Sims 5 subscription

"StrawberryYogurt;c-17788090" wrote:
I dont mind subscription service for multiplayer, but if its single id be against it. Well have to wait and see.

If Sims 5 goes online or multiplayer at all, I hope this will only be done by accessing a separate online space, through a portal like how you visit the Sims 4 Realm of Magic area where the magic teachers are. This would allow for cheats, fan-made content and mods, but only within the single-player area of the game, and allow for a more defined separation of the online and offline space. Also, if the player's internet connection went down but the power did not go out, or the wi-fi connection was fading in and out, the game would still be playable without using cellular data. (Especially since they STILL don't have much in the way of USB modems for desktop computers and laptops that access cellular networks.)

That way, if someone has too many issues with the online version they can still play their game offline. I still don't like the idea of splitting the development costs between online and offline single-player because I believe the offline single-player experience would be worse for it.

However, the online area could include things like player vs. player real time build challenges or fashion contests, a chat area, a performance area to show off a Sim's or player's skills, special limited time events, additional mini-games, maybe a sponsor location (no annoying popups, visit it for free Sims stuff or free online area stuff from sponsors and get sponsor offers, if you don't like it you don't have to visit it), advertiser's area and limited time events.

The problem with the way Sims 3 showtime attempted multiplayer was that it was one player visiting another player's single-player space, and the other player had to accept the invite. Nobody should visit anyone else's single-player space. Plus that way, there would be no worries about who had which packs.

One advantage of a subscription service, though I hate the idea, is that it could include new content as it is released. This would generally be CAS items and build-buy objects.

However, I would ONLY want a subscription service if

(1) the subscription was optional to play the game, but you get EXTRA perks, including initial perks and monthly perks for subscribing. And by optional, I don't mean just on a trial basis. Many mobile games become unplayable over time, usually because they insanely increase the difficulty, if you don't spend real money to play. Or they turn into pesterware. That's when I simply stop playing them. (Some of them, even if you do spend money on the game, do not even remove the mandatory ads or remove the pesterware screens. Those, even if I spent any money on the game, I usually often quit the game soon after I realize these are still the case.) On the other hand, OPTIONAL ads and surveys that provide in-game benefits I do not mind as much unless they become required to advance in the game.

(2) The money from the subscription service was ONLY used for improving the Sims games (including hiring and training costs, Sims programming teams budgets and QA and Sims team salaries, server costs, existing customer communications (such as forums, surveys, interviews with players, changes and updates to the game), but not including radio or TV advertising or social media - marketing is a money pit that should never be used as an excuse for not improving the game), not other EA games, unless this subscription was INCLUDED at no charge with EA play.

Why should we pay for something else that we don't even play? If they do include it with EA Play, by the way, there is really NO EXCUSE for not adding The Sims Complete Collection and The Sims 2 Ultimate Collection to EA Play as subscription games. Whoever said this was a bad marketing idea has NO IDEA what they are talking about. They probably said it would "cannibalize" the sales of other Sims products, such as Sims 3 and Sims 4. But they overlook just how many players would actually JOIN EA play just to get access to TS1 and TS2. Both of those are old games: they would need to be updated to work on Windows 10. But GOG can do it, so EA surely should be able to do it. Otherwise, they should simply let GOG have at it and let them add them to GOG's catalog, or if not GOG, then Steam. Steam actually still stocks several titles that are incompatible with newer computers, and if it is incompatible, it certainly could not "cannibalize" any sales.