I dunno about that. Most Sims players I know would balk hard at paying for subs AS WELL as Sims’ hideously priced expansions. They’d have to bring expansion prices down if they wanted that to work, I think, which I doubt that they’d do - I’m not even sure it would make more money. People would also become more demanding re: patching/fixes if paying a sub, which would be a problem for the Sims games, all of which have been VERY lazy about fixing even serious and easy-to-replicate bugs.
With Sims they’d be better off with an F2P base game, I suspect. Sub provides a barrier to re-entry (which is a large part of why games go F2P - people would like to play them, but balk at paying $10 or whatever to even SEE if they got good again), but F2P with paid expansion and mini-expansions and so on could do really well IF handled right (which I guarantee EA would NOT do, if they can fuck something up with anything Sim-branded, they manage it). Also Sims players are dramatically less likely to be interested in the other games on the sub than other players.
I’m not sure that’s going to work out in the era of Steam, Humble Bundles, and Amazon. I would be very reluctant to buy a game full/near-full price if it might go on sub, but even more reluctant to spend cash on expensive DLC for a product I only had access to via sub.