I just hope that this alleged "several more years" of upcoming content for TS4 consists primarily of bug fixes, pack refreshes, & new EPs & GPs with quality gameplay (& perhaps an SP or two of the same quality as Paranormal Stuff), rather than mostly overpriced kits. Otherwise, meh....
Hope people don't take this wrong and get offended because that's not the intent of this comment, but for discussion purposes.
This (article linked to in twitter by the sims community) doesn't say how much longer they think the game will last.
It only says they believe more content will be created for it.
In the beginning of that article linked to on twitter, it says: At this point its become a tradition for us to write these articles on a yearly basis regarding the Sims 4 content life span. Still many players of the Sims 4 appreciate the reassurement that EA and the Sims Team don't plan to halt the production of the game.
What caught my attention in this first sentence of their article is "its become a tradition for us to write these articles on a yearly basis regarding the Sims 4 content life span". This says to me this type of article is common and a traditional thing, it happens all the time.
And then earlier news came out that they are working on TS5. So I guess my question would be are they planning to run both games simultaneously at some point ?
We don't want to alienate any part of the Sims community, and I hope EA wants the same, but I guess the trick is how to make everyone or most happy ?
Because there are clearly 2 different if not 3 age groups in the player base.
Not a game creator and so I don't know but I wonder if its possible to have the game split like some of their other games where you choose to play certain worlds, and both of the styles can be incorporated. Like if you choose to play A you can play in a world like Sims 3, and add onto that game by adding up to 4 worlds.
And if you choose to play B you can play in a world like Sims 4 and add onto that game by adding up to 4 worlds.
And I know its probably not possible at this point but to do so would mean a game engine that can switch back and forth between the styles.
I don't know much about game engines, but I do know that game engines are developed by people who know programming and code.
That said, all it would take is some talented people to created that type of game engine and EA certainly has the bank to pay for it.
Would EA go through that amount of trouble, not sure that they would.
But I would like to say that I know they are trying to please the stock holders, but anyone who buys the product is a stock holder in a sense,
not just the people who actually buy literal stocks. Because purchasing the product gives you cash flow to create new products.
Feel free to correct me on how game engines are created etc. because I don't know that much about them at all.
Hope people don't take this wrong and get offended because that's not the intent of this comment, but for discussion purposes.
This (article linked to in twitter by the sims community) doesn't say how much longer they think the game will last.
It only says they believe more content will be created for it.
In the beginning of that article linked to on twitter, it says: At this point its become a tradition for us to write these articles on a yearly basis regarding the Sims 4 content life span. Still many players of the Sims 4 appreciate the reassurement that EA and the Sims Team don't plan to halt the production of the game.
What caught my attention in this first sentence of their article is "its become a tradition for us to write these articles on a yearly basis regarding the Sims 4 content life span". This says to me this type of article is common and a traditional thing, it happens all the time.
And then earlier news came out that they are working on TS5. So I guess my question would be are they planning to run both games simultaneously at some point ?
We don't want to alienate any part of the Sims community, and I hope EA wants the same, but I guess the trick is how to make everyone or most happy ?
Because there are clearly 2 different if not 3 age groups in the player base.
Not a game creator and so I don't know but I wonder if its possible to have the game split like some of their other games where you choose to play certain worlds, and both of the styles can be incorporated. Like if you choose to play A you can play in a world like Sims 3, and add onto that game by adding up to 4 worlds.
And if you choose to play B you can play in a world like Sims 4 and add onto that game by adding up to 4 worlds.
And I know its probably not possible at this point but to do so would mean a game engine that can switch back and forth between the styles.
I don't know much about game engines, but I do know that game engines are developed by people who know programming and code.
That said, all it would take is some talented people to created that type of game engine and EA certainly has the bank to pay for it.
Would EA go through that amount of trouble, not sure that they would.
But I would like to say that I know they are trying to please the stock holders, but anyone who buys the product is a stock holder in a sense,
not just the people who actually buy literal stocks. Because purchasing the product gives you cash flow to create new products.
