I don't think EA has inspired a lot of trust in people and that's the problem for some of us. How many times have they said something and did something else? How many times have we thought something wouldn't happen because why would that even happen and then it did happen? We've been burned before by them.
Not everyone wants to or can even play online. Not everyone wants to play multiplayer and/or online. I've never understood why EA seems to continuously push online play but then again I'm not a big gamer nor have I ever desired to play against people online even when I've had the opportunity to do so. But even the people I know who play online only do so occasionally. It's not an every-time-they-game thing nor are they always connected online.
One of my main concerns is best summed up in one of the pieces I came across while doing a little research. It actually mentions EA (which drew my attention) and it was written seven years ago and the writer is talking about Battlefield 3 in it but the part in bold concerns me if this is their plan for The Sims:
I see it a much different way. I think Battlefield 3’s single-player campaign falls short because EA wanted so badly for the game to be a multiplayer hit that it made the single-player mode an afterthought. But it’s not alone. I can’t tell you how many games I’ve played over the last several years that have afforded me sub-par single-player experiences just so they could offer up something unique on the multiplayer side.
I don't exactly trust them to give us the option of single player or anything offline when they've been pushing things more and more online and have been pushing for multiplayer for years. I also don't trust them to provide a great or amazing single player experience, if they were to provide single player, when what they clearly desire to do and focus on is multiplayer. They're like moths to a flame it seems.
Let's say The Sims whatever is single and multiplayer. What will single player look like? How much control will we have in single player? What will the sims be like personality wise? Are we only allowed to play one sim/one household or as many sims/households as we want within a certain limit? Will we have the ability to create our own towns/cities or edit pre-made towns/cities or are we just stuck with whatever they provide? How much of this and more will be determined based on what the plans are and what's implemented for multiplayer? Will multiplayer lead us to a limited single player mode or will single player be like the sandbox we're accustomed to The Sims being?
It's what the answers might be to those last two questions that disturbs me the most. I'm afraid they'll be so into making multiplayer great that single player gets neglected and half-baked. Or even worse, that the goal is to push people to play multiplayer so most focus goes to creating a hit multiplayer game and single player might as well be a patchwork quilt of all the things we wished worked better and that actually do work better but only if we decide to play multiplayer. I also wouldn't be surprised if a combination of both the outcomes were to happen.
The Sims works best as single player in my opinion. Multiplayer options are nice, especially for those who want it, but I think The Sims is better when we each have our own sandbox to play in and do as we please and that should be the main focus. I don't mind a game like what they're describing existing, it's just not up my alley and I don't think it'd fit within the main series of The Sims.
Oh yay, more always-online stuff that people didn't ask for. As if the Olympus and Simcity debacles weren't enough.
If the next Sims game focuses heavily on other players making changes to my game, at least I'll know to save my money
Actually I've seen a lot of players want more online play. And cloud technology would enable players to play their saves on multiple devices, for example if you have a desktop system for home play but use a laptop for school or travel. Not so sure about coming back to a save and finding things changed, unless it's just the surrounding world and not my individual Sims (for example, if they wanted to add a new neighborhood to the existing maps).
SimCity 2013 would have been just fine if (a) they'd had sandbox play available from the get-go instead of adding it way too late and (b) if they'd had enough server capacity for all the players. A game like WoW works because they have a bunch of servers, so they can serve a global community. EA didn't.
Check out my Gallery! Origin ID: justme22
Fun must be always -- Tomas Hertl (San Jose Sharks hockey player)
Rotational players (of which there seems to be many) cannot even bear Story Progression in a Sim game. Imagine giving control of their world and their Sims to other players.
Don't even get me started on the amount of trolls that will start to come out of the woodwork, for the sole purpose of ruining someone else's game play.
If this is the direction that EA is going with the Sims series, I suggest that they think long and hard about it before they commit. They've already destroyed one of their iconic series over this.
