I skimmed most of the comments. I look at it this way. If there is a team making paid content then that means that I can't view the game as being in early access. That means if game is not considered finished by the company then I want nothing to do with that project until a time where everything is packaged very cheap. I might no longer be interested by then though. This does mean that if I had bought early access and then paid content was added before product is finished then my review/score of the game would change. I am not longer testing all the content so I can no longer give an accurate review. This really just adds to my mistrust of helping a game financially before release. I get burned enough from full release games as is.
there are several things
1. its not a fact but rather a manufactured assumption that early access means one can not create a DLC for the product in question while its in Early Access. Its my VIEW that its not, but there is nothing that suggests that to be a fact that its not.
2. Reviews should at best be reflective of the game play. Reviews of early access games by the nature of it being in early access makes reviews difficult with that said. However it being difficult dosent give one the right (in my view) to write a bad review based on whatsever the fuck the want to from how bad their breakfast was that morning to what developers said about the product.
3. most people do NOT buy early access games with the intent of being a tester. They buy early access games to have fun and play a game. full stop
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You charge for your game and don't wipe progress it's launched. Call it Early Access or Early Enrollment or whatever made up excuse term you want. It's launched. If more articles showed balls like this one maybe the industry wouldn't be filled with apologists at every turn.
Well done.
I dont speak of all gamers but I do speak for a lot. There are a lot of us who dont give a rats ass if the game is called 'early access' or 'nut sacks'
we just care if that game is fun.
You speak for yourself and only yourself. Not a lot. The game wouldn't have tanked in ratings if people didn't care about the change.
I have no inside knowledge of what is going on at WCS, but here is what I suspect is going on. The base game has performance issues, I suspect they have no one on staff that can fix this. As for the DLC Scorched Earth, they must have hired artist to work on the maps, textures, creatures, animations, and AI. That content has to be paid for, because all other money is accounted for and or spent.
This is an indie developed project. By what was a contract house for artist and programmers. Most contract houses are run by HR professional. I'm not sure if the HR team is working in a Game Producer role, but I suspect they have no one with any production management experience.
So far what I have seen, this game is a mod. So many indies feel they can buy the Unreal Engine and mod out a game. This can't be done, for technical reasons. They will have to go to a real contract house and hire an experienced programmer to optimize their game code, but I suspect they can't afford to do that. This why they can release the base game, and start ethically selling DLC and expansions.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
I also dont agree with what they did HOWEVER, I find it sad how gamers mix 'The Game' with 'The Developer'.
The reviews should not change because the pricing model didnt seem fair and people should not be going around saying that they no longer 'enjoy playing the game' because of something I developer did that is related to your wallet but not your game play.
It would be perfect in my mind to keep the two subjects separate. There is the game and how fun it is and then there is developers, developer promises, developers suggestions, pricing models bla bla bla.
as an example in another industry, I might buy a shirt the shirt might be awesome, I love it. the thread is nice, its comfortable and it washes easy. Then I find out its made by slave labor. Well that is bad but the threads dont change, the washablity doesnt change. I should get mad at the company that makes it however reducing its reviews because of slave labor is being dishonest
I do see your point. The game and the developer are two separate things. ARK is a perfect example of this - it's fun with a lot of content, but this Early Access DLC is not a fair move (in my opinion).
The issue is, a Steam Review score is one of the biggest factors driving sales. No matter if you call it a review of the game or a recommendation, bottom line is high scored games will sell more.
If a person is unhappy with a company, I think they have every right to voice their disagreement. If I go to a restaurant and the food is great, but he waiter spits in my face on my way out and wipes my coat in dog poo, I will not be recommending the place to my friends. I will also not rate it 5* on Tripadvisor, just because the food was good.
In the case of Steam, the Steam review is the only real voice the customer has. I think it is also one of the few things that will actually have impact - it directly affects sales, so it matters.
I also dont agree with what they did HOWEVER, I find it sad how gamers mix 'The Game' with 'The Developer'.
The reviews should not change because the pricing model didnt seem fair and people should not be going around saying that they no longer 'enjoy playing the game' because of something I developer did that is related to your wallet but not your game play.
