I'm not at the point of considering another basegame, especially if it's starting over with the same old formula. I'm also not interested in multiplayer games. Someone else mentioned a spin-off and I can see the sense in that. If they keep developing TS4 as a single player version while making some new multiplayer spin-off, fine. I'm not the market for that. I also don't care that much about open worlds though I would take them if I'm ready to move on. I could see upgrading to new graphics at some point because in that sense, I do think TS4 is a 2014 game.
At this stage, I'm not ready to move on and I don't know if I will be. If the new game is really targeted at teens, it's probably going to be time for me to clock out. If they continue to invest in this version, they definitely still have a customer in me.
I'm not going to start all over buying pets and weather in a multiplayer game and waiting years for the same packs again. I also don't want to play a reality tv show with my friends. I get that there are people out there who do.
If TS5 is some kind of open world with incredible graphics that brings in elements of the "Civilization" games along with high development for modern and historic themes with control by the player over realistic vs. supernatural content (in either direction), I'd ultimately jump ship especially if I could "port" my sims into the new world. That's about what it would take to keep my interest. I'd need a game for adults that isn't based on the Kardashians or Second Life.
The Sims is a legacy series that has a lot to offer but no, I'm not going to just move on lightly if at all. To be fair, it took me years sometimes to move on. If TS4 peters out soon, I'm not going to be ready to just leap onto the next basegame. I still think TS4 is a bit half-baked. I've been willing to go with it because I found a way to play it that I enjoy and I guess I like my "sims" a lot.
Oh yeah, thank God that building game will take the place of a life simulator.
It appears to be far more than a building game, since they are discussing how babies won't be objects, and personality traits for the people in general.
Why are people SO salty about paralives!?? I mean my god! It is SO much more than a building game, the developer just hasn't gotten to the stage of the characters etc.
I don't get it either. I mean Cities: Skylines turned out to be the de facto standard bearer of the City Builder after Sim City was ruined forever, and that was a small Finnish team of 5 people that made that. We'll see what happens.
To those who have said all this "panic" about Online features is just speculations. It is not pure speculations; if it had been an unnamed source on twitter? Yes. The CEO? No. This is not "speculation" in the "wild rumors" category. This is fear, fear that Sims will go the way of so many other francises lately. And it is a well-grounded fear.
Nothing good has ever come from a game that has "online mode" and "competition" unless it's actually a multiplayer shooter or moba of course. Usually it's just buzzwords to cover up mandatory monetization and scams, most likely combined with a severe quality drop in general.
Why are people SO salty about paralives!?? I mean my god! It is SO much more than a building game, the developer just hasn't gotten to the stage of the characters etc.
I don't understand it either. Anyways like City Skylines it may be the next simulation game to replace a genre. Sims going online like the CEO said they won't be in a monopoly anymore and will be facing heavy competition. I just really don't see the next iteration of Sims remaining on PC/Mac. I think it will face the same fate as SimCity. I tried that game and it is nothing more than a butchered version and microtransaction disorganized version of the older PC games. I honestly think EA is scared to compete against Paralives and this is their cop out.
“Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it.” –Helen Keller
If they will add multiplayer, then it has to be a separate module. I can't really see how they could bring a game like the sims4 online for example. That game have simply too many packs. They would have to add a framework that would work with 30 + packs.
If they add microtransactions to the game, then you have even more things that have to work with multiplayer for people who have bought the dlc, and those who haven't. The multiplayer component would have to have all the packs already, otherwise I would not be able to even see or interact with houses if they are built with DLC that I do not have.
I certainly hope that these are things that will make them reconsider taking the next sims game online.
IMO CEOs that no longer understand the game market shouldn't have any say in what the devs in their absorbed companies do.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. AAA publishing houses work just like any other big investment company. The art is irrelevant. Bottom line, no matter how, is what matters. Doesn't matter if you make games, car tires or cellphones.
