If it was full price I could see the outrage, but it's the cost of a DLC for ARK, so even if that is what you are technically getting why is it a huge deal? But I mean, people knew it was Wildcard, people know how buggy ARK still is even after years, and you could see footage (even if it wasn't entirely accurate) that looked similar to ARK.
I still want to play it, I just have a hard time dropping any money into it until I know I won't have my ship blow up randomly (which I've read has happened a couple times?) after putting time into grinding out mats for it.
Maybe folks were expecting the dev to improve the performance and optimization stuff since they've had years and an entire game worth of experience now?
Better question is why do we allow dev studio to make the same bullshit mistakes and moves, but then blame consumers for calling them out on it? Is it because it has those two very important words on the Steam store page? Didn't ARK have those words too, even after releasing paid DLC?
Enough really is enough. No one made gamers buy it, sure, but no one forced the studio to hype it with a week turn around and release it into EA, either.
When you have to change the name of your company because you were sued for intellectual property theft and had to pay out 40 million in damages, that doesn't instill confidence in those of us who are rational thinkers.
I'll watch the games progress over the next twelve months and then make my judgments at that point. As of right now these developers have a storied history of being dishonest, deceitful and purposefully misleading customers to drive sales.
you know why this wos relesed so erly christmas bonus paychek that all the greed y publisher culd write him self bonus for christmas for relising unfinished game w8 not game reskin of ARK and new thay stil try to push taht crap more and more STOP SCAM POLICY shuld be put on gaming industry to prevent this shiet thsi pure scam 15 yesr ego this peol wuld go jail for fraud new is just erly relese wtf buslhiet
If it was full price I could see the outrage, but it's the cost of a DLC for ARK, so even if that is what you are technically getting why is it a huge deal? But I mean, people knew it was Wildcard, people know how buggy ARK still is even after years, and you could see footage (even if it wasn't entirely accurate) that looked similar to ARK.
I still want to play it, I just have a hard time dropping any money into it until I know I won't have my ship blow up randomly (which I've read has happened a couple times?) after putting time into grinding out mats for it.
Maybe folks were expecting the dev to improve the performance and optimization stuff since they've had years and an entire game worth of experience now?
Better question is why do we allow dev studio to make the same bullshit mistakes and moves, but then blame consumers for calling them out on it? Is it because it has those two very important words on the Steam store page? Didn't ARK have those words too, even after releasing paid DLC?
Enough really is enough. No one made gamers buy it, sure, but no one forced the studio to hype it with a week turn around and release it into EA, either.
What I meant was, ARK hasn't been optimized. Even with the years of experience and an entire game, they weren't able to optimize it. I don't think anyone should have expected this to be any better. They have launched ark on every platform, and the performance is AWFUL on every single one.
ARK did release paid DLC prior to launch, and I've addressed this before as well as I played ARK ALOT and ran a server for years. The excuses people gave for it made sense originally. We all took the bait of "but it's early access and the people who don't work on optimization need stuff to work on and should be paid for the work!". But after they launched the game in the same piss poor state, and kept releasing DLC instead of fixing glaring issues, me and my group all quit.
I don't think people are blaming consumers, but I don't think people should be buying into this without looking up information. Even watching a stream for 5 minutes when actual gameplay was possible (after all the server issues) you would have seen what the game was, and how the performance was.
I want to play it because I like pirate themed things quite a bit. I still play sea of thieves quite often. There hasn't been very many good pirate games. So being able to build a boat and sail and claim territory and pvp with other people for territory is something that sounds very good to me. But I waited and did my research, I'm not going to buy it unless they actually fix some of these issues and show they are willing to put more effort into optimization this time around.
If it was full price I could see the outrage, but it's the cost of a DLC for ARK, so even if that is what you are technically getting why is it a huge deal? But I mean, people knew it was Wildcard, people know how buggy ARK still is even after years, and you could see footage (even if it wasn't entirely accurate) that looked similar to ARK.
I still want to play it, I just have a hard time dropping any money into it until I know I won't have my ship blow up randomly (which I've read has happened a couple times?) after putting time into grinding out mats for it.
The smart thing is keep looking at the game's price as it plummets while its getting the backlash and get it for mere pennies. Same thing for fallout 76.
I'll probably buy this too, but will wait until it gets better.
