Do you think future packs can fix previous packs?

As long as people refuse to accept DLC for DLC as a valid marketing option for adding things to packs that are a year (or more) old, it won't happen without a lot of protest.

The major mistakes with My First Pet Stuff were the timing, and including stuff that was clearly a continuation of a bedroom set partially included in Cats and Dogs.

So either EA has to okay the budget to go back and expand old packs, or the community has to accept that sometimes DLC for DLC is not a bad thing. Or Maxis has to release DLC for DLC knowing that the majority of the Vocal portion of the Community will scream their displeasure.

Obviously, option one would be best. Option three is the most realistic. Option two probably will never happen.

I think the doghouses aren't in the game because they are considered to be animal abuse? And after the reaction to the my first pet stuff pack I'm not sure they would go the same route for any other pack.

I think the doghouses aren't in the game because they are considered to be animal abuse?

Excuse me waddawhat??
And dressing the animals up in a hot dog suit isn’t??
??

Back to the topic at hand:
I hope that “fixing” previous packs actually entails fixing and / or upgrading those packs.
After that MFPS fiasco I doubt we’ll be getting any more DLC for DLC.

"CAPTAIN_NXR7;c-17880144" wrote:

Excuse me waddawhat??
And dressing the animals up in a hot dog suit isn’t??
??

I know! I fell off my chair when I first read about it.

I also hope that any fixing would mean addition to the previous released. They could find a way to update the aliens if they made it a GP instead with it's own world map and didn't made items only available to those who have GTW (which was another reason people hated the mfps) but even that is a long shot. It is what it is now.

"CAPTAIN_NXR7;c-17880144" wrote:

I think the doghouses aren't in the game because they are considered to be animal abuse?

Excuse me waddawhat??
And dressing the animals up in a hot dog suit isn’t??
??

Back to the topic at hand:
I hope that “fixing” previous packs actually entails fixing and / or upgrading those packs.
After that MFPS fiasco I doubt we’ll be getting any more DLC for DLC.

I think Maxis was going along with the American SPCA with it's advice on doghouses as far as I remember. I think it depends on the dog doesn't it? Huskies and sled dogs like living outside if houses provided but I've seen some awful pictures of dogs lying frozen to death on their owners doorsteps this year, even with a doghouse provided. The cold was even too cold for them. I haven't linked to them here but you only have to access videos of dogs frozen to death on YouTube to see many.

I wouldn't mind if Maxis took a break from making new packs to focus on the old ones. I can't say the same for EA.

Fix them, no. But they could improve them. We do see cross-pack functionality sometimes.

"DaWaterRat;c-17880132" wrote:
As long as people refuse to accept DLC for DLC as a valid marketing option for adding things to packs that are a year (or more) old, it won't happen without a lot of protest.

The major mistakes with My First Pet Stuff were the timing, and including stuff that was clearly a continuation of a bedroom set partially included in Cats and Dogs.

So either EA has to okay the budget to go back and expand old packs, or the community has to accept that sometimes DLC for DLC is not a bad thing. Or Maxis has to release DLC for DLC knowing that the majority of the Vocal portion of the Community will scream their displeasure.

Obviously, option one would be best. Option three is the most realistic. Option two probably will never happen.

I think option one would be best as well. Perhaps the updates are included in the monthly patch?

But I wonder if DLC for DLC would work if it was new stuff to add on? So enhance the pack with future upgrades a couple of years+ after? I.e. you could make other animals to own like elephants or horses etc.

Having things that look like they should’ve been included with the primary pack is what annoys me and timing is critical.

They obviously could. Anything is possible. Should they, though? Not really. "Fix" implies broken, and broken games should be updated. If you are talking about adding extra content, though, there is a debate to be had.

I do not like the idea of the one and done pack theme thing. Just because something is of a similar theme does not mean it had to be in this or that pack or should not have come at all. A GTW 2.0 pack with three different new active careers, a new business/venue type, and a new (haphazard) occult would be the same theme but stand on it's own two feet. There are also packs that disappointed me (though they are not broken) in where the resources were spent and I would love for those themes to get more attention. Sequential packs can do that.

And, for the record, I don't mind DLC for DLC as a premise. I agree 100% that the majority of MFP looked like cut content. That is wrong regardless of DLC for DLC. I actually really like the MFP stuff, though. I play with the small pets much more than cats and dogs. If DLC for DLC is not an option, then there can be no more content for existing pets and occults without them becoming base game (which is a long shot at best).

Now, would they in either case? The jury is still out. MFP still gets trashed to this day (over the wrong things in my opinion, but I digress), but we were told it sold well. If I had to guess, no, but I do still want additional content for themes already explored.

"Simburian;c-17880156" wrote:

"CAPTAIN_NXR7;c-17880144" wrote:

I think the doghouses aren't in the game because they are considered to be animal abuse?

Excuse me waddawhat??
And dressing the animals up in a hot dog suit isn’t??
??

Back to the topic at hand:
I hope that “fixing” previous packs actually entails fixing and / or upgrading those packs.
After that MFPS fiasco I doubt we’ll be getting any more DLC for DLC.

I think Maxis was going along with the American SPCA with it's advice on doghouses as far as I remember. I think it depends on the dog doesn't it? Huskies and sled dogs like living outside if houses provided but I've seen some awful pictures of dogs lying frozen to death on their owners doorsteps this year, even with a doghouse provided. The cold was even too cold for them. I haven't linked to them here but you only have to access videos of dogs frozen to death on YouTube to see many.

My guess is it would be situational. I am sure it happens, but I don't hear about it locally and growing up our dogs were always outside. Small ones, too. Two pugs, a jack russel, a boxer, a border collie, and an Alaskan Malamute that currently lives inside with me. Obviously three of those, including my fluffy house dog, are fine in the outside whether, but the small ones didn't have any problems either. We took care to shade them in the summer and filled their dog houses with wood chips in the winter. In that regard, I feel any pet freezing to death is more negligence than a problem with dog houses as a concept.

Back to the game, though, and I have seen a number of excuses floating around for why there are not dog houses in 4 and because of that I do not really believe any of them.