Feel free to correct me on how game engines are created etc. because I don't know that much about them at all.
Engineers engineer the system (world engine). Animators, programmers, and content creators (3 D objects etc.) are often at odds with engineers. The engineers often tell programmers and or content creators etc. this or that won't work with their engine they built. TS4 let go many of their engineers early on. It's one of the reasons TS4 doesn't have swimmable worlds etc. this late date in the life of TS4. They told us the game engine was built in such a way they wouldn't need engineers that often and could add all sorts of content we were dreaming about. Well, without engineers to define and tell them why this or that won't work or will work with their engine is why you see things like stacked apartments (worlds) and players not able to build their own apartments, since a different apartment in the same building is actually a different 'world'. Those things have to be thought about by engineers ever before the game is produced. Maxis bragged about not having to have that many anymore. I can only guess what TS5 will be like if they want to cut costs like that. Look at it this way. The 'world' is the engine. It may contain other areas and different so called worlds, but the system and what is possible or not, is the engine/world. The programmers, and animators etc. are confined within that world system of what is possible. Like drivable cars (without roads systems) which should have been thought about before the game was produced or any long term plans they had to bring in things like that has to be thought about by engineers.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
@Cinebar Where has it ever been said that the reason we don't have older worlds swimmable is because of having let go of engineers (by which you mean software developers, I think, because you don't need someone called an "engineer" to write game-engine software)? I have never seen this, as someone who follows what Maxis says closely. I also don't recall anything about lots of "engineers" being let go. The only thing I can recall being said as not being possible because of the game base is opening up the worlds more. Some changes to lot types were a nonoption because they would break everyone's existing saves.
Also, it's not possible that swimmable worlds is a game-engine issue because we have swimmable worlds. There's not a separate game engine for new content vs. older content. This means that the fact that older worlds haven't been revised to have swimmable areas is a choice of how to use various categories of budget resources.
Also, game engines can be edited after a game is released, although that doesn't mean "anything goes." Because sometimes stuff written on top of the engine is what can't be edited without breaking all the things.
Anyway, I think Sims 4 will last a long time still -- years. From what's been said by actual EA people about the not-Sims-4 thing in development, it's not a "Sims 5" as in superseding Sims 4 but something different that will sit alongside it. The game runs better at age... 8 now? than the previous games ran at half that age. It still has a healthy and growing user base, according to EA. They just added a new way for them to add content to the game, even -- what would they put developer time into that for if there weren't actually a good few years of content to come? It would be a bizarre allocation of resources. And other base upgrades, like that they're working on pronouns. You don't put resources like this into stuff people don't pay for if you don't have a good stream of paying content incoming. So yeah. A long time.
EA CREATOR NETWORK MEMBER — Want to be notified of patches, new Broken Mods threads, and urgent Sims 4 news? Follow me at https://www.patreon.com/luthienrising.
Gone are the days iterations had a certain time to expire and move on. Destiny 2 basically released "Destiny 3" by heavily updating their game engine. A lot of titles are getting each day longer lifespans by being able to do that.
Sims 4 has its hyperbolic number of dlcs setting it back from moving on. But it also has many things devs can't upgrade without breaking our saves. It will come down to choices of management.
At this point, Sims 4 is too expensive to simply die. And maybe murdering it isn't the most profitable choice for EA either, judging by their approach of stopping now the influx of EPs to refresh base game and older content. Why make an entire new game now when the one you already have is still viable and profitable? Engineers they would have to hire either way.
Sure they are thinking about "Sims 5", really meaning what cames next for the franchise. But I agree with @luthienrising. I think we are naive to think we know what "Sims 5" may be. And we may still be conjecturing for years to come.