It would be perfect in my mind to keep the two subjects separate. There is the game and how fun it is and then there is developers, developer promises, developers suggestions, pricing models bla bla bla.
as an example in another industry, I might buy a shirt the shirt might be awesome, I love it. the thread is nice, its comfortable and it washes easy. Then I find out its made by slave labor. Well that is bad but the threads dont change, the washablity doesnt change. I should get mad at the company that makes it however reducing its reviews because of slave labor is being dishonest
I do see your point. The game and the developer are two separate things. ARK is a perfect example of this - it's fun with a lot of content, but this Early Access DLC is not a fair move (in my opinion).
The issue is, a Steam Review score is one of the biggest factors driving sales. No matter if you call it a review of the game or a recommendation, bottom line is high scored games will sell more.
If a person is unhappy with a company, I think they have every right to voice their disagreement. If I go to a restaurant and the food is great, but he waiter spits in my face on my way out and wipes my coat in dog poo, I will not be recommending the place to my friends. I will also not rate it 5* on Tripadvisor, just because the food was good.
In the case of Steam, the Steam review is the only real voice the customer has. I think it is also one of the few things that will actually have impact - it directly affects sales, so it matters.
I do not feel that its an ethical way to express ones opinion within the context and doing so ethically when the complaint is about ethics itself is rather important.
I disregard those who do things in this manner.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I've put in over 1300 hours into Vanilla Ark and paid 25 dollars for it. Their release window on updating the game so far has been A class as in NO OTHER COMPANY has come close.
The mob of Steam reviews, and at this point they are all working on mob mentality, they want the expansion to be free. Make a thousand excuses, it all boils down to a sense of entitlement. Simple, nothing more, nothing less. With the level of time I've enjoyed Ark compared to well.., any other game released in the last decade, an extra 20$ for the expansion is, quite literally nothing.
So tell me, what is the difference between Early Access expansion, or day one DLC that is preloaded onto the game? Well, let me tell you, This early access expansion didn't cost you 100+ dollars and has been more thoroughly tested than most other games at release. In other words, I feel MUCH better about paying 45 dollars for Ark+Expansion than I do ANY OTHER AAA game that's been released for a LONG time. I'll also get much more value out of it as well.
Don't even get me started on micro transactions in beta or macro transactions during an ever running kickstarter campaign.
GameByNightHardware and Technology EditorMMORPG.COM Staff, MemberRarePosts: 793
They need more money for development. So what's wrong with whipping up some new content on the side to earn some extra dough. It's all over the place. Wargamming sells gold tanks between patches. Gaijin sells the same stuff. The problem is all the crybaby millennials want everything for free or a 1 time buy in. I remember a time when a sub meant that you really wanted to play a game and kept the games clean. Respectable gamers didn't play non sub games because they fill up with what all the games are full of now, A&&HOLES. When you have nothing invested you have nothing to lose so any rules of decency stop applying. I suggest you not pay the 20 bucks and go play a non buy in game and have fun with that kinda crowd.
The problem is that we've already subsidized their product. They should have managed it better if they actually ran out of money, which I'm not sure is the case.
Also, in reply to another comment, I just want to be very clear that this isn't a review. It's an op-ed.
GameByNightHardware and Technology EditorMMORPG.COM Staff, MemberRarePosts: 793
So its not okay to release paid DLC for a company who isn't getting as much money as you think (look at how much is being taken by Microsoft and them before they get their money), but its perfectly fine for developers to release paid DLC to "finish" a game that was already in full release? I mean really whats the difference? I wasn't really happy to see a paid DLC during early access at first but then I thought to myself, Why not give them a bit more money to help along towards a more finished product upon release. At least the $45 I have put towards the game now with the DLC gives me complete access to the game and I'm not having to pay hundreds of dollars after a $60 to get content for a game that was in "full release" 3 months ago. Stop acting like your entitled to everything, the game was already cheaper than most games of its like on steam, now its cheaper after DLC dropped. These hard working Devs need to make a living as well, they aren't your slaves that just make games when and how you want for no money. Should they have explained their reasoning behind the DLC at this stage better? yes. Do they deserve to be paid for what has been the best DLC I have seen for a game in ages? yes.
and on a final note I am really tired of such whiny articles on this site. I used to come here for great game news and updates on coming features to games I play, now all I see is whine whine whine from what seem to be inexperienced writers. But that's a paragraph for another day.
