It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
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.
Comments
so say we all
"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...
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
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
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
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 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.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
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
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
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.
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
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.
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 $80 to buy a game you tell them is going to be free to play? isnt that just about as silly?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
On a different note, I think the two of us differ when it comes to purchasing ideology. I partly buy products because I agree/disagree with whoever is making them. This is especially true for games. My reasoning is that if I like something, I buy it because I want to see more of it. If I don't like something, I don't buy it, because I don't want to contribute to spreading the framework that created it.
For example, I really like the development of Crowfall. The developers, to me, come across as genuinely interested in the community. I pledged at a fairly high level, even though the game itself is only somewhat interesting to me.
While you do have a point you previously stated that you haven't played the game and that's made evident by your final comment, the game is worth more than 23$ 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.
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