There is still a strong market for single-player games. The Sims series is a huge example of one. Story-driven games are the other. If EA is insistent on putting all of their eggs in one basket, I hope that there are other companies that step in to fill the vacuum and clean their clocks -- pretty much like what happened with Sim City/Cities:Skylines. All games are not meant to fit the same mold.
I'm kind of worried about a marriage between the Sims and Secondlife happening.
This little gem pops out at me. It makes me worry not only for a Sims game going this route but any. At least any that I would try in multiplayer mode.
"As the development platform of the future hosts the game content workflow and pipeline in the cloud, we can more easily and safely open up powerful avenues for players to create within games and services. You can dream, turn your own vision into reality, and share your creation with your friends or the whole world. You can potentially even market your ideas and visions to the community. To unlock that potential, you need a cloud-enabled engine that seamlessly integrates services. You need an accessible build of the game and a moddable asset database. You need a common marketplace for sharing and rating player creations. All that doesn’t exist yet today, but this is exactly what we are working towards with Project Atlas."
Frankly that scares me and more than anything got me thinking about Second Life. It has a huge possibility of being a real money dump for the average player. If you are a creator or modder or builder though you could make money though early in the games lifespan. Sometimes money you can cash out. I'm hoping actually that some sort of enforcement happens though to keep whatever money people make in the game stays in the games economy. That keeps people creating because they want to or because they love the game. Verses becoming a source of income for them that they work and cash out from.
The problem with a marketplace set up to me is for the average player it becomes about money and who has the shinest (whatever). There is no real standard in the game and you live to buy even within the game. It can become a keeping up with the Joneses kind of thing. I did play that game (social site?) for awhile. The disparity between being a newbie- basically a new ugly avatar and someone that was willing to spend a lot for any persona they made .. then "buy" or rent a place to live to make your own little spot in the world is really not something I'd try again unless it was fully structured out with real thought put into the dynamics for players that it brings about.
Lag also can be terrible in a player created world (or in one that allows for commerce). If front end they are addressing it then that part is a wait and see. They did discuss the ability to play it across multiple platforms so maybe that is something they are thinking ahead on.
I can see this being applied to role playing type of games also.. I've played games where trading and marketplaces between players was a thing.
Again if it looks like it's a real money dump to play and basically that is the only way to have fun I'll pass.
In the Sims I can play a crazy rich avatar with a huge home and all the bling or a homeless one for the same price. I just hope they don't set it up so the only way you can be the crazy rich one is to be.. well crazy rich.
I do expect to pay for entertainment. There is a budget to keep in mind though.
I'm kind of worried about a marriage between the Sims and Secondlife happening.
This little gem pops out at me. It makes me worry not only for a Sims game going this route but any. At least any that I would try in multiplayer mode.
"As the development platform of the future hosts the game content workflow and pipeline in the cloud, we can more easily and safely open up powerful avenues for players to create within games and services. You can dream, turn your own vision into reality, and share your creation with your friends or the whole world. You can potentially even market your ideas and visions to the community. To unlock that potential, you need a cloud-enabled engine that seamlessly integrates services. You need an accessible build of the game and a moddable asset database. You need a common marketplace for sharing and rating player creations. All that doesn’t exist yet today, but this is exactly what we are working towards with Project Atlas."
Frankly that scares me and more than anything got me thinking about Second Life. It has a huge possibility of being a real money dump for the average player. If you are a creator or modder or builder though you could make money though early in the games lifespan. Sometimes money you can cash out. I'm hoping actually that some sort of enforcement happens though to keep whatever money people make in the game stays in the games economy. That keeps people creating because they want to or because they love the game. Verses becoming a source of income for them that they work and cash out from.
The problem with a marketplace set up to me is for the average player it becomes about money and who has the shinest (whatever). There is no real standard in the game and you live to buy even within the game. It can become a keeping up with the Joneses kind of thing. I did play that game (social site?) for awhile. The disparity between being a newbie- basically a new ugly avatar and someone that was willing to spend a lot for any persona they made .. then "buy" or rent a place to live to make your own little spot in the world is really not something I'd try again unless it was fully structured out with real thought put into the dynamics for players that it brings about.