It's fine that you disagree, but you're also drawing a false comparison and reading a lot into this that isn't there. There is a big difference between post-launch DLC and releasing a "completely finished expansion" pack for a game that's still selling itself as early access. Few, if any, people who bought the game in Early Access did so hoping their money would fund content they would have to pay a second time for. Post-launch DLC does not equate to the current, "hey, we took your money and made a thing you can't actually play unless you pay us 60% more."
Likewise, I reject the idea that Studio Wildcard being completely anti-consumer is the same as being entitled and treating developers like slaves. If the studio didn't have the money to fund the game they wanted to make, it was literally somebody's job to manage the project and scale it back to reality. But again, do we even know that they ran out of money? I don't think they've ever said such a thing. That's just what people are reading into it when it may not be the case at all.
For the record, DLC that "finishes" an already released game is also bad.
I have never been a fan of paid early access for the simple reason that it is too open to the abuse and manipulation of a willing customer base. Behold! The truth has arrived.
I thought Daybreak (formerly SOE) had taken early access to an all new low when they started selling early access kits for yearly expansion packs on existing games (EQ-2). This however puts that marketing scheme to shame. If you need for me to explain why selling expansion packs to an unpublished game is bad for the industry, you may well be part of the problem. It remains to be seen whether distasteful marketing ploys like this one will bring long term good to the producers bottom line but, one thing is for certain; it brings nothing good to the industry itself.
My honest opinion is that the only charge an early access game should ever place upon a player is the initial fee itself and, I'm not really fond even of that. This includes the presence of a cash shop. If a dev and/or producer wishes to "test" the cash shop, they should do it in the pre wipe stage and simply make funds available for testers to make use of.
Call it early access if you wish but, what you are really doing is paying for the right to test a game that may or may not ever see the light of day. If you have actually paid for the right to do this and they come to you with a hand out for yet more funds, alarm bells should be going off in your wallet if not your head.
Sadly, the industry has no reason to discontinue these distasteful tactics so long as players are willing to cough up funds again, and again. If you expect big things from the companies you are funding, you should hold them to that by holding those funds until such time as the company delivers. So long as you are willing to part with real money in exchange for promises and air, promises and air are what you are going to get more often than not.
You charge for your game and don't wipe progress it's launched. Call it Early Access or Early Enrollment or whatever made up excuse term you want. It's launched. If more articles showed balls like this one maybe the industry wouldn't be filled with apologists at every turn.
Well done.
I dont speak of all gamers but I do speak for a lot. There are a lot of us who dont give a rats ass if the game is called 'early access' or 'nut sacks'
we just care if that game is fun.
You speak for yourself and only yourself. Not a lot. The game wouldn't have tanked in ratings if people didn't care about the change.
Obviously there are a lot of people who don't care (what state they consider the base game in ) otherwise the game wouldn't have 50k+ people playing on a given day. Nor would the DLC be in the top sellers on steam.
I've never heard anything but praise for this title up until this article. I could understand outrage if the base title was in shambles, unplayable, etc... Yet prior to this it had mostly positive feedback (many saying things like " No way I'd think this game was Early access without knowing it was") as well as praise for being a great deep game.
A moniker isn't as important as the true quality/state of the overall title.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
^ This one of the worst analogies I've read on MMORPG. No, I'm not going to explain why because it's so silly it doesn't warrant one.
It was so bad, I erased the paragraph I was typing about developers deploying games via piecemeal and pricing. Thanks mate.
basically
reducing the review score because of bad business practices is being woefully dishonest as a gamer
Wrong, it has everything to do with the review process and score, you cannot separate the two. And I also will not explain why because is should be obvious.
So its not okay to release paid DLC for a company who isn't getting as much money as you think (look at how much is being taken by Microsoft and them before they get their money), but its perfectly fine for developers to release paid DLC to "finish" a game that was already in full release? I mean really whats the difference? I wasn't really happy to see a paid DLC during early access at first but then I thought to myself, Why not give them a bit more money to help along towards a more finished product upon release. At least the $45 I have put towards the game now with the DLC gives me complete access to the game and I'm not having to pay hundreds of dollars after a $60 to get content for a game that was in "full release" 3 months ago. Stop acting like your entitled to everything, the game was already cheaper than most games of its like on steam, now its cheaper after DLC dropped. These hard working Devs need to make a living as well, they aren't your slaves that just make games when and how you want for no money. Should they have explained their reasoning behind the DLC at this stage better? yes. Do they deserve to be paid for what has been the best DLC I have seen for a game in ages? yes.
and on a final note I am really tired of such whiny articles on this site. I used to come here for great game news and updates on coming features to games I play, now all I see is whine whine whine from what seem to be inexperienced writers. But that's a paragraph for another day.