@SupaMutant@Phry one thing about Atlas, it's not about "more fun with friends", the game IS to be played as a group, way more than ARK could ever be.
The design is exactly surrounding that, the skill tree lines, for example, you need either be on a guild with players to cover up multiple skill professions to be able to get stuff, or you need to trade solo but you'll barely achieve anything.
So it's really a collaborative effort to progress through things, the part where you sail you can end up hiring AI Crew so less of an effort, solo will likely only work better once trading is established.
If it was full price I could see the outrage, but it's the cost of a DLC for ARK, so even if that is what you are technically getting why is it a huge deal? But I mean, people knew it was Wildcard, people know how buggy ARK still is even after years, and you could see footage (even if it wasn't entirely accurate) that looked similar to ARK.
I still want to play it, I just have a hard time dropping any money into it until I know I won't have my ship blow up randomly (which I've read has happened a couple times?) after putting time into grinding out mats for it.
The smart thing is keep looking at the game's price as it plummets while its getting the backlash and get it for mere pennies. Same thing for fallout 76.
I'll probably buy this too, but will wait until it gets better.
Yeah, review bombing always works better then holding consumers responsible for their own behavior. I guess its easier to blame the big bad developer and protect the poor, poor, unable to read or research, entitled, unable to understand what EA means, jumping on it the first minute without waiting for reviews, customer. The way people look at this in a completely black or white way is pathetic.
Half of the stuff being held against Atlas isn’t even true, which people would know if they had actually played the game after the initial 72 hours instead of watching streamers bashing it to hell for clicks. I guess its easier to search out those that confirm your assumptions instead of listening to those that tell you you are wrong. But the amount of BS doing the rounds here is stunning, yes, again, the state of the game is rough but people that keep yelling, for example, that performance hasn’t improved or that the world of Atlas can only have 150 players, or that it isn’t an MMORPG really haven’t got a clue.....
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
If it was full price I could see the outrage, but it's the cost of a DLC for ARK, so even if that is what you are technically getting why is it a huge deal? But I mean, people knew it was Wildcard, people know how buggy ARK still is even after years, and you could see footage (even if it wasn't entirely accurate) that looked similar to ARK.
I still want to play it, I just have a hard time dropping any money into it until I know I won't have my ship blow up randomly (which I've read has happened a couple times?) after putting time into grinding out mats for it.
Maybe folks were expecting the dev to improve the performance and optimization stuff since they've had years and an entire game worth of experience now?
Better question is why do we allow dev studio to make the same bullshit mistakes and moves, but then blame consumers for calling them out on it? Is it because it has those two very important words on the Steam store page? Didn't ARK have those words too, even after releasing paid DLC?
Enough really is enough. No one made gamers buy it, sure, but no one forced the studio to hype it with a week turn around and release it into EA, either.
What I meant was, ARK hasn't been optimized. Even with the years of experience and an entire game, they weren't able to optimize it. I don't think anyone should have expected this to be any better. They have launched ark on every platform, and the performance is AWFUL on every single one.
ARK did release paid DLC prior to launch, and I've addressed this before as well as I played ARK ALOT and ran a server for years. The excuses people gave for it made sense originally. We all took the bait of "but it's early access and the people who don't work on optimization need stuff to work on and should be paid for the work!". But after they launched the game in the same piss poor state, and kept releasing DLC instead of fixing glaring issues, me and my group all quit.
I don't think people are blaming consumers, but I don't think people should be buying into this without looking up information. Even watching a stream for 5 minutes when actual gameplay was possible (after all the server issues) you would have seen what the game was, and how the performance was.
I want to play it because I like pirate themed things quite a bit. I still play sea of thieves quite often. There hasn't been very many good pirate games. So being able to build a boat and sail and claim territory and pvp with other people for territory is something that sounds very good to me. But I waited and did my research, I'm not going to buy it unless they actually fix some of these issues and show they are willing to put more effort into optimization this time around.
That's the thing: we keep focusing on whether or not the outrage was warranted, when that's, quite frankly, a useless discussion aimed only at feeling an air of superiority over fellow gamers or disparaging fellow gamers. It changes nothing about what the developer did or the state of the game. It definitely doesn't change the fact that the studio seems unable to actually optimize their game appropriately, which is incredibly shitty when your studio focuses exclusively on competitive PvP games in an open world.
