I'm also against the concept of multiplayer. I think the Sims is a very personal type of game, and having other people intrude on that in real time would ruin it. Your world is yours to do with as you please, and adding in random strangers just opens the door to all kind of issues. Even if there was multiplayer like hosting other players, there would still be those people who would make their house shaped like a pp or something which would just ruin the experience for everyone. I don't see what there would be to gain from this either, as it would basically boil down to a twisted dating app where people just have their friends over so they could woohoo everywhere. So no, multiplayer will absolutely ruin the Sims.
I'm not opposed to sharing things though. Spore did well with other players' lifeforms being able to be pulled from the "gallery" to populate random planets, and I thought that was kind of fun. (1)If the Sims did that where it populated the world's random townies with Sims from the Gallery, that would be interesting and could make worlds feel fresher. (2)I also liked what they did with the entertainers in Showtime, where they could visit other players' venues and perform for profit. I could see that being a fun feature, like sending your celebrity to the servers to randomly pop up in other players' games to put on shows or events and stuff, and returning with the profits.
What a great idea!!! I can see a youtuber or twitcher doing a video and suddenly one of my creations just randomly walks by!!! Or perhaps one of my houses is in the background!!! How amazing would that be???
This part I'm unclear about. Are you saying that you would go to another person's game and interact or that your sim would go down a rabbit hole to another simmer's world?
Heck no, I would much prefer a stronger response than this, but do admit some young people may be on this board. I am so staunchly against this I can't even begin to describe it. I almost didn't purchase Sims4. In fact I didn't even give it a thought when all the talk was about it being online. I've play multi-player games and it's just not fun. I've used the story before that my little gnome was murdered just outside the Safe Town by two passersby who thought it would be fun to take out another player's character. For those who play WoW, you understand just how arduous a task it is to get your dead character back to life, let alone where they were, to pick up where they left off. Not only that, but besides paying for the game, there is also a monthly fee to pay for the pleasure of your character getting assassinated at the will of a total stranger. Now, I don't expect this can happen in the Sims, but still. I don't want the mess created when EA first attempted an online style of play, a few years back. It was a disaster and who wants to repeat that?
No, some people don't play nicely with others. I didn't even really enjoy it when I had my little grandson on my knee while I was busy playing my Sims game. He was totally fascinated by the Bots in Sims3 and wanted to spend time in CAS helping me 'build' one. Never mind what goals I had set to achieve for that day. Some might get the impression I don't like to share. Well, when it comes to my Sims, I don't. Sometimes, I will relent and place a favorite family on the Gallery to share, but that's rare. I need to control what happens in their little pixelated lives without input from others, in most incidences.
So, in summary, I only started to look at Sims4 once EA decided it would be a single-player game like the others. So, if Sims5 goes online with a multi-player format, count me out. It's the end of my line with the Sims. I'll stick with Sims4 and that will be it, unless another company comes along with something that exceeds what we have now. Sorry, EA. I abandoned Star Trek, too, when the new series were repulsive to me, too. I only stick with what works. And that's that.
It could be fun, if and only if I got to choose who I played with. Like if I had a save on my computer and then minisprite and I and a distant family member could play together, or if she and 3 friends could play together. There would absolutely have to be a single-player option for when one of us feels like playing single-player or when we don't have internet access.
As someone who plays XIV regularly, I'm very curious what the proposed upcoming multiplayer game will actually be and how it'll all shake out in the end.
But Sims is usually me time where I am taking care of my own family. While the spotnanity would be nice, I don't expect the best out of other players.
A thousand times no. I'm a dyed in the wool lifelong loner, and I don't want other people coming into my game and messing it up. I have never played any MMO game, for a reason. I avoid other people like the plague LOL.
I'm also against the concept of multiplayer. I think the Sims is a very personal type of game, and having other people intrude on that in real time would ruin it. Your world is yours to do with as you please, and adding in random strangers just opens the door to all kind of issues. Even if there was multiplayer like hosting other players, there would still be those people who would make their house shaped like a pp or something which would just ruin the experience for everyone. I don't see what there would be to gain from this either, as it would basically boil down to a twisted dating app where people just have their friends over so they could woohoo everywhere. So no, multiplayer will absolutely ruin the Sims.
I'm not opposed to sharing things though. Spore did well with other players' lifeforms being able to be pulled from the "gallery" to populate random planets, and I thought that was kind of fun. (1)If the Sims did that where it populated the world's random townies with Sims from the Gallery, that would be interesting and could make worlds feel fresher. (2)I also liked what they did with the entertainers in Showtime, where they could visit other players' venues and perform for profit. I could see that being a fun feature, like sending your celebrity to the servers to randomly pop up in other players' games to put on shows or events and stuff, and returning with the profits.