It's fine that you disagree, but you're also drawing a false comparison and reading a lot into this that isn't there.
. Post-launch DLC does not equate to the current, "hey, we took your money and made a thing you can't actually play unless you pay us 60% more."
^ Pot meet kettle?
Your statement is completely false. You can play the original game just fine and the amount of playable content in that original game that you paid 10-25 dollars for has more content in it than most games that release at 60$ now a days.
If you want to fling crap, at least make sure your crap is correct.
The game Triple Town ran low on money. They released on iOS. When people questioned the fact that there are little updates on PC, the dev came out. He said updates on PC are losing them money, that they are doing their best to generate income through iOS, that they will do their best to keep up with the PC updates as money allows.
I think most people understood and were OK with it.
The ARK developers are coming up with some bullshit arguments. Apparently they need to "test the DLC compatibility" before they come out of early access. We know nothing about the future plans, how they plan to support the main game (or the DLC for that matter) or if there will be more DLCs in the near future.
Bought Ark myself. Had fun but the bugs and server issue's should have been FIXED at least by now, but no, they had put all that on HOLD to make a DLC and charge for it. I refuse to buy this DLC, and it affects the main game when it brought many many bugs to the table once again. A game in EA should NEVER have a pay DLC released. It should have been held back untill the game was fully Released, and thats when the bugs in that are ironed out. Now it brought several bugs to the main game and alot more in teh DLC itself. This includes saving your character and taking it to the DLC (or vice versa) for it to become lost and unable to be used (bugged and basically you lose your character) forums are littered with complaints about this.
The bugs and server issue's is why my review was negative, what was goign to be changed to possitive before teh DLC but somethign cropped up, then i had Internet woe's, my review for now will remain negative on that game.
^ This one of the worst analogies I've read on MMORPG. No, I'm not going to explain why because it's so silly it doesn't warrant one.
It was so bad, I erased the paragraph I was typing about developers deploying games via piecemeal and pricing. Thanks mate.
basically
reducing the review score because of bad business practices is being woefully dishonest as a gamer
I think it's entirely suitable for someone to no longer recommend a game (the way current steam reviews operate) because they have a beef with its company's business practices. You might have a point if someone goes ahead and puts down 3/10 for every single aspect of the game but that isn't the case right now, is it?
well
1. I don't see a game review as a question of recommendation 2. I don't agree with you even if it is
a game review should review the game...simple. not the business.
I want to know of the car is good, not if the car was made by slave labor or not. that is a different question that deserves answers but its doesn't affect if the car is good or not
So you do not want to know or care if the car is made by slaves? That sir makes you an ignorant prick I'm sad to say and would equate to you supporting slavery. I recommend you just stop right now as you obviously have very little clue what is going on here especially when you condone slavery by proxy. Also YOU are now part of the problem and are part of the root cause that allow companies to think they can get away with shonky business practices like this...sigh. Driving around in a car made by slaves and knowing it is made by slaves, and that knowledge has no effect on your enjoyment of the product makes you morally defunct and again PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Wait, Steam reviews used to prove a point rather than review a product?
Never seen that before...
I don't agree with them charging for a DLC under the banner of Early Access but the reviews should be used to rate the product as-is for the price being charged. Thing is attempting to dive the reviews is the easiest and most pronounced way for them to show their displeasure so I see why they are doing it.
They shouldn't be, however.
GameByNightHardware and Technology EditorMMORPG.COM Staff, MemberRarePosts: 793
So its not okay to release paid DLC for a company who isn't getting as much money as you think (look at how much is being taken by Microsoft and them before they get their money), but its perfectly fine for developers to release paid DLC to "finish" a game that was already in full release? I mean really whats the difference? I wasn't really happy to see a paid DLC during early access at first but then I thought to myself, Why not give them a bit more money to help along towards a more finished product upon release. At least the $45 I have put towards the game now with the DLC gives me complete access to the game and I'm not having to pay hundreds of dollars after a $60 to get content for a game that was in "full release" 3 months ago. Stop acting like your entitled to everything, the game was already cheaper than most games of its like on steam, now its cheaper after DLC dropped. These hard working Devs need to make a living as well, they aren't your slaves that just make games when and how you want for no money. Should they have explained their reasoning behind the DLC at this stage better? yes. Do they deserve to be paid for what has been the best DLC I have seen for a game in ages? yes.
and on a final note I am really tired of such whiny articles on this site. I used to come here for great game news and updates on coming features to games I play, now all I see is whine whine whine from what seem to be inexperienced writers. But that's a paragraph for another day.