@Cinebar Where has it ever been said that the reason we don't have older worlds swimmable is because of having let go of engineers (by which you mean software developers, I think, because you don't need someone called an "engineer" to write game-engine software)? I have never seen this, as someone who follows what Maxis says closely. I also don't recall anything about lots of "engineers" being let go. The only thing I can recall being said as not being possible because of the game base is opening up the worlds more. Some changes to lot types were a nonoption because they would break everyone's existing saves.
Also, it's not possible that swimmable worlds is a game-engine issue because we have swimmable worlds. There's not a separate game engine for new content vs. older content. This means that the fact that older worlds haven't been revised to have swimmable areas is a choice of how to use various categories of budget resources.
Also, game engines can be edited after a game is released, although that doesn't mean "anything goes." Because sometimes stuff written on top of the engine is what can't be edited without breaking all the things.
Anyway, I think Sims 4 will last a long time still -- years. From what's been said by actual EA people about the not-Sims-4 thing in development, it's not a "Sims 5" as in superseding Sims 4 but something different that will sit alongside it. The game runs better at age... 8 now? than the previous games ran at half that age. It still has a healthy and growing user base, according to EA. They just added a new way for them to add content to the game, even -- what would they put developer time into that for if there weren't actually a good few years of content to come? It would be a bizarre allocation of resources. And other base upgrades, like that they're working on pronouns. You don't put resources like this into stuff people don't pay for if you don't have a good stream of paying content incoming. So yeah. A long time.
The statements about engineers were made while Ryan and Rachel were still overseeing the game back in 2014. You must have missed some of their comments.
Yeah, I believe you that this game might go on for at least fifteen years. Especially since they can just use kits and patch updates to keep it going without many major EPs or GPs. Much like how mobile games are handled.
As far as the term engineers maybe it's not used as much anymore but those people work on what is possible in an engine and usually know the engine inside and out. Unlike those who just create content for the game.
They told us way back new world textures would have to be created for existing worlds to have swimmable bodies of water. It is not cost effective to do that, I guess. Engineers would have known this while designing the software (engine).
ETA: The statements from Rachel or Ryan or someone was about how they had designed (Maxis) a game engine that wouldn't need so many engineers anymore. Some of those people left not long after the game was released. I do know they had to ask Alex from Sim City to come over and help with the 'engine' world. (before Sim City was shut down).
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
Gone are the days iterations had a certain time to expire and move on. Destiny 2 basically released "Destiny 3" by heavily updating their game engine. A lot of titles are getting each day longer lifespans by being able to do that.
Sims 4 has its hyperbolic number of dlcs setting it back from moving on. But it also has many things devs can't upgrade without breaking our saves. It will come down to choices of management.
At this point, Sims 4 is too expensive to simply die. And maybe murdering it isn't the most profitable choice for EA either, judging by their approach of stopping now the influx of EPs to refresh base game and older content. Why make an entire new game now when the one you already have is still viable and profitable? Engineers they would have to hire either way.
Sure they are thinking about "Sims 5", really meaning what cames next for the franchise. But I agree with luthienrising. I think we are naive to think we know what "Sims 5" may be. And we may still be conjecturing for years to come.
I'm not sure when people say that games are supposed to last for longer if they are right or if it's because the people making the games don't want to spend the money making a new iteration.
Destiny was released in 2014, if they would have done the same as sims4 then we would not even have a Destiny 2 yet.
I dunno... if Maxis plan is to keep the sims4 alive with kits and refreshes and small updates then it hasn't worked on me so far. I need bigger changes like larger packs.
I also can't help but wonder how new simmers feel when they boot up the game and they see $800 worth of missing content.
Gone are the days iterations had a certain time to expire and move on. Destiny 2 basically released "Destiny 3" by heavily updating their game engine. A lot of titles are getting each day longer lifespans by being able to do that.
Sims 4 has its hyperbolic number of dlcs setting it back from moving on. But it also has many things devs can't upgrade without breaking our saves. It will come down to choices of management.