What a great idea!!! I can see a youtuber or twitcher doing a video and suddenly one of my creations just randomly walks by!!! Or perhaps one of my houses is in the background!!! How amazing would that be???
This part I'm unclear about. Are you saying that you would go to another person's game and interact or that your sim would go down a rabbit hole to another simmer's world?
Simporting just sends the player's sim to another player's game just to perform. The owner of that sim can't see what is going on in the hosting world unless that person takes pictures of the performing sim and shares those pictures with the creator of the sim providing that the sim shows up for their scheduled performance. I have accepted other players sims into my game for their performances only to not be able to see them even though the player still gets their credit for it in their game. But the problem with this was that EA had created extra content such as clothing and props for the game that can only be unlocked when the people who use Simporting reaches different milestones in the game. But luckily enough someone had created a mod that allows some of the TS3 players who don't/didn't want to use simporting as some players play offline to reduce lagging in their game. https://sims.fandom.com/wiki/Simport
Absolutely not for me. I'm fine with just downloading other players created Sims into my game when I chose to do so which isn't that often and then taking pictures of them when I see them around town and when my SS interacts with them. Even though I do have The Sims 4 Base Game, I still play TS3 a lot, so therefore I have downloaded some of my simming friends simselves into my game just to see what adventures that they get into in my game.
I already play an MMO game which is World of Warcraft, so I pay a monthly subscription for that game as that money goes towards daily server maintenance as well as other things. There are times when the server that I play in can be very full which in turn keeps any players out until other players log out which can be quite annoying. I doesn't happen that much but when it does, it only last for a few minutes before the game logs me in. So now just think about this happening in an MMO version of the sims game and how people would feel if they're not able to get into the game. Heck when Sim City came out in 2013, this is what happened because so many people wanted to play but couldn't. It took EA a year to add the single-player mode for those who didn't want to go online but sadly EA hasn't created more for Sim City. https://www.polygon.com/2016/5/20/11722342/simcity-launch-ea-maxis-ocean-quigley
Since I do play an MMO game, I do see that these types of games do attract some people that are creeps and the such as well as foul-mouth players as well as rude players also. And when I mean rude, they can get quite rude when another player ask a question something about the game such as "Where is the portal to the Undercity?" and such things like this and when other players respond to the question, it's not to tell them where the portal is, it's to tell them to go and do a Google search on it which to me is just plain rude because things in the game have changed over the years so when googling something, it brings up older locations and such. So to me, it's easier to be a nice person and tell the player where things are instead of being rude and telling them to look it up themselves.
I like the gallery but that is something different because other players can't decide anything in my game.
My kids played animal crossing new horizons for a while. In that game you can visit others but it is totally optional. Other players can't enter your game unless you give them access. I could be OK with an optional visiting system, because then I can choose not to use it.
Sims is a single player game, and I honestly don't see the point of making it multiplayer.
Sharing pictures, stories, and sharing Sims on the gallery is plenty multiplayer the Sims really need.
Also, these games are already known to be crashy and laggy already in single player. Imagine how much worse it would be if there are hundreds of Sims together on a single server. The experiance would be terrible.
The question is self-explanatory so yeah. What do you want?
I've played Second Life.
So I know exactly what we're looking at here.
There are some lessons to be learned from Second Life, Minecraft, and Roblox that will tell you why this is a bad idea.
In Second Life they realized the only way to be profitable was to hand it over to XXX content and look the other way. Their 'teen' product was canceled years ago.
All three products teach that you need to monetize it to insanity. Millions of microtransactions.
Roblox is basically a platform designed to let thieves rob your kids blind. All that goes on there is kids get their parents real life money stolen by scammers. I'm not sure if there's a single other use for that product beyond stealing money from children.
- Which is to say... if you do aim for kids, you just cannot put in enough methods to safeguard them and yet still have a profit model. Kids are gullible. It's basically the definition of 'childhood'. And you can rob people of their entire life savings if you have access to their finances through their children.
So you have those two choices. Be a XXX platform or be a place for scammers to rob people.
Now... if you aim for teen, you have a new issue. You have to lock out any ability to mod it - or it will end up being a super graphically violent XXX platform anyway... And now that it's online, every mod that appears in it reflects DIRECTLY back on corporate brand identity. Somebody makes a patch to let people see unclothed sims, the NY Times publishes an article about how your company made that - even though you didn't, and people on twitter are equating your brand with Larry Flint by next Tuesday. So goodbye modding. Even an innocent mod like giving new sweaters to cats - what's the image on that sweater? Imagine if it's Starbucks... trademark lawsuit time.
