I felt like looking at comments .People are misunderstanding the difference from a mmo and standard multiplayer.An mmo is an online game.Play in public or sometimes.Like Roblox, Second Life, or Fortnight.Sometime they do have a private server usually an online one that you pay extra.This is not what Ea is doing.Ea team confirm on the behind the sims.That multiplayer is not mmo.That this will just be you friends in your game.This sounds like it being more of a traditional multiplayer mode.A traditional multiplayer is usually when you invite someone to play the same game as you.This achieve in many ways fightening games.You usually choose a playable character.The other you starting a new game.Like in srardew valley where they add additional code to the save let others to come in. With you adding the friend and you both being online.Basically we're not getting a public server.Were getting an extra mode.Where you can invite your friends over in your own private game.EditI want to edit ,because Thierry seem to be some confusion on the availability of single player.Grant confirms they will be a single player mode.So don't worry the multiplayer .modee is optional.

I assume people realize this difference but still do not want any multiplayer at all.See this from another upcoming game in the simulation genre, Cities: Skylines 2According to Colossal Order's recent Twitter post, Cities: Skylines 2 won't have multiplayer support of any sort upon launch. One of the studio's fans asked whether there was any scope for Colossal Order to work on multiplayer for the new title, but the devs have responded by saying that developing such a feature would take an "incredible" amount of time and resources and, as a result, take away from the core of the game, which is currently the absolute priority. Yet, it may be worth pointing out that the response doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be multiplayer functionality added later on, as the studio may wish to experiment with something of the type later on.Any multiplayer functionality eats up the budget of time and money. We know Rene is spending money on hiring people exclusively to work on multiplayer (see: job postings). This is frustrating for people.

"simmerorigin;c-18271204" wrote:I assume people realize this difference but still do not want any multiplayer at all.See this from another upcoming game in the simulation genre, Cities: Skylines 2According to Colossal Order's recent Twitter post, Cities: Skylines 2 won't have multiplayer support of any sort upon launch. One of the studio's fans asked whether there was any scope for Colossal Order to work on multiplayer for the new title, but the devs have responded by saying that developing such a feature would take an "incredible" amount of time and resources and, as a result, take away from the core of the game, which is currently the absolute priority. Yet, it may be worth pointing out that the response doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be multiplayer functionality added later on, as the studio may wish to experiment with something of the type later on.Any multiplayer functionality eats up the budget of time and money. We know Rene is spending money on hiring people exclusively to work on multiplayer (see: job postings). This is frustrating for people.It's not frustrating to me.Because the job posting to me most tasks seems to be working on the game in general and not just multiplayer.Espscislly with the design .

Well I'm concerned about how much effort is being put into multiplayer/collaborative tools, given the track record of Project Olympus and the signals in EA earnings calls

"simmerorigin;c-18271249" wrote:Well I'm concerned about how much effort is being put into multiplayer/collaborative tools, given the track record of Project Olympus and the signals in EA earnings callsI am also VERY concerned about this. Technically, they could have a single lot that is MMO to chat with players around the world that varies, a mall, or a theatre, or a scavenger hunt, or a skating rink, for instance, but not customizable (no customization, no motherlode, and possibly a ticket or token booth). If they did this, I would want this not to be open until at least 2-4 expansion packs came out, and it could be open to visit or closed to visit depending if an event was going on. If they MUST raise advertising dollars, they should put the ads somewhere in the game that is not intrusive: a lot of us players watch TV and movies with our Sims (just to see what they are watching), or pay attention to the computer games they are playing. Or, we would expect ads on an in game billboard. I don't mind brand swag either for my Sims. As it is, the kits are the microtransactions of The Sims 4. The Sims 3 had the Sims 3 store (still does) as its microtransactions, as did Sims 2 near the end of its development before they took down its website. I got the Sims 2 castle walls and floors, but wish I had the chance to get that toddler stroller from the Sims 2 store. But I think most players who want multiplayer want private multiplayer where they can specifically invite people into their game - like the way the Sims 3 let you invite friends into your game to perform on stage if you unlocked this by buying the pack that included this feature and placed a performance stage lot.

"SimsILikeSims;c-18271342" wrote:"simmerorigin;c-18271249" wrote:Well I'm concerned about how much effort is being put into multiplayer/collaborative tools, given the track record of Project Olympus and the signals in EA earnings callsI am also VERY concerned about this. Technically, they could have a single lot that is MMO to chat with players around the world that varies, a mall, or a theatre, or a scavenger hunt, or a skating rink, for instance, but not customizable (no customization, no motherlode, and possibly a ticket or token booth). If they did this, I would want this not to be open until at least 2-4 expansion packs came out, and it could be open to visit or closed to visit depending if an event was going on. If they MUST raise advertising dollars, they should put the ads somewhere in the game that is not intrusive: a lot of us players watch TV and movies with our Sims (just to see what they are watching), or pay attention to the computer games they are playing. Or, we would expect ads on an in game billboard. I don't mind brand swag either for my Sims. As it is, the kits are the microtransactions of The Sims 4. The Sims 3 had the Sims 3 store (still does) as its microtransactions, as did Sims 2 near the end of its development before they took down its website. I got the Sims 2 castle walls and floors, but wish I had the chance to get that toddler stroller from the Sims 2 store. But I think most players who want multiplayer want private multiplayer where they can specifically invite people into their game - like the way the Sims 3 let you invite friends into your game to perform on stage if you unlocked this by buying the pack that included this feature and placed a performance stage lot. That's what were going to get a private multiplayer.They confirm multiplayer is not an mmo mode.