IMO CEOs that no longer understand the game market shouldn't have any say in what the devs in their absorbed companies do.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. AAA publishing houses work just like any other big investment company. The art is irrelevant. Bottom line, no matter how, is what matters. Doesn't matter if you make games, car tires or cellphones.
Is that any different than how it has always been though?
I feel like there was a time when "making a good, complete game" won out just barely over "making as much money as physically possible while overworking our dev team and not giving our long-time fanbase anything they ask for ever".
IMO CEOs that no longer understand the game market shouldn't have any say in what the devs in their absorbed companies do.
They have a larger picture of all their franchises. So when Andrew talked about social interaction and competition he was probably talking about how they have that in other franchises and that he would like to see if they could bring that to the sims. But I also think that they trust what Maxis is doing so they will leave it up to Maxis to see how they could implement that in a good way. It could be multiplayer or it could be something simple as a gallery upgrade.
IMO CEOs that no longer understand the game market shouldn't have any say in what the devs in their absorbed companies do.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. AAA publishing houses work just like any other big investment company. The art is irrelevant. Bottom line, no matter how, is what matters. Doesn't matter if you make games, car tires or cellphones.
Is that any different than how it has always been though?
The difference is marginal, but:
It is obviously easy to spot when a company reaches this point. It usually happens when the company is large enough that the people in charge does not have any experience in the trade. People like Paradox, a medium size publisher, is still owned and run by the founders. That was a loooong time ago that was true for Activision, EA, Konami or any of the other large AAA houses. Blizzard still is, but they are only a name on a department in Activision now; they really have no say, which is easy to see (it is really a misnomer to talk about "Blizzard games"; Blizzard just dances on the strings of Activision.
Anyway, the point is that as long as a growing company is owned and controlled by either the founders, or external powers from the same field, it tends to be much better, even if the company is huge. It's when your board and CEO comes from... "good successful business" (as in recruited from anywhere where they made huge profits before, no matter the market they were in) that things always fall apart.
The other contributing factor is that the Internet as it is now has made these things; micro transactions, online "competitions", loot boxes so easy to implement. If you don't have loot boxes in your game, the investors will ask "why not?" because they understand that it is much more profitable than the actual game.
So it is very hard to resist putting them in there.
But I also think that they trust what Maxis is doing so they will leave it up to Maxis to see how they could implement that in a good way. It could be multiplayer or it could be something simple as a gallery upgrade.
I'm pretty sure when a CEO talks about "social interaction and competition" that means "what's the best way I can nickle and dime these people into thinking that they have to one-up the Jones' with lootbox style cosmetics".
Also, Maxis-via-EA is full of people who are terribly overworked and woefully underfunded (can't even make a bunk bed because it'd cost too much on a $10 stuff pack pricetag... OK) and where many of them don't even play their own game so they have no idea the issues that the rest of us come across with just an hour of regular play.
There's a massive disconnect from the folks in charge, those actually making the game, and those who buy and play it.
I feel like there was a time when "making a good, complete game" won out just barely over "making as much money as physically possible while overworking our dev team and not giving our long-time fanbase anything they ask for ever".
When was that time? Was it when they were filling landfills with copies of E.T.? Was it when Nintendo had to create the "seal of quality" in order to distinguish officially licensed games because there was so much shovelware for the NES out there? Was it when games like Daggerfall and Fallout were unplayable because they shipped with gamebreaking bugs, relying on the user to have to hex edit their own files in order to complete the critical path? When was this halcyon time of gaming?
It never existed. This hobby has always been a labor of love where you have to cope with things that don't work or features you don't like.
IMO CEOs that no longer understand the game market shouldn't have any say in what the devs in their absorbed companies do.
