Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Retail Release Pushed Back to August 29th - ARK: Survival Evolved - MMORPG.com

SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,126

imageRetail Release Pushed Back to August 29th - ARK: Survival Evolved - MMORPG.com

ARK: Survival Evolved News - Studio Wildcard has announced that the ARK: Survival Evolved retail release date has been pushed back to August 29th, three weeks later than the original August 8th release. The delay came at the hands of Gold Master certification taking longer than anticipated.

Read the full story here



¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


Comments

  • cylon8cylon8 Member UncommonPosts: 362
    this official has me not playing ark anymore enough is enugh
    wekyRexKushmanTokken

    so say we all

  • AlbatroesAlbatroes Member LegendaryPosts: 7,284
    So the "official" release is pushed back, yet the price is still 59.99$ lol? which I might add, does not include the expansion. So you'd have to pay 79.99$? Who do these guys think they are? EA?
    Joseph_KerrlaxieTokken
  • GrandpaDJGrandpaDJ Member UncommonPosts: 123
    It doesn't happen very often for me...
    "This game looks awesome."
    "But its in EA and there is tons of drama, performance issues, and paid DLC already."
    "I'll pass."
    One of the very few bullets I dodged...
  • RufusUORufusUO Member UncommonPosts: 37
    Played Ark for ~60 hours, ultimately decided it wasn't worth the hassle. Admittedly, the biggest hurdle for me staying involved is how time-consuming the 'fun' is... there's no such thing as casually playing Ark for a couple hours a week, at least if you want to stay relevant on your server. "Play solo!" you say? Meh, survival is much more fun when you're trying to do it with a group. Overall, I just wasn't impressed and probably would've played far fewer hours if I wasn't perpetually convinced that my grinding would pay off (hint: it didn't).
  • borghive49borghive49 Member RarePosts: 420
    edited July 2017
    I never played a game where you can play for hours on end and lose that progress in just a few minutes. Between the toxic official servers and the flaky admins that run private servers, finding a good home in this game can be a real pita as well.
  • Mackaveli44Mackaveli44 Member RarePosts: 655
    This is the first game that I really liked and put hundreds and hundreds of hours into that I truly am disappointed that they not only raised the price but did it when the game is not even close to being a launch title. Server lag, server crashes, server instability has plagued Ark since the beginning. Disappointed they still haven't done anything about it and are now asking for 60 bucks for the game when it shouldn't
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    cylon8 said:
    this official has me not playing ark anymore enough is enugh
    not that anyone is bothered by a one sale loss on a game like Ark but I gotta ask.

    you where playing but now you want to stop because the same code is not in a 'released' state.

    do I have that right?

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • AnirethAnireth Member UncommonPosts: 940
    Wow, $60. Good thing i bought it months ago when it was way cheaper. It had (and probably has) it's issues, but still played several hundred hours. So i certainly got enough out of it. Who knows, might pick it up again sometime.

    About servers: Just make your own. If your computer can't handle it (bought it last year, or maybe even in the last two years? It probably can), rent one. As low as €10/month is enough for a small one. And if you have too many friends, so you need a bigger one, it's actually cheaper per person. You just need to get them to actually contribute in some way. Maybe gift you a game, or share their Netflix acc or whatever.

    Or maybe you have a server anyways because you run Counterstrike, Minecraft, Rust, who knows what. Ark Server Manager really makes it easy to do your own. No need to use the official ones.

    I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
    And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
    Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
    And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Anireth said:
    Wow, $60. Good thing i bought it months ago when it was way cheaper. It had (and probably has) it's issues, but still played several hundred hours. So i certainly got enough out of it. Who knows, might pick it up again sometime.

    About servers: Just make your own. If your computer can't handle it (bought it last year, or maybe even in the last two years? It probably can), rent one. As low as €10/month is enough for a small one. And if you have too many friends, so you need a bigger one, it's actually cheaper per person. You just need to get them to actually contribute in some way. Maybe gift you a game, or share their Netflix acc or whatever.

