So yes to clarify I'm saying add full packs into the base game - not as packs but AS base content like so many other service games eventually do.
As for cost and user backlash - yes some people will be very mad that they paid for packs, but again games like World of Warcaft have been doing this since the game existed and its community doesn't lose its mind.
I have to ask, because I play a number of other games and do not think it is that common, but how many games do you play really make paid content base game? Entire paid content, no less, like your suggestion and assertion that "so many other service games eventually do." Even small microtransactions don't tend to become base game from my experience.
All in all, why add every part of an old DLC people paid for when they are not even going to update the features to make them better for everyone? So they hypothetically could in the future? The pick and choose method didn't stop them with photography, etc. So, no, I think we need more updates to all content. Just adding in old packs and calling it a day would only upset people.
Except companies do this all the time after a game is "finished" by releasing the "complete edition" and point in example is the Sims 2 which for a time was not only sold but given away for free as complete edition.
The argument people are making above that its unfair to the people who bought all the previous packs is understandable but again using the above example happens in the game industry since it existed with games being re-released as complete edition combining ALL the dlc into one price. I mean Mass Effect Trilogy is a prime current example, that is not only being updated but will include literally hundreds of dollars of DLC into the the package for $60.
The overall idea that packaging old DLC is somehow lacking again goes back to the above examples where and comes back around to EVENTUALLY releasing a version of the Sims 4 that will be "complete" with all its released content added in.
As per the Sims 5 it IS an online game or at least will feature a heavy social component as stated in investor calls and by that I assume it will be very different from any Sims game previously released I suspect - and if thats the case the Sims 4 might remain in development as a single player experience vs the Sims 5 which could be geared towards a more social experience (and not even called the Sims 5).
So yes to clarify I'm saying add full packs into the base game - not as packs but AS base content like so many other service games eventually do.
As for cost and user backlash - yes some people will be very mad that they paid for packs, but again games like World of Warcaft have been doing this since the game existed and its community doesn't lose its mind.
What service games add paid dlc to the BG after people spent money on them as DLC other than an MMO with a subscription based service?
So yes to clarify I'm saying add full packs into the base game - not as packs but AS base content like so many other service games eventually do.
As for cost and user backlash - yes some people will be very mad that they paid for packs, but again games like World of Warcaft have been doing this since the game existed and its community doesn't lose its mind.
Nah. Way too early. When the Sims 5 is 3 years old that would make sense to fool new consumers in thinking that you will get all that content in Sims 5 as well.
So yes to clarify I'm saying add full packs into the base game - not as packs but AS base content like so many other service games eventually do.
As for cost and user backlash - yes some people will be very mad that they paid for packs, but again games like World of Warcaft have been doing this since the game existed and its community doesn't lose its mind.
I have to ask, because I play a number of other games and do not think it is that common, but how many games do you play really make paid content base game? Entire paid content, no less, like your suggestion and assertion that "so many other service games eventually do." Even small microtransactions don't tend to become base game from my experience.
Again I'm mostly referring to games released as "complete editions" recently just bought Horizon Zero Dawn Complete Edition for example.
So yes to clarify I'm saying add full packs into the base game - not as packs but AS base content like so many other service games eventually do.
As for cost and user backlash - yes some people will be very mad that they paid for packs, but again games like World of Warcaft have been doing this since the game existed and its community doesn't lose its mind.
What service games add paid dlc to the BG after people spent money on them as DLC other than an MMO with a subscription base service?
Except the Sims 4 isn't really a true online service game and its model is very different keep in mind too - its not releasing skins but gameplay content.
More so I'm surprised how many people are against this idea - like giving away content or including it in the base game is bad. Apparently people don't like free content? I get that some of it wouldnt be wanted say vampires but again - the arguments that they shouldn't do this because free things is bad is just...unexpected.
So yes to clarify I'm saying add full packs into the base game - not as packs but AS base content like so many other service games eventually do.
As for cost and user backlash - yes some people will be very mad that they paid for packs, but again games like World of Warcaft have been doing this since the game existed and its community doesn't lose its mind.
I have to ask, because I play a number of other games and do not think it is that common, but how many games do you play really make paid content base game? Entire paid content, no less, like your suggestion and assertion that "so many other service games eventually do." Even small microtransactions don't tend to become base game from my experience.
Again I'm mostly referring to games released as "complete editions" recently just bought Horizon Zero Dawn Complete Edition for example.
Complete editions are released after the game has run it's course though and usually years later.