I think people are confuse on what mmo vs multiplayer is?

Tcee11
Seasoned Traveler
2 years ago
Two Questions I Have:
1) How would the multiplayer function if you have different packs than the person your playing with?
2) What about Mods and CC?
11a4d9d88dcc7bea
Seasoned Newcomer
2 years ago
"Cinebar;c-18272184" wrote:
"Horrorgirl6;d-1008951" wrote:
I felt like looking at comments .People are misunderstanding the difference from a mmo and standard multiplayer.

An mmo is an online game.Play in public or sometimes.Like Roblox, Second Life, or Fortnight.Sometime they do have a private server usually an online one that you pay extra.This is not what Ea is doing.

Ea team confirm on the behind the sims.That multiplayer is not mmo.That this will just be you friends in your game.

This sounds like it being more of a traditional multiplayer mode.A traditional multiplayer is usually when you invite someone to play the same game as you.This achieve in many ways fightening games.You usually choose a playable character.The other you starting a new game.Like in srardew valley where they add additional code to the save let others to come in. With you adding the friend and you both being online.

Basically we're not getting a public server.Were getting an extra mode.Where you can invite your friends over in your own private game.

What you are describing is co-op. MMOs are Multiplayer games where the game is played on the company's server with hundreds or thousands at the same time. Did you play TS3's Simport? That's sort of 'inviting a friend to play' as the Sim arrived in your game and you couldn't save, quit and or not show up at their performance. It was optional but still 'online' and very limiting for the player who wanted to quit, save, and or not show up at the other player's performance.

Co-op has been a part of The Sims for years with console games, but I'm not sure many will play it (pc) other than a younger generation or those who have been asking for this in TS4. Simport was not fun. It crashed and burned.

We have no idea what TS5 will do, or how the online collaborations will work or if it's just a group of people building something and or working on custom content together and or actually in a server world or whatever. But the point has been made thousands of times, any money going to that sort of play absolutely divides attention, focus and money for the single player side of any game.

This is my opinion, (not reality but opinion).

There are four types of players in The Sims (formats) those who loved TS1 and TS2 who didn't even move over to TS3 or TS4. Those people are aging (as am I) and will not play any mmo or group thing.

There are the TS2 players who went to TS4 and love TS4 and will never stop playing TS4 and will never move over to TS5. They hated TS3 and will never give up TS4.

There are those who love TS3 and hated Simport and will never give up TS3 and will never even try TS5, they wouldn't even give TS4 a chance.

New players who love TS4 will never move over to TS5, either. They love it so much they want it to get new content for the next twenty years.

Then there is a new generation of players who know nothing about the forumla of The Sims who will try TS5. There is where Maxis is going. All the others have too much baggage to try to please. So, don't worry about what TS5 will be, because people are dug in within those four groups and very unlikely to try TS5 at all. But of course influencers will try and buy TS5 because they have to remain relevant.

This is opinion, also there are floaters who try all the games because we loved the Franchise, but eventually go back to the games we prefer. There is always the exception.

If that is the theory the Sims team is using to build their game, it will be very sad. I for one, started playing TS1. Skipped 2 then bought and loved 3. I skipped 4 until recently when they made it free. And I really hope 5 is good. If 5 sucks I will probably move on to Life by You or Paralives. Sims 3 was fun for me, but it has its hiccups and isn't being updated anymore. And it takes forever to start a game. Sims 4 is a downgraded game, and in my opinion shouldn't have sold a single copy, let alone so many EP's. It gets boring fast, and I'm hoping for a new game which I'd consider an upgrade. I am technically a Millennial, though I scorn those categories. I scorn all categories, but generational categories have been scientifically proven to mean nothing except for age. If EA is using that outdated and useless system to figure out what players want, I expect it to fail. If they just ask what they themselves would like, and focus on making the game an upgraded version of the Sims Universe, I expect a lot of players will like it, regardless of their age.
BissenNess
Seasoned Hotshot
2 years ago
@Horrorgirl6 I've seen a lot of comments about Sims 5 being multiplayer and I think you're half right. Some of the people who object to multiplayer do not understand the difference between the overall multiplayer category and the MMO sub-type. They'll say "Multiplayer has no place in the Sims!" but when they go on to give their reasons, all of their objections are specific to MMO. On the other hand, some simmers do object to multiplayer generally, for different reasons. Probably the most common reason I've seen is that they're worried the single player capabilities will get less attention in development.
Fluteline24
New Spectator
2 years ago
Alright, but consider: Lots of us don't want any of that.