    Or maybe you have a server anyways because you run Counterstrike, Minecraft, Rust, who knows what. Ark Server Manager really makes it easy to do your own. No need to use the official ones.

    game has always been high on my radar but I never got around to it.
    The explosion of good games over the past 3 years has completely overwhelmed me I just dont have time to get to all of them, at least with any depth they would deserve (currently playing Rimworld and totlally hooked)

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • laxielaxie Member RarePosts: 1,065
    To me, ARK is a prime example where the product is great, but the developer is shady.

    The game is actually a lot of fun. I have tried lots of survival games and ARK seems to have the most content hands down. This is especially true for the PvE chunk of the game. The graphics are great, the gameplay is fun and the world is pretty expansive. My experience hasn't been very buggy either - it seems to run reasonably well.

    But man, the company is like an abomination from the underworld. The Lead Designer of ARK used to work at Trendy Entertainment before; during his time there, many of the Trendy employees came forward about terrible working conditions. Multiple sources made it sound like a terrible workplace. The same person was then sued for taking Trendy's code and using it in ARK. The lawsuit was settled out of court with a compensation to Trendy.

    Then you had the whole fiasco with the paid expansion. I found that really questionable, branching the game to develop a stand alone expansion not part of the base game's purchase, years before the early-access product is even released. Now the price hike to 60$ - apparently due to console pricing parity, which is fair enough ... but given the company's track record, it's not surprising they want to milk more money from people.

    I'm only surprised original backers don't have to retrospectively pay the 60$ difference.
  • coretex666coretex666 Member EpicPosts: 3,838
    If the post-launch reviews are good, I will probably try this game out.
  • TokkenTokken Member RarePosts: 2,519
    edited July 2017
    So the "official" release is pushed back, not surprised!

    I love the game and I was glad to watch it "evolve" over time. It's been a long hard road, but IMHO it was worth it. Also, I got it for cheap at the beginning but was appalled by the expansion (cash grab) during the early access period.
    Make PvE GREAT Again!
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    laxie said:
    To me, ARK is a prime example where the product is great, but the developer is shady.

    The game is actually a lot of fun. I have tried lots of survival games and ARK seems to have the most content hands down. This is especially true for the PvE chunk of the game. The graphics are great, the gameplay is fun and the world is pretty expansive. My experience hasn't been very buggy either - it seems to run reasonably well.

    But man, the company is like an abomination from the underworld. The Lead Designer of ARK used to work at Trendy Entertainment before; during his time there, many of the Trendy employees came forward about terrible working conditions. Multiple sources made it sound like a terrible workplace. The same person was then sued for taking Trendy's code and using it in ARK. The lawsuit was settled out of court with a compensation to Trendy.

    Then you had the whole fiasco with the paid expansion. I found that really questionable, branching the game to develop a stand alone expansion not part of the base game's purchase, years before the early-access product is even released. Now the price hike to 60$ - apparently due to console pricing parity, which is fair enough ... but given the company's track record, it's not surprising they want to milk more money from people.

    I'm only surprised original backers don't have to retrospectively pay the 60$ difference.
    I think the SJW would be spent better fighting on topics that are more important than gaming.

    What I mean is as a gamer do you really want to restrict your fun because of business practices of a developer and is this the one area of SJW where you want to focus your power instead of something more important than games...

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,826
    I haven't followed this as I don't really do survival titles. I used to love the old style sandbox MMOs so I imagine there might be something in the title I would enjoy. But......you mean to tell me, this game isn't even released and there is a paid DLC on top of the game still in EA? How does that work? (Obviously quite well for this title) Are we that hard up for a game that we support this kind of bullshit?
    Torvallaxiesaintriku92
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    I haven't followed this as I don't really do survival titles. I used to love the old style sandbox MMOs so I imagine there might be something in the title I would enjoy. But......you mean to tell me, this game isn't even released and there is a paid DLC on top of the game still in EA? How does that work? (Obviously quite well for this title) Are we that hard up for a game that we support this kind of bullshit?
    you got to be joking me...

    Did you know that Fortnite is an early access title that you have to buy but the game is Free to Play?

    I dont give a dick about Ark or DLC but being a SJW at the expense of your gaming fun because you dont like the idea of a developer working on a DLC while they are working on the same game because of reasons is silly

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,826
    SEANMCAD said:
    I haven't followed this as I don't really do survival titles. I used to love the old style sandbox MMOs so I imagine there might be something in the title I would enjoy. But......you mean to tell me, this game isn't even released and there is a paid DLC on top of the game still in EA? How does that work? (Obviously quite well for this title) Are we that hard up for a game that we support this kind of bullshit?
    you got to be joking me...