So yes to clarify I'm saying add full packs into the base game - not as packs but AS base content like so many other service games eventually do.
As for cost and user backlash - yes some people will be very mad that they paid for packs, but again games like World of Warcaft have been doing this since the game existed and its community doesn't lose its mind.
What service games add paid dlc to the BG after people spent money on them as DLC other than an MMO with a subscription base service?
Except the Sims 4 isn't really a true online service game and its model is very different keep in mind too - its not releasing skins but gameplay content.
More so I'm surprised how many people are against this idea - like giving away content or including it in the base game is bad. Apparently people don't like free content? I get that some of it wouldnt be wanted say vampires but again - the arguments that they shouldn't do this because free things is bad is just...unexpected.
It's not free though, especially if you've already bought it.
It's not free though, especially if you've already bought it.
So whats your argument exactly? That its not fair that they combine older packs into the base game? Or they shouldn't?
And for the record EA has given the Sims 4 away for free during special events on Origin to anybody who wanted to claim it, so if they were to do that with the first 5 packs next week - give them away for free with the base game for 2 weeks to anybody who claims it - is that a bad thing?
Or for example if the made a permanent deal where u buy the base game and you get the first 5 packs for free like a bundle?
So yes to clarify I'm saying add full packs into the base game - not as packs but AS base content like so many other service games eventually do.
As for cost and user backlash - yes some people will be very mad that they paid for packs, but again games like World of Warcaft have been doing this since the game existed and its community doesn't lose its mind.
I have to ask, because I play a number of other games and do not think it is that common, but how many games do you play really make paid content base game? Entire paid content, no less, like your suggestion and assertion that "so many other service games eventually do." Even small microtransactions don't tend to become base game from my experience.
Again I'm mostly referring to games released as "complete editions" recently just bought Horizon Zero Dawn Complete Edition for example.
Ah. Well, I think in that case we will simply have to agree to disagree. I do think there is a fundamental difference in "complete base game editions" being sold after the company has more or less moved on (some updates, maybe, sure) and the conversion of paid to free content in a game's development life cycle.
As far as I am concerned, those complete editions are slashed/sale content due to their age. It is no different than than waiting for a DLC sale. The longer you wait, the better the deal you can get. When you are looking at buying up the second installment of a series, it will naturally be cheaper and possibly bundled when the company has moved on to the third installment. I can feel comfortable saying this as well because I pay more whenever I buy a "complete edition" instead of just the base game. I also suspect it being a dying trend in favor of spaced out bundled premium editions on things like Steam.
Paradox, which I mentioned earlier, has complete editions of their oldest games, but everything else is a sort of hefty DLC sale bundle. Which is still sizeably priced (hundreds of dollars), for example. I somewhat get what you are aiming at now, but I would never expect end of life cycle behaviour in the middle of it and especially as it gets less and less common for the newer games I play. Sims 3 has never gotten such a complete edition, for example, and 4 has 7 years under its belt. So, yeah, no. By the time they would have done such a thing, if they do at all, any additional updates would be token. They would be done with 4. The focus needs to be improvements during development.
I imagine at some point in like a decade EA will release TS4 as a collection similar to the UC for TS2, but even TS2 did not get its content added to the base game for free. Sure it’s only $29.99 for it all now, but that’s technically not free packs and a $30 base game. That’s a drastically diminished value of every pack so each one now combined equals $30. You could also argue it’s a $30 base game with free packs, but it still wouldn’t change the fact that the contents still belong in their own pack, and not the base game.
I’m not saying free in general is bad. I just think it’s not a good look for EA to lower the value of its DLC while its still producing its generation of content ESPECIALLY if it’s not going to change the price of the DLC.
Are you suggesting that by then adding in the DLC to base game, it would make the pack itself permanently free?
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree. As much as combining packs or adding things to the basegame sounds good in theory it wouldn't work for the Sims. I feel that they would have to offer a refund or credit their origin account with a gift card or something to everyone who already bought certain packs in order for this to work.
I mean people were already in an uproar about the Anniversary hot tub being added to the base game. And that was just a stuff pack. I couldn't even begin to imagine the outrage if they did that with an entire expansion pack like Cats & Dogs or Seasons. And people get upset even if just one minor CAS asset gets moved from an expansion pack to base game.
Just because other game companies have done it, doesn't mean Sims should follow suit. It's only going to cause many more issues than it's worth. Unless they would do something to compensate those who already paid for the packs. (Especially for those who paid full price.) Otherwise, it's just going to cause a ton of outrage.
