Are you for/against pack requirements for new DLC? «12345...Next Go

Eliharb

In the rare case where Maxis/EA decides to put out a new world with apartments alongside normal lots, would you get it if it means you have to have City Living? That will mean that the GP/EP (Let's say a New York inspired world with a neighborhood where you can build your own apartments à-la-"TS2 Apartment Life"+ have premade lofts CL style).

Would you be for a pack that requires you to have the base game + an EP?

LaBlue0314

Depends on the contents.

Only if it was free content, otherwise what would stop them from even giving us less, and then saying if you want the rest of it you have to pay even more. Think back to the Cats & Dogs EP and the My First Pets Stuff.

katrinasforest

Depends on the contents.

I'd say it depends. If someone on the team comes up with a cool way to enhance a pack that's already been released, I'm not against that idea being developed. But the packs are best when they both enhance what's already there and stand on their own. My First Pet Stuff would have been fine if was just small pets and pet-themed items anyone could use.

KirbySkywalker

Absolutely not.

Idk. I have everything besides MFPS. So it would all work for me at no extra cost anyways...

But tbh, at this point there is still WAY too much content that needs to be made as normal expansions/packs to be worried about addons for addons (we still need university, tropical/oceans, occults/magic, cars, bands, off the grid, farm animals, robots, etc,etc,etc..)

Then still, we don’t even have basic objects people want like spiral stairs, diving boards, buildable elevators, chaise/lounge/layout chairs....

So I’m gonna say no. No DLC for DLC. Not for a LONG TIME at least.

icmnfrsh

Absolutely not.

I don't see why you'd need to have CL for this. I at least understand that the MFPS cat/dog clothes and furniture are usable only if cats and dogs are present, but restricting the apartments to CL owners feels artificial. There were times before when a feature was carried over to a separate pack, so I don't see why static apartments have to be exclusive to CL

silver_songbird

I'm not sure what to vote for tbh.

I want to say depends on the contents but??

making a DLC for a DLC is a really scummy move and a way of just trying to get more money out of people. its just a bad move all around imho and just feels like a slap in the face for your customers.

now..I'd much rather a DLC that adds on to a DLC..but can be played alone. so its not requiring of the EP like My First Pets Stuff. I only own it as a friend gave it to me for free otherwise I had no intentions too.

for instance I know somebody who would like my first pet stuff but has no interest in cats and dogs..he only wants the small rodents. but he's not going to buy a EP he doesn't have any interest in.

something that adds on to the EP, but can be used alone. so using my first pet stuff as an example, you can get it, play it, but if you also own cats and dogs you'll get a couple extra exclusive items and the pet costumes. rather than being a DLC of a DLC.

I'm really on the fence tbh.

Shepard

Yes, why not.

I don't mind content that requires an EP since it's likely everyone buys EP's as they are big with lots of content. Adding more stuff and functionality to already existing EPs and GPs seems like a good idea to me.

happyopi

Depends on the contents.

I don't think it should *require* another pack, C&D was the worst pack to try to pull MFP because there was no way to have cats and dogs again in a different form.

Things like apartments however, I don't think should be exclusive to City Living, there's really no reason.
Ideally we could have the apartments in San Myshuno and other, different apartments in a future world.

If it's something like, another washing machine with a different design pops up in a random unrelated pack, without Laundry Day installed it's deco, with it it has gameplay, I would probably be fine with it. A deco machine works like clutter to make a house feel lived in.
Pet bowls without any hint of pets, no so much.
But tbh I'd like it better if the random unrelated pack just had laundry gameplay again.

GrumpyGlowfish

Depends on the contents.

I wasn't very happy with My First Pet, not because it included added bonus costumes for owners of a previous expansion (and that wasn't the first time they did something like this; witches in TS2 Apartment Life could only summon cat familiars if Pets was installed, for example), but because it felt like it was ripped out of the already rather small Cats & Dogs expansion just to make a few extra bugs.

If, however, we had a fully fleshed out DLC that just couldn't fit in any more content because it would have gotten too big, then I wouldn't mind those additional features being released in an appropriately sized DLC for the DLC, rather than not getting them at all. In fact, I was just thinking about this because of this thread, where I wondered how a winter-related expansion would work for people who don't own Seasons. I really wouldn't mind it if the potential future pack turns out big enough to be its own thing.

Twicelikey

Depends on the contents.

I think depends. I still shudder when thinking about the whole DLC for DLC situation.

invisiblgirl

Yes, why not.

