if I paid full price or not, but I don't think $40 is unreasonable if you have the spending money and are into the content. Implying people are insane for thinking it's worth that price, however, is just getting off on the wrong foot. People have all kinds of different perceptions about money and if you get deep enough into it, money is a construct we use to exchange goods and services in the first place. Basically, the question becomes, "Is it worth it to you?" And the answer is, "It's nobody's business whether you say yes or no, unless you wish to tell them about it."
I used to play this online game that had tons of microtransactions. They had gamble crates, where you can buy them in bulk and you have a chance to get rare items (but mostly common items) out of them, out of a select pool of items. There were people who spent hundreds of dollars opening them, trying to get the rare items in them. I knew because some of them went to the forums to complain about it. No doubt there were others who swallowed their complaining and just kept buying.
So excuse me if $40 for a set amount of 100% optional content doesn't shock my system; content that is exactly what it says on the tin, the details of which can be found out pretty easily prior to buying, and which isn't shoved in your face (unlike some online games, where microtransactions are shoved in your face regularly, sometimes on top of pressuring you to pay a subscription fee just to maintain access to things you already paid for). Especially considering the sales they've had that slash CL down to half the price, less than a year after its release. Heck, some of those sales I'm pretty sure were less than three months after its release.
I'm not scared of criticizing EA. I just don't have a lot to complain about in regards to this particular game.
As for "don't like it don't buy it," I don't know who's saying that, but if you have a problem with somebody who says that, why not just construct an argument against what they are saying and reply to them? Instead of making sweeping generalizations about the majority of players and proclamations you can't back up about what EA is doing. There are situations where variations on "don't like it don't buy it" are nothing short of rude and unhelpful, and there are situations where it's part of a larger point that may have something useful or constructive to say.
Despite everything I'm saying against your points, I do agree that the number of bugs and glitches is not something that people usually forgive and forget about with other games. Unfortunately, it's my understanding that the sims series has a history of letting bugs stay alive for inordinate amounts of time and that they're actually doing better than they used to in squashing them regularly, due to the patching cycle. But there's still a lot of room for improvement there.
I think you're onto something with how straightforward and accessible content is. When I buy a SP or a GP, most of the content is constrained in a focus theme and it's far easier to get a grasp of what's been added, but in an EP, it's not uncommon to rediscover content I forgot about one or two years later. Since I'm playing rotational, and I tend to play rather slowly anyway, I don't give a try at all the new content of an EP in the first month after release. Sure, there's the marketing campaign, but it's a long time ago now, and when I'm playing, I'm not watching the marketing video.
I think there may be ways in-game to "advertise" this content, perhaps with the whims system, or through the messages you get. While they get a bit spammy sometimes, I also enjoy how it drives my story and suggests content.
What's wrong with complaining?
Okay then, either they are lazy or suck at it, the musical chair issue have been around since pretty much the start, still isn't fixed, but a modder have fixed it, so how come EA cannot fix something after 2 years and half, while a modder can? Do they just give up if someone make a mod for it?
Some bugs and glitches have been around since a long time and I feel like they don't even acknowledge it, dude they waste time fixing a 🐸🐸🐸🐸 shadow on a stuff pack chair, but yet they still haven't fixed the reward of the friend of the world aspiration, the beloved trait is broken since as long as I can remember (probably since the start). Their priorities are really not what it should be bugs and glitches wise, to me an aspiration reward from the base game should be fixed asap, way before a single chair shadow from a stuff pack.
Dude, you are comparing two different things, crates and DLC/packs have nothing in common, buying crates in MMO is gambling, I don't even know why you tell me you have play an MMO, it's out subject, and crates are gambling which again that have nothing to do with DLC/packs, it's two totally different things.
It have been on sale the week after the release, and have been since, something going on sale that fast and that long isn't a good sign. Vampires have been out for 2 months, there have been no sale for it.
When you make statements claiming that every feature I don't like is considered, by myself, to be a gimmick you have thoroughly missed my point, made an inaccurate assumption of my personal view, and obviously didn't read into the post where the word was used.