This game was originally a DLC planned for ARK, but because all the hardcore ARK players bought the season pass then that means they won't get money, so they released this piece of trash to take as much money from you as possible with little to no effort. Please stay away from this game, don't support the developers
and hidding behind early as bless do, with all white knight is terrible
If it was full price I could see the outrage, but it's the cost of a DLC for ARK, so even if that is what you are technically getting why is it a huge deal? But I mean, people knew it was Wildcard, people know how buggy ARK still is even after years, and you could see footage (even if it wasn't entirely accurate) that looked similar to ARK.
I still want to play it, I just have a hard time dropping any money into it until I know I won't have my ship blow up randomly (which I've read has happened a couple times?) after putting time into grinding out mats for it.
The smart thing is keep looking at the game's price as it plummets while its getting the backlash and get it for mere pennies. Same thing for fallout 76.
I'll probably buy this too, but will wait until it gets better.
Yeah, review bombing always works better then holding consumers responsible for their own behavior. I guess its easier to blame the big bad developer and protect the poor, poor, unable to read or research, entitled, unable to understand what EA means, jumping on it the first minute without waiting for reviews, customer. The way people look at this in a completely black or white way is pathetic.
Half of the stuff being held against Atlas isn’t even true, which people would know if they had actually played the game after the initial 72 hours instead of watching streamers bashing it to hell for clicks. I guess its easier to search out those that confirm your assumptions instead of listening to those that tell you you are wrong. But the amount of BS doing the rounds here is stunning, yes, again, the state of the game is rough but people that keep yelling, for example, that performance hasn’t improved or that the world of Atlas can only have 150 players, or that it isn’t an MMORPG really haven’t got a clue.....
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Let's be real here, early access became in such a state due to greedy developers. You can't blame consumers when they release a half assed game which looks nothing like the trailer showcased.
I also stand with angry joe's statement, that any game can be made infinitely better with a group of friends. That's no justification for bad first impressions. Everyone has their own opinions and this vision they showed in the trailers was what most expected. Early access or not, doesn't matter. First part of the game is almost like you're playing ark.
If it was full price I could see the outrage, but it's the cost of a DLC for ARK, so even if that is what you are technically getting why is it a huge deal? But I mean, people knew it was Wildcard, people know how buggy ARK still is even after years, and you could see footage (even if it wasn't entirely accurate) that looked similar to ARK.
I still want to play it, I just have a hard time dropping any money into it until I know I won't have my ship blow up randomly (which I've read has happened a couple times?) after putting time into grinding out mats for it.
The smart thing is keep looking at the game's price as it plummets while its getting the backlash and get it for mere pennies. Same thing for fallout 76.
I'll probably buy this too, but will wait until it gets better.
Yeah, review bombing always works better then holding consumers responsible for their own behavior. I guess its easier to blame the big bad developer and protect the poor, poor, unable to read or research, entitled, unable to understand what EA means, jumping on it the first minute without waiting for reviews, customer. The way people look at this in a completely black or white way is pathetic.
Half of the stuff being held against Atlas isn’t even true, which people would know if they had actually played the game after the initial 72 hours instead of watching streamers bashing it to hell for clicks. I guess its easier to search out those that confirm your assumptions instead of listening to those that tell you you are wrong. But the amount of BS doing the rounds here is stunning, yes, again, the state of the game is rough but people that keep yelling, for example, that performance hasn’t improved or that the world of Atlas can only have 150 players, or that it isn’t an MMORPG really haven’t got a clue.....
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yes, how dare they not go into the game expecting nothing when the devs give little tidbits like this prior to release (oh, and no actual meat and potatoes discussion of what's actually in the game, that would mean tempering hype!):
"I’m not exaggerating, this isn’t coming from a marketing mouth, the game is incredible, and all of the hype is justified-- everything you have seen in the trailer and promotional media is real... it was just recorded with UI turned off lol…"
Let's be real here, early access became in such a state due to greedy developers. You can't blame consumers when they release a half assed game which looks nothing like the trailer showcased.
I also stand with angry joe's statement, that any game can be made infinitely better with a group of friends. That's no justification for bad first impressions. Everyone has their own opinions and this vision they showed in the trailers was what most expected. Early access or not, doesn't matter. First part of the game is almost like you're playing ark.
Early Atlas is like early Ark, the first impressions are that you die, a lot.