To reply to the many responses about community angry if they gave it away for free or complete packs being released long after the game is finished - The Sims 4 constantly has sales often a month or two after a new expansion is released and we see that expansion price slashed in half. Almost all the packs are massively reduced in price too - so my question is if all the packs are on sale for $5 and a person was to spend $200 to get them all (5x40) - doesnt that make you all upset that what you bought at full price is now reduced in price?
Isn't that the entire point of sales though? People wait for sales to avoid paying full prices since retail stores existed and yet the idea of free just makes people...angry?
This feels like a bit of a strange idea that people get upset if something they paid for is eventually given away for free, but if you charge $1 for it they no longer are? I think this actually might speak into the large ideals of capitalism and social/human behavior what I was going for here lol.
Anyway guess I got my answer from the community, don't combine previous packs. Don't give them away for free, everybody should pay for it even if it only cost them $5.
To reply to the many responses about community angry if they gave it away for free or complete packs being released long after the game is finished - The Sims 4 constantly has sales often a month or two after a new expansion is released and we see that expansion price slashed in half. Almost all the packs are massively reduced in price too - so my question is if all the packs are on sale for $5 and a person was to spend $200 to get them all (5x40) - doesnt that make you all upset that what you bought at full price is now reduced in price?
Isn't that the entire point of sales though? People wait for sales to avoid paying full prices since retail stores existed and yet the idea of free just makes people...angry?
This feels like a bit of a strange idea that people get upset if something they paid for is eventually given away for free, but if you charge $1 for it they no longer are? I think this actually might speak into the large ideals of capitalism and social/human behavior what I was going for here lol.
Anyway guess I got my answer from the community, don't combine previous packs. Don't give them away for free, everybody should pay for it even if it only cost them $5.
There is a difference between a game for free and a game discounted. I buy lots of games and sometimes I know that if I wait a few months I'll get a discount but buy it anyway. So no I'm not angry when that game gets discounted. What I do hate is when I get a free game with Playstation Plus that I already own. Like FF VII, which I think became a free game way too early.
But, your original post did not make it clear that you meant this would all be added after the game’s development ended. At least, that was lost on me. Changing its value during ongoing development is considerably different from changing it after its over.
When this game has released its final pack, I do not care what they do with it or its pricing.
I'm sorry, I'm on the fence about what you're suggesting, OP. I've purchased the packs that I want and haven't purchased the ones I don't want. But, even if I had purchased all packs, if they are to suddenly be included in the Base game, I would be a tad miffed. Why should others get what the rest of us has already paid for? Or, am I misunderstanding what you're positing?
But, your original post did not make it clear that you meant this would all be added after the game’s development ended. At least, that was lost on me.
When this game has released its final pack, I do not care what they do with it or its pricing.
This. End of life cycle and during life cycle behavior is different. I do not care that games are depreciating assets due to age (and various other factors) and have prices to reflect that. Many things do and many things go on sale. I do not have problems with PS Plus (consumers pay their fees) and Epic freebies (Epic pays for the copies), but having something I bought made absolutely free with no substantial improvements or upgrades for my investment is a different matter than sale pricing.
To reply to the many responses about community angry if they gave it away for free or complete packs being released long after the game is finished - The Sims 4 constantly has sales often a month or two after a new expansion is released and we see that expansion price slashed in half. Almost all the packs are massively reduced in price too - so my question is if all the packs are on sale for $5 and a person was to spend $200 to get them all (5x40) - doesnt that make you all upset that what you bought at full price is now reduced in price?
Isn't that the entire point of sales though? People wait for sales to avoid paying full prices since retail stores existed and yet the idea of free just makes people...angry?
This feels like a bit of a strange idea that people get upset if something they paid for is eventually given away for free, but if you charge $1 for it they no longer are? I think this actually might speak into the large ideals of capitalism and social/human behavior what I was going for here lol.
Anyway guess I got my answer from the community, don't combine previous packs. Don't give them away for free, everybody should pay for it even if it only cost them $5.
Sales are far different than getting something for free though. A sale is just that... a sale and it usually only lasts a few weeks before going up to full price again. If somebody gets a pack for a reduced price because they chose to wait for a sale rather than buying it the day it comes out, that's not stepping on anyone's toes, especially when it's well-known by now that packs often do go on sale just a month or two after it's initial release.