At this point, Sims 4 is too expensive to simply die. And maybe murdering it isn't the most profitable choice for EA either, judging by their approach of stopping now the influx of EPs to refresh base game and older content. Why make an entire new game now when the one you already have is still viable and profitable? Engineers they would have to hire either way.
Sure they are thinking about "Sims 5", really meaning what cames next for the franchise. But I agree with luthienrising. I think we are naive to think we know what "Sims 5" may be. And we may still be conjecturing for years to come.
I'm not sure when people say that games are supposed to last for longer if they are right or if it's because the people making the games don't want to spend the money making a new iteration.
Destiny was released in 2014, if they would have done the same as sims4 then we would not even have a Destiny 2 yet.
I dunno... if Maxis plan is to keep the sims4 alive with kits and refreshes and small updates then it hasn't worked on me so far. I need bigger changes like larger packs.
I also can't help but wonder how new simmers feel when they boot up the game and they see $800 worth of missing content.
It was actually Activision that pushed for a Destiny 2, Bungie nowadays talks openly how about that's not how they'd handle it if they were by themselves as they are now.
The question is: is the game worthy of $800? If they can convince people the game deserves the investiment, it's undoubtly the best way to earn money. But can they? haha We're seeing they're trying now. When improving Sims 4 becomes more expensive than make a new game entirely, that's when we'll have its true sucessor.
Gone are the days iterations had a certain time to expire and move on. Destiny 2 basically released "Destiny 3" by heavily updating their game engine. A lot of titles are getting each day longer lifespans by being able to do that.
Sims 4 has its hyperbolic number of dlcs setting it back from moving on. But it also has many things devs can't upgrade without breaking our saves. It will come down to choices of management.
At this point, Sims 4 is too expensive to simply die. And maybe murdering it isn't the most profitable choice for EA either, judging by their approach of stopping now the influx of EPs to refresh base game and older content. Why make an entire new game now when the one you already have is still viable and profitable? Engineers they would have to hire either way.
Sure they are thinking about "Sims 5", really meaning what cames next for the franchise. But I agree with luthienrising. I think we are naive to think we know what "Sims 5" may be. And we may still be conjecturing for years to come.
I'm not sure when people say that games are supposed to last for longer if they are right or if it's because the people making the games don't want to spend the money making a new iteration.
Destiny was released in 2014, if they would have done the same as sims4 then we would not even have a Destiny 2 yet.
I dunno... if Maxis plan is to keep the sims4 alive with kits and refreshes and small updates then it hasn't worked on me so far. I need bigger changes like larger packs.
I also can't help but wonder how new simmers feel when they boot up the game and they see $800 worth of missing content.
It was actually Activision that pushed for a Destiny 2, Bungie nowadays talks openly how about that's not how they'd handle it if they were by themselves as they are now.
The question is: is the game worthy of $800? If they can convince people the game deserves the investiment, it's undoubtly the best way to earn money. But can they? haha We're seeing they're trying now. When improving Sims 4 becomes more expensive than make a new game entirely, that's when we'll have its true sucessor.
Ah, I did not know that about Activision, interesting.
Yeah, probably. For me, it was worth it because it was $800 over 7 years, so that was not so bad for me. But new players arriving to the sims4 are probably not thinking that they will play the game for 7+ years, so I'm not sure. I myself rarely buy DLC for games unless I really like them and have played them for a while. But they seem to still be able to convince people that the sims4 is worth the investment. Probably because they don't have much competition.
I dunno, I just think it sounds so crazy that they are gonna get people to keep playing the same game for 10 years, and if they don't, then they have to convince people that the dlc for their game is worth $1000. Or at least, get people to spend a fair bit of money every year on it and get them to stay for several years.
But that's probably because I have bought every dlc, except any kits and I can't imagine playing the game without it.
Gone are the days iterations had a certain time to expire and move on. Destiny 2 basically released "Destiny 3" by heavily updating their game engine. A lot of titles are getting each day longer lifespans by being able to do that.