Basically, we have three choices if you want new features for DLC: a) They add apartments or vampires or aliens or whatever to a new expansion or game pack. If you already paid for the original packs, you're paying again for the same content to get a few new features (such as another apartment world, or new abilities for vampires or aliens). b) They create a new stuff pack with, say, a new apartment world or new features for vampires, etc. If you don't have the original pack, you can either buy both or neither. c) You never get another world with apartments, or new features for your favourite things.

All packs include some stuff that isn't accessible unless you own other packs - you just don't notice it because it's in the coding, not build-buy. I paid for coding in Seasons that was specifically for vampires and pets, totally useless to me, since I don't have those packs. I honestly don't understand why people are so opposed to DLC that requires other DLC. It's a much better deal for players than buying two full expansion packs, and getting charged twice for the same DLC.

katrinasforest

Depends on the contents.

They have added new items in multiple packs before.--you can get the WooHoo bush by buying either Jungle Adventure or Get Together. Since it wasn't the main feature of either pack (and both packs were game packs, so it's not like one was cheaper than the other), I don't think anyone who bought both felt like they'd bought the same thing twice.

However, apartments are the main feature of City Living. I think the only way you could bring them back again would have to create a whole new world with a few apartments available plus some other bigger feature and sell it as an expansion pack. It could have worked with Get Famous, actually, but I guess either no one thought of it or it just wasn't a priority.

@happyopi, that's a really good suggestion about making washing machines just decorations for anyone who doesn't have Laundry Day. I don't have the pack and don't really plan on getting it, but I wouldn't object to making it look like my Sims do laundry.

VentusMatt

Depends on the contents.

Imma say it depends but for the most part no. There isn't much reason to make a dlc for a dlc unless the content practically requires the dlc like my first pet stuff basically requires pets. Honestly I don't think the idea of my first pets stuff was a bad one but the execution was awful. They couldn't of waited for at least a year or better 2yrs to release it. It would be been perceived better if it's reveal was spaced out enough that a demand for more pet content could of built up and c&d wasn't still fresh on ppls minds. Right now would of been a good enough time to release it as ppl would of been focused on seasons and get famous instead of c&d. What makes it worse if that it's obvious that several pieces of content in the pack was originally meant to be in c&d so it raises the question was this stuff purposely left out to be put into a sp or was it unfinished and didn't get to make release so instead got put into a sp. This also just raises the question why not just patch in those pieces into C&D.

Basically dlc for dlc is fine as long as it literally can't function to it's full extent with just the base but the content in it better show that they put a lot of thought and effort into it and should be released way down the line with several packs spacing it from it's required pack to show that it wasn't planned right from the start but got made because demand or interests brought attention to it. It also better be the only dlc for said dlc because if more are made they might as well make a gp. That said a gp should never require an ep since a gp in itself should be large enough to stand on it's own without then need of a ep.

Stormkeep

Absolutely not.

I say, absolutely not to having a requirement to own one pack before you can have another. That's just a shady way to do business. If a new pack requires content and functionality that is in a previous pack, then that specific content and functionality should either be included in the new release or included as a free update to the base game.

Using your example of 'needing CL' for a new apartment pack...rather than 'needing CL', they should include whatever features of CL that make the new content viable in the new pack such that someone that does not actually own CL can still get the new one. What they'd miss out on is any other CL content that is NOT required for the new content.

There's absolutely 0 reason they would need to have such pre-requirements, other than choosing to do it that way....and I'd never support that kind of practice. I own every pack for the game other than MFPS...so it wouldn't even effect me, but that still wouldn't make it right.

CheesySimsLover

Depends on the contents.

I would suppose it depends on the content - however, I think something like that should be added as a free update. Don't get me started on My First Pet Stuff, which requires Cats and Dogs. I still don't have it and don't really intend to get it. If I want to play pets other than cats and dogs, I honestly just go play The Sims 3 (or The Sims 2, for what it's worth). Same with apartments. I don't think CL would be necessary to add a feature where apartments are available in other neighbors, though. If they went that route, though, it would essentially be the same as My First Pet Stuff, so I could see them doing something like that for what it's worth. It's not necessary right or the best marketing strategy, but I guess it depends on the content. I personally wouldn't feel the need to buy it.

NorthDakotaGamer

Absolutely not.

The DLC requiring another DLC just makes the me view the company very negatively. I am already very skeptical of anything they produce anymore, so this would just make me not buy it.

Cupid

Absolutely not.

I voted wrong partly because the wording of the poll question is off (you should've asked either for or against, not both in the same question), but I have nothing against the idea of it. I didn't buy MFPS because it didn't have anything that I wanted, but I didn't take issue with the idea of the pack. I think one of the biggest problems with DLC is the disconnect between it all. If DLC were allowed to be built upon each other, the content would feel much more cohesive.