You also have to lock down what you do include because now it's online and your Epsteins of the world have just realized your teenagers are easy pickings in there...
And what will we do the first time somebody uses their lot in the neighborhood to build a house in the shape of a burning cross or confederate flag because their neighbor in playing a black sim. If you think that won't happen within week one, you've never tried Second Life...
So yeah, or rather no.
Lets just stay offline single player where none of these issues have to even be thought about all that much.
Post edited by Jyotai on
I don't use Discord because it doesn't support multiple accounts and I don't need folks at work wondering what I'm doing even on my own time. Until Discord catches up with every single other voice / video conferencing system, I limit where I use it:
@MagicaCat This. I've tailored my Sims and my worlds to be how *I* want them to be, and I don't need anyone else coming in and trying to change things, especially considering how small-minded and immature so many gallery users seem to be. You don't like my Sims or my builds? Good. They weren't *for* you!
Not really. It's appealing but impossible, for reasons @Jyotai pointed out.
There's an appeal for sure. Collaborating on buildings and neighborhoods could be fun and rewarding--Minecraft shows that it can be worthwhile with groups that abide by shard expectations.
But Second Life shows why it's not going to happen, at least on a large scale. TS4 already is eyebrow-raising because of WW, and CC that sexualizes children. Going MMO would enable actual sexual predation, and no matter how edge-case, yeah no. It seems like it would be impossible to safeguard minors, or even to implement the kind of friends-only play that would militate against exploitation.
I voted not really because I wouldn't be opposed to multiplayer mode existing next to, but separate of single player mode. I'd probably still spend 95 to 99% of my time in single player mode.
But then I thought about it a little more and I think I'd like to change that to Heck NO to multi-player. I reeeeeally don't want to run across any of the "adult RPG/adult content" like they have in other MMORPGs.
I don't see how they can segregate the Adult RPG from the more all-ages friendly games unless they have designated servers for it like WoW does.
I suppose it'd be pretty entertaining if I could go online with my little sister, buuut she plays on my account. Other than that, not really interested in interacting with strangers.
I wouldn’t mind online if it was choosing a team helping makeover a house or community lot.
Or if it was one lot like a designated park where you could meet other players Sims etc. Perhaps a Sim could get a self employed gig in another player’s game.
I would not like total interactive online mode where your decisions could impact others Sims or world.
Comments
No, some people don't play nicely with others. I didn't even really enjoy it when I had my little grandson on my knee while I was busy playing my Sims game. He was totally fascinated by the Bots in Sims3 and wanted to spend time in CAS helping me 'build' one. Never mind what goals I had set to achieve for that day. Some might get the impression I don't like to share. Well, when it comes to my Sims, I don't. Sometimes, I will relent and place a favorite family on the Gallery to share, but that's rare. I need to control what happens in their little pixelated lives without input from others, in most incidences.
So, in summary, I only started to look at Sims4 once EA decided it would be a single-player game like the others. So, if Sims5 goes online with a multi-player format, count me out. It's the end of my line with the Sims. I'll stick with Sims4 and that will be it, unless another company comes along with something that exceeds what we have now. Sorry, EA. I abandoned Star Trek, too, when the new series were repulsive to me, too. I only stick with what works. And that's that.
http://www.getfreeebooks.com/star-trek-original-series-fan-fiction-trilogy/
But Sims is usually me time where I am taking care of my own family. While the spotnanity would be nice, I don't expect the best out of other players.
Simporting just sends the player's sim to another player's game just to perform. The owner of that sim can't see what is going on in the hosting world unless that person takes pictures of the performing sim and shares those pictures with the creator of the sim providing that the sim shows up for their scheduled performance. I have accepted other players sims into my game for their performances only to not be able to see them even though the player still gets their credit for it in their game. But the problem with this was that EA had created extra content such as clothing and props for the game that can only be unlocked when the people who use Simporting reaches different milestones in the game. But luckily enough someone had created a mod that allows some of the TS3 players who don't/didn't want to use simporting as some players play offline to reduce lagging in their game.
https://sims.fandom.com/wiki/Simport
This video here can show you what simporting is.
Absolutely not for me. I'm fine with just downloading other players created Sims into my game when I chose to do so which isn't that often and then taking pictures of them when I see them around town and when my SS interacts with them. Even though I do have The Sims 4 Base Game, I still play TS3 a lot, so therefore I have downloaded some of my simming friends simselves into my game just to see what adventures that they get into in my game.