There's really no point elaborating further because every criticism against this game is countered with this mindset that if the criticism doesn't work with your opinion then it's false. Whenever someone uses personal perception as an argument against critique you are effectly missing the point. My opinion is my opinion whether you like it or not. I don't need a fact check, when I never claimed to be talking about objective facts. Clearly personal opinion is not welcome here unless you're willing to mold your opinion to avoid upsetting those who like what you're criticizing.
I think you missed her point. And before I continue, I want to argue we are practically talking about factual history here. When Sims 4 released, the release was a flop, and SimGurus came to these very forums posting "if it doesn't sell well there won't be a Sims 5." How is this much different from the idea that criticizing packs will cause them to stop making them...? Seems like her argument has some 🐸🐸🐸🐸 good evidence backing it.
When she said EA gets lazy, she means that if consumer demands are low or modest, they may adapt to that by doing less work. Let's say there's a town where the local baker typically bakes two loaves of bread per family per week. One day he doesn't quite hit that deadline and only makes one loaf of bread per family per week, but no one complains. He still loses profit though, but wonders if people would complain if he raised his prices. He does so, no one complains. Maybe he even starts looking if he can make the loaves smaller in size, no one complains. At this point he might either go back to two loaves per week to rake in profit, OR he might be comfortable with his low-stress work schedule and accept that he's now doing less than half the work for the same income. That's what she means.
I'm sorry but this is the most meaningless statement ever. You can apply that game to ANY game that ever had multiple patches applied to it, but that does not mean the game is up to snuff in terms of stability and quality. Plenty of games get plenty of bug fixes and remain buggy or even unplayable. I seem to recall one that was prone to lag, file bloating and even had a couple Expansions with neighborhoods that didn't work due to stuttering and routing issues. I believe it was called SIMS 3. Don't some of those sound similar to problems we have now...?
This same question poses a problem with capitalism as a whole. A hardcore capitalist would tell you "no one ever leaves a trade without having become better off than they were before." What this ignores is cases where one party willfully exploits the ignorance of another in order to fleece them. Another possibility is the exploitation of a monopoly. Gee, doesn't EA have one of those?! I seem to recall they do!
At the very least, we should be logically asking ourselves "If Sims 3 could release a city-themed expansion pack with plenty of content that includes a butler all for $40, why can't Sims 4? Why does Sims 4 need an extra $10?" Or "If Sims 3 can produce an EP with 7-8 careers and multiple self-employed careers, why can't Sims 4? Why does it only have 3 careers, much like one of the least liked Sims 3 EPs?" If your response is "well I'm happy regardless so whatever," then you're willingly inviting EA to test how much they can get away with and just how much they can snip apart an individual pack before people complain, something EA has done before with other game franchises. (Mass Effect 3 for example) In this case, quite frankly, I can understand fully while individuals such as myself would scrutinize those that say "well whatever I'm satisfied" since I also have to pay more when they show no concern, (their apathy affects me in a negative way) but I cannot quite figure out where is the logical motivation for someone to dissuade a person that's trying to argue you should be paying less money for the content you're getting. If I went into a street market and told a buyer they were about to overpay for a product, it's unlikely they'd consider me an annoyance or wish I'd go away, so why does that seem to happen here...?
Yes, a seller can take advantage of a buyer. Why are you trying to dissuade a person encouraging you to review a purchase more critically for your own sake?
Wow. I don't even know where to start with this...
The very MMO model of business? Exploit the whales. A "whale" is a big spender, and many F2PMMOs actively make it a point to try and treat these guy like VIPs and make them feel special, specifically so they'll keep buying. His entire motivation for buying is a desperate desire to feel special, and that's precisely why he buys those stupid things and precisely why the employees are often willing to "cheat" for the players and provide them with extra aid; strokes their egos, makes them feel special and like VIPS. It's the entire purpose of the business model: crates with tiny chances of success, but the guy knows if he JUST gets that .0005% chance of getting that item, he'll have the strongest character on the server, and have all the VIP attention that comes with it, with guilds and other players BEGGING the guy to be their friend and join their group, etc etc. The employees are often ACTIVELY told to stroke their egos, specifically for that reason: the entire business model is designed to exploit a person's desire to feel special. It's a practical scam. I'm not making this up, I read it in a business report a while ago regarding the company that does chinese localization for Dota2. (<---not an MMO, but the localization company used to work in MMOs)
Let's take a moment to appreciate that you are praising EA and Sims 4 by saying "at least they aren't as bad as those guys running legal scams that feed off people with self-esteem issues."