Lag also can be terrible in a player created world (or in one that allows for commerce). If front end they are addressing it then that part is a wait and see. They did discuss the ability to play it across multiple platforms so maybe that is something they are thinking ahead on.
I can see this being applied to role playing type of games also.. I've played games where trading and marketplaces between players was a thing.
Again if it looks like it's a real money dump to play and basically that is the only way to have fun I'll pass.
In the Sims I can play a crazy rich avatar with a huge home and all the bling or a homeless one for the same price. I just hope they don't set it up so the only way you can be the crazy rich one is to be.. well crazy rich.
I do expect to pay for entertainment. There is a budget to keep in mind though.
You know what that sounds like to me? All the cool kids will have control over everything and the average Joe winds up playing in the cool kids' market.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
Count me out. I don't wanna play the Sims online. I play the Sims so I can enjoy the solitude.
I imagine this will also hit the modding community, hard. Modding is mostly banned in online games.
This is basically going to be the Sims Mobile on PC. "You want this bath? £10 please!"
Count me out. I don't wanna play the Sims online. I play the Sims so I can enjoy the solitude.
I imagine this will also hit the modding community, hard. Modding is mostly banned in online games.
This is basically going to be the Sims Mobile on PC. "You want this bath? £10 please!"
No.
Yeah, and more like hey, look at so and so's creation! Join the cool kids and get this object (buy from creator) like all those MMORPGs do it.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
Well they didn't mention the Sims specifically so there's still hope there though the fact that they did try (and failed) to make an online Sims game makes me think it WILL happen eventually.
They did online with Simcity and they killed the franchise. It was a complete failure to the point they had to shutdown Maxis studios, at least the part dedicated to Simcity.
I think if EA/Maxis takes the Sims online again it really will be the end of the Sims. It might start off with a flourish but end in a whimper like SimCity 5. It would be like a nightmare intruding into my private dream world anyway.
I'm kind of worried about a marriage between the Sims and Secondlife happening.
This little gem pops out at me. It makes me worry not only for a Sims game going this route but any. At least any that I would try in multiplayer mode.
"As the development platform of the future hosts the game content workflow and pipeline in the cloud, we can more easily and safely open up powerful avenues for players to create within games and services. You can dream, turn your own vision into reality, and share your creation with your friends or the whole world. You can potentially even market your ideas and visions to the community. To unlock that potential, you need a cloud-enabled engine that seamlessly integrates services. You need an accessible build of the game and a moddable asset database. You need a common marketplace for sharing and rating player creations. All that doesn’t exist yet today, but this is exactly what we are working towards with Project Atlas."
Frankly that scares me and more than anything got me thinking about Second Life. It has a huge possibility of being a real money dump for the average player. If you are a creator or modder or builder though you could make money though early in the games lifespan. Sometimes money you can cash out. I'm hoping actually that some sort of enforcement happens though to keep whatever money people make in the game stays in the games economy. That keeps people creating because they want to or because they love the game. Verses becoming a source of income for them that they work and cash out from.
The problem with a marketplace set up to me is for the average player it becomes about money and who has the shinest (whatever). There is no real standard in the game and you live to buy even within the game. It can become a keeping up with the Joneses kind of thing. I did play that game (social site?) for awhile. The disparity between being a newbie- basically a new ugly avatar and someone that was willing to spend a lot for any persona they made .. then "buy" or rent a place to live to make your own little spot in the world is really not something I'd try again unless it was fully structured out with real thought put into the dynamics for players that it brings about.
Lag also can be terrible in a player created world (or in one that allows for commerce). If front end they are addressing it then that part is a wait and see. They did discuss the ability to play it across multiple platforms so maybe that is something they are thinking ahead on.
I can see this being applied to role playing type of games also.. I've played games where trading and marketplaces between players was a thing.
Again if it looks like it's a real money dump to play and basically that is the only way to have fun I'll pass.