It's fine that you disagree, but you're also drawing a false comparison and reading a lot into this that isn't there.
. Post-launch DLC does not equate to the current, "hey, we took your money and made a thing you can't actually play unless you pay us 60% more."
^ Pot meet kettle?
Your statement is completely false. You can play the original game just fine and the amount of playable content in that original game that you paid 10-25 dollars for has more content in it than most games that release at 60$ now a days.
If you want to fling crap, at least make sure your crap is correct.
Who was flinging crap? And you're still drawing false equivalencies. This is not about what base ARK does or does not have or a comparison of its content load compared to other games. This is about the prime, important difference between releasing DLC for a finished game (acceptable, the inherent promise of a complete game is fulfilled) and releasing an "expansion pack" for an unfinished, unoptimized/poorly performing game that took funds from customers to contribute toward its completion. Taking that money and developing a separate addon they will not have access to without paying a second time, and one whose players will transfer their dinos back from, is ethically questionable, which is the entire reason nearly 12k steam reviews in 16 days have severely dropped their rating.
To be clear, I am not personally attacking you, so let's both try to be lighthearted on this. :-)
^ This one of the worst analogies I've read on MMORPG. No, I'm not going to explain why because it's so silly it doesn't warrant one.
It was so bad, I erased the paragraph I was typing about developers deploying games via piecemeal and pricing. Thanks mate.
basically
reducing the review score because of bad business practices is being woefully dishonest as a gamer
I think it's entirely suitable for someone to no longer recommend a game (the way current steam reviews operate) because they have a beef with its company's business practices. You might have a point if someone goes ahead and puts down 3/10 for every single aspect of the game but that isn't the case right now, is it?
well
1. I dont see a game review as a question of recomendation 2. I dont agree with you even if it is
a game review should review the game...simple. not the business.
I want to know of the car is good, not if the car was made by slave labor or not. that is a different question that deserves answers but its doesnt affect if the car is good or not
Here is a problem with this type of thinking. The method of charging for a game is part of a review. If a developer is not working on the base game that people paid for, but instead using money they already received to work on something else, that is a basic ponzi scheme. You should not be able to release new paid content until you have first finished what you basically sold customers the first time. Basically it is a way of saying this game will never come out of early access because as long as it stays there they can't really be held to a released games standards. But unfortunately for today's developers people are getting tired of that and now it is part of the review process. I don't care how good gameplay may or may not be the method of charging is a part of a review. And giving a game bad marks for releasing new content before finishing older content or working out major bugs is by far the right way to go. I am not going to go in and give a game with decent gameplay bad marks for the gameplay but you can sure as hell bet that the review will contain a section about charging for extras while still in development cycle just like any other review.
Overall in this case they should have just said the game was released and the next day announced a paid xpac or DLC. That would have avoided this entire ponzi scheme discussion to begin with.
One poster mentions that we should separate the game from the developer,i disagree big time and i cannot do so. The game is a virtual entity it is not human and we cannot point fingers at a game because it is under full control of the developer.
I also cannot stand people constantly supporting these KS's and early access,it is without question VERY poor standards to live by.You ruin it for the entire industry,especially those that are way more legit and honest.You are supporting deceptive business practices,something i will NEVER agree with.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It goes to ALL of it. ARK is a garbage game right now. FPS is going lower and lower despite their claims they are making it better. Bugs that have existed since day one still getting ignored. continually releasing new dinosaurs and/or items mod makers added to the game months ago and calling it 'content'. Which is another thing, for the past 9 months, maybe even a year the bulk of the actual 'content' has been made by mod makers. The only thing WC has produced are new skins for dinos.
Even most of the DLC they just sold was borrowed from mod makers. Mostly Annunaki Genesis. The fantasy creatures in it are also jut reskinned dinos.