But at the same time, I also didn't realize that you were talking about the packs going down in price or becoming free long after Sims 4 is over. That wasn't clear in the original post. If it's like 3-5 years after the final pack is released and Sims 5 is already out, then sure, I couldn't care less if they make everything free. But if it were start happening say, next month that entire packs started becoming free, that is what would be unfair to the people who've already spent so much on this game when it's still releasing content. Unless, as I said those who already bought it were compensated.
Like for example, if everything from Outdoor Retreat were to become free next month, anyone who paid $20 for it should be given $20 worth of credits.
Once a game has run its course and there is no new content, then I think the argument could be made to create a “Complete Edition” of a game which includes many if not all packs released as an incentive to players who have never played it.
But to “update” a game to include previously released packs or features while the game itself is still in production and new packs are being made doesn’t make sense to me.
Instead, why not advocate for the creation of new, never released items to go into base game if you think it’s lacking? Why advocate for the repurposing of items already released in individual packs to now go into the base game for free?
While the game is still in production, if you want features of a pack already released, you should have to pay for the pack just like everyone else has. The game and packs go on sale so often for 50% off most times that I don’t even see that as a problem for most players.
I think one thing that is missing in this conversation esp based on the last post above, is that this game now costs nearly $700USD or $1000 Canadian if your in Canada like me (if you were to buy it when its NOT on sale in).
Thats an incredibly steep buy in cost for new players and to be fair the majority of you that DO buy packs usually buy them not soon after they are released or first go on sale (if its something you want vs not) over a period of years of release. A new player? A new player basically has no idea where to start and honestly unless your a grown adult with a lot of extra cash floating around most won't even buy more than one or two packs.
Which brings back the argument why not include older packs now as a bundle (say the new game now includes 3 bundled packs) much like Sims 3 did when it was STILL producing packs. Nobody complained about this.
More so I find it really weird that people would be angry that original 3 packs would be bundled with the base game for new players/buyers because what - you paid full price 6 years ago for them? Or last year on sale for $5? Really?
I think there is a very bizarre social lesson on capitalism happening in the background here, but I'm not exactly sure how to identify what it is lol....
Thats an incredibly steep buy in cost for new players and to be fair the majority of you that DO buy packs usually buy them not soon after they are released or first go on sale (if its something you want vs not) over a period of years of release. A new player? A new player basically has no idea where to start and honestly unless your a grown adult with a lot of extra cash floating around most won't even buy more than one or two packs.
Which brings back the argument why not include older packs now as a bundle (say the new game now includes 3 bundled packs) much like Sims 3 did when it was STILL producing packs. Nobody complained about this.
I think there is a very bizarre social lesson on capitalism happening in the background here, but I'm not exactly sure how to identify what it is lol....
I think it's made this way in order to make you pay for more DLC once you realize how empty the base game is. The Sims 4 relies heavily on the DLC formula kind of like a freemium mobile game, which honestly the Sims 4 is almost exactly that. A freemium game. The fact that they gave out the base game for free on seperate occassions signals to the fact that this is what they are going for.
Best example are the worlds in the base game. This is one thing that always bothered me. When asked about why the worlds are so small they said "All worlds have less lots in them because you can now travel freely between them. So the more worlds you add the more space will be available"
But wait that is true only if you intend to buy more EPs that come with new worlds. If you are a new player you have 0 space to utilize. The worlds are tiny for you. They are bascially telling you buy more of them. They don't care to deliver a full base game. They care to create a base game that will encourage players to keep buying more and more by limiting the experience as much as possible.
Ok you’ve mentioned this idea of capitalism twice now. Yes. That’s what this entire gaming industry is built upon. Capitalism. It’s why EA has created a game that costs $700USD/$1000CAD. They are the ones who’ve decided that a new player today will have to consider that pricing when getting into the game from the beginning.
I also feel like you keep changing your argument or what you’re trying to say and it’s making it hard to actually understand what you mean. First, you say all content should be put in the base game. Then, you say put it all in after release. Then, you say put some in a bundle. I am confused as to what you are fully trying to say here.
Also, in fairness, they do offer the bundles on Origin (EP + GP + SP). So are you now saying they bundle packs to add those for free into the base game?
I don’t mean to come off as rude or dismissive but I’m not following the point you’re trying to make.
Comments
I have to ask, because I play a number of other games and do not think it is that common, but how many games do you play really make paid content base game? Entire paid content, no less, like your suggestion and assertion that "so many other service games eventually do." Even small microtransactions don't tend to become base game from my experience.
Except companies do this all the time after a game is "finished" by releasing the "complete edition" and point in example is the Sims 2 which for a time was not only sold but given away for free as complete edition.