I used to work with 3 different CEO. 2 were appointed & elected and another was a business owner. They do have different mentality, but most importantly, their task is to manage people and of course the stakeholders & shareholders among other things. It is a bit unfair to say that he is unaware of what the current market trend is, knowing that he has been the CEO for nearly 7 years. Most of the time, they read reports & attends meetings, make decisions etc beside being responsible in any decisions they make. On top of that, I don't think any of the developers would be very happy if he is micromanaging them. But, I'm pretty sure he is aware and has been told by his developers, marketing, sales, operation team etc. I should be more worried about what the developers team are doing, like, do they have enough resources, do they have enough inspirations, what pressure them at this point? Are they bored?? Do they need more challenges? Appointed/elected CEOs always have a tough time because sometimes, they were hired from a different field or from the same field, but most importantly, they are chosen because of their people skills and perhaps some technical skills. That's why the CEO of their own company is more hands on because they build up the company from a scratch. IF we could understand the market trend, it would be funny someone like him don't even understand & managing and leading thousands of people to work for us.
But I also think that they trust what Maxis is doing so they will leave it up to Maxis to see how they could implement that in a good way. It could be multiplayer or it could be something simple as a gallery upgrade.
I'm pretty sure when a CEO talks about "social interaction and competition" that means "what's the best way I can nickle and dime these people into thinking that they have to one-up the Jones' with lootbox style cosmetics".
Also, Maxis-via-EA is full of people who are terribly overworked and woefully underfunded (can't even make a bunk bed because it'd cost too much on a $10 stuff pack pricetag... OK) and where many of them don't even play their own game so they have no idea the issues that the rest of us come across with just an hour of regular play.
There's a massive disconnect from the folks in charge, those actually making the game, and those who buy and play it.
It's a balance, Andrew wants every studio to generate more money so they can get more money from their shareholders. And every studio wants more money to work on their game. Maxis makes regular content in the form of packs which requires them do divide everything and set pretty small scopes, especially with stuff packs. So we the players wonder why we are not getting any bunk beds, because Maxis chose to include that in another pack that has more resources that they got from EA, based on how much money they are generating.
So the thing you hear from Andrew is his side of the story. Maxis has another, and we have another one.
Maybe it's a good thing they regularly have those little "please tell us how to improve our game we're desperate" surveys because the devs need real, solid numbers from the playerbase so they can go to higher ups like "This is what the people want PLEASE FUND US FOR THIS CONTENT THANKS"
Why are y'all taking this 'news' so seriously? LOL.
Because the fact they’re even considering this after how horrible it affected SimCity, The Sims 4, and player trust in the Maxis brand shows gross incompetence.
I will absolutely not support The Sims 5 if it requires online connection, has invasive online connectivity features, and a fragmented single player experience with multiplayer focus. There are too many other good titles out on the market for me to be duped again by Maxis after The Sims 4. And, frankly, I won’t feel like I’m missing out on a single thing.
Why are y'all taking this 'news' so seriously? LOL.
Because the fact they’re even considering this after how horrible it affected SimCity, The Sims 4, and player trust in the Maxis brand shows gross incompetence.
I will absolutely not support The Sims 5 if it requires online connection, has invasive online connectivity features, and a fragmented single player experience with multiplayer focus. There are too many other good titles out on the market for me to be duped again by Maxis after The Sims 4. And, frankly, I won’t feel like I’m missing out on a single thing.
Exactly.
I can (again) explain this outrage with two words:
Ea have made no secret of rejecting single player games. Remember the statement. “Single player games are dead?” That was EA. Ironically said the year a single player game cleaned up at major game awards on multiple occasions.
They have also made no secret that they want all their games to be an online experience and are developing project Atlas. Are they arrogant enough to try another multiplayer with sims? Absolutely. Because it’s more “fun surprise mechanics” (another EAism) I mean loot boxes that they can throw in there.
I’ve also seen in the more casual sims communities a thirst for multiplayer for some reason. All I’ll say is hell mend them when EA deliver.
Count me out if they go to multiplayer. And I don't really want to start over building up a game. Once you consider the expansions etc. the Sims is really expensive. And we still don't have spiral stairs and the other things from earlier games that we wanted. Nope. I started with Sims 1 and bought every expansion, but I think Sims 4 is the end of the line for me if they go multiplayer.
Why are y'all taking this 'news' so seriously? LOL.
