I came off rude in my latest post here but reading that "don't like it don't buy it" stance makes me go ballistic. I wouldn't give a plum if I'd not be a fan of the Sims. I want the next Sims installment to have good chances on the market and to be worth being purchased. Another fiasco would sure be the end of this. So just not buying it doesn't solve the problem.
@DerekJohnson: I have explained the reason. I suggest you read the rest of my last post and think about it. Again, this stance fits only if I don't care for a product but it's not as if I'm a Sims hater or if I don't care. Quite contrary I love the Sims and I want it to succeed. That's why I'm here, to voice my concerns. Nothing changes for the better if I just don't buy it and move on. Yes I did not buy Sims 4 but hopefully there will be a Sims 5 one fine day and I want it to be good.
So people who merely go with that "don't like it don't buy it" stance do the damage but not we disappointed. Fanboys and girls who want us mute with saying "don't like it don't buy it", also don't care to change things for the better.
We disappointed give feedback and the devs want it. -> http://www.ibtimes.com/sims-4-producer-wants-players-keep-yelling-us-online-ea-listening-1702211
Got it now?
@DerekJohnson: I have explained the reason. I suggest you read the rest of my last post and think about it. Again, this stance fits only if I don't care for a product but it's not as if I'm a Sims hater. Quite contrary I love the Sims and I want it to succeed.
Did you see my edited reply? I edited before you answered. I agree with you.
@DerekJohnson: I am glad you got the point.
Let's be honest. When someone says "don't like it don't buy it" they mean "shut the eff up and let us fanboys and girls worship without interference". That's why I always feel upset when I read such a comment and why I need to make our point clear.
@DerekJohnson: I am glad you got the point.
Let's be honest. When someone says "don't like it don't buy it" they mean "shut the eff up and let us fanboys and girls worship without interference". That's why I always feel upset when I read such a comment and why I need to make our point clear.
I usually agree with the "don't like it, don't buy it".
However, if TS5 went MMORG and failed, no one bought it, we'd be out of a Sims game. At all.
@DerekJohnson: I am glad you got the point.
Let's be honest. When someone says "don't like it don't buy it" they mean "shut the eff up and let us fanboys and girls worship without interference". That's why I always feel upset when I read such a comment and why I need to make our point clear.
Honestly? An opinion like that means you're only upsetting yourself.
Because from where I'm standing very few people who enjoy SIms4 would even consider 'worshiping' the game, and I've yet to find a single Simmer that actually 'worships' it.
When someone sais "don't like it, don't buy it," what they actually mean is "don't like it, don't buy it."
Translation: Nobody is forcing you to like the game or to buy to the game.
Most Simmers who enjoy Sims4 wish the Simmers that never gave Sims4 a chance, or gave it a chance & decided they don't like it, could like the game.
And many Simmers who enjoy Sims4 wish that the Simmers that are waiting for that one special feature before they even give Sims4 a chance, get that feature added to the game.
But I've almost never seen a Simmer who enjoyed Sims4 telling a Simmer who clearly did not to 'shut up & go away' and nearly every time I have it had more to do with the unhappy Simmer being rude than their opinion of the game.
@Kuypers125: I respect your opinion but let me tell you I am here for a long time (as you can see by looking at my posts counter) and often enough I saw people really meaning just "eff off" because they were not open for any kind of criticism about their beloved game and began to belittle and insult us. I'm not just talking about Sims 4. This "phenomenon" exists since the first Sims forum. Other long time members know what I'm talking about.
There were all kinds of comments post-launch by players who bought The Sims 4, decided they loved it, and got upset at anyone who dared to criticize it. And their response to people complaining that the game was lacking was "Don't like it, don't buy it." The thing is, that's the last thing EA wants to hear. They want people to buy the game even if they like it or not.
Back on the online thing: Even *if* EA was to make another multi-player online game, it would likely follow along the same lines as the Sims Online, because obviously, they didn't learn their lesson with the way that they structured the original TSO. TSO catered to the social player. There was no option to be able to play the game by yourself. When I bought TSO originally, it was with the expectation that I would be able to play my game the same way I played the offline version. Imagine my disappointment when I discovered that it was a lot based game and the only things to do was to meet on someone's lot and build skills and chat, and that was about it. From what I'm seeing, it looks like Olympus was fixing to be the same way.
Those people who keep asking for an online version of this game are under the illusion that they'll get the same kind of game experience as when they play the offline version, only with other players. Sorry, but if EA ever does/had succeeded in making an online version, it would not be anything like the offline version. More like a glorified graphics chat board.