Sims 4 has its hyperbolic number of dlcs setting it back from moving on. But it also has many things devs can't upgrade without breaking our saves. It will come down to choices of management.
At this point, Sims 4 is too expensive to simply die. And maybe murdering it isn't the most profitable choice for EA either, judging by their approach of stopping now the influx of EPs to refresh base game and older content. Why make an entire new game now when the one you already have is still viable and profitable? Engineers they would have to hire either way.
Sure they are thinking about "Sims 5", really meaning what cames next for the franchise. But I agree with luthienrising. I think we are naive to think we know what "Sims 5" may be. And we may still be conjecturing for years to come.
I'm not sure when people say that games are supposed to last for longer if they are right or if it's because the people making the games don't want to spend the money making a new iteration.
Destiny was released in 2014, if they would have done the same as sims4 then we would not even have a Destiny 2 yet.
I dunno... if Maxis plan is to keep the sims4 alive with kits and refreshes and small updates then it hasn't worked on me so far. I need bigger changes like larger packs.
I also can't help but wonder how new simmers feel when they boot up the game and they see $800 worth of missing content.
It was actually Activision that pushed for a Destiny 2, Bungie nowadays talks openly how about that's not how they'd handle it if they were by themselves as they are now.
The question is: is the game worthy of $800? If they can convince people the game deserves the investiment, it's undoubtly the best way to earn money. But can they? haha We're seeing they're trying now. When improving Sims 4 becomes more expensive than make a new game entirely, that's when we'll have its true sucessor.
Ah, I did not know that about Activision, interesting.
Yeah, probably. For me, it was worth it because it was $800 over 7 years, so that was not so bad for me. But new players arriving to the sims4 are probably not thinking that they will play the game for 7+ years, so I'm not sure. I myself rarely buy DLC for games unless I really like them and have played them for a while. But they seem to still be able to convince people that the sims4 is worth the investment. Probably because they don't have much competition.
I dunno, I just think it sounds so crazy that they are gonna get people to keep playing the same game for 10 years, and if they don't, then they have to convince people that the dlc for their game is worth $1000. Or at least, get people to spend a fair bit of money every year on it and get them to stay for several years.
But that's probably because I have bought every dlc, except any kits and I can't imagine playing the game without it.
I don't think owning all the packs is at all necessary. Personally after purchasing and playing with most of the released packs, I can comfortably say that I don't need all of the packs to properly enjoy my game. Seasons, Cats and Dogs, Get Together, Get Famous, Eco Lifestyle, Discover University, Parenthood, Dream home Decorators, Moschino, Laundry Day, Bowling Night, Toddler Stuff and eventually Cottage Living are all the packs I would need personally for my game to feel complete. There's some content I'd miss from the other packs but for the most part these packs are where I get the bulk of my enjoyment playing the game. And I would argue most players can get away with a limited pack selection and still enjoy their game.
They could be using some of the new features that they are putting into sims 4 as testing for the sims 5 too. Like what if people don’t like the designed delivery system, or what if people don’t like the story progression they added the way it is. They can work out the kinks in 4 before putting it into 5. I just hope when they bring out 5 that more important things will be added to the base game, like swimming in oceans, lakes, and streams right from the beginning, also updates to personalities. A transportation systems ( with cars in mind from the beginning, if not actually added yet ). A better retail system, where you have to buy separate clothing pieces, and then they are added to your wardrobe, be it from a dresser, jewelry box, hat box, closet etc., that would be easiest to start at the beginning. Also, I prefer that cash register to the pad for checking out. And, a major thing for me is real babies and toddlers. They need to have planned these important things from the beginning.
Comments
I just hope that this alleged "several more years" of upcoming content for TS4 consists primarily of bug fixes, pack refreshes, & new EPs & GPs with quality gameplay (& perhaps an SP or two of the same quality as Paranormal Stuff), rather than mostly overpriced kits. Otherwise, meh....
Hope people don't take this wrong and get offended because that's not the intent of this comment, but for discussion purposes.