Because the fact they’re even considering this after how horrible it affected SimCity, The Sims 4, and player trust in the Maxis brand shows gross incompetence.
I will absolutely not support The Sims 5 if it requires online connection, has invasive online connectivity features, and a fragmented single player experience with multiplayer focus. There are too many other good titles out on the market for me to be duped again by Maxis after The Sims 4. And, frankly, I won’t feel like I’m missing out on a single thing.
Exactly.
I can (again) explain this outrage with two words:
It never existed. This hobby has always been a labor of love where you have to cope with things that don't work or features you don't like.
Well I was too young for some of these, but games that came out between 1995-2008 seemed to pre-date most of this model of "ship a half-finished game, make players pay for DLC that actually completes the game/story/world, and then offer packs of 'additional' (ie, left out) content for $5-15 a pop".
It never existed. This hobby has always been a labor of love where you have to cope with things that don't work or features you don't like.
Well I was too young for some of these, but games that came out between 1995-2008 seemed to pre-date most of this model of "ship a half-finished game, make players pay for DLC that actually completes the game/story/world, and then offer packs of 'additional' (ie, left out) content for $5-15 a pop".
Well, I gave you a multitude of examples of half-finished games, some of them celebrated classics that I personally enjoy, that were shipped unfinished from that very time period. It's just not new. The primary difference is that technology allows for a lot of these unfinished games to be patched rather than rely on user-made solutions.
IMO CEOs that no longer understand the game market shouldn't have any say in what the devs in their absorbed companies do.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. AAA publishing houses work just like any other big investment company. The art is irrelevant. Bottom line, no matter how, is what matters. Doesn't matter if you make games, car tires or cellphones.
Is that any different than how it has always been though?
The difference is marginal, but:
It is obviously easy to spot when a company reaches this point. It usually happens when the company is large enough that the people in charge does not have any experience in the trade. People like Paradox, a medium size publisher, is still owned and run by the founders. That was a loooong time ago that was true for Activision, EA, Konami or any of the other large AAA houses. Blizzard still is, but they are only a name on a department in Activision now; they really have no say, which is easy to see (it is really a misnomer to talk about "Blizzard games"; Blizzard just dances on the strings of Activision.
Anyway, the point is that as long as a growing company is owned and controlled by either the founders, or external powers from the same field, it tends to be much better, even if the company is huge. It's when your board and CEO comes from... "good successful business" (as in recruited from anywhere where they made huge profits before, no matter the market they were in) that things always fall apart.
The other contributing factor is that the Internet as it is now has made these things; micro transactions, online "competitions", loot boxes so easy to implement. If you don't have loot boxes in your game, the investors will ask "why not?" because they understand that it is much more profitable than the actual game.
So it is very hard to resist putting them in there.
Well that's just the thing, isn't it? If you want the Europa Universalis, and the Cities: Skylines, and the Pillars of Eternity you need to look to smaller or independent developers. That's where the high quality gaming is these days, in my opinion. And if The Sims isn't what you're after anymore then it will be from those sorts of studios that what you want will come. I'm not talking about the sort of hobby-project vaporware that Paralives is; rather I'm talking about something made by experienced devs who are passionate about the things that you are passionate about.
Does it matter? Is it the brand loyalty or the gaming experience that we are after? We got an outstanding city builder and manager; it just wasn't called Sim City.
Comments
At this stage, I'm not ready to move on and I don't know if I will be. If the new game is really targeted at teens, it's probably going to be time for me to clock out. If they continue to invest in this version, they definitely still have a customer in me.
I'm not going to start all over buying pets and weather in a multiplayer game and waiting years for the same packs again. I also don't want to play a reality tv show with my friends. I get that there are people out there who do.
If TS5 is some kind of open world with incredible graphics that brings in elements of the "Civilization" games along with high development for modern and historic themes with control by the player over realistic vs. supernatural content (in either direction), I'd ultimately jump ship especially if I could "port" my sims into the new world. That's about what it would take to keep my interest. I'd need a game for adults that isn't based on the Kardashians or Second Life.