The argument people are making above that its unfair to the people who bought all the previous packs is understandable but again using the above example happens in the game industry since it existed with games being re-released as complete edition combining ALL the dlc into one price. I mean Mass Effect Trilogy is a prime current example, that is not only being updated but will include literally hundreds of dollars of DLC into the the package for $60.
The overall idea that packaging old DLC is somehow lacking again goes back to the above examples where and comes back around to EVENTUALLY releasing a version of the Sims 4 that will be "complete" with all its released content added in.
As per the Sims 5 it IS an online game or at least will feature a heavy social component as stated in investor calls and by that I assume it will be very different from any Sims game previously released I suspect - and if thats the case the Sims 4 might remain in development as a single player experience vs the Sims 5 which could be geared towards a more social experience (and not even called the Sims 5).
What service games add paid dlc to the BG after people spent money on them as DLC other than an MMO with a subscription based service?
Nah. Way too early. When the Sims 5 is 3 years old that would make sense to fool new consumers in thinking that you will get all that content in Sims 5 as well.
Again I'm mostly referring to games released as "complete editions" recently just bought Horizon Zero Dawn Complete Edition for example.
Except the Sims 4 isn't really a true online service game and its model is very different keep in mind too - its not releasing skins but gameplay content.
More so I'm surprised how many people are against this idea - like giving away content or including it in the base game is bad. Apparently people don't like free content? I get that some of it wouldnt be wanted say vampires but again - the arguments that they shouldn't do this because free things is bad is just...unexpected.
Complete editions are released after the game has run it's course though and usually years later.
It's not free though, especially if you've already bought it.
So whats your argument exactly? That its not fair that they combine older packs into the base game? Or they shouldn't?
And for the record EA has given the Sims 4 away for free during special events on Origin to anybody who wanted to claim it, so if they were to do that with the first 5 packs next week - give them away for free with the base game for 2 weeks to anybody who claims it - is that a bad thing?
Or for example if the made a permanent deal where u buy the base game and you get the first 5 packs for free like a bundle?
Both. And let's not forget that if they want TS4 to still run on lower end laptops patching all of that would ruin the game for a lot of people.
Ah. Well, I think in that case we will simply have to agree to disagree. I do think there is a fundamental difference in "complete base game editions" being sold after the company has more or less moved on (some updates, maybe, sure) and the conversion of paid to free content in a game's development life cycle.
As far as I am concerned, those complete editions are slashed/sale content due to their age. It is no different than than waiting for a DLC sale. The longer you wait, the better the deal you can get. When you are looking at buying up the second installment of a series, it will naturally be cheaper and possibly bundled when the company has moved on to the third installment. I can feel comfortable saying this as well because I pay more whenever I buy a "complete edition" instead of just the base game. I also suspect it being a dying trend in favor of spaced out bundled premium editions on things like Steam.
Paradox, which I mentioned earlier, has complete editions of their oldest games, but everything else is a sort of hefty DLC sale bundle. Which is still sizeably priced (hundreds of dollars), for example. I somewhat get what you are aiming at now, but I would never expect end of life cycle behaviour in the middle of it and especially as it gets less and less common for the newer games I play. Sims 3 has never gotten such a complete edition, for example, and 4 has 7 years under its belt. So, yeah, no. By the time they would have done such a thing, if they do at all, any additional updates would be token. They would be done with 4. The focus needs to be improvements during development.
I’m not saying free in general is bad. I just think it’s not a good look for EA to lower the value of its DLC while its still producing its generation of content ESPECIALLY if it’s not going to change the price of the DLC.
Are you suggesting that by then adding in the DLC to base game, it would make the pack itself permanently free?
I mean people were already in an uproar about the Anniversary hot tub being added to the base game. And that was just a stuff pack. I couldn't even begin to imagine the outrage if they did that with an entire expansion pack like Cats & Dogs or Seasons. And people get upset even if just one minor CAS asset gets moved from an expansion pack to base game.
Just because other game companies have done it, doesn't mean Sims should follow suit. It's only going to cause many more issues than it's worth. Unless they would do something to compensate those who already paid for the packs. (Especially for those who paid full price.) Otherwise, it's just going to cause a ton of outrage.
And not just once
Isn't that the entire point of sales though? People wait for sales to avoid paying full prices since retail stores existed and yet the idea of free just makes people...angry?
This feels like a bit of a strange idea that people get upset if something they paid for is eventually given away for free, but if you charge $1 for it they no longer are? I think this actually might speak into the large ideals of capitalism and social/human behavior what I was going for here lol.
