September 24 - Everyone ready for the Friday Highlight? It's ready for you here!

Give us a fully loaded base game and interwoven expansion packs.

How is it that a 20+ years game series, that got its' start with offline, immersive, creative gameplay, is now reduced to basically a shallow, "pretty", give you nothing for your money shell of its' former self.

I have every game from Sims 1 onward through Sims 4 and its' latest pack.

With Sims 1& 2, you had a base game and every expansion pack added dimension to every neighborhood and gameplay. They took the time to do it right and actually cared about putting out an immersive experience.

Sims 3 was great in opening up the environment - lacking a bit in the depth of gameplay that Sims 1 & 2 had, but I never thought I would appreciate it as much as I do compared to Sims 4 and that is saying a lot.


How is it that you guys decided to take away base game objects from a series that still had its' predecessors around and expect consumers to be happy about it?

You know for a fact that the Sims has a great base following and people stay loyal to a game that has given them, in the past, a great "mental" vacation and you knowingly played on that.

It happened with SimCity2013 where you tried convincing us that us "older" players - who - because we have paid for your products - have kept it alive - were "playing" it the wrong way - to get with the times and you, in your arrogance, basically killed your own game.

You insulted us, lied to us, and were called out on your lies (online only due to server calculations) and you forgot that because people who play these types of games are a bit brighter and creative - these same players caught you in your lies and you backpedaled and where is that series now?

Cities Skylines - not SimCity 2013. Cities Skylines created by a small group got a huge payoff.

Even Ocean Quigley called you guys out. They are all gone. Why?

So, now with the Sims series.

Why - why turn this into a shell of it's former self?

If I can play on your greed - can you imagine how much more you would actually get if you gave us exactly what you know we have been expecting all these years?

Give us a fully loaded base game - not piecemeal. Give us expansions packs that are well thought out and interwoven throughout each area.

How hard is that to do?

They did it 20+ years ago with less and they are the reasons that you guys even exist now. There would be no Sims 4 without Sims 1, 2 and 3.

You want even more money - with more brand loyalty - with more respect (not that you guys seem to care) - but it would add to the loyalty and then in turn bring you even a bigger, longer payoff - give us what you know we expect.

Comments

  • BeardedgeekBeardedgeek Posts: 4,036 Member
    Well the answer to your first question is money.

    The less product they can sell for the highest price the better from a corporate standpoint.
    Origin ID: A_Bearded_Geek
  • knuckledusterknuckleduster Posts: 1,257 Member
    Well the answer to your first question is money.

    The less product they can sell for the highest price the better from a corporate standpoint.

    I understand how the business works, however, from a gamer standpoint - you know, the consumers that provide the money for the business to even exist in the first place - the version that only exists because it is now riding on the reputation of the previous versions - it is bad in the long run for EA, as it just solidifies their long running reputation of taking once great games and turning them into shells of what they were or completely destroying them.

    They have a long standing history of this and apparently they are too big to fail - but, as a consumer myself, I have tons of games on Steam and only the Sims 4 and several others on Origin - strictly for the fact that it is EA.

    They lose somewhere somehow.

    Their reputation is important to gamers - regardless if the "corporate" side of it agrees - in the long run.

    Two random articles to say this isn't just opinion but a long standing history with EA:

    https://screenrant.com/video-game-franchises-ea-ruined/

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141205/05574329334/ea-admits-that-gobbling-up-talented-studios-then-ruining-them-isnt-working-out-so-well.shtml
    EA Admits That Gobbling Up Talented Studios Then Ruining Them Isn't Working Out So Well
    Failures

    from the now-witness-the-firepower-of-this-fully-armed-and-operational-battle-station dept
    Thu, Dec 11th 2014 9:27am — Karl Bode
    EA, a company right up there with Comcast in terms of consumer disdain, has a long and proud history of gobbling up talented developers, then either obliterating them outright, or homogenizing them until the products are the very pinnacle of bland. Studios like Bullfrog, Westwood Studios, and Origin were all near legendary game developers when acquired, but are now little more than fond memories after ham-fisted attempts to cash in on the catalogs (Ultima IX, anyone?). Other studios like Maxis were similarly legendary, but now struggle to put out rushed, highly-flawed simulacrum under the EA banner.

