I missed it this last time, as I was trying to figure out a way to get it as a gift for my sister. By the time I realized I’d just have to create a brand new account for her, and checked to make sure her computer could run it, I came back and the deal was over.
That said, the way they’re talking about it, it sounds like it’s becoming “free to play,” which would suggest it’s going to be a microtransaction machine rather than keeping the core gameplay.
There are 9000 DLCs already, that’s why they’re making it free to play, in the hopes they get people to like it enough to buy expansions. There’s no need to change the core gameplay.
The Sims fills the MMO itch I have. It’s questing in suburbia, with a reactive world. Like Barbie and Ken in a Lego house. I buy an expansion every so often; it’s within my budget and a good value compared to what I pay. Definitely worth trying for free to see if it you like it.
There was also…
I actually enjoyed it, it felt like a fantasy RPG mixed with The Sims. My only complaint was that it had a definite “end”, unlike most Sims games, and it didn’t take long to get there.
Epic this week seems to be giving away two ACTUAL games: Spirit of the the north and The captain, though mustn’t grumble about other times, they are free after all…
If you bought all the add-ons to the sims 4 on steam today its at least 984$ plus tax that’s just addons…
On the ubisoft store you can get a free Ubisoft+ subscription that last until oct 10. If you choose the premium sub you even get to play them on stadia, googles “Huh, I thought they had abandoned it years ago” game streaming service.
I plan to try out Immortals: Fenyx Rising, I remember it got a lot of good buzz, even from people who generally sneered at Ubisprawl games.
Also play some of Ghost Recon: Wildlands and Breakthrough, both of which I have played in other trial periods and liked, but not enough to outright buy them.
Just to be clear, you have to unsub before the 10. or you will get billed for the next month.
Did you like Breath of the Wild? It really is an attempt to do that, but they were not given a 5-6 year development time, so they made a lot of sacrifices and it does not live up to Breath of the Wild. However, it is a pretty good game and kind of a great achievement under what I bet were difficult circumstances.
If they make a sequel, they should just tell them “yeah, take 5 years and do Breath of the Wild” all in and they might have been able to come close to it.
I do recommend it.
I only have a PC so never played Breath of the Wild. Am about an hour into I:FR, have been into the rift or whatever and now have wings and an axe.
I kind of like the two narrators, but they are really hard to understand and the game is too beautiful to play with subtitles. Are they Zeus and Achilles? My experience tells me most games don’t suffer when if you’re a bit hazy on the lore and background.
Zeus and Prometheus, from what I remember. I played it on the PS when it came, liked it a lot.
Wildlands was a ton of fun, but I didn’t play it in single player mode, I only played with my son and daughter in co-op mode. Breakpoint wasn’t as much fun but we played that in co-op as well.
I played solo, and in solo it is obvious it is meant for coop. In Wildlands the team-mate AI are much better spotters and shooters than me. I like playing it slow and semi-stealthy but I would creep up on an enemy group of buildings, can’t see any enemy soldiers, then bang bang, “Hostile down”, rinse repeat. You could tone down your teammates initiative or tell them to stay behind and cover you, or charge really aggressively and hope they would keep you safe or at least revive you if you were hit. But often I would lean into it and just play the game like a really pretty walking simulator, with occasional fire fights ahead, which would often be over without me playing any role.
When I see the blurry circles showing enemy activity, I hide somewhere and send in a drone to spot everyone first. So I know where everyone is before I engage.
It’s the same thing I do in Assassin’s Creed Oddysey, except in that game it’s an eagle instead of a drone. Same tactic and idea though.
And yeah, I love Ghost Recon: Wildlands. It is free right now with the Xbox Game Pass. Blowing up drug lords in Bolivia is super fun.
I just don’t see how that would work in a Free to Play model unless they also start throwing in incentives to get that content—which usually involves adding frustration mechanics to get you to want to pay to get past the frustration. The Free to Play model depends on whales–addicts who keep funneling in money–to subsidize the free players.
Maybe I might think some more ethical studio might go a different path. But this is EA.
That’s only one way to make money in F2P games, it’s not the only way games make money. They probably figure at this point, everyone that was going to buy Sims 4 already bought it in the last 8 years, so there’s not a big loss in giving it away, and if even a small fraction of the people who try it because it’s free end up buying an expansion, it’s basically free money. And hey, maybe they’ll get hooked and buy like 10 of the damn expansions - in a way, that’s like a whale - letting them in for free ended up earning you a lot more than the cost of the initial game would’ve been.
They don’t do that for Sims 4, but they unlock a TON of content behind the add-ons you have to pay for. And I bought a few things because it really changes the game a lot. Also, my wife and daughter who play sometimes requested some too. They make money by making the not-free stuff very appealing.
It’s kind of like saying, who would ever pay for a game when there are so many free ones available? The games you pay for in many cases are just better, and/or get more hype.
Do you have any examples of games with a different model? Because that is the one I’ve encountered over and over again in every free-to-play game I’ve ever seen. They never just hope you’ll decide on your own to buy stuff. They always psychologically push you to buy stuff through playing the game.
I’m still very suspicious of EA, period, because EA is one of those who championed lootboxes, and those would fit into the Sims pretty easily. And it’s odd that they said there’s more info to come if it’s just going to be that the game is free (and existing customers get some extra goodies).
No, I get that. Those are people who have money to pay for games. Free to play games are lower quality, but you don’t have to pay, which is what lures people in. They then usually nickel and dime you to get more, because you’re more likely to impulsively buy small things.
But that mindset and the expensive expansion pack model doesn’t seem to work. And, sure, maybe they might actually also lower the prices of the expansion packs to less than $40.
I can see there being a small influx of new players who would pay for the expansions. But I don’t see how that’s a sustainable model. And clearly they’re not going to be working on a Sims 5 after making Sims 4 free, so they’d need to be in this for the long haul.
But I’ve gone one long enough on why I suspect that the game could be changing. We’ll just have to wait and see what the announcements are.
They go on sale every now and then.