Anyway guess I got my answer from the community, don't combine previous packs. Don't give them away for free, everybody should pay for it even if it only cost them $5.
There is a difference between a game for free and a game discounted. I buy lots of games and sometimes I know that if I wait a few months I'll get a discount but buy it anyway. So no I'm not angry when that game gets discounted. What I do hate is when I get a free game with Playstation Plus that I already own. Like FF VII, which I think became a free game way too early.
But, your original post did not make it clear that you meant this would all be added after the game’s development ended. At least, that was lost on me. Changing its value during ongoing development is considerably different from changing it after its over.
When this game has released its final pack, I do not care what they do with it or its pricing.
http://www.getfreeebooks.com/star-trek-original-series-fan-fiction-trilogy/
This. End of life cycle and during life cycle behavior is different. I do not care that games are depreciating assets due to age (and various other factors) and have prices to reflect that. Many things do and many things go on sale. I do not have problems with PS Plus (consumers pay their fees) and Epic freebies (Epic pays for the copies), but having something I bought made absolutely free with no substantial improvements or upgrades for my investment is a different matter than sale pricing.
Sales are far different than getting something for free though. A sale is just that... a sale and it usually only lasts a few weeks before going up to full price again. If somebody gets a pack for a reduced price because they chose to wait for a sale rather than buying it the day it comes out, that's not stepping on anyone's toes, especially when it's well-known by now that packs often do go on sale just a month or two after it's initial release.
But at the same time, I also didn't realize that you were talking about the packs going down in price or becoming free long after Sims 4 is over. That wasn't clear in the original post. If it's like 3-5 years after the final pack is released and Sims 5 is already out, then sure, I couldn't care less if they make everything free. But if it were start happening say, next month that entire packs started becoming free, that is what would be unfair to the people who've already spent so much on this game when it's still releasing content. Unless, as I said those who already bought it were compensated.
Like for example, if everything from Outdoor Retreat were to become free next month, anyone who paid $20 for it should be given $20 worth of credits.
But to “update” a game to include previously released packs or features while the game itself is still in production and new packs are being made doesn’t make sense to me.
Instead, why not advocate for the creation of new, never released items to go into base game if you think it’s lacking? Why advocate for the repurposing of items already released in individual packs to now go into the base game for free?
While the game is still in production, if you want features of a pack already released, you should have to pay for the pack just like everyone else has. The game and packs go on sale so often for 50% off most times that I don’t even see that as a problem for most players.
Thats an incredibly steep buy in cost for new players and to be fair the majority of you that DO buy packs usually buy them not soon after they are released or first go on sale (if its something you want vs not) over a period of years of release. A new player? A new player basically has no idea where to start and honestly unless your a grown adult with a lot of extra cash floating around most won't even buy more than one or two packs.
Which brings back the argument why not include older packs now as a bundle (say the new game now includes 3 bundled packs) much like Sims 3 did when it was STILL producing packs. Nobody complained about this.
More so I find it really weird that people would be angry that original 3 packs would be bundled with the base game for new players/buyers because what - you paid full price 6 years ago for them? Or last year on sale for $5? Really?
I think there is a very bizarre social lesson on capitalism happening in the background here, but I'm not exactly sure how to identify what it is lol....
I think it's made this way in order to make you pay for more DLC once you realize how empty the base game is. The Sims 4 relies heavily on the DLC formula kind of like a freemium mobile game, which honestly the Sims 4 is almost exactly that. A freemium game. The fact that they gave out the base game for free on seperate occassions signals to the fact that this is what they are going for.
Best example are the worlds in the base game. This is one thing that always bothered me. When asked about why the worlds are so small they said "All worlds have less lots in them because you can now travel freely between them. So the more worlds you add the more space will be available"
But wait that is true only if you intend to buy more EPs that come with new worlds. If you are a new player you have 0 space to utilize. The worlds are tiny for you. They are bascially telling you buy more of them. They don't care to deliver a full base game. They care to create a base game that will encourage players to keep buying more and more by limiting the experience as much as possible.
I also feel like you keep changing your argument or what you’re trying to say and it’s making it hard to actually understand what you mean. First, you say all content should be put in the base game. Then, you say put it all in after release. Then, you say put some in a bundle. I am confused as to what you are fully trying to say here.
Also, in fairness, they do offer the bundles on Origin (EP + GP + SP). So are you now saying they bundle packs to add those for free into the base game?
I don’t mean to come off as rude or dismissive but I’m not following the point you’re trying to make.