Sul sul Simmers! Join the celebration and tune into
our Twitch live stream today, Feb 25th, @11 AM PT / 7 PM UTC! 🎉
Feburary 25: Today is patch day! 😃 To read the patch notes, click
here!
February 26 - Is everyone ready for the Friday Highlights? Check them out
here.
Subscription Services in the Sims Yes or No?
Return to top
Comments
I've gone as far as I want to on Sims' games so will leave it to younger generations if they want an online game. If I were EA/Maxis I wouldn't call it Sims5 though. That reminds us of the failure of SimCity5.
Last Updated: January 24th
Imagine the last 12 months, with people stuck at home, and people losing their jobs.
Currently people can still play the sims, they've paid for the game, so they can play it even while stuck at home, without a job. It it was subscription only, then thousands of people would have had to cancel their subscription, and find something else to do.
https://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/959444/the-reincarnation-challenge#latest
I never liked monthly sub based models on various other games (hence why I do not like WoW), and bringing it to Sims would be a instant deal breaker.
I don't mind paying once then playing it for as long as I own the game... If any game, regardless if I enjoy it and play it on the regular, introduces a sub based model... I will say my goodbyes to it and move on.
So my vote is a definite... No.
Moreover, we don't play these games each and everyday. Also not everyone is financially stable so that months could be missed and we won't be able to play it when we want.
There are other life simulation games coming, so I'm going to them no matter what if EA makes The Sims 5 a subscription service. I won't even care if the new iteration is good.
The look of sheer terror is priceless, lol!
https://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/958714/cinebar-custom-content-clothes-updating-links/p1
Repose en paix mamie tu va me manquer :
1923-2016 mamie
I have been playing since Sims 2, Sims 3 was of and on, and I am currently playing Sims 4. If they put a subscription service for Sims 5, then I will be done with the series. The sims franchise doesn't offer itself as a multiplayer game, and most games have some sort of pay to play nowadays.
I have ESO, and have to pay a monthly fee just to go online with it. it does offer DLC if you want too, but depending on what subscription I get depends on the price.
Some games do offer a free option, but to get the good stuff you have to pay for it.
If Sims 5 does any of this, I don't plan to play it anymore.
Major AAA developers are so headlong caught up in revenue maximization that they are outright customer-hostile. I'm not against buying a game that relies heavily on DLC for its business model. One look at the amount of money I've spent on American Truck Simulator and will continue to spend for as long as SCS Software keeps putting out content for the game proves that (for a game I paid $5 for on sale, I've now put over $100 into it on DLC and anything they release, I'll buy as soon as it's out.) Likewise, I bought 10 out of the 15 DLC packs for Crusader Kings 2 during its lifetime and will probably buy most if not all of whatever Paradox puts out for CK3. Having a fairly limited basegame that's extensible and modular, then offering interesting extensions and modules, is a perfectly good way to do business.
I'm old enough to remember model railroading, like on an actual large table in my stepfather's basement when I was a kid before the consumer Internet even existed. A lot of today's simulation games are a direct descendant of the "go to the hobby shop to buy more track or rolling stock or scale-model houses to build little villages for your train to stop at" days. Just look at...well, The Sims franchise up to this point.
But the hobby shop never said "give us money every month or we'll take your layout away", or its cousin "give us money for a 'season pass' and we'll send you new stuff every month whether you like it or not, just keep paying." (that was more the Book of the Month Club's job, but I digress.)
Subscription models and season passes are for money-hungry companies that don't trust their audience or don't have the ability to cultivate a loyal, passionate fanbase that starts posting Futurama "Shut up and take my money" GIFs on the dev's social media pages the hot second a new DLC is announced, never mind released.
I have other games. EA is going to have to do better to earn my money if they want me to buy Sims 5.
I get what you are saying and can see the logic. The big difference though is that for those facing financial limitations they can buy the expansions/game packs/stuff packs when they can afford to do that and still enjoy playing it with the content they do have. A subscription model would be an 'all or nothing' thing. And it's no guarantee for EA to make a regular amount of money per month as some people (like myself) play The Sims games in phases. Some months I won't log in at all, some months I log in every day. If I had to pay a subscription, I would just cancel it for the times when I am busy with other things/interests. But if I know there is a pack coming out of any kind, I always buy it, even if I don't intend on playing The Sims for a time.
Also, I have played enough subscription based games to know that even if you do pay a monthly fee, they are still going to charge for any expansions or additional content. So they really aren't doing anything for us except now charging an additional $14. or so dollars per month. I have also seen with other subscription based games that it is also no guarantee that the game would be improved because of that monthly fee being collected. So if people are feeling that The Sims 4 is a buggy mess, that may not improve things for them.
If they end up developing a subscription based game nobody wants to buy then bye bye Sims franchise.
> If this subscription system will be similar to what is in ESO or RPG maker (you can pay DLC one by one or sub ) then it's totally okay for me, and I’d rather pay when I play than buy every single dlc.... Lets be honest in the sims 4 stuff pack situation is ridiculous...
I'm not familiar with RPG maker, but I think the ESO example would be a good method for the Sims. Though maybe not with something similar to what I would call the inventory restrictions that ESO has (I'm not sure what the equivalent for the Sims would be). I would be fine if the game is Single player unless you pay a monthly sub though (and with the monthly sub you get the packs).
Multiplayer costs money. Which means enough players would have to sub to play it in order to justify the costs.
Given the very personal nature of Sims, the average player is not likely to sub at all. Except maybe an initial month or two if no free trial is offered just to see what the mode is like out of curiosity only, rather than actually wanting to play multiplayer.
Which means if there is no other reason to do multiplayer, the subs won't likely be able to cover costs in a quick enough fashion for EA to be happy.
Given their track record with other games, both in and out of the series, they are likely to put things into multiplayer that take time to unlock that benefit single player. In order to force players to play multiplayer for at least some time to unlock things.
Sims 3 Showtime's "multiplayer" mode of hosting performers would give players unlocks if they did it.
Mass Effect 3 had the multiplayer mode affect the outcome of the game. IE: you couldn't get the best ending without playing mutliplayer or using a very tedious, boring, out of game method to do so.
And now with microtransactions being a popular thing and EA's fondness for lootboxes, they'd likely put some of those unlockables behind a paywall.
Most people that have talked about that feature on here, avoided it or tried it and hated it. I never even tried it myself. Sims is just not the sort of game I want to play with anyone else in any fashion. I turned off all the online features for Sims 3 and I play Sims 4 offline unless I'm using the gallery.