The real thing Atlas needs was like a game start mixed tutorial where there could be you in a ship in a naval fight that then sinks and you are taken to one of the free ports to start your adventure.
That would showcase the Atlas that you won't be able to play on the early game, what is in the trailer IS on the game but you won't experience any of that on an early game...
Let's be real here, early access became in such a state due to greedy developers. You can't blame consumers when they release a half assed game which looks nothing like the trailer showcased.
I also stand with angry joe's statement, that any game can be made infinitely better with a group of friends. That's no justification for bad first impressions. Everyone has their own opinions and this vision they showed in the trailers was what most expected. Early access or not, doesn't matter. First part of the game is almost like you're playing ark.
Early Atlas is like early Ark, the first impressions are that you die, a lot.
The real thing Atlas needs was like a game start mixed tutorial where there could be you in a ship in a naval fight that then sinks and you are taken to one of the free ports to start your adventure.
That would showcase the Atlas that you won't be able to play on the early game, what is in the trailer IS on the game but you won't experience any of that on early game.
That would have been miles better. Even starting on a deserted island with some small objectives leading to making a raft and getting to the first city.
Ark had lots of rabid updates for quite a while, I expect the same for this game. Most of the server problems have been dealt with..... I expect to see content updates like Ark did. Thank you Devs. The game is great so far!
Let the haters hate....... ignorance is bliss.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
I can only speak for myself. But I have been enjoying the game. I've already got 36 hours of actual play (not counting looking at the login screen to get in when servers where full). And to me that is already more then made up for the cost of the game in my book. Heck $25 will barely get me into a movie theater + drink and popcorn for a 1 to 2 1/2 hour flick. So 36 hours has already paid there.
Launch of really rough. Lots of issues, rollbacks, ect. But things are getting better and at the rate they are patching things, so far its made it worth it.
But I can understand people hating on the game. There was little released about the game and people expected one thing and got something different.
The smart thing is keep looking at the game's price as it plummets while its getting the backlash and get it for mere pennies. Same thing for fallout 76.
I'll probably buy this too, but will wait until it gets better.
Yeah, review bombing always works better then holding consumers responsible for their own behavior. I guess its easier to blame the big bad developer and protect the poor, poor, unable to read or research, entitled, unable to understand what EA means, jumping on it the first minute without waiting for reviews, customer. The way people look at this in a completely black or white way is pathetic.
Half of the stuff being held against Atlas isn’t even true, which people would know if they had actually played the game after the initial 72 hours instead of watching streamers bashing it to hell for clicks. I guess its easier to search out those that confirm your assumptions instead of listening to those that tell you you are wrong. But the amount of BS doing the rounds here is stunning, yes, again, the state of the game is rough but people that keep yelling, for example, that performance hasn’t improved or that the world of Atlas can only have 150 players, or that it isn’t an MMORPG really haven’t got a clue.....
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yes, how dare they not go into the game expecting nothing when the devs give little tidbits like this prior to release (oh, and no actual meat and potatoes discussion of what's actually in the game, that would mean tempering hype!):
"I’m not exaggerating, this isn’t coming from a marketing mouth, the game is incredible, and all of the hype is justified-- everything you have seen in the trailer and promotional media is real... it was just recorded with UI turned off lol…"
Seriously, getting off on making yourself feel superior to others isn't an effective argument in defense of this release.
I guess I should clarify as it seems you misunderstand my stance on Atlas and all discussions surrounding it. I am not here to defend Atlas at all, I feel no need to defend a product or a company, I also feel no need to attack them. There are however two things that annoy me to no end when it comes to Atlas and the discussion of it.
The first is people stating things that simply aren´t true, and what is worse, other people parroting that. I know this not because I feel superior but simply because I play the game. See the examples I gave before, they come simply from playing. What I find dishonest is how lots of people her distrust those "lying white knights that love to bend over" because they are positive and play the game but then completely trust those "twitchers that bash everything because they want to get those viewers in" and say these people are honest. Doesn't anybody have a problem with that?
The second thing is a bit harder to illustrate but I will use your quote, the trailer and the Steam store page to try and show how folks constantly keep moving the goal posts to be able and shift all the blame on the developer and paint the consumer as the innocent victim with no accountability at all, something that a find flat out deceitful, Atlas or any other product.
On the Steam Store page there are three pieces of information concerning Atlas, the trailer, a general statement about Early Access and a description by the developer.