In the Sims I can play a crazy rich avatar with a huge home and all the bling or a homeless one for the same price. I just hope they don't set it up so the only way you can be the crazy rich one is to be.. well crazy rich.
I do expect to pay for entertainment. There is a budget to keep in mind though.
I'm not sure if when they say "market" they're talking about money making; I'm not sure they want anything that could take money out of their own pockets. It could be more an expansion of what we have with the current Gallery, but adding in ways for players to publicize their creations in the actual game. Right now, people who upload builds or Sims to the Galery have to use outside sources (like Twitter or Facebook) to show their creations. What if there was an in-game feature like a Real Estate Guide or something on the computer, where players could have their Sims look for new houses or neighbors? Or it could be something like the Steam Marketplace used with games like Cities: Skylines, a central location for assets and mods (EA approved) for seamless install/addition.
I agree there is a large market for single-player games. If that's the direction the Sims series is heading, I'll just stick with Sims 4; fortunately I can see myself playing it for several years down the road if necessary.
Check out my Gallery! Origin ID: justme22
Fun must be always -- Tomas Hertl (San Jose Sharks hockey player)
Well they didn't mention the Sims specifically so there's still hope there though the fact that they did try (and failed) to make an online Sims game makes me think it WILL happen eventually.
The best option would be to have an online component but make it completely optional. If SimCity 2013 had included a "sandbox" mode at the beginning the series may have survived. (They also didn't have enough server capacity but that's another factor.) Either that or make it a spinoff series alongside the traditional game -- they can share assets (similar to The Sims Mobile getting items similar in style to what's in Sims 4) but be completely separate.
Check out my Gallery! Origin ID: justme22
Fun must be always -- Tomas Hertl (San Jose Sharks hockey player)
If EA is going to move all game data to the cloud and/or kill off single player that will be the end of the modding community. Maxis tolerates the modders now but they certainly wouldn’t on a multiplayer server. Thing is, unless the new game is playable and enjoyable without mods (a tall order for EA), they are the only things that keep the game alive for a lot of players. Take that away and you just lost a big chunk of your customer base.
Multiplayer is one of those things that game companies like to think will rake in tons of money no matter how much effort they actually put into it, or whether or not it even makes sense to add it in the first place. It’s the same with VR, battle royales, loot boxes and the doomed fishing expedition for a “wider audience.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if EA pushed for The Sims VR or even Sims Battle Royale at this point. Only instead of collecting different dances like Fortnite you just collect different fursuits. Maybe even some chairs if they’re feeling extra ambitious.
Well EA very foolishly in my view said that Single player games are dead. Tell that to all the games I listed on the page before that are all single player and have sold millions of copies.
Well EA very foolishly in my view said that Single player games are dead. Tell that to all the games I listed on the page before that are all single player and have sold millions of copies.
I hope they don't do the same mistake twice. They started developing Sims 4 as an online game, but then SimCity was failing really hard because of its online focus and so The Sims 4 was becoming an offline game. (Which is great, but Sims 4 had so much potential that was just wasted like the color wheel, open world or toddlers while half or even more of the development time was originally spend on making it an online game. Also online games usually have many limitations and Sims 4 is based on the remains of this online game codenamed "The Sims Olympus")
Well EA very foolishly in my view said that Single player games are dead. Tell that to all the games I listed on the page before that are all single player and have sold millions of copies.
I hope they don't do the same mistake twice. They started developing Sims 4 as an online game, but then SimCity was failing really hard because of its online focus and so The Sims 4 was becoming an offline game. (Which is great, but Sims 4 had so much potential that was just wasted like the color wheel, open world or toddlers while half or even more of the development time was originally spend on making it an online game. Also online games usually have many limitations and Sims 4 is based on the remains of this online game codenamed "The Sims Olympus")
None of that from Sims 3 was ever planned for Sims 4 - by the way. The Devs mentioned that in the early Q &A's we used to have with the developers in the forums back in 2014.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
Count me out. I don't wanna play the Sims online. I play the Sims so I can enjoy the solitude.
