"JAL;c-18212967" wrote:
@honeywitch I think it is sad, and quite depressing, that we find a reasonable sized basegame to be unrealistic and that we are so used to poor performing games that large=bad quality and lack of depth. I have to say I haven't encountered that anywhere else than here with sims or pehaps EA (this is the only EA game I play). Most games I play are big, and get bigger with every new game, and if a game has poor performance, people do not buy it, but wait for the next one. It's incredibly depressing to see that so many of us are willing to accept that bugs, poor performance, lagging issues and lack of depth is a state of normal, and while we complain, we still buy everything they churn out. No wonder EA doesn't need to focus on quality and depth and a rich contet. We'll buy scraps apparently.
These are exactly my thoughts, it's so strange to see the sims community instinctively settling and expecting less.
Regardless, my main point that I was trying to make with this thread is the developers can make a fairly substantial base game, with things like seasons and pets, and STILL make dlc that's themed around seasons and pets. They can stick with their formula of reselling popular themes even with the themes already present in the base game.
And as others have mentioned, with optional toggles to turn certain features on or off would solve the whole "pick and choose" argument some are making in favour of buyable dlc. Just because the features are in the game doesn't mean you as a player have to use them. The point of having all these features to begin with is to give players options and variety to suit their gameplay style, whatever gameplay style that may be. I own a sizable amount of packs for Sims 4 but I pick and choose what content I want to use or ignore.
