Goodbye for now Sims 4

"TheGoodOldGamer;c-16409215" wrote:

"DeservedCriticism;c-16409195" wrote:

"TheGoodOldGamer;c-16409155" wrote:

"Sk8rblaze;c-16409142" wrote:

"TheGoodOldGamer;c-16409127" wrote:

"Sk8rblaze;c-16409116" wrote:

"TheGoodOldGamer;c-16409033" wrote:
Haven't done this in awhile, but I just thought I'd pop up some perspective with how well Sims 4 is doing, in comparison to Steam's top 10:

https://i.imgur.com/NIDzxyO.png

This contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Are you trying to insinuate The Sims 4 is objectively good and we are all wrong for giving our feedback because more expensive games have less players than The Sims 4, which is constantly on sale and included in EA’s free games membership program? It just has no place in this thread.

And flamebaiting does? :p

Someone was mentioning how the forum should be abandoned, etc etc. As if there's some huge drop-off in players and that any perceived lack of population on this forum indicates that. It clearly doesn't. And unlike unfounded, subjective opinions on the matter, I provided evidence for mine. *shrugs*

Feel free to discount it all as corporate lying or whatever, but it's more proof than most people have with this kind of thing.

Does providing feedback really count as flamebaiting to you? I doubt The Sims 4 has feelings that will be hurt.

I don’t think there is any corporate lying in those figures, however, The Sims 4’s base game is quite cheap and accessible, which is my point.

You basically came into a feedback thread with no defense or commentary other than figures of a Steam chart composed of year old games, many older than TS4 and more expensive too, which still retain numbers in the high 5 figure range. That’s a pretty weak defense, which was not even needed in the first place.

To me, that’s trolling and baiting, and pretty disrespectful to people who spend a good amount of time trying to improve the game the way they like, in a section designed specifically for feedback. And then you say others are flame baiting?

Your post saying mine "contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion" was the flamebaiting, thanks. :p

My post did contribute. It gave perspective on the current game's success, based on the numbers we have available, along with comparisons to current competition. Disliking the game, or wishing it would suddenly fail because of that, doesn't mean that it actually is.

Also, a different perspective outside of confimation bias and tunnel vision is helpful, even if you don't like it. Take a look at my original post again. You're taking it out of context. I said nothing about discounting others opinions, did nothing to flamebait anybody. All I did was provide numbers that apparently upset you because they're higher than 0 or something, I'm not sure?

The game, and the series as a whole, isn't failing. In the past few years I've checked with this comparison, it has always been on the Top 10 levels of Steam, regardless of day, time, current sales or not. Prior to and after toddlers. Prior to and after vampires. Prior to and after MFP. You can take it or leave it as you like, but I just added some perspective outside of the current subjective narrative.

Thanks for the callout though. Now more people who would've glossed over it have seen it.

The logical fallacy of your entire argument is that it's circular logic. You argue "this game can't be bad because people like it." The bitter irony is that threads like this seek to question and critically assess why people like it and question if their fondness is warranted, suggesting it's not as good as perceived.

You are basically using the conclusion ("this game is good") as evidence to support your argument and against the proposed hypothesis, ("this game is bad") thus causing you to skim over the arguments being made since your conclusion and your reasoning are one in the same. Your own argument fails because if we followed your reasoning, it would mean a game that has good release numbers and good player satisfaction initially would have good satisfaction for all eternity with no improvement or lack thereof, because any time someone arrives arguing "hey this product is better/worse than previously perceived," your rationale is to just look at the current perception and denounce their argument outright with no understanding for potential change or acknowledgement of potential downturns/upswings/incoming problems/incoming improvements/drop in satisfaction.

In other words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyoSS3bwjA

Nope. The fallacy comes in you assuming what my argument is while ignoring my reasons behind my post, which have nothing to do with that. Man, people sure are loving to jump to conclusions today! Friday, I guess.

As I've already said in previous posts, my original post with the numbers was in response to people saying the game is failing/the forums should be abandonded, etc. It's not a response to how 'good' in terms of perceived 'quality' the game is. I gave numbers indicating how many people are currently playing the game, in comparison to how well other games are doing. And guess what?

It's not in freefall. It's not failing. The lack of population here on the forum (perceived or otherwise) is not an indication of how well the game is doing. The idea that if we suddenly abandoned the forum, that would be any indication to EA or Maxis that the game is failing, is false. It would make little to no difference. Most of the community interaction takes place outside the forum anyways. Do you see 75,000+ people active on here? I don't.

My response, in short, is replying to those who 'wish/want/hope' the game is failing, when it's not. You can go on and on til the cows come home about the quality of the game. I couldn't care less about that and wasn't replying to that. But thanks for taking things out of context, yet again.