The trailer is an unfair depiction of the game in its current state, I completely agree with that. Most, if not all, components are actually in game but it does not look and play that smooth and/or cohesive. It is clear the developers could and should have been more honest when presenting a game play trailer. It is very clear that most forum posters agree that consumers have been smart and intelligent enough to watch the trailer, get an impression and decide to buy, or not to buy, the game. It then turned out the actual game was in a different state and the consumers were disappointed.
The general statement concerning Early Access says the following:
What is Early Access?
Get immediate access to games that are being developed with the community's involvement. These are games that evolve as you play them, as you give feedback, and as the developers update and add content.
We like to think of games and game development as services that grow and evolve with the involvement of customers and the community. There have been a number of prominent titles that have embraced this model of development recently and found a lot of value in the process. We like to support and encourage developers who want to ship early, involve customers, and build lasting relationships that help everyone make better games.
But here all of a sudden consumers are not smart enough anymore to actually understand what it means or make proper decisions on whether to buy or not. What is worse, all of a sudden we are not talking about the state of Atlas anymore but about how EA is evil and bad, about how it is unclear what EA even means. And just like that it is, again, the developers fault.
The final part is the description of the developers themselves. I won't copy paste all of it but one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is how they say that Atlas will be in EA for at least two years. Another one is how they say that all that is mentioned in the features list will be implemented around EA launch. As for the last part, most is actually in the game, the devs themselves however state that not all was supposed to be in game at launch but 'around' launch. As for the first part, stating that the game will be in EA for two more years is a pretty good indicator of the state of the game. But again, consumers all of a sudden aren't smart and intelligent enough anymore to make an informed decision and the discussion shifts to the idea that 2 years of EA is just too long, how the developers have released too early. And voila, its all the developers fault again. Out of the three pieces of information apparently only the trailer counts.
The same goes for your quote, when the developers write something too positive we can read and understand that and crucify them for it. When the developers give information about their plans and state of the game (2 years of EA, what is EA etc.) all of a sudden everything becomes difficult and we twist and turn until its the developers fault again because consumers turned dumb and couldn't read anymore.
Well, that was a lot of text lol, I hope I clarified myself a bit. I don't mind people bashing Atlas, its not detriment to my enjoyment of the game. I do however get greatly annoyed by the incredibly black and white representation of it all and the huge hypocrisy surrounding it. Its an Alpha state game represented as a Beta one, nothing more and nothing less.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Post edited by lahnmir on
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
The general point I've been trying to get across in multiple threads has been that it isn't productive to discuss the merits or demerits of groups of gamers. That's a constant that we've seen everywhere, specifically regarding the extremes.
It's not a productive discussion to have, because no matter the amount of criticism you or I hand haters or apologists here, they will always (always) be present, much like cheaters.
Better to focus on what exactly is the issue with this particular EA release. As you say, it's the incredibly inconsistent presentation of what was in store compared to what was actually received.
Early Access provides an avenue for these things unlike an actual gold release. It should be for games that aren't finished, as the name implies: but nothing about it being unfinished means that devs should be able to misrepresent the state of the game. That quote from the dev (and the video, as you mention) are clearly not indicative of what they released, and the trailer and dev quote do not delineate between EA and gold release.
That kind of thing needs to stop, and now that we're had a larger Bethesda incident focused on such a technical quality and communication issue, gamers aren't going to have a long leash for other titles pulling the same or similar moves. One bad apple ruins the bunch, and all that.
The general point I've been trying to get across in multiple threads has been that it isn't productive to discuss the merits or demerits of groups of gamers. That's a constant that we've seen everywhere, specifically regarding the extremes.
It's not a productive discussion to have, because no amount of criticism you or I hand haters or apologists here, they will always (always) be present, much like cheaters.
Better to focus on what exactly is the issue with this particular EA release. As you say, it's the incredibly inconsistent presentation of what was in store compared to what was actually received.
Early Access provides an avenue for these things unlike an actual gold release. It should be for games that aren't finished, as the name implies: but nothing about it being unfinished means that devs should be able to misrepresent the state of the game. That quote from the dev (and the video, as you mention) are clearly not indicative of what they released, and the trailer and dev quote do not delineate between EA and gold release.
