Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
ARK: Survival Evolved's Expansion is an Abuse of Early Access - The RPG Files at MMORPG.com
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
ARK: Survival Evolved's Expansion is an Abuse of Early Access - The RPG Files at MMORPG.com
Earlier this month, Studio Wildcard announced their first paid expansion for ARK: Survival Evolved. While undeniably impressive, there’s something eyebrow raising about a “completely finished” expansion for a completely unfinished base game. With 12,000 reviews in the last month pushing the game’s review scores into the negative, Chris shares his take on the questionable actions of Studio Wildcard.
Comments
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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It was so bad, I erased the paragraph I was typing about developers deploying games via piecemeal and pricing. Thanks mate.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
reducing the review score because of bad business practices is being woefully dishonest as a gamer
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This is not the first game in "Early Access" to offer paid DLC, it's just the most high-profile one I think. It certainly won't be the last it seems...
Early Access is rapidly becoming the new "launched". What % of fans actually wait for "launch day" when there's Early Access on offer ? 10% ?
Monetization is continually being adapted to best fit the new realities. Early Access allows a dev to "sell" a limited version of the game at a reduced price. The rest of the content can then be sold as paid DLC while the "core game" is supposedly made stable and expanded a bit.
With regards to your example - The production of a product can change a customer's satisfaction of the product itself. You are right in that it doesn't change the thread count etc... however a customer can report that they feel less satisfied wearing the product knowing that it was made by slaves. It creates a more nuanced review of the product, but the overall satisfaction does indeed go down.
With regards to the game - I don't actually play ARK, and I never obtained early access. However, if I was in a beta for a game (which I have been in many times) and the developers then release a "paid addition" to the beta I'm testing, my satisfaction for the product would definitely go down. Two things to consider:
First off, remember that "reviews" for an "early access" product are not reviews as much as they are "previews" or comments on the development process. You can't review a game that isn't officially released. It's valid for a "preview" opinion to go down in a situation like this because, in my opinion, it doesn't bode well for the actual release of the game.
Second, a person is allowed to "review" or "preview" a game and report negatively on the monetization method employed by the game. Consider games like Black Desert and the questions regarding "pay to win" changes. That definitely changes people's enjoyment of the game though by your argument that just changes their opinion of the developer/producer. In this example, playing the game right now knowing that other people can get more features and more gameplay mechanics by paying more money can validly change someone's enjoyment of the game. I think this is made even worse by the fact that the game isn't even released yet.
So while I agree that a person who previously said "Wow the graphics are really nice and the overall mechanics are great" can't now suddenly say "Oh wow these graphics suxorz and I hate the gameplay" because of this announcement, I don't agree that someone isn't allowed to enjoy the game less because of this. I would definitely enjoy the game less if I played it after this announcement (for the same reason I enjoy games less when developers release a paid DLC on the day of release).
TL:DR - If people are unhappy about the developers releasing additional paid content, that can lead to them having less fun in the game, and that would lead to a lower "review" score. Though also keep in mind no one can review this game yet because it isn't even out yet, so really they are just "previewing" it and saying "Don't buy into this", which is totally valid.
EDIT:
"reducing the review score because of bad business practices is being woefully dishonest as a gamer"
Only if you are changing your "review" of things that haven't changed (graphics etc...). A review/preview score can/should include a evaluation of the value of the product. The value of this product has been decreased substantially because of bad business practices. ARK has been a game that I have looked at from time to time but I have never really bought into the "Early access" thing on Steam yet so I haven't tried it out. Now I won't. Previewers are valid in changing their assessment of a pre-release product based on developer's choices in monetization.
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?
Why? Buying a game in Early Access is, in part, a leap of faith. Yes, the Early Access "rules" say we are buying the game as is and there are no guarantees it will be finished or will turn out a way we like. Fine. But we are still hoping that the game is completed and launched. We want to know we can trust the developer to do that.
So, for a review in Early Access it seems perfectly valid to review the developer as much as the game. I asked some people whether it would be ok to leave a negative review for an Early Access game that had been abandoned (not saying ARK has been or will be, just using it as an example). While there was one person who said it would not be ok, most people said it would be, but that "it is a different situation".
I don't think the two are all that different. In both cases, the review is, in part, based on the actions of the developer. And, in the case of ARK specifically, I really don't think the response would have been quite as negative had there not still been big, unresolved problems with the base game. So the negatives, while focused on the DLC on the surface, are still a reflection on the state of the game as a whole.