EA Marketing Department Motto:
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally) I Took The Pledge!
> @Cyron43 said: > DerekJohnson: I am glad you got the point. :) > Let's be honest. When someone says "don't like it don't buy it" they mean "shut the eff up and let us fanboys and girls worship without interference". That's why I always feel upset when I read such a comment and why I need to make our point clear.
I apologize for upsetting you.
I also did not tell you to shut up or to let me "worship without interference." So, you called me a "Wise Guy" and posted several rants over a perceived slight that didn't even happen. All I did was praise a product that I enjoyed and state the obvious fact that people who don't want a certain product shouldn't buy that product.
Remember, this thread was created by someone who likes the idea of a Sims Online-type of game and dared to suggest it, and *you* jumped in here because you felt that it threatened the franchise *you* prefer.
It seems like his (or her) suggestion interfered with *your* "fanboy worship" and you came in here to tell them to "shut the eff up."
If so many player can say they *don't* like The Sims Online, why isn't it just as valid for the other players to say they *do* like it? (Or did like it. Or like the idea of an MMO-type Sims-like game.) They're also customers (or potential customers) and their opinions are just as valid. You shouldn't shoot them down anymore than they should shoot you down.
I feel the need to reiterate that I *played* and *enjoyed* The Sims Online (the one that failed.) So I know exactly what experience to expect and I realize it wouldn't be the same as the offline experience.
Also, it wouldn't have to be called "The Sims Online 2." They could completely re-brand it and call it by a completely different name if they wanted to protect and preserve The Sims.
And to whoever it was above that listed various ways for me to contact my family... the point was that my mom and sister and I are all fans of The Sims, and we all had fun playing The Sims Online (yes, the one that failed.)
I did not need suggestions of other ways to keep in touch.
Also, it wouldn't have to be called "The Sims Online 2." They could completely re-brand it and call it by a completely different name if they wanted to protect and preserve The Sims.
Aside from not understanding the appeal of wanting to play this game online (if I feel like playing and chatting to people then I play in windowed mode and either hang out here or chat on Skype to my friends) I'm just not convinced it would even work in the first place; I think a lot of people believe they would be able to get the same single player experience only online so they can play with their friends but that wouldn't be the case at all. Instead what you'd end up with is a game so dumbed down that (IMO) it would quickly lose its appeal; for example:- how would you control multiple households? How would you control multiple sims within your family? If you got married to another player's sim and had a child which player would have ownership rights over that child? What about house and sim customization? What if you had a set "theme" idea for your neighbourhood and then a new player moves in, claims a lot and builds something that doesn't fit in - that player would be playing by the rules but their house sticks out like an eyesore to you and your friends.
At best I think people would end up limited to a single "avatar" sim that they use to go around town, earning imaginary internet points and chatting to other players "avatar" sims.
Such a game would also potentially take precious development time away from the single player experience; they'd either have to develop a full on spin off game to make it solely online or they'd end up shoe-horning it into the single player game - if they did the latter then I can guarantee it would be a complete waste of space, another reason why I am opposed to it. I don't want EA wasting their time on something I honestly don't feel is necessary - selfish viewpoint yes, I won't deny that, but that's my stance on it I'm afraid.
It's a lot to consider and honestly I think there are more cons than pros for this type of thing. Not all games have to be online and TBH even though it's not a very diplomatic thing to say I'm getting rather tired of the mentality from some game developers that games that, quite frankly, have no business ever being online simply must be online to appease some group of people.
Actually, to judge from what little I've seen from the Project Olympus, and to judge by what's been left in TS4, I think that they were seriously going for the single avatar, lot-based model that they had in The Sims Online. The same forced socialization, the same penalties for players who didn't necessarily want to socialize and the lack of an open world to explore. It's clear to me, because of the fact that there are two bars, and a lounge, that socialization would have been a huge part of any multi-player online Sims game.
And you're absolutely right, DarkSlayer...the online version would have been nothing like the offline version.
EA Marketing Department Motto:
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally) I Took The Pledge!
I think EA is behind the times! When is EA going to create a SIMS game that is Multiplayer where you can play your created character along with your friends? Also when will EA have headset capabilities so you can talk to your friends that are online while you play with them?
There was, once upon a time (2002). I was one of the beta testers. Didn't like it, especially after the test period was over and people started subscribing. I was constantly approached by people who wanted to do what is now called s.exting. It was very ewww, especially considering that a good many of those people were probably the same age as my then-teenage kids.