If that's what your praise is then....I mean gotta be honest, that makes me speechless. I'm very well versed in how the F2PMMO model works because I played some too, had friends that played them and knew the right people to learn about that business model and why it's so prone to employee-assisted cheating. Your own example is both a terrible defense of EA and absolutely DEMOLISHES your previous argument that says "as long as the customer is happy then what's the problem??" Yeah, well, when we're talking about customers that spend $80,000 gambling on an MMO just so they can feel special, I'd say that's great evidence that a customer being happy doesn't mean there can't be a problem.
Did you even read your own post? I brought it up because you said you think that a lot of people don't play other games and therefore don't have perspective on the matter. So I brought up another game to point out how playing other games has affected my perspective and not in a way that agrees with you.
So let me get this straight. If it's $40, it's overcharging. But if it goes on sale quickly to half price, you can't even acknowledge that that's a good thing, but instead feel compelled to spin it so that it's a bad thing. You are determined to think poorly of them, that much is crystal clear.
I made an effort to look at what you said in depth, in my last post, and find the parts where I agreed, despite being tempted to do otherwise, but I can see it was a waste of time. You want to dislike EA, in detail. That's your prerogative, but now I know not to bother engaging in the future.
Also, you're being extremely hyperbolic to jump from one post you don't like to, "Every criticism against this game is countered with this mindset that if the criticism doesn't work with your opinion then it's false." You're just repeating what you did before... taking perception and/or opinion and portraying it as fact.
And apparently you decided to gloss over the part where I said: You could have just read that and said, "Oh. As long as we're clear on that, there's no problem. Well what I said was intended as opinion and that's always how I intend it, no matter how it sounds, so there's no problem here." But nope, you made a sweeping generalization about "every criticism against the game."
Speaking of people missing the point, you obviously misunderstood the point I was making there. You can go back and reread and try to follow along if you like. I'm not going to explain it. You're a relentlessly curious guy, you can figure it out.
Do people just struggle with reading or what? Once again, somebody entirely glossed over the part where I acknowledged the sims' poor reputation history with bugs. I was also making that statement in replying to someone actually claiming that EA doesn't bother to fix bugs. As if they've never fixed any. So no, it's not meaningless in context, which is pretty important (context).
Ah, so this isn't about the broader point of what EA is doing. It's all about you and your perception and your life. If you perceived the packs to be providing more than enough content, you'd probably be on the other side of the aisle, asking me why I'm complaining when we have it so good.
I've seen this argument come up before about comparisons to past sims games/packs and I've never actually seen proof provided (which is what is needed for the argument to work) that the TS4 packs are objectively "thinner." Every time, cherrypicked examples are trotted out, like, "This pack had a butler in it and TS4 put the butler in a stuff pack." As if the entirety of the differences between EP and EP is whether each did or didn't have a butler.
If you are seriously going to use an argument like that, you have to go in depth. This wannabe academic nonsense of pulling out one or two examples to sound authoritative is tiresome and tired.
Your intellectual dishonesty here is disgusting. You act like I praised EA for not "scamming" people and then left it at that.
What I said was:
And yes, it is praiseworthy to say that they aren't scamming people because it's all too easy to do so now.
Anyway, the point of comparison was that $40 is a drop in the bucket compared to how much can be spent in the land of game transactions ("so excuse me if it doesn't shock my system"). The point about peoples' purchasing being their business is also 100% true, regardless of whether they're being scammed. It's still their business.