Game has alot of issues and the fact that those issues grow more and more the more they add ot the game should be a concern for everyone.
It obviously has alot of positives, unfortunately none of them have anything to do with the actual developers.
Comments
1. its not a fact but rather a manufactured assumption that early access means one can not create a DLC for the product in question while its in Early Access. Its my VIEW that its not, but there is nothing that suggests that to be a fact that its not.
2. Reviews should at best be reflective of the game play. Reviews of early access games by the nature of it being in early access makes reviews difficult with that said. However it being difficult dosent give one the right (in my view) to write a bad review based on whatsever the fuck the want to from how bad their breakfast was that morning to what developers said about the product.
3. most people do NOT buy early access games with the intent of being a tester. They buy early access games to have fun and play a game. full stop
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This is an indie developed project. By what was a contract house for artist and programmers. Most contract houses are run by HR professional. I'm not sure if the HR team is working in a Game Producer role, but I suspect they have no one with any production management experience.
So far what I have seen, this game is a mod. So many indies feel they can buy the Unreal Engine and mod out a game. This can't be done, for technical reasons. They will have to go to a real contract house and hire an experienced programmer to optimize their game code, but I suspect they can't afford to do that. This why they can release the base game, and start ethically selling DLC and expansions.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The issue is, a Steam Review score is one of the biggest factors driving sales. No matter if you call it a review of the game or a recommendation, bottom line is high scored games will sell more.
If a person is unhappy with a company, I think they have every right to voice their disagreement. If I go to a restaurant and the food is great, but he waiter spits in my face on my way out and wipes my coat in dog poo, I will not be recommending the place to my friends. I will also not rate it 5* on Tripadvisor, just because the food was good.
In the case of Steam, the Steam review is the only real voice the customer has. I think it is also one of the few things that will actually have impact - it directly affects sales, so it matters.
http://imgur.com/a/Np9sa
Current games playing: MechWarrior Online
Games being watched: Project Genom
Favorite played games: SWG, RomaVictor, and Xsyon
I disregard those who do things in this manner.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The mob of Steam reviews, and at this point they are all working on mob mentality, they want the expansion to be free. Make a thousand excuses, it all boils down to a sense of entitlement. Simple, nothing more, nothing less. With the level of time I've enjoyed Ark compared to well.., any other game released in the last decade, an extra 20$ for the expansion is, quite literally nothing.
So tell me, what is the difference between Early Access expansion, or day one DLC that is preloaded onto the game? Well, let me tell you, This early access expansion didn't cost you 100+ dollars and has been more thoroughly tested than most other games at release. In other words, I feel MUCH better about paying 45 dollars for Ark+Expansion than I do ANY OTHER AAA game that's been released for a LONG time. I'll also get much more value out of it as well.
Don't even get me started on micro transactions in beta or macro transactions during an ever running kickstarter campaign.
The problem is that we've already subsidized their product. They should have managed it better if they actually ran out of money, which I'm not sure is the case.
Also, in reply to another comment, I just want to be very clear that this isn't a review. It's an op-ed.
It's fine that you disagree, but you're also drawing a false comparison and reading a lot into this that isn't there. There is a big difference between post-launch DLC and releasing a "completely finished expansion" pack for a game that's still selling itself as early access. Few, if any, people who bought the game in Early Access did so hoping their money would fund content they would have to pay a second time for. Post-launch DLC does not equate to the current, "hey, we took your money and made a thing you can't actually play unless you pay us 60% more."
Likewise, I reject the idea that Studio Wildcard being completely anti-consumer is the same as being entitled and treating developers like slaves. If the studio didn't have the money to fund the game they wanted to make, it was literally somebody's job to manage the project and scale it back to reality. But again, do we even know that they ran out of money? I don't think they've ever said such a thing. That's just what people are reading into it when it may not be the case at all.
For the record, DLC that "finishes" an already released game is also bad.
I have never been a fan of paid early access for the simple reason that it is too open to the abuse and manipulation of a willing customer base. Behold! The truth has arrived.
I thought Daybreak (formerly SOE) had taken early access to an all new low when they started selling early access kits for yearly expansion packs on existing games (EQ-2). This however puts that marketing scheme to shame. If you need for me to explain why selling expansion packs to an unpublished game is bad for the industry, you may well be part of the problem. It remains to be seen whether distasteful marketing ploys like this one will bring long term good to the producers bottom line but, one thing is for certain; it brings nothing good to the industry itself.