That kind of thing needs to stop, and now that we're had a larger Bethesda incident focused on such a technical quality and communication issue, gamers aren't going to have a long leash for other titles pulling the same or similar moves. One bad apple ruins the bunch, and all that.
Agreed, thanks for the response. Now I need to find out how to get rid of all the Chinese making my raft useless
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
The general point I've been trying to get across in multiple threads has been that it isn't productive to discuss the merits or demerits of groups of gamers. That's a constant that we've seen everywhere, specifically regarding the extremes.
It's not a productive discussion to have, because no amount of criticism you or I hand haters or apologists here, they will always (always) be present, much like cheaters.
Better to focus on what exactly is the issue with this particular EA release. As you say, it's the incredibly inconsistent presentation of what was in store compared to what was actually received.
Early Access provides an avenue for these things unlike an actual gold release. It should be for games that aren't finished, as the name implies: but nothing about it being unfinished means that devs should be able to misrepresent the state of the game. That quote from the dev (and the video, as you mention) are clearly not indicative of what they released, and the trailer and dev quote do not delineate between EA and gold release.
That kind of thing needs to stop, and now that we're had a larger Bethesda incident focused on such a technical quality and communication issue, gamers aren't going to have a long leash for other titles pulling the same or similar moves. One bad apple ruins the bunch, and all that.
Agreed, thanks for the response. Now I need to find out how to get rid of all the Chinese making my raft useless
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Lol that part would be funny if it weren't literally preventing folks from progressing beyond the basics.
The general point I've been trying to get across in multiple threads has been that it isn't productive to discuss the merits or demerits of groups of gamers. That's a constant that we've seen everywhere, specifically regarding the extremes.
It's not a productive discussion to have, because no amount of criticism you or I hand haters or apologists here, they will always (always) be present, much like cheaters.
Better to focus on what exactly is the issue with this particular EA release. As you say, it's the incredibly inconsistent presentation of what was in store compared to what was actually received.
Early Access provides an avenue for these things unlike an actual gold release. It should be for games that aren't finished, as the name implies: but nothing about it being unfinished means that devs should be able to misrepresent the state of the game. That quote from the dev (and the video, as you mention) are clearly not indicative of what they released, and the trailer and dev quote do not delineate between EA and gold release.
That kind of thing needs to stop, and now that we're had a larger Bethesda incident focused on such a technical quality and communication issue, gamers aren't going to have a long leash for other titles pulling the same or similar moves. One bad apple ruins the bunch, and all that.
Agreed, thanks for the response. Now I need to find out how to get rid of all the Chinese making my raft useless
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Lol that part would be funny if it weren't literally preventing folks from progressing beyond the basics.
No, I really need to find out how to progress. Waiting for resets or flag claiming limits etc.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Post edited by lahnmir on
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
The general point I've been trying to get across in multiple threads has been that it isn't productive to discuss the merits or demerits of groups of gamers. That's a constant that we've seen everywhere, specifically regarding the extremes.
It's not a productive discussion to have, because no amount of criticism you or I hand haters or apologists here, they will always (always) be present, much like cheaters.
Better to focus on what exactly is the issue with this particular EA release. As you say, it's the incredibly inconsistent presentation of what was in store compared to what was actually received.
Early Access provides an avenue for these things unlike an actual gold release. It should be for games that aren't finished, as the name implies: but nothing about it being unfinished means that devs should be able to misrepresent the state of the game. That quote from the dev (and the video, as you mention) are clearly not indicative of what they released, and the trailer and dev quote do not delineate between EA and gold release.
That kind of thing needs to stop, and now that we're had a larger Bethesda incident focused on such a technical quality and communication issue, gamers aren't going to have a long leash for other titles pulling the same or similar moves. One bad apple ruins the bunch, and all that.
Agreed, thanks for the response. Now I need to find out how to get rid of all the Chinese making my raft useless
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Lol that part would be funny if it weren't literally preventing folks from progressing beyond the basics.
No, I really need to find out how to progress. Waiting for resets of flag claiming limits etc.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yeah, apparently if you sleep your pirate in your claimed zone, even if no buildings, you can log out and your pirate will prevent anyone from counter-claiming the land... Which seems strange, though I figure it's trying to avoid people waiting for folks to log out then swoop in.
Feel like the longevity and resiliency of the claim should definitely be, at least partially, tied to the development level of said land.