I already play an MMO game which is World of Warcraft, so I pay a monthly subscription for that game as that money goes towards daily server maintenance as well as other things. There are times when the server that I play in can be very full which in turn keeps any players out until other players log out which can be quite annoying. I doesn't happen that much but when it does, it only last for a few minutes before the game logs me in. So now just think about this happening in an MMO version of the sims game and how people would feel if they're not able to get into the game. Heck when Sim City came out in 2013, this is what happened because so many people wanted to play but couldn't. It took EA a year to add the single-player mode for those who didn't want to go online but sadly EA hasn't created more for Sim City.
https://www.polygon.com/2016/5/20/11722342/simcity-launch-ea-maxis-ocean-quigley
Since I do play an MMO game, I do see that these types of games do attract some people that are creeps and the such as well as foul-mouth players as well as rude players also. And when I mean rude, they can get quite rude when another player ask a question something about the game such as "Where is the portal to the Undercity?" and such things like this and when other players respond to the question, it's not to tell them where the portal is, it's to tell them to go and do a Google search on it which to me is just plain rude because things in the game have changed over the years so when googling something, it brings up older locations and such. So to me, it's easier to be a nice person and tell the player where things are instead of being rude and telling them to look it up themselves.
http://store.thesims3.com/myWishlist.html?persona=lisasc360
My stories on this site:
https://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/991317/my-sims-stories/p1?new=1
I like the gallery but that is something different because other players can't decide anything in my game.
My kids played animal crossing new horizons for a while. In that game you can visit others but it is totally optional. Other players can't enter your game unless you give them access. I could be OK with an optional visiting system, because then I can choose not to use it.
Sharing pictures, stories, and sharing Sims on the gallery is plenty multiplayer the Sims really need.
Also, these games are already known to be crashy and laggy already in single player. Imagine how much worse it would be if there are hundreds of Sims together on a single server. The experiance would be terrible.
I've played Second Life.
So I know exactly what we're looking at here.
There are some lessons to be learned from Second Life, Minecraft, and Roblox that will tell you why this is a bad idea.
In Second Life they realized the only way to be profitable was to hand it over to XXX content and look the other way. Their 'teen' product was canceled years ago.
All three products teach that you need to monetize it to insanity. Millions of microtransactions.
Roblox is basically a platform designed to let thieves rob your kids blind. All that goes on there is kids get their parents real life money stolen by scammers. I'm not sure if there's a single other use for that product beyond stealing money from children.
- Which is to say... if you do aim for kids, you just cannot put in enough methods to safeguard them and yet still have a profit model. Kids are gullible. It's basically the definition of 'childhood'. And you can rob people of their entire life savings if you have access to their finances through their children.
So you have those two choices. Be a XXX platform or be a place for scammers to rob people.
Now... if you aim for teen, you have a new issue. You have to lock out any ability to mod it - or it will end up being a super graphically violent XXX platform anyway... And now that it's online, every mod that appears in it reflects DIRECTLY back on corporate brand identity. Somebody makes a patch to let people see unclothed sims, the NY Times publishes an article about how your company made that - even though you didn't, and people on twitter are equating your brand with Larry Flint by next Tuesday. So goodbye modding. Even an innocent mod like giving new sweaters to cats - what's the image on that sweater? Imagine if it's Starbucks... trademark lawsuit time.
You also have to lock down what you do include because now it's online and your Epsteins of the world have just realized your teenagers are easy pickings in there...
And what will we do the first time somebody uses their lot in the neighborhood to build a house in the shape of a burning cross or confederate flag because their neighbor in playing a black sim. If you think that won't happen within week one, you've never tried Second Life...
So yeah, or rather no.
Lets just stay offline single player where none of these issues have to even be thought about all that much.
I do have a few close, personal friends and family members that it would be fun to share my game with - occasionally.
But it's still MY game and I want to spend that time in MY world, with MY sims.
So - Could Be Fun IF it's optional ONLY.
There's an appeal for sure. Collaborating on buildings and neighborhoods could be fun and rewarding--Minecraft shows that it can be worthwhile with groups that abide by shard expectations.
But Second Life shows why it's not going to happen, at least on a large scale. TS4 already is eyebrow-raising because of WW, and CC that sexualizes children. Going MMO would enable actual sexual predation, and no matter how edge-case, yeah no. It seems like it would be impossible to safeguard minors, or even to implement the kind of friends-only play that would militate against exploitation.
But then I thought about it a little more and I think I'd like to change that to Heck NO to multi-player. I reeeeeally don't want to run across any of the "adult RPG/adult content" like they have in other MMORPGs.
I don't see how they can segregate the Adult RPG from the more all-ages friendly games unless they have designated servers for it like WoW does.
Because I can't; I keep all sigs turned off.
Or if it was one lot like a designated park where you could meet other players Sims etc. Perhaps a Sim could get a self employed gig in another player’s game.
I would not like total interactive online mode where your decisions could impact others Sims or world.