I will have to disagree with part of your reasoning. First, the Sims Online was a bomb, as people didn't do what the developers intended. Next, many people hated some of the online requirements for several Sims games, including SimCity. Finally, there is the fact that, having played many MMOs, a Sims MMO will just be another pay-2-win game in the vain of the Sims Freeplay. I don't want a main series Sims game to follow in that game's footsteps.
However, what about private servers. More specifically, LAN and/or client-side servers. Minecraft has used this to perfection, the only downside being the nasty programming learning curve. Mind you, Minecraft was originally a single-player game, only opening up via LAN. Essentially, Minecraft is an offline game all by itself. However, Mojang released a special client-side program that allows you to create long-distance servers. Some even have created entire MMO servers in Minecraft on their own accord.
I think the Sims 4 can be pulled off in a similar way. One advantage is that client-side servers cost little-to-nothing for EA to maintain, only needing to release a new version with each EP or patch. Second, client-side servers are specified specifically to the user, meaning it can be customized to the user's liking, if they have the programming skills to do it. Third, the players can whitelist the server to prevent people they don't want on the server from joining. It would just be you and your friend(s).
A disadvantage to a client-side server is, well, it might require another, third party program to connect. Many private Minecraft servers require a certain kind of program for the connection to work properly, i.e. Hamachi. This can sometimes causes problems, unless EA/Maxis creates a connection service to lighten the load.
It's the same issue with CAW for the Sims 3. The program had a huge learning curve, was unwieldy, and, for some reason, was an external application that didn't sync with the game's engine. However, if both of these aspects were added into the game's engine for easy accessibility, it would make multiplayer and CAW much more likable.
Comments
Why?
It seems reasonable one should not buy something they do not like.
Which in case of what the OP proposes, not many would buy. And it would kill and bury the franch....
OMG! I am going ballistic too!
So people who merely go with that "don't like it don't buy it" stance do the damage but not we disappointed. Fanboys and girls who want us mute with saying "don't like it don't buy it", also don't care to change things for the better.
We disappointed give feedback and the devs want it. -> http://www.ibtimes.com/sims-4-producer-wants-players-keep-yelling-us-online-ea-listening-1702211
Got it now?
Did you see my edited reply? I edited before you answered. I agree with you.
I hadn't understood it well before.
Let's be honest. When someone says "don't like it don't buy it" they mean "shut the eff up and let us fanboys and girls worship without interference". That's why I always feel upset when I read such a comment and why I need to make our point clear.
I usually agree with the "don't like it, don't buy it".
However, if TS5 went MMORG and failed, no one bought it, we'd be out of a Sims game. At all.
So, we had to think about that.
Honestly? An opinion like that means you're only upsetting yourself.
Because from where I'm standing very few people who enjoy SIms4 would even consider 'worshiping' the game, and I've yet to find a single Simmer that actually 'worships' it.
When someone sais "don't like it, don't buy it," what they actually mean is "don't like it, don't buy it."
Translation: Nobody is forcing you to like the game or to buy to the game.
Most Simmers who enjoy Sims4 wish the Simmers that never gave Sims4 a chance, or gave it a chance & decided they don't like it, could like the game.
And many Simmers who enjoy Sims4 wish that the Simmers that are waiting for that one special feature before they even give Sims4 a chance, get that feature added to the game.
But I've almost never seen a Simmer who enjoyed Sims4 telling a Simmer who clearly did not to 'shut up & go away' and nearly every time I have it had more to do with the unhappy Simmer being rude than their opinion of the game.
Back on the online thing: Even *if* EA was to make another multi-player online game, it would likely follow along the same lines as the Sims Online, because obviously, they didn't learn their lesson with the way that they structured the original TSO. TSO catered to the social player. There was no option to be able to play the game by yourself. When I bought TSO originally, it was with the expectation that I would be able to play my game the same way I played the offline version. Imagine my disappointment when I discovered that it was a lot based game and the only things to do was to meet on someone's lot and build skills and chat, and that was about it. From what I'm seeing, it looks like Olympus was fixing to be the same way.
Those people who keep asking for an online version of this game are under the illusion that they'll get the same kind of game experience as when they play the offline version, only with other players. Sorry, but if EA ever does/had succeeded in making an online version, it would not be anything like the offline version. More like a glorified graphics chat board.
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally)
I Took The Pledge!
> DerekJohnson: I am glad you got the point. :)
> Let's be honest. When someone says "don't like it don't buy it" they mean "shut the eff up and let us fanboys and girls worship without interference". That's why I always feel upset when I read such a comment and why I need to make our point clear.
I apologize for upsetting you.