I brought the game today and im having a blast. admittedly im playing on unofficial server but i wanted to learn the ropes so to speak, hopefully they will sort out the official servers in a while and ill start over on one. i really dont see all the fuss the game looks really good and it only cost £20 the price of a fairly cheap dlc but it is more than just a dlc for one theres no Dinosaurs. given time i think this will be a great game these guys are their to make money and i dont begrudge them having my £20 ive brought far worse and ofc its on steam so you do get a chance to refund. anyway ive said my piece now back to Atlas cheers
Comments
Better question is why do we allow dev studio to make the same bullshit mistakes and moves, but then blame consumers for calling them out on it? Is it because it has those two very important words on the Steam store page? Didn't ARK have those words too, even after releasing paid DLC?
Enough really is enough. No one made gamers buy it, sure, but no one forced the studio to hype it with a week turn around and release it into EA, either.
I'll watch the games progress over the next twelve months and then make my judgments at that point. As of right now these developers have a storied history of being dishonest, deceitful and purposefully misleading customers to drive sales.
ARK did release paid DLC prior to launch, and I've addressed this before as well as I played ARK ALOT and ran a server for years. The excuses people gave for it made sense originally. We all took the bait of "but it's early access and the people who don't work on optimization need stuff to work on and should be paid for the work!". But after they launched the game in the same piss poor state, and kept releasing DLC instead of fixing glaring issues, me and my group all quit.
I don't think people are blaming consumers, but I don't think people should be buying into this without looking up information. Even watching a stream for 5 minutes when actual gameplay was possible (after all the server issues) you would have seen what the game was, and how the performance was.
I want to play it because I like pirate themed things quite a bit. I still play sea of thieves quite often. There hasn't been very many good pirate games. So being able to build a boat and sail and claim territory and pvp with other people for territory is something that sounds very good to me. But I waited and did my research, I'm not going to buy it unless they actually fix some of these issues and show they are willing to put more effort into optimization this time around.
naaa dude, you can't blame the publishers here.
this one is all about studio wildcard.
you can paint a duck pink if you want, but it's still gonna be a duck, no matter if you call it studio wildcard or grapeshot games.
they've allways been about draining whatever they can get from their users. hell, they sold two DLCs in arc "early access"...
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I'll probably buy this too, but will wait until it gets better.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The design is exactly surrounding that, the skill tree lines, for example, you need either be on a guild with players to cover up multiple skill professions to be able to get stuff, or you need to trade solo but you'll barely achieve anything.
So it's really a collaborative effort to progress through things, the part where you sail you can end up hiring AI Crew so less of an effort, solo will likely only work better once trading is established.
Half of the stuff being held against Atlas isn’t even true, which people would know if they had actually played the game after the initial 72 hours instead of watching streamers bashing it to hell for clicks. I guess its easier to search out those that confirm your assumptions instead of listening to those that tell you you are wrong. But the amount of BS doing the rounds here is stunning, yes, again, the state of the game is rough but people that keep yelling, for example, that performance hasn’t improved or that the world of Atlas can only have 150 players, or that it isn’t an MMORPG really haven’t got a clue.....
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
and hidding behind early as bless do, with all white knight is terrible
I also stand with angry joe's statement, that any game can be made infinitely better with a group of friends. That's no justification for bad first impressions. Everyone has their own opinions and this vision they showed in the trailers was what most expected. Early access or not, doesn't matter. First part of the game is almost like you're playing ark.
"I’m not exaggerating, this isn’t coming from a marketing mouth, the game is incredible, and all of the hype is justified-- everything you have seen in the trailer and promotional media is real... it was just recorded with UI turned off lol…"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/atlas-mmo-launch-disappointment/amp/
Seriously, getting off on making yourself feel superior to others isn't an effective argument in defense of this release.
The real thing Atlas needs was like a game start mixed tutorial where there could be you in a ship in a naval fight that then sinks and you are taken to one of the free ports to start your adventure.
That would showcase the Atlas that you won't be able to play on the early game, what is in the trailer IS on the game but you won't experience any of that on an early game...
Let the haters hate....... ignorance is bliss.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
Launch of really rough. Lots of issues, rollbacks, ect. But things are getting better and at the rate they are patching things, so far its made it worth it.
But I can understand people hating on the game. There was little released about the game and people expected one thing and got something different.