AlbaWaterhouse

Absolutely not.

A DLC should stand on its own and should never require another DLC. I love when all the packs feel cohesive and integrated into one another integrating small touches for people that already own other packs for example: more activities added to clubs, or a specific interaction if you have weather, etc But not when you blatantly do a DLC for DLC, that is unfair and shady business practice.
I own every pack apart from MFP, and that was one of the main reasons I didn't buy it.

Reksoh

Yes, why not.

I dont have a problem with it.

If X amount of work is required to put a price tag on a pack and sell it, and X amount of work is met for that pack, then I dont see what difference it makes if the pack expands on old content or not.

This is not inherently the same thing as removing content from a dlc to sell it later on, but people assume it is and kind of conflate the two ideas with each other.

GalacticGal

Depends on the contents.

I have only two missing packs, thus far. I don't own Vampires (on purpose) and I've not yet caved to the My First Pet pack. I may pick up the latter after Christmas, we'll see. So, the contents of the proposed pack would have to be something that doesn't require a pack I refused, for one. Also, the stuff it brings to the game better be all that I could ever want. I did give up the rocking chair in Sims3, since the devs deemed to put it in with Supernaturals. I was gratified they put Aliens in with Seasons, however. I do like aliens, for some quirky reason as yet unexplained to me, even by myself.

jcp011c2

Depends on the contents.

I think it's it's paid DLC there should not be requirements. If it's free updates than yes, potentially - for example creating your own apartments - the apartment system was part of City Living, so if you don't have City Living you still wouldn't be able to create your own apartments, even if it's in a free update.

An example for NOT having required EP/GP - if we ever get a winter themed vacation spot. Everyone who buys that DLC would have winter in that location. Even those who do not have Seasons. But those who do not have Seasons would not have winter in their other neighborhoods, it would be only be in that world.

Hermitgirl

Depends on the contents.

Depends on the content for me. If I really like something or some theme I might want more of it than one pack will allow. I'm not against paying for work that has to be done.
Although I'm also not against them repackaging some things I bought long ago. My for instance would be Aliens. I really would like a bigger Alien world (neighborhood) that could be lived on or colonized on by sims. I'd like furniture that would fit in that theme. I'd like another access to Sixam ..not sure what other direction it could go in but say jobs related to this or some exciting story line for your sim or Aliens to engage in. I'd like Aliens to be upgraded and have more powers. So if they made a pack I wouldn't mind if the Aliens themselves were part of it.. You wouldn't have to buy GTW but hopefully there would be some tie in.. and Aliens across the board in both packs would be upgraded. I think I'd be more against it if GTW came out in 2017 vs 2015. However if they decided not to resell the Aliens themselves I still want a pack that has these things so I'd be willing to buy it with the knowledge that you have to have GTW to run it.
I don't see a problem with them having apartments in another would also... other than I really don't like apartment living as it feels claustrophobic to me .. I have more than enough with City Living. Apartments themselves though aren't something we simmers can build from the ground up.. or place them on any lot we want too so it's not threatening to me if they come in another pack.
If they repacked the club system, fame system, rep system, calendars ect .. now that would bother me.

Breazona

Depends on the contents.

Apartments should be patched in for everyone that has CL, giving us the ability to place them anywhere.
I said depends on the contents. I've always wanted to see something like a winter vacation pack- somewhere in the mountains where it's always snowing. Skiing, cabin rentals, a lodge where sims can warm up with hot cocoa. It would require seasons, since it's a snowy location. I suppose it could be done without seasons, but it would look a bit odd.

Netzspannung

Depends on the contents.

I did not get MFP because I think it was poorly done. Not necessarily the pack itself - even though all the clothing for pets would be useless in my game - but when and how it was published, with too many items looking like they were purposely withheld from C&D. Anyway, I would probably jump at a pack with more active careers like GTW. I know some players have issues with this pack, but I do not. And I can understand that they were not able to add more active careers for the pack within the budget, so I would buy a "sequel". But I would also like and buy another City pack. Perhaps as a GP?

Tiarella

Absolutely not.

I already have CL. However, requiring packs for other packs to work is unacceptable, and I don't have the pet-stuff even though I have C&D.

Lustianicia

Absolutely not.

'My First Pet' was a disaster for this exact reason... it should've NEVER been created to begin with! It's still the ONLY pack for The Sims I have NEVER purchased! I definitely hope EA/Maxis will never think about doing something like that again... NO MORE DLC FOR DLC!