I imagine this will also hit the modding community, hard. Modding is mostly banned in online games.
This is basically going to be the Sims Mobile on PC. "You want this bath? £10 please!"
No.
Yeah, and more like hey, look at so and so's creation! Join the cool kids and get this object (buy from creator) like all those MMORPGs do it.
Yup, I'm getting irritated just thinking about it.
I have been thinking though what if only some of these tools are used in the Sims game. I personally don't think all of what was said in that article or linked article will apply but let's say some of it does. What if it makes it easier for people that don't usually create cc to make it. What if the tools are easier to access. What if it's easier to mod things even for people that can't usually figure it out. Especially for your personal single player game.
I like to see the possibilities rather than focus to hard on the bad maybes for the most part. I don't want to work it out to be some monster that it might not even be.
Fact of the matter is we are more and more linked in every day. Like it or not. So an online version running side by side with a single player version is very possible for the next game in the series.
If they can find a way to use my preferences to make my game work better for me.. or by somehow reading the type of play I engage in and then anticipating what I might want from it .. it could be a good thing, if it doesn't force your hand or become invasive.
Right now, people who upload builds or Sims to the Galery have to use outside sources (like Twitter or Facebook) to show their creations.
This is exactly why I use The Sims Resource and not the gallery, also the fact it's just an infinite loop of loading for me since they "improved" it so I can't use it even if I wanted to. I used tsr way back in TS3 days but I can't find my old account. I had some cool stuff on there. I have recently started a new account on tsr and I already have more downloads in a week than I ever would've got on the gallery.
Well EA very foolishly in my view said that Single player games are dead. Tell that to all the games I listed on the page before that are all single player and have sold millions of copies.
I hope they don't do the same mistake twice. They started developing Sims 4 as an online game, but then SimCity was failing really hard because of its online focus and so The Sims 4 was becoming an offline game. (Which is great, but Sims 4 had so much potential that was just wasted like the color wheel, open world or toddlers while half or even more of the development time was originally spend on making it an online game. Also online games usually have many limitations and Sims 4 is based on the remains of this online game codenamed "The Sims Olympus")
None of that from Sims 3 was ever planned for Sims 4 - by the way. The Devs mentioned that in the early Q &A's we used to have with the developers in the forums back in 2014.
That's what I'd also say if I had to build on the remains of a multiplayer game and didn't had much time anymore. (Not saying that they didn't do their best to create a good game, they gave us many things we asked for like toddlers, pools or terrain tools, but it could have been much better if they focused on it being a single player experience in the first place so that they could've used their time more wisely and maybe include these things in the beginning like Sims 3 did)
Haha. Why won't we learn that there are no "deeper" social interactions to be had online. We will create them organically, you don't have to do it for us. The more access you give us to each other is the more access you give us to hurt and/or be mean to each other. Depth takes time. It takes shared experiences. Fancy tech isn't going to do that. Cut it out!
Comments
Not everyone wants to or can even play online. Not everyone wants to play multiplayer and/or online. I've never understood why EA seems to continuously push online play but then again I'm not a big gamer nor have I ever desired to play against people online even when I've had the opportunity to do so. But even the people I know who play online only do so occasionally. It's not an every-time-they-game thing nor are they always connected online.
One of my main concerns is best summed up in one of the pieces I came across while doing a little research. It actually mentions EA (which drew my attention) and it was written seven years ago and the writer is talking about Battlefield 3 in it but the part in bold concerns me if this is their plan for The Sims:
I don't exactly trust them to give us the option of single player or anything offline when they've been pushing things more and more online and have been pushing for multiplayer for years. I also don't trust them to provide a great or amazing single player experience, if they were to provide single player, when what they clearly desire to do and focus on is multiplayer. They're like moths to a flame it seems.