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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
That must be why Ark is the 4th most popular game on Steam today, with 50K concurrent players...
Like I said, Early Access is the new "launched"...
I myself haven't played a lot of ARK because I bought it with a beta test type expectation and it felt exactly that, like a beta after many hours of game play. I intend to play a little here and there to check in on progress and get ready to enjoy the final product one day and really invest myself into the completed game. So, bringing in expansion content before you have the core of your product completed really should raise some flags for gamers, and I know it has just based on talking to fellow players.
I don't know any more; I guess I'm just becoming too old and cynical about things. At the end of the day, it's a game and I'll make a choice as will all of you. Game on.
Developers can sell unfinished concepts, but consumer review is final. That's f#%ing brilliant.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Let's party like it is 1863!
If I open up Consumer Reports to research on what car I might want to buy what I am looking for from them is quality of the car itself. I am not looking for business practices. If I want to be an ethical buyer I will do that research as well but Consumer Reports should let me know which car has the best reliability and quality and the question of a cars reliability should not be affected because of bad business practices that do not affect its reliability or quality
I can keep saying it but I am not changing my mind on this so maybe just move on.
and to be honest its starting to sound like you are trying to justify it yourself to yourself more than to me.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In the case of Early Access, part of that "reliability" is based on the developer since the game is still a work in progress. The car would be an example of a finished product. Had ARK been a finished product, this would not be an issue.
I am trying to maintain a neutral bias with Wildcard, Ark and their angry fans, but if Ark just stopped allowing players to transfer dinos to the original game from the expansion, my bias would shift fully into Wildcard's side.
This article though is clearly biased and very much clickbait. Bad article is bad. Pulling on a 15 day old knee jerk reaction in order to further fan flames with a clickbait title. Wow mmorpg.com, just wow.
If a review told you a car you were purchasing "ran great" but neglected to mention that once you purchase said car, you have to pay the manufacturer 1,000 dollars per month otherwise the engine would be remotely shut off...would you not care about that information? Should they leave it out of the review? As you stated, all you care about is whether the car is "good". The car is fine. As long as you make the payments.
Here's a hint. Business practice isn't the problem: it's the actual product.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://steamcommunity.com/app/346110/discussions/0/343786195658029157/?ctp=3#c343786195658172030
"we did not need to release the Expansion Pack to fund the rest of the game"
Developers charging you for DLC before the product is released is NOT related to the game.
Look you are spending an unusual amount of time seemingly trying to convince yourself that changing the review of a game based on business practices of a company is a reasonable thing to do. I do not, nothing you can say will change that. More over, why do you have such an intrest in trying.
Move on and please stop responding to me on this. I am asking you please walk away
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Therefore reviewers who feel like they are in the right to change their preview/review can and will continue to do so because they disagree with you and as you state it is merely your opinion. You as the consumer of the review can decide to ignore them if you wish, that's your choice. There are clearly others who find the information valid so I expect reviewers will continue to discuss business practices when reviewing games.
So we can all move along.
but I dont agree with them doing so.
done
I also think the unusually high amount of attention my statement with re-re-re-re-re-replys over and over again are an indication that their assumptions are being challenged in ways that actually make sense to them but they are not comfortable admiring to themselves and as a result are more debating themselves then with me.
I am not changing my view on this..peroid. move on
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Even if they actually did need more money, it was the incorrect way to go about obtaining it.
They have spent resources on "additional" content, and after the resources were spent are now trying to sell it. If you don't buy it, you don't get the content. That is what you do when you have a finished product and you are adding to it.
When a game is not yet complete, you should PROPOSE additional content, and then do it if the funding is established. That is essentially the basis for all crowd-funding schemes out there on Kickstarter etc... They aren't saying "Hey look we spent the last couple of months adding in this additional feature, so can you pay us for it now?" they say "Hey we would love to add this in but it would cost additional resources, if we can fund it we will do it". They have "flex goals" for this reason. They don't spend effort on the flex goal and then ask for people to buy into it later.
You don't fund a original product based on an "expansion" of that product before the original product is even out. That is a sign you clearly don't know how money works.
Ignore context of "early access"
Now I'M trying to convince myself to not buy into the above.
Walking away.... wait, maybe if I put some VR goggles on I'll see wh... nope. Walking away.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