The Sims is a legacy series that has a lot to offer but no, I'm not going to just move on lightly if at all. To be fair, it took me years sometimes to move on. If TS4 peters out soon, I'm not going to be ready to just leap onto the next basegame. I still think TS4 is a bit half-baked. I've been willing to go with it because I found a way to play it that I enjoy and I guess I like my "sims" a lot.
I don't get it either. I mean Cities: Skylines turned out to be the de facto standard bearer of the City Builder after Sim City was ruined forever, and that was a small Finnish team of 5 people that made that. We'll see what happens.
To those who have said all this "panic" about Online features is just speculations. It is not pure speculations; if it had been an unnamed source on twitter? Yes. The CEO? No. This is not "speculation" in the "wild rumors" category. This is fear, fear that Sims will go the way of so many other francises lately. And it is a well-grounded fear.
Nothing good has ever come from a game that has "online mode" and "competition" unless it's actually a multiplayer shooter or moba of course. Usually it's just buzzwords to cover up mandatory monetization and scams, most likely combined with a severe quality drop in general.
I don't understand it either. Anyways like City Skylines it may be the next simulation game to replace a genre. Sims going online like the CEO said they won't be in a monopoly anymore and will be facing heavy competition. I just really don't see the next iteration of Sims remaining on PC/Mac. I think it will face the same fate as SimCity. I tried that game and it is nothing more than a butchered version and microtransaction disorganized version of the older PC games. I honestly think EA is scared to compete against Paralives and this is their cop out.
If they add microtransactions to the game, then you have even more things that have to work with multiplayer for people who have bought the dlc, and those who haven't. The multiplayer component would have to have all the packs already, otherwise I would not be able to even see or interact with houses if they are built with DLC that I do not have.
I certainly hope that these are things that will make them reconsider taking the next sims game online.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. AAA publishing houses work just like any other big investment company. The art is irrelevant. Bottom line, no matter how, is what matters. Doesn't matter if you make games, car tires or cellphones.
Is that any different than how it has always been though?
They have a larger picture of all their franchises. So when Andrew talked about social interaction and competition he was probably talking about how they have that in other franchises and that he would like to see if they could bring that to the sims. But I also think that they trust what Maxis is doing so they will leave it up to Maxis to see how they could implement that in a good way. It could be multiplayer or it could be something simple as a gallery upgrade.
The difference is marginal, but:
It is obviously easy to spot when a company reaches this point. It usually happens when the company is large enough that the people in charge does not have any experience in the trade. People like Paradox, a medium size publisher, is still owned and run by the founders. That was a loooong time ago that was true for Activision, EA, Konami or any of the other large AAA houses. Blizzard still is, but they are only a name on a department in Activision now; they really have no say, which is easy to see (it is really a misnomer to talk about "Blizzard games"; Blizzard just dances on the strings of Activision.
Anyway, the point is that as long as a growing company is owned and controlled by either the founders, or external powers from the same field, it tends to be much better, even if the company is huge. It's when your board and CEO comes from... "good successful business" (as in recruited from anywhere where they made huge profits before, no matter the market they were in) that things always fall apart.
The other contributing factor is that the Internet as it is now has made these things; micro transactions, online "competitions", loot boxes so easy to implement. If you don't have loot boxes in your game, the investors will ask "why not?" because they understand that it is much more profitable than the actual game.
So it is very hard to resist putting them in there.
I'm pretty sure when a CEO talks about "social interaction and competition" that means "what's the best way I can nickle and dime these people into thinking that they have to one-up the Jones' with lootbox style cosmetics".
Also, Maxis-via-EA is full of people who are terribly overworked and woefully underfunded (can't even make a bunk bed because it'd cost too much on a $10 stuff pack pricetag... OK) and where many of them don't even play their own game so they have no idea the issues that the rest of us come across with just an hour of regular play.
There's a massive disconnect from the folks in charge, those actually making the game, and those who buy and play it.