I also did not tell you to shut up or to let me "worship without interference." So, you called me a "Wise Guy" and posted several rants over a perceived slight that didn't even happen. All I did was praise a product that I enjoyed and state the obvious fact that people who don't want a certain product shouldn't buy that product.
Remember, this thread was created by someone who likes the idea of a Sims Online-type of game and dared to suggest it, and *you* jumped in here because you felt that it threatened the franchise *you* prefer.
It seems like his (or her) suggestion interfered with *your* "fanboy worship" and you came in here to tell them to "shut the eff up."
If so many player can say they *don't* like The Sims Online, why isn't it just as valid for the other players to say they *do* like it? (Or did like it. Or like the idea of an MMO-type Sims-like game.) They're also customers (or potential customers) and their opinions are just as valid. You shouldn't shoot them down anymore than they should shoot you down.
Also, it wouldn't have to be called "The Sims Online 2." They could completely re-brand it and call it by a completely different name if they wanted to protect and preserve The Sims.
And to whoever it was above that listed various ways for me to contact my family... the point was that my mom and sister and I are all fans of The Sims, and we all had fun playing The Sims Online (yes, the one that failed.)
I did not need suggestions of other ways to keep in touch.
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally)
I Took The Pledge!
Aside from not understanding the appeal of wanting to play this game online (if I feel like playing and chatting to people then I play in windowed mode and either hang out here or chat on Skype to my friends) I'm just not convinced it would even work in the first place; I think a lot of people believe they would be able to get the same single player experience only online so they can play with their friends but that wouldn't be the case at all. Instead what you'd end up with is a game so dumbed down that (IMO) it would quickly lose its appeal; for example:- how would you control multiple households? How would you control multiple sims within your family? If you got married to another player's sim and had a child which player would have ownership rights over that child? What about house and sim customization? What if you had a set "theme" idea for your neighbourhood and then a new player moves in, claims a lot and builds something that doesn't fit in - that player would be playing by the rules but their house sticks out like an eyesore to you and your friends.
At best I think people would end up limited to a single "avatar" sim that they use to go around town, earning imaginary internet points and chatting to other players "avatar" sims.
Such a game would also potentially take precious development time away from the single player experience; they'd either have to develop a full on spin off game to make it solely online or they'd end up shoe-horning it into the single player game - if they did the latter then I can guarantee it would be a complete waste of space, another reason why I am opposed to it. I don't want EA wasting their time on something I honestly don't feel is necessary - selfish viewpoint yes, I won't deny that, but that's my stance on it I'm afraid.
It's a lot to consider and honestly I think there are more cons than pros for this type of thing. Not all games have to be online and TBH even though it's not a very diplomatic thing to say I'm getting rather tired of the mentality from some game developers that games that, quite frankly, have no business ever being online simply must be online to appease some group of people.
And you're absolutely right, DarkSlayer...the online version would have been nothing like the offline version.
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally)
I Took The Pledge!
There was, once upon a time (2002). I was one of the beta testers. Didn't like it, especially after the test period was over and people started subscribing. I was constantly approached by people who wanted to do what is now called s.exting. It was very ewww, especially considering that a good many of those people were probably the same age as my then-teenage kids.
However, what about private servers. More specifically, LAN and/or client-side servers. Minecraft has used this to perfection, the only downside being the nasty programming learning curve. Mind you, Minecraft was originally a single-player game, only opening up via LAN. Essentially, Minecraft is an offline game all by itself. However, Mojang released a special client-side program that allows you to create long-distance servers. Some even have created entire MMO servers in Minecraft on their own accord.
I think the Sims 4 can be pulled off in a similar way. One advantage is that client-side servers cost little-to-nothing for EA to maintain, only needing to release a new version with each EP or patch. Second, client-side servers are specified specifically to the user, meaning it can be customized to the user's liking, if they have the programming skills to do it. Third, the players can whitelist the server to prevent people they don't want on the server from joining. It would just be you and your friend(s).
A disadvantage to a client-side server is, well, it might require another, third party program to connect. Many private Minecraft servers require a certain kind of program for the connection to work properly, i.e. Hamachi. This can sometimes causes problems, unless EA/Maxis creates a connection service to lighten the load.
It's the same issue with CAW for the Sims 3. The program had a huge learning curve, was unwieldy, and, for some reason, was an external application that didn't sync with the game's engine. However, if both of these aspects were added into the game's engine for easy accessibility, it would make multiplayer and CAW much more likable.
Draconic Gaming
DeviantArt Page
Lunispellweaver (will try to change it)
Some of my Threads:
8 Expansions I Would Like to See in the Sims 4
DragonSim