    Did you know that Fortnite is an early access title that you have to buy but the game is Free to Play?

    I dont give a dick about Ark or DLC but being a SJW at the expense of your gaming fun because you dont like the idea of a developer working on a DLC while they are working on the same game because of reasons is silly
    The game is not released.....They charge for it......then they charge for more development.....of a game that isn't released........

    Asking why we support this bullshit is silly to you? Then you are the reason we have this bullshit in the 1st place and why these studios can charge $70.00 for a game that should have been valued at half to a 3rd of that.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    SEANMCAD said:
    I haven't followed this as I don't really do survival titles. I used to love the old style sandbox MMOs so I imagine there might be something in the title I would enjoy. But......you mean to tell me, this game isn't even released and there is a paid DLC on top of the game still in EA? How does that work? (Obviously quite well for this title) Are we that hard up for a game that we support this kind of bullshit?
    you got to be joking me...

    Did you know that Fortnite is an early access title that you have to buy but the game is Free to Play?

    I dont give a dick about Ark or DLC but being a SJW at the expense of your gaming fun because you dont like the idea of a developer working on a DLC while they are working on the same game because of reasons is silly
    The game is not released.....They charge for it......then they charge for more development.....of a game that isn't released........

    Asking why we support this bullshit is silly to you? Then you are the reason we have this bullshit in the 1st place and why these studios can charge $70.00 for a game that should have been valued at half to a 3rd of that.
    very simply why does that matter?

    specifically articulate why it matters that a developer is working on a DLC while the game is being worked on that makes buying it a deal breaker for you. please be specific, concises and not abstract, be as concrete in your reason as possible.

    and number 2:
    dont you think its better to just buy what you find is fun and stop trying to be a SJW worried about the most noble support you can give? its a fucking video game for fuck sake, you likely have more injustices in the shoe you bought then this game does

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • laxielaxie Member RarePosts: 1,065
    I think when buying into an Early-Access title, there is an expectation that your money goes towards finishing said title. Companies in Early Access are often marketing the end goal, which means the customer is, in part, buying the end goal and not the product in its current state.

    It is then disingenuous to sell Early Access products and use the revenue to build a separate product that the customer is not getting.

    It comes down to how you view Early Access. If you think customers should expect nothing beyond what's in the game at the time of their purchase, then it's fine to invest the revenue elsewhere - the customer knew what was delivered at the time of purchase. I would argue that is not the case, as most Early Access titles list features that are not in the game yet. Some games are put into EA very early on in the development cycle, meaning the majority of the outlined features are not in yet. The Steam Store page and the game's description promise features that will take months (sometimes years) to develop. So my point is: the developer is advertising and selling a game in a future state (a pre-order of sorts).

    When the developer then starts investing money into developing new products, while your title is still in Early Access, I think there is legitimate cause for concern about the developer's ability/intention to deliver your product in its full state.

    As a caveat, I don't think ARK is a good example. ARK actually delivered a good amount of content to the base game in spite of the paid DLC. But I think it's an exception - I fundamentally disagree with the practice. Planetary Annihilation comes to mind, which was a strategy game in Early Access. They sold a good amount of EA pledges (and Kickstarter pledges), but relatively early in the development cycle started creating a second game with the Planetary Annihilation money. When PA then officially released, it was missing some key features and was relatively unstable.

    I think when you purchase game X in Early Access, you hope your money goes towards getting the full game X. Seeing your money going towards game Y, that will be sold separately, is hard to swallow.
    Torvalaustinmaw
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited July 2017
    laxie said:
    I think when buying into an Early-Access title, there is an expectation that your money goes towards finishing said title. Companies in Early Access are often marketing the end goal, which means the customer is, in part, buying the end goal and not the product in its current state.

    It is then disingenuous to sell Early Access products and use the revenue to build a separate product that the customer is not getting.

    however, I think the money for the DLC came from purchases of the DLC but not sure.

     regardless of that I think its silly to make a DLC while the game is being worked on in any context but its far from a level of outrage. its not like slave labor or something get a fucking grip.

     what about charging people $80 to buy a game you tell them is going to be free to play? isnt that just about as silly?