I'm getting real tired of the dishonesty used to argue with my points. You guys really have no idea. You see how I post on the TS4 forums and you think that I'm just some guy who is obsessed with defending EA and is a blind customer who is happy to be scammed. Because, I can only assume, you can't cope with the idea that I have a different perception of how things are being run here and that maybe some of it isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
It's a real problem on the internet, people wanting to see others as only belonging to one group: Ally or Enemy. Well I'm not Ally or Enemy, I'm Human.
Cope with that.
I also never said you were praising EA for not scamming people, but I DID highlight that you just took a company that practically scams people, compared it to EA and then said "oh wow look at that, EA's sales model is better." Well...duh? You're practically comparing them to 🐸🐸🐸🐸; what benefit is there to comparing ANYTHING to the worst of the worst when trying to be critical about something? Including such a poor comparison candidate only serves to make the other party look better, intended or no. What's the purpose of even including that if not to A) make EA look good or B.) to make a statement about how jaded you are about paying $40 since you've paid more? You seem to touch on both within your post, and sure enough you yourself even admit that having that scammy MMO as your place of reference makes you less critical of EA. Yeah, that's my point. :P Either way, neither is a great argument and both touch on rebuttals I've already provided. The entire thing is just like "well living on the rim of an active volcano isn't as bad as living in Hell so it really doesn't bother me."
Should also mention that again, beg your pardon, you're the one becoming hostile and hateful here, not me. Acting like some smug jerk and like we're too stupid (<---not smart) to understand your post doesn't suddenly make your points more valid....it just makes you look like a smug jerk. We can discuss better without that, yknow.
For instance, Get to Work could have been this big pack with tons of new jobs and a lot more open careers. They could have designed these careers to be far more open ended, and player choice oriented, that way we could replay the same careers, yet get a vastly different experience out of them in each Sim life. However, the three few careers are, realistically, horrendously boring and uninspired. Retail features fall so short of TS2's retail features and are, honestly, feel lazily created.
Get Together was a vague concept. I feel they could have went further on expanding the group activities of Sims. Still like the enhanced ability over controlling groups of Sims, but granted, that was a patch feature (as it should've been). We could have used more of these group activities (such as changing clothes together) in the pack. Perhaps holding hands? Playing freeze tag? Things like that.
City Living was a pretty big disappointment, when you compare it to what could have been, as well as the last "city" iterations of the past games. The city is more or less just a backdrop, apartments require loading screens, neighborhoods feel empty and boring, the new jobs aren't that exciting, and... that's pretty much all the pack tries to add..
Just reviewing each pack right now, I feel myself wanting far more from each and every one of them. It should not feel this way, especially so early in the lifespan of a new Sims game that has coincidentally left many people sad/angry over the lack of innovation in its base game.
And are you really going to take this to the petty level of "btw, it's you who is being mean, not me"? I did not use the words hostility and hate. I talked of dishonesty and treating people like enemies, which in this case, has to do with assuming the worst of them and not listening to what they're saying. Furthermore, you're going from saying I'm becoming hostile and hateful to being a "smug jerk." Is this pre-school? I'm ok with being called a smug jerk. I mean, it sounds like something a 12-year-old would come up with in anger, which is probably something that a smug jerk would say.
A smug jerk would also probably tell you that you have clear problems with calming down and digesting what other people say before you go into full-boar pedantic-overlord mode (there, I came up with a special name for you, too). Half the posts you make, you sound like you think you're a king sitting on a thrown, talking down to stupid peasants. I, being a smug jerk, am not always going to sit there and take being talked down to. I have important smug jerk business to get up to, like being a smug jerk to people.
Also, let's forget the stuff I said about me being Human. That's too much to cope with. We can just think of me as the Smug Jerk. That's a lot easier to handle, I'm sure.
You bring up an other type game that couldn't be more different, MMOs' cash cow is the gambling crates. If you want to bring up an other game bring a game that have a base game and DLCs/packs, you are pretty much comparing The Sims 4 to going to the Casino, and then use that to say that EA is better.
Small world.