No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
It would make sense that they were continuing Sims 4 if they were thinking of subscriptions for a Sims 5. So many people would opt out and stick to the old iteration.
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.
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
I have played these games a long time...since the beginning. I do NOT want to start with paying each month to play. I have stopped with TS3, because 4 doesn't hold my interest. I still purchase from the Sims 3 store. So....I will continue with what I have...I guess...
Is there a support group for Simming Addiction? I think I need it...
Yes, I have no problem paying a price each month for the base game and all the content added over the years (packs etc.)
I’m fine with a subscription, as long it has a base that includes everything. Or make it like a free base game with extras you can buy/subscribe to. I don’t always play the sims, like now- I’m back to playing after 2 years off and i haven’t bought any packs since then nor will I, bc it will cost me about $200 to be up to date... to buy a game that’s about to end anyway... that I’ll only play for a few weeks before I’m bored again anyhow... I would love to play in any of the eight worlds that I don’t have but I can’t afford it. I can afford $10 a month though, sure.
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
No. I have never played subscription games and never will. The fact that they are even considering things like online multiplayer and subscriptions says they don't even have a real awareness of their Sims fanbase.
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
I have 3 subscription services in my life already, including adobe cc, which is nightmarishly expensive, and unfortunately, without alternatives. I have no intention (or budget) to add yet another service, let alone for a game, especially one as ill-suited for subscription as the sims.
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
It's a terrible idea.
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.
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
If they add subscription to the sims 5; it will die.
If you are interested in challenges; check out the Reincarnation challenge right at this link! here!| If you want spectator mode; go to this link. (for sims 3) here
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...
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
If they done sub based models I would uninstall if it affects my current packs in a heartbeat.
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.
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
I'm a long-time player, and so are many other people. We've been playing these games for TWO decades already. Imagine if it was a subscription service and paid every month since the beginning of the franchise. Those charges add up costing more than what the games are worth - even more so if one doesn't want to play certain packs.
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.
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
No, Hard pass. I dislike having to do anything on the internet instead of just looking in my pc for it. lol I want The Sims to remain a single player, offline, don't bother me with ads, and promotions and annoying players, leave me alone while I play.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
It is a pretty hard no for me.
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.
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
This is an absolute hard no from me.
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.
(he/him)
And remember this above all. Our Roman gods are watching. Make sure they are not ashamed!
My NBA site, Pace and Space
I saw an article claiming that a subscription service would be cheaper for players because it will be a small monthly fee rather than paying a large amount for all the DLC. This claim completely excludes players like me who only buy packs that interests them. Where I live to own all the packs at full price would be over $1000, but I have not spent even a quarter of that figure on my game. A $10 monthly subscription would cost $120 a year.
@Sallycutecat Yes, a 10$ monthly subscriptions doesn't sound like a lot of money, at least that's what a lot of people say.
But these people need to consider, if we take the Sims 4 as an example, imagine having paid 10$ each month (believe me it would be more expensive) since release day. That's 6 years so about 720$ so far.
Actually that's pretty much how much it does cost for people who buy every pack on release, if you bought all the DLC from last year at full price that adds up to exactly $120, so people who buy every pack on release are essentially already paying 10 bucks a month.
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.
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
I feel like if we don't want Subscriptions for the future Sims games we should be louder about it. Sure, all we have now are rumors but the thing is EA has spoken about subscriptions a lot of times and we should make sure we express or dismay or approval (depending if you want them or not) so that they get the message.
If they end up developing a subscription based game nobody wants to buy then bye bye Sims franchise.
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
> @zsurkusz said: > 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).
I'm not sure I'd want to move on to sims 5 as I love sims 4 too much to switch, but a subscription would let me try without paying a huge price so I like that. However, I'm the type that keeps to the same save forever, aging on slow, I'm still playing my first ever sims 4 family (2nd gen just starting) after thousands of hours and 4 years) so I'd have to k ow that if I subscribed for a bit, then unsubscribed on months where I'm too busy for gaming time, my save wouldn't be deleted when I came back later when I do have gaming time. If I had to start a new save everytime I resubscribed, then no. And of course price is a factor and whether we could turn off new packs we didn't want.
> @zsurkusz said:
> 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.
Sims 3 Showtime's "multiplayer" mode of hosting performers would give players unlocks if they did it.
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.
No, I am not okay with paying each month to play the game. I want the base game and packs, DLC to be sold for standard prices like always
No, no way, never. They already somewhat have this model for people who constantly want new stuff in the game (stuff packs which are expensive, and expansions that don't expand much). Adding a subscription model to that would be an insult. I'd be fine with the monthly EA Play subscription providing complete access to whatever comes out, for people who prefer that option, but only as a completely separate alternative.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And remember this above all. Our Roman gods are watching. Make sure they are not ashamed!
My NBA site, Pace and Space
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.