    After twenty years of such stumbling, scorched-earth acquisitions, EA's bloated belly appears to be full, and the company has finally decided that perhaps it should focus on developing content with the acquired talent army it already has. Company CFO Blake Jorgensen would even go so far as to admit EA's history with such acquisitions is "marginal" at best:
    "I think our history with acquisitions is somewhat marginal in performance," Jorgensen said when asked if EA has identified any acquisition targets in the industry. "We have some that are spectacular, and some that didn't do so well. It's a headcount business, right? You're buying headcount, and that's always difficult to manage in acquisitions. It doesn't mean we won't do them, but I think where we've been most successful is in smaller acquisitions that we've integrated very quickly."
    In other words, EA finally has all the talent it needs to keep rolling out barely-interesting Madden after Madden updates (shielded from competition via their exclusive NFL arrangement) and a decade of new, semi-interesting Star Wars games courtesy of its deal with Disney. If EA's stock is any indication, investors think EA has learned a thing or two about making friends with consumers, and the company claims it's working hard to change its customer reputation in the market (EA gave away several free games as a promotional effort over the weekend). Though dysfunction may just be grafted to EA's genetic code, 2015 might be the year that Ubisoft steals EA's consumer annoyance crown.
  • BeardedgeekBeardedgeek Posts: 4,036 Member
    Hence the importance of actually be persistent in "throwing a fit" and "rage".
    People who argue against it are simply arguing against the only power we have as consumers.

    Sim CIty, the ending of Mass Effect 3 and the ending of Fallout 3 area unique since they actually caused enough uproar for the respective developers to care.

    Sim City caused EA's higher-ups to lose bonuses. Bioware got so much bad press that they actually went back and patched the ending of ME3. Likewise Bethesda with Fallout 3.

    Sim players rage a lot, but then end up buying the pack anyway. So why should they care? The fact that they have replied AT ALL this time means the rumblings must be stronger than they usually are.
    Origin ID: A_Bearded_Geek
  • knuckledusterknuckleduster Posts: 1,257 Member
    edited September 19
    So, if I understand you correctly, you are basically saying that if I buy any Sims products to keep my mouth shut because it will do no good and my only recourse is to not buy the products?

    But then, how can I ask in a straightforward manner, if I do not educate myself on what they are now offering, as compared to what came before?

    Believe it or not, I don’t want to “hate” on EA, I just want a good game.

    Compared to past iterations, this is not that good of a game.
  • BeardedgeekBeardedgeek Posts: 4,036 Member
    So, if I understand you correctly, you are basically saying that if I buy any Sims products to keep my mouth shut because it will do no good and my only recourse is to not buy the products?

    But then, how can I ask in a straightforward manner, if I do not educate myself on what they are now offering, as compared to what came before?

    Believe it or not, I don’t want to “hate” on EA, I just want a good game.

    Compared to past iterations, this is not that good of a game.

    Was that a reply to me? Because I can't really make sense of it as such. Sorry, not trying to be rude but your reply doesn't really work as an argument against what I was saying.
    Origin ID: A_Bearded_Geek
  • SimmerGeorgeSimmerGeorge Posts: 1,434 Member
    So, if I understand you correctly, you are basically saying that if I buy any Sims products to keep my mouth shut because it will do no good and my only recourse is to not buy the products?

    No she's saying if you have the nerve to dislike the trailer video and come here and express how much you dislike EA's work on the latest pack etc. but then actually go buy the pack on release day (or later) then it's your fault EA doesn't get the message.
    If you don't like something, you can come here critisize it, that's fine, it's great but you also shouldn't buy it. Buying something means you support it and a product with high sales will be replicated, meaning more pack you won't like.

    The hypocrisy of saying "I dislike this pack but I bought it because I buy every pack anyway" or "this pack is a cash grab but my OCD can't stand seeing a not owned pack in the main menu list, so I can't resist." is what I think @Beardedgeek is partially talking about.
    Where's my Sims 5 squad at?
Sign In or Register to comment.
Return to top