This (article linked to in twitter by the sims community) doesn't say how much longer they think the game will last.
It only says they believe more content will be created for it.
In the beginning of that article linked to on twitter, it says: At this point its become a tradition for us to write these articles on a yearly basis regarding the Sims 4 content life span. Still many players of the Sims 4 appreciate the reassurement that EA and the Sims Team don't plan to halt the production of the game.
What caught my attention in this first sentence of their article is "its become a tradition for us to write these articles on a yearly basis regarding the Sims 4 content life span". This says to me this type of article is common and a traditional thing, it happens all the time.
And then earlier news came out that they are working on TS5. So I guess my question would be are they planning to run both games simultaneously at some point ?
We don't want to alienate any part of the Sims community, and I hope EA wants the same, but I guess the trick is how to make everyone or most happy ?
Because there are clearly 2 different if not 3 age groups in the player base.
Not a game creator and so I don't know but I wonder if its possible to have the game split like some of their other games where you choose to play certain worlds, and both of the styles can be incorporated. Like if you choose to play A you can play in a world like Sims 3, and add onto that game by adding up to 4 worlds.
And if you choose to play B you can play in a world like Sims 4 and add onto that game by adding up to 4 worlds.
And I know its probably not possible at this point but to do so would mean a game engine that can switch back and forth between the styles.
I don't know much about game engines, but I do know that game engines are developed by people who know programming and code.
That said, all it would take is some talented people to created that type of game engine and EA certainly has the bank to pay for it.
Would EA go through that amount of trouble, not sure that they would.
But I would like to say that I know they are trying to please the stock holders, but anyone who buys the product is a stock holder in a sense,
not just the people who actually buy literal stocks. Because purchasing the product gives you cash flow to create new products.
Feel free to correct me on how game engines are created etc. because I don't know that much about them at all.
Engineers engineer the system (world engine). Animators, programmers, and content creators (3 D objects etc.) are often at odds with engineers. The engineers often tell programmers and or content creators etc. this or that won't work with their engine they built. TS4 let go many of their engineers early on. It's one of the reasons TS4 doesn't have swimmable worlds etc. this late date in the life of TS4. They told us the game engine was built in such a way they wouldn't need engineers that often and could add all sorts of content we were dreaming about. Well, without engineers to define and tell them why this or that won't work or will work with their engine is why you see things like stacked apartments (worlds) and players not able to build their own apartments, since a different apartment in the same building is actually a different 'world'. Those things have to be thought about by engineers ever before the game is produced. Maxis bragged about not having to have that many anymore. I can only guess what TS5 will be like if they want to cut costs like that. Look at it this way. The 'world' is the engine. It may contain other areas and different so called worlds, but the system and what is possible or not, is the engine/world. The programmers, and animators etc. are confined within that world system of what is possible. Like drivable cars (without roads systems) which should have been thought about before the game was produced or any long term plans they had to bring in things like that has to be thought about by engineers.
Also, it's not possible that swimmable worlds is a game-engine issue because we have swimmable worlds. There's not a separate game engine for new content vs. older content. This means that the fact that older worlds haven't been revised to have swimmable areas is a choice of how to use various categories of budget resources.
Also, game engines can be edited after a game is released, although that doesn't mean "anything goes." Because sometimes stuff written on top of the engine is what can't be edited without breaking all the things.
Anyway, I think Sims 4 will last a long time still -- years. From what's been said by actual EA people about the not-Sims-4 thing in development, it's not a "Sims 5" as in superseding Sims 4 but something different that will sit alongside it. The game runs better at age... 8 now? than the previous games ran at half that age. It still has a healthy and growing user base, according to EA. They just added a new way for them to add content to the game, even -- what would they put developer time into that for if there weren't actually a good few years of content to come? It would be a bizarre allocation of resources. And other base upgrades, like that they're working on pronouns. You don't put resources like this into stuff people don't pay for if you don't have a good stream of paying content incoming. So yeah. A long time.