When was that time? Was it when they were filling landfills with copies of E.T.? Was it when Nintendo had to create the "seal of quality" in order to distinguish officially licensed games because there was so much shovelware for the NES out there? Was it when games like Daggerfall and Fallout were unplayable because they shipped with gamebreaking bugs, relying on the user to have to hex edit their own files in order to complete the critical path? When was this halcyon time of gaming?
It never existed. This hobby has always been a labor of love where you have to cope with things that don't work or features you don't like.
I used to work with 3 different CEO. 2 were appointed & elected and another was a business owner. They do have different mentality, but most importantly, their task is to manage people and of course the stakeholders & shareholders among other things. It is a bit unfair to say that he is unaware of what the current market trend is, knowing that he has been the CEO for nearly 7 years. Most of the time, they read reports & attends meetings, make decisions etc beside being responsible in any decisions they make. On top of that, I don't think any of the developers would be very happy if he is micromanaging them. But, I'm pretty sure he is aware and has been told by his developers, marketing, sales, operation team etc. I should be more worried about what the developers team are doing, like, do they have enough resources, do they have enough inspirations, what pressure them at this point? Are they bored?? Do they need more challenges? Appointed/elected CEOs always have a tough time because sometimes, they were hired from a different field or from the same field, but most importantly, they are chosen because of their people skills and perhaps some technical skills. That's why the CEO of their own company is more hands on because they build up the company from a scratch. IF we could understand the market trend, it would be funny someone like him don't even understand & managing and leading thousands of people to work for us.
It's a balance, Andrew wants every studio to generate more money so they can get more money from their shareholders. And every studio wants more money to work on their game. Maxis makes regular content in the form of packs which requires them do divide everything and set pretty small scopes, especially with stuff packs. So we the players wonder why we are not getting any bunk beds, because Maxis chose to include that in another pack that has more resources that they got from EA, based on how much money they are generating.
So the thing you hear from Andrew is his side of the story. Maxis has another, and we have another one.
Because the fact they’re even considering this after how horrible it affected SimCity, The Sims 4, and player trust in the Maxis brand shows gross incompetence.
I will absolutely not support The Sims 5 if it requires online connection, has invasive online connectivity features, and a fragmented single player experience with multiplayer focus. There are too many other good titles out on the market for me to be duped again by Maxis after The Sims 4. And, frankly, I won’t feel like I’m missing out on a single thing.
Exactly.
I can (again) explain this outrage with two words:
Sim City.
Heck, I can explain it with ONE word:
FIFA.
They have also made no secret that they want all their games to be an online experience and are developing project Atlas. Are they arrogant enough to try another multiplayer with sims? Absolutely. Because it’s more “fun surprise mechanics” (another EAism) I mean loot boxes that they can throw in there.
I’ve also seen in the more casual sims communities a thirst for multiplayer for some reason. All I’ll say is hell mend them when EA deliver.
But didn't we get Cities: Skylines in the end?
Well I was too young for some of these, but games that came out between 1995-2008 seemed to pre-date most of this model of "ship a half-finished game, make players pay for DLC that actually completes the game/story/world, and then offer packs of 'additional' (ie, left out) content for $5-15 a pop".
Well, yeah. Different company tho.
Well, I gave you a multitude of examples of half-finished games, some of them celebrated classics that I personally enjoy, that were shipped unfinished from that very time period. It's just not new. The primary difference is that technology allows for a lot of these unfinished games to be patched rather than rely on user-made solutions.
Well that's just the thing, isn't it? If you want the Europa Universalis, and the Cities: Skylines, and the Pillars of Eternity you need to look to smaller or independent developers. That's where the high quality gaming is these days, in my opinion. And if The Sims isn't what you're after anymore then it will be from those sorts of studios that what you want will come. I'm not talking about the sort of hobby-project vaporware that Paralives is; rather I'm talking about something made by experienced devs who are passionate about the things that you are passionate about.
Does it matter? Is it the brand loyalty or the gaming experience that we are after? We got an outstanding city builder and manager; it just wasn't called Sim City.