My honest opinion is that the only charge an early access game should ever place upon a player is the initial fee itself and, I'm not really fond even of that. This includes the presence of a cash shop. If a dev and/or producer wishes to "test" the cash shop, they should do it in the pre wipe stage and simply make funds available for testers to make use of.
Call it early access if you wish but, what you are really doing is paying for the right to test a game that may or may not ever see the light of day. If you have actually paid for the right to do this and they come to you with a hand out for yet more funds, alarm bells should be going off in your wallet if not your head.
Sadly, the industry has no reason to discontinue these distasteful tactics so long as players are willing to cough up funds again, and again. If you expect big things from the companies you are funding, you should hold them to that by holding those funds until such time as the company delivers. So long as you are willing to part with real money in exchange for promises and air, promises and air are what you are going to get more often than not.
I've never heard anything but praise for this title up until this article. I could understand outrage if the base title was in shambles, unplayable, etc... Yet prior to this it had mostly positive feedback (many saying things like " No way I'd think this game was Early access without knowing it was") as well as praise for being a great deep game.
A moniker isn't as important as the true quality/state of the overall title.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Your statement is completely false. You can play the original game just fine and the amount of playable content in that original game that you paid 10-25 dollars for has more content in it than most games that release at 60$ now a days.
If you want to fling crap, at least make sure your crap is correct.
The game Triple Town ran low on money. They released on iOS. When people questioned the fact that there are little updates on PC, the dev came out. He said updates on PC are losing them money, that they are doing their best to generate income through iOS, that they will do their best to keep up with the PC updates as money allows.
I think most people understood and were OK with it.
The ARK developers are coming up with some bullshit arguments. Apparently they need to "test the DLC compatibility" before they come out of early access. We know nothing about the future plans, how they plan to support the main game (or the DLC for that matter) or if there will be more DLCs in the near future.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
I refuse to buy this DLC, and it affects the main game when it brought many many bugs to the table once again.
A game in EA should NEVER have a pay DLC released. It should have been held back untill the game was fully Released, and thats when the bugs in that are ironed out. Now it brought several bugs to the main game and alot more in teh DLC itself.
This includes saving your character and taking it to the DLC (or vice versa) for it to become lost and unable to be used (bugged and basically you lose your character) forums are littered with complaints about this.
The bugs and server issue's is why my review was negative, what was goign to be changed to possitive before teh DLC but somethign cropped up, then i had Internet woe's, my review for now will remain negative on that game.
So you do not want to know or care if the car is made by slaves? That sir makes you an ignorant prick I'm sad to say and would equate to you supporting slavery. I recommend you just stop right now as you obviously have very little clue what is going on here especially when you condone slavery by proxy. Also YOU are now part of the problem and are part of the root cause that allow companies to think they can get away with shonky business practices like this...sigh. Driving around in a car made by slaves and knowing it is made by slaves, and that knowledge has no effect on your enjoyment of the product makes you morally defunct and again PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Wait, Steam reviews used to prove a point rather than review a product?
Never seen that before...
I don't agree with them charging for a DLC under the banner of Early Access but the reviews should be used to rate the product as-is for the price being charged. Thing is attempting to dive the reviews is the easiest and most pronounced way for them to show their displeasure so I see why they are doing it.
They shouldn't be, however.
To be clear, I am not personally attacking you, so let's both try to be lighthearted on this. :-)
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Overall in this case they should have just said the game was released and the next day announced a paid xpac or DLC. That would have avoided this entire ponzi scheme discussion to begin with.
The game is a virtual entity it is not human and we cannot point fingers at a game because it is under full control of the developer.
I also cannot stand people constantly supporting these KS's and early access,it is without question VERY poor standards to live by.You ruin it for the entire industry,especially those that are way more legit and honest.You are supporting deceptive business practices,something i will NEVER agree with.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Even most of the DLC they just sold was borrowed from mod makers. Mostly Annunaki Genesis. The fantasy creatures in it are also jut reskinned dinos.
Game has alot of issues and the fact that those issues grow more and more the more they add ot the game should be a concern for everyone.
It obviously has alot of positives, unfortunately none of them have anything to do with the actual developers.