Sims 4 has its hyperbolic number of dlcs setting it back from moving on. But it also has many things devs can't upgrade without breaking our saves. It will come down to choices of management.
At this point, Sims 4 is too expensive to simply die. And maybe murdering it isn't the most profitable choice for EA either, judging by their approach of stopping now the influx of EPs to refresh base game and older content. Why make an entire new game now when the one you already have is still viable and profitable? Engineers they would have to hire either way.
Sure they are thinking about "Sims 5", really meaning what cames next for the franchise. But I agree with @luthienrising. I think we are naive to think we know what "Sims 5" may be. And we may still be conjecturing for years to come.
Legacy Photomode
The statements about engineers were made while Ryan and Rachel were still overseeing the game back in 2014. You must have missed some of their comments.
Yeah, I believe you that this game might go on for at least fifteen years. Especially since they can just use kits and patch updates to keep it going without many major EPs or GPs. Much like how mobile games are handled.
As far as the term engineers maybe it's not used as much anymore but those people work on what is possible in an engine and usually know the engine inside and out. Unlike those who just create content for the game.
http://bestaccreditedcolleges.org/articles/gaming-engineer-salary-and-career-information.html
They told us way back new world textures would have to be created for existing worlds to have swimmable bodies of water. It is not cost effective to do that, I guess. Engineers would have known this while designing the software (engine).
ETA: The statements from Rachel or Ryan or someone was about how they had designed (Maxis) a game engine that wouldn't need so many engineers anymore. Some of those people left not long after the game was released. I do know they had to ask Alex from Sim City to come over and help with the 'engine' world. (before Sim City was shut down).
I'm not sure when people say that games are supposed to last for longer if they are right or if it's because the people making the games don't want to spend the money making a new iteration.
Destiny was released in 2014, if they would have done the same as sims4 then we would not even have a Destiny 2 yet.
I dunno... if Maxis plan is to keep the sims4 alive with kits and refreshes and small updates then it hasn't worked on me so far. I need bigger changes like larger packs.
I also can't help but wonder how new simmers feel when they boot up the game and they see $800 worth of missing content.
It was actually Activision that pushed for a Destiny 2, Bungie nowadays talks openly how about that's not how they'd handle it if they were by themselves as they are now.
The question is: is the game worthy of $800? If they can convince people the game deserves the investiment, it's undoubtly the best way to earn money. But can they? haha We're seeing they're trying now. When improving Sims 4 becomes more expensive than make a new game entirely, that's when we'll have its true sucessor.
Legacy Photomode
Ah, I did not know that about Activision, interesting.
Yeah, probably. For me, it was worth it because it was $800 over 7 years, so that was not so bad for me. But new players arriving to the sims4 are probably not thinking that they will play the game for 7+ years, so I'm not sure. I myself rarely buy DLC for games unless I really like them and have played them for a while. But they seem to still be able to convince people that the sims4 is worth the investment. Probably because they don't have much competition.
I dunno, I just think it sounds so crazy that they are gonna get people to keep playing the same game for 10 years, and if they don't, then they have to convince people that the dlc for their game is worth $1000. Or at least, get people to spend a fair bit of money every year on it and get them to stay for several years.
But that's probably because I have bought every dlc, except any kits and I can't imagine playing the game without it.
I don't think owning all the packs is at all necessary. Personally after purchasing and playing with most of the released packs, I can comfortably say that I don't need all of the packs to properly enjoy my game. Seasons, Cats and Dogs, Get Together, Get Famous, Eco Lifestyle, Discover University, Parenthood, Dream home Decorators, Moschino, Laundry Day, Bowling Night, Toddler Stuff and eventually Cottage Living are all the packs I would need personally for my game to feel complete. There's some content I'd miss from the other packs but for the most part these packs are where I get the bulk of my enjoyment playing the game. And I would argue most players can get away with a limited pack selection and still enjoy their game.