The first is people stating things that simply aren´t true, and what is worse, other people parroting that. I know this not because I feel superior but simply because I play the game. See the examples I gave before, they come simply from playing. What I find dishonest is how lots of people her distrust those "lying white knights that love to bend over" because they are positive and play the game but then completely trust those "twitchers that bash everything because they want to get those viewers in" and say these people are honest. Doesn't anybody have a problem with that?
The second thing is a bit harder to illustrate but I will use your quote, the trailer and the Steam store page to try and show how folks constantly keep moving the goal posts to be able and shift all the blame on the developer and paint the consumer as the innocent victim with no accountability at all, something that a find flat out deceitful, Atlas or any other product.
On the Steam Store page there are three pieces of information concerning Atlas, the trailer, a general statement about Early Access and a description by the developer.
The trailer is an unfair depiction of the game in its current state, I completely agree with that. Most, if not all, components are actually in game but it does not look and play that smooth and/or cohesive. It is clear the developers could and should have been more honest when presenting a game play trailer. It is very clear that most forum posters agree that consumers have been smart and intelligent enough to watch the trailer, get an impression and decide to buy, or not to buy, the game. It then turned out the actual game was in a different state and the consumers were disappointed.
The general statement concerning Early Access says the following:
What is Early Access?
Get immediate access to games that are being developed with the community's involvement. These are games that evolve as you play them, as you give feedback, and as the developers update and add content.
We like to think of games and game development as services that grow and evolve with the involvement of customers and the community. There have been a number of prominent titles that have embraced this model of development recently and found a lot of value in the process. We like to support and encourage developers who want to ship early, involve customers, and build lasting relationships that help everyone make better games.
But here all of a sudden consumers are not smart enough anymore to actually understand what it means or make proper decisions on whether to buy or not. What is worse, all of a sudden we are not talking about the state of Atlas anymore but about how EA is evil and bad, about how it is unclear what EA even means. And just like that it is, again, the developers fault.
The final part is the description of the developers themselves. I won't copy paste all of it but one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is how they say that Atlas will be in EA for at least two years. Another one is how they say that all that is mentioned in the features list will be implemented around EA launch. As for the last part, most is actually in the game, the devs themselves however state that not all was supposed to be in game at launch but 'around' launch. As for the first part, stating that the game will be in EA for two more years is a pretty good indicator of the state of the game. But again, consumers all of a sudden aren't smart and intelligent enough anymore to make an informed decision and the discussion shifts to the idea that 2 years of EA is just too long, how the developers have released too early. And voila, its all the developers fault again. Out of the three pieces of information apparently only the trailer counts.
The same goes for your quote, when the developers write something too positive we can read and understand that and crucify them for it. When the developers give information about their plans and state of the game (2 years of EA, what is EA etc.) all of a sudden everything becomes difficult and we twist and turn until its the developers fault again because consumers turned dumb and couldn't read anymore.
Well, that was a lot of text lol, I hope I clarified myself a bit. I don't mind people bashing Atlas, its not detriment to my enjoyment of the game. I do however get greatly annoyed by the incredibly black and white representation of it all and the huge hypocrisy surrounding it. Its an Alpha state game represented as a Beta one, nothing more and nothing less.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I have hope for the future so I am sitting back with your drinks.
The general point I've been trying to get across in multiple threads has been that it isn't productive to discuss the merits or demerits of groups of gamers. That's a constant that we've seen everywhere, specifically regarding the extremes.
It's not a productive discussion to have, because no matter the amount of criticism you or I hand haters or apologists here, they will always (always) be present, much like cheaters.
Better to focus on what exactly is the issue with this particular EA release. As you say, it's the incredibly inconsistent presentation of what was in store compared to what was actually received.
Early Access provides an avenue for these things unlike an actual gold release. It should be for games that aren't finished, as the name implies: but nothing about it being unfinished means that devs should be able to misrepresent the state of the game. That quote from the dev (and the video, as you mention) are clearly not indicative of what they released, and the trailer and dev quote do not delineate between EA and gold release.
That kind of thing needs to stop, and now that we're had a larger Bethesda incident focused on such a technical quality and communication issue, gamers aren't going to have a long leash for other titles pulling the same or similar moves. One bad apple ruins the bunch, and all that.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Feel like the longevity and resiliency of the claim should definitely be, at least partially, tied to the development level of said land.