Let's say The Sims whatever is single and multiplayer. What will single player look like? How much control will we have in single player? What will the sims be like personality wise? Are we only allowed to play one sim/one household or as many sims/households as we want within a certain limit? Will we have the ability to create our own towns/cities or edit pre-made towns/cities or are we just stuck with whatever they provide? How much of this and more will be determined based on what the plans are and what's implemented for multiplayer? Will multiplayer lead us to a limited single player mode or will single player be like the sandbox we're accustomed to The Sims being?
It's what the answers might be to those last two questions that disturbs me the most. I'm afraid they'll be so into making multiplayer great that single player gets neglected and half-baked. Or even worse, that the goal is to push people to play multiplayer so most focus goes to creating a hit multiplayer game and single player might as well be a patchwork quilt of all the things we wished worked better and that actually do work better but only if we decide to play multiplayer. I also wouldn't be surprised if a combination of both the outcomes were to happen.
The Sims works best as single player in my opinion. Multiplayer options are nice, especially for those who want it, but I think The Sims is better when we each have our own sandbox to play in and do as we please and that should be the main focus. I don't mind a game like what they're describing existing, it's just not up my alley and I don't think it'd fit within the main series of The Sims.
Actually I've seen a lot of players want more online play. And cloud technology would enable players to play their saves on multiple devices, for example if you have a desktop system for home play but use a laptop for school or travel. Not so sure about coming back to a save and finding things changed, unless it's just the surrounding world and not my individual Sims (for example, if they wanted to add a new neighborhood to the existing maps).
SimCity 2013 would have been just fine if (a) they'd had sandbox play available from the get-go instead of adding it way too late and (b) if they'd had enough server capacity for all the players. A game like WoW works because they have a bunch of servers, so they can serve a global community. EA didn't.
Fun must be always -- Tomas Hertl (San Jose Sharks hockey player)
Don't even get me started on the amount of trolls that will start to come out of the woodwork, for the sole purpose of ruining someone else's game play.
If this is the direction that EA is going with the Sims series, I suggest that they think long and hard about it before they commit. They've already destroyed one of their iconic series over this.
There is still a strong market for single-player games. The Sims series is a huge example of one. Story-driven games are the other. If EA is insistent on putting all of their eggs in one basket, I hope that there are other companies that step in to fill the vacuum and clean their clocks -- pretty much like what happened with Sim City/Cities:Skylines. All games are not meant to fit the same mold.
This little gem pops out at me. It makes me worry not only for a Sims game going this route but any. At least any that I would try in multiplayer mode.
"As the development platform of the future hosts the game content workflow and pipeline in the cloud, we can more easily and safely open up powerful avenues for players to create within games and services. You can dream, turn your own vision into reality, and share your creation with your friends or the whole world. You can potentially even market your ideas and visions to the community. To unlock that potential, you need a cloud-enabled engine that seamlessly integrates services. You need an accessible build of the game and a moddable asset database. You need a common marketplace for sharing and rating player creations. All that doesn’t exist yet today, but this is exactly what we are working towards with Project Atlas."
Frankly that scares me and more than anything got me thinking about Second Life. It has a huge possibility of being a real money dump for the average player. If you are a creator or modder or builder though you could make money though early in the games lifespan. Sometimes money you can cash out. I'm hoping actually that some sort of enforcement happens though to keep whatever money people make in the game stays in the games economy. That keeps people creating because they want to or because they love the game. Verses becoming a source of income for them that they work and cash out from.
The problem with a marketplace set up to me is for the average player it becomes about money and who has the shinest (whatever). There is no real standard in the game and you live to buy even within the game. It can become a keeping up with the Joneses kind of thing. I did play that game (social site?) for awhile. The disparity between being a newbie- basically a new ugly avatar and someone that was willing to spend a lot for any persona they made .. then "buy" or rent a place to live to make your own little spot in the world is really not something I'd try again unless it was fully structured out with real thought put into the dynamics for players that it brings about.
