Here's reasons why I don't want Sims 5 and don't think we'll get it anyway. Whether we need it or not is a bit too subjective.
1: I like Sims 4
Yeah, yeah, I like Sims 4. Not as it is, but the style, I especially like that. Enough of that.
2: No announcements from EA.
Face it, people are always thinking with every press conference there will be an announcement. But there hasn't. Then again, the announcement of a Sims game would overshadow the next FIFA, which is EA's big money. You need to tell yourself, "It'll be announced when it's announced". People were even anticipating it before Cats And Dogs!
We're currently at the peak of the era of Microtransactions. EA's even fighting to be allowed to keep lootboxes still in games like FIFA! Sims 5 doesn't need lootboxes, but EA is so adamant on them right now that I wouldn't be at all surprised should they get them if it was released before lootboxes quit. We don't need the idea that they can make us pay 99p to unlock each item, releasing new skins every day. But if it comes out at the wrong time, that's what we'll get.
4: Expansion Packs
Games cost a lot to make. Expansions are cheap. Why spend all that money on a new game when you can pump out packs infinitely? There's so much missing. Many people call for a University pack, but they seem to fail to realise that the content that came in University can be split up between three or four packs, meaning that you'll get the content, but you won't necesserily get the university world. I'd rather have a pop-stars pack myself. There are potentials for circus packs. Others want Farming. It's hard to know what will go in Game Packs and what will go in Expansions, but either way it's a cow that can be milked indefinitely.
The announcement of Sims 5 would risk crippling the sale of packs. People would think "Why buy more packs when they'll be out of date in a few months?" And I wouldn't blame 'em. Others might think "Sims 4 is being cut off early. Why buy Sims 5 when the same thing is bound to happen?"
5: Consoles have just come out.
The Console release is fresh in the air. They haven't even finished catching up with packs. Why would they put off console owners when they haven't even caught up? They want console owners to buy all those packs too. Furthermore, console owners would now expect to have their own version of Sims 5. Which would certainly bring in the money if Sims 4 gets a good reception there, but would also take a fair time to convert. And indeed, Sims 4 wasn't designed to share formats with Consoles. Would a Sims 5 be treated that way? EA says it's a 1:1 conversion, and it's close, but that took effort. Would SIms 5 be lower quality, just to fit easier for a console release at the same time?
6: What would they do differently?
No, not "What haven't they done yet?" or "What can be fixed?" What would happen differently in Sims 5 to Sims 4? A full Open World sure sounds nice, but could your computer handle it? Please, I know it's something you want more than anything, but would your laptop be able to deal with an open world without obscene lag? We have glass roofs and hexagonal roofs and conical roofs. Districts have just been developed as a kind of open-world substitute. We want vehicles but we don't actually need them when everywhere is just a load screen away.
7: Technical reasons.
Sims 1 was a pretty simple game; it looked good because nothing like it had ever been done before. It wasn't even proper 3D.
When Sims 2 came out, it was a radical improvement, mostly funded by the success of Sims 1, and the discovery that yes, there was a market for games that had something other than shooting people in the head or running and jumping. As for Sims 3... well, it ran on an upgraded engine of Sims 2. It was Sims 2, but it took advantage of the success of Sims 2, and of stronger computers to make it bigger. They knew from the start that there was a limit to its engine, and that meant they'd have to make a Sims 4. If you need proof, the number of packs for Sims 3 is roughly the same as Sims 2. THIS is the reason for the four-year gap thus far, And Sims 4 still wasn't completed in that four years. Remember pools and Ghosts weren't completed at release and they only started Toddlers after release and it took a year - but we do have the best toddlers ever.
Now, they could have made a Sims 4 exactly like Sims 3 and have a space limit again and people noticing that they might as well be playing Sims 3... or they could put together something very different that could expand indefinitely. Something with the Pixar-style graphics that wouldn't go out of date or enter the Uncanny Valley. Something that could be expanded upon and improved indefinitely and need never come to an end. They can add pack after pack forever, and keep tuning up things like gardening and building and in time, open swimming.
Considering EA's track record with developers, I can't see the devs being in a rush to go to them and say "People are tiring of Sims 4 and we're running out of ideas, could you give us the money to make an exciting and radically different Sims 5? It'll be quite expensive and take a few years but-"
"Stand on top of that trapdoor; you'll find your answer at the bottom."
Post edited by Loanet on
"I'm not saying Stuff Packs thrill me to my wretched, rotting core. I'm just saying that we only get one expansion pack a year because Devs only have one pair of hands. You want to buy more half-finished packs like Get To Work? Do you?"