I think the Gallery is a fantastic function, and makes downloading and looking at lots/Sims much easier than other Sims games. But I don't want anything other than that when it comes to online capabilities.
Horrorgirl6
Seasoned Hotshot
2 years ago
"PlayerSinger2010;c-18272312" wrote:
Alright, but consider: Lots of us don't want any of that.

I think the Gallery is a fantastic function, and makes downloading and looking at lots/Sims much easier than other Sims games. But I don't want anything other than that when it comes to online capabilities.

Than simple don't use that function.It is not going to be the main part of the game.
11a4d9d88dcc7bea
Seasoned Newcomer
2 years ago
"Horrorgirl6;c-18272338" wrote:
"PlayerSinger2010;c-18272312" wrote:
Alright, but consider: Lots of us don't want any of that.

I think the Gallery is a fantastic function, and makes downloading and looking at lots/Sims much easier than other Sims games. But I don't want anything other than that when it comes to online capabilities.

Than simple don't use that function.It is not going to be the main part of the game.

But what amount do you consider a main part? That statement is qualitative. As is the Guru's statement that it won't be an MMO. Both of these depend on your definition of how much is too much. If EA designs this, I guarantee you they will be assuming everyone has a mobile device and a WIFI quality to allow them to go online. (My mother refuses to get a smartphone, and I haven't found gaming to be good for anything except to quickly drain my battery) Regardless of whether it will be playable offline, single player, and only on PC trust the folks at EA to add things to encourage everyone to try them out. Example, they recently removed the ability to not connect to the Gallery when you play.
LadyGray01
Seasoned Hotshot
2 years ago
I know the difference, I'm just not interested in any kind of multiplayer. A (offline, co-op) multiplayer option was available as far back as Urbz at least (and probably sooner, but I didn't try it). I hated it. I hated Simport in Sims 3 and didn't use it.

I just don't want other people in my game. It limits what you can do, where you can go, and how quickly the game operates, when you can save.

If it's similar to Simport, then I'll just ignore it. But my concern is that it will be more involved than that. If single player takes a hit because of it, then I won't play Sims 5. As others have already pointed out, Olympus was going this way before it got scrapped and turned into the Sims 4 base game we got. A base game so lacking that I didn't play it for 5 years after buying it, until after they'd added myriad packs and updates.
Horrorgirl6
Seasoned Hotshot
2 years ago
"Lenny_Ogg;c-18272351" wrote:
"Horrorgirl6;c-18272338" wrote:
"PlayerSinger2010;c-18272312" wrote:
Alright, but consider: Lots of us don't want any of that.

I think the Gallery is a fantastic function, and makes downloading and looking at lots/Sims much easier than other Sims games. But I don't want anything other than that when it comes to online capabilities.

Than simple don't use that function.It is not going to be the main part of the game.

It was already said before. Even if many of us 'simply don't use it' - there goes the time, the money and the resources the mayority of the players wants to be spend in other features.

I don't understand part.I guess can see if we have more information that worry us. We don't not know if there be less resources spend on the parts of egame.I mean if they higher other people to multiplayer and some features that are for the game in general.I think it's a good sign.

Fans do not have to like multiplayer, but I think it's way to early be in doom and gloom.
Cinebar
2 years ago
"Horrorgirl6;c-18272374" wrote:
"Lenny_Ogg;c-18272351" wrote:
"Horrorgirl6;c-18272338" wrote:
"PlayerSinger2010;c-18272312" wrote:
Alright, but consider: Lots of us don't want any of that.

I think the Gallery is a fantastic function, and makes downloading and looking at lots/Sims much easier than other Sims games. But I don't want anything other than that when it comes to online capabilities.

Than simple don't use that function.It is not going to be the main part of the game.

It was already said before. Even if many of us 'simply don't use it' - there goes the time, the money and the resources the mayority of the players wants to be spend in other features.

I don't understand part.I guess can see if we have more information that worry us. We don't not know if there be less resources spend on the parts of egame.I mean if they higher other people to multiplayer and some features that are for the game in general.I think it's a good sign.

Fans do not have to like multiplayer, but I think it's way to early be in doom and gloom.

You seem to be concerned with others understanding of what the guru meant by 'regular multiplayer'. I've not read that statement. It's ok if all of us veteran players don't want any multiplayer features at all. We aren't the demographic Maxis is trying to reach. Don't worry so many people have said no to multiplayer features, because just like with TS4 there will be a big enough fanbase (new) to buy it, but many of those of us who have said no for twenty years meant no. We won't be around playing it, so it's not going to hurt the new game it will have plenty of a younger generation just like all others to keep it going. Just like TS4 did. Even if it has to be given away for free.

We don't need to understand what they meant we said no to any of it because if I have $10 and have to spend $5 on peanuts and $5 on cashews then I'm not going to have all the cashews I wanted. That's the point. Then if I have $15 and have to fix or add to my peanut pile then I'm not going to have $15 for fixing, mixing and getting more cashews. It's very simple. Single player will lose some of the budget to build any multiplayer side of any game. But don't worry about it, those of us who said no twenty years ago still say no, and the younger generations are welcome to it.
g01denswan
Seasoned Observer
2 years ago
I think you are correct. I think they are also confused about how budgeting works, and about older veteran players not liking TS1 to TS4.