Lag also can be terrible in a player created world (or in one that allows for commerce). If front end they are addressing it then that part is a wait and see. They did discuss the ability to play it across multiple platforms so maybe that is something they are thinking ahead on.
I can see this being applied to role playing type of games also.. I've played games where trading and marketplaces between players was a thing.
Again if it looks like it's a real money dump to play and basically that is the only way to have fun I'll pass.
In the Sims I can play a crazy rich avatar with a huge home and all the bling or a homeless one for the same price. I just hope they don't set it up so the only way you can be the crazy rich one is to be.. well crazy rich.
I do expect to pay for entertainment. There is a budget to keep in mind though.
You know what that sounds like to me? All the cool kids will have control over everything and the average Joe winds up playing in the cool kids' market.
Count me out. I don't wanna play the Sims online. I play the Sims so I can enjoy the solitude.
I imagine this will also hit the modding community, hard. Modding is mostly banned in online games.
This is basically going to be the Sims Mobile on PC. "You want this bath? £10 please!"
No.
Yeah, and more like hey, look at so and so's creation! Join the cool kids and get this object (buy from creator) like all those MMORPGs do it.
I hope EA won't make the same mistake again.
Just my opinion though.
I'm not sure if when they say "market" they're talking about money making; I'm not sure they want anything that could take money out of their own pockets.
I agree there is a large market for single-player games. If that's the direction the Sims series is heading, I'll just stick with Sims 4; fortunately I can see myself playing it for several years down the road if necessary.
Fun must be always -- Tomas Hertl (San Jose Sharks hockey player)
The best option would be to have an online component but make it completely optional. If SimCity 2013 had included a "sandbox" mode at the beginning the series may have survived. (They also didn't have enough server capacity but that's another factor.) Either that or make it a spinoff series alongside the traditional game -- they can share assets (similar to The Sims Mobile getting items similar in style to what's in Sims 4) but be completely separate.
Fun must be always -- Tomas Hertl (San Jose Sharks hockey player)
Multiplayer is one of those things that game companies like to think will rake in tons of money no matter how much effort they actually put into it, or whether or not it even makes sense to add it in the first place. It’s the same with VR, battle royales, loot boxes and the doomed fishing expedition for a “wider audience.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if EA pushed for The Sims VR or even Sims Battle Royale at this point. Only instead of collecting different dances like Fortnite you just collect different fursuits. Maybe even some chairs if they’re feeling extra ambitious.
This might be a glimpse into the future... The Sims 5: Battle Royale
Kind of wish Maxis managed to put DA:I or MA:E costumes in the game.
They could have a Cullen suit of armor for sims to wear.
I hope they don't do the same mistake twice. They started developing Sims 4 as an online game, but then SimCity was failing really hard because of its online focus and so The Sims 4 was becoming an offline game. (Which is great, but Sims 4 had so much potential that was just wasted like the color wheel, open world or toddlers while half or even more of the development time was originally spend on making it an online game. Also online games usually have many limitations and Sims 4 is based on the remains of this online game codenamed "The Sims Olympus")
None of that from Sims 3 was ever planned for Sims 4 - by the way. The Devs mentioned that in the early Q &A's we used to have with the developers in the forums back in 2014.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
Yup, I'm getting irritated just thinking about it.
I like to see the possibilities rather than focus to hard on the bad maybes for the most part. I don't want to work it out to be some monster that it might not even be.
Fact of the matter is we are more and more linked in every day. Like it or not. So an online version running side by side with a single player version is very possible for the next game in the series.
If they can find a way to use my preferences to make my game work better for me.. or by somehow reading the type of play I engage in and then anticipating what I might want from it .. it could be a good thing, if it doesn't force your hand or become invasive.
That's what I'd also say if I had to build on the remains of a multiplayer game and didn't had much time anymore. (Not saying that they didn't do their best to create a good game, they gave us many things we asked for like toddlers, pools or terrain tools, but it could have been much better if they focused on it being a single player experience in the first place so that they could've used their time more wisely and maybe include these things in the beginning like Sims 3 did)