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • laxielaxie Member RarePosts: 1,065
    SEANMCAD said:
    however, I think the money for the DLC came from purchases of the DLC but not sure.

     regardless of that I think its silly to make a DLC while the game is being worked on in any context but its far from a level of outrage. its not like slave labor or something get a fucking grip.

     what about charging people $80 to buy a game you tell them is going to be free to play? isnt that just about as silly?
    You're definitely right. There is a lot wrong with our world today, and issues like these are completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I think most people on MMORPG.com are fairly level headed, compared to what I'm reading on Steam Forums for example. People here are merely stating it's a practice they disagree with (the same way you disagree with a $80 free-to-play buy in).

    On a different note, I think the two of us differ when it comes to purchasing ideology. I partly buy products because I agree/disagree with whoever is making them. This is especially true for games. My reasoning is that if I like something, I buy it because I want to see more of it. If I don't like something, I don't buy it, because I don't want to contribute to spreading the framework that created it.

    For example, I really like the development of Crowfall. The developers, to me, come across as genuinely interested in the community. I pledged at a fairly high level, even though the game itself is only somewhat interesting to me.
    Torval
  • Mange1Mange1 Member UncommonPosts: 265



    SEANMCAD said:



    I haven't followed this as I don't really do survival titles. I used to love the old style sandbox MMOs so I imagine there might be something in the title I would enjoy. But......you mean to tell me, this game isn't even released and there is a paid DLC on top of the game still in EA? How does that work? (Obviously quite well for this title) Are we that hard up for a game that we support this kind of bullshit?


    you got to be joking me...

    Did you know that Fortnite is an early access title that you have to buy but the game is Free to Play?

    I dont give a dick about Ark or DLC but being a SJW at the expense of your gaming fun because you dont like the idea of a developer working on a DLC while they are working on the same game because of reasons is silly


    The game is not released.....They charge for it......then they charge for more development.....of a game that isn't released........

    Asking why we support this bullshit is silly to you? Then you are the reason we have this bullshit in the 1st place and why these studios can charge $70.00 for a game that should have been valued at half to a 3rd of that.



    While you do have a point you previously stated that you haven't played the game and that's made evident by your final comment, the game is worth more than 23$ by far. It certainly has the content of a 60$ game and then some, I haven't played this game in years but at the time the price you paid for the speedy content (new dinosaurs) was a steal.

    Releasing a paid DLC in EA is shady AF but don't let anyone lie to you, the game is loaded with content and outside of server crashes still happening its a great game. That's with me only factoring in the content from 2015, only way my statement could be incorrect is if they've done nothing but remove content since then which obviously is not the case.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    laxie said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    however, I think the money for the DLC came from purchases of the DLC but not sure.

     regardless of that I think its silly to make a DLC while the game is being worked on in any context but its far from a level of outrage. its not like slave labor or something get a fucking grip.

     what about charging people $80 to buy a game you tell them is going to be free to play? isnt that just about as silly?
    You're definitely right. There is a lot wrong with our world today, and issues like these are completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I think most people on MMORPG.com are fairly level headed, compared to what I'm reading on Steam Forums for example. People here are merely stating it's a practice they disagree with (the same way you disagree with a $80 free-to-play buy in).

    On a different note, I think the two of us differ when it comes to purchasing ideology. I partly buy products because I agree/disagree with whoever is making them. This is especially true for games. My reasoning is that if I like something, I buy it because I want to see more of it. If I don't like something, I don't buy it, because I don't want to contribute to spreading the framework that created it.

    For example, I really like the development of Crowfall. The developers, to me, come across as genuinely interested in the community. I pledged at a fairly high level, even though the game itself is only somewhat interesting to me.
    no that is not correct.

    I have no problem with F2P, I have no problem with charging for a F2P game while its in early access, I have no problem with Casino.

    What I have a problem with is moralists saying its wrong to do for one game but not wrong to do for another game.

    The hypocrisy is blinding painfully obvious here.

    Its like saying 'our community has all agreed that its unethical for other people to walk into an house unannounced because its rude'
    (wait 5 mins)
    'oh except for Epic' because they are cool.

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

Sign In or Register to comment.