Price matters. Integrity matters. Because a game is playable doesn't make great. A game in Early Access is not a launched title, but usually games that release on XB and PS are considered launched titles - thats what people expect them to be.
Therefore on the console people probably know no better, they don't follow games like PC players do. It would never have been an issue if this game was a released title - even day 1 DLC throws up red flags but doesn't get this much attention. No, this is still an Early access game. Is this an Early Access expansion? For an unfinished game?
I've played Ark probably around.. 20 - 30 hours total, not much in comparison to others but I played enough to get the gist of it, and while it is a nice survival game in general it still has TONS of bugs.
I've seen finished games with more bugs, and some early access titles with less bugs, but I understand why the game went from mostly positive to mixed reviews in the span of a day.
You say price matters, buying both the expansion as well as base game comes in at under the price of a typical retail purchase. Just saying..
As for having tons of bugs, coming from folks who play MMORPgs regularly that's a bit ironic, in comparison all the games we play are essentially early access titles, they're never finished as well as they always have numerous bugs on just the surface level. To top it off these games are coming from major studios with tons of backing.
I understand why the negative reviews are tanking the score as well. That doesn't make them legitimate reviews of the actual product though. They're in protest to a practice not opinions of the quality of the actual game.
I haven't played the game at all TBH, I have no real interest in Dinosaurs vs man or what ever it entails.
I think you have to take into consideration several things. For one.. this is an "early access title" and it shows. The game has lots of bugs and when you take into consideration that you're reviewing an early access title, you give it a score based on where you believe the game is in development.
Case and point -- MMOs are something you brought up.. how many times have people played a Beta and said.. "this game is great, I played the beta, all the issues I experienced will be fixed on release - for a beta - this is great" only to turn around and give it low marks when the game is in a release state and the bugs persist?
It happens time and again, we've seen it dozens of times with each new release over the years.
Extrapolate that to an Early Access title. Look, there's another game Planet Explorers that has been in Early Access for a long time, and I've played it as well. Over the years its had mostly positive reviews as they constantly make updates and it's a very ambitious game -- but there are ALWAYS tons of bugs.. as a release title it wouldn't be worth the money, and it sells for around half of a released game.
Ark deserves its criticism, I stopped playing because I found the bugs to be bothersome enough that I could wait for fixes. Someone else in this thread gave a pretty comprehensive list of bugs you may experience, which is pretty much on par with what I experienced.. lots of clipping, some teleporting, and more than once did I walk into my closed off structure to find a dinosaur in there.
It's not a release title. It was reviewed as an Early Access title, and they're asking for released prices for expansions when the game still has a lot of issues. I believe the change in reviews isn't just because people don't like the DLC practice, but because the DLC isn't part of Early Access. If it can have release level DLC, it can be reviewed as a release level game, and it is NOT a great release level title.
"all I care about is is the game fun and I want reviews to address that question. I try to avoid reviews that appear to have other agendas"
Well i can agree with this statement,i would HOPE most realize that THIS SITES reviews are almost ALWAYS with an agenda that is not even related to gaming but more so based on paid endorsements,not always but usually.
None the less a common trend is that the whole idea of "early access" is just WRONG in many ways and NOT something we should ever endorse.
There is ONLY one premise behind early access and that is to attain profit from an unfinished unwarranted product,i am sure most people understand how wrong that is.
I centered on both statements for a reason because you cannot claim a game is FUN if it is not even a game yet or a finished game yet,fully expecting change and what could go in any direction at any time.In this case we are talking about an expansion not a game but in essence all expansions are is a new small mini game area.
People should also remember the state at which ARK was released for PROFIT and that was a VER ybad poorly unfinished state.I am saddened that so many are FOOLED by the EXCUSE "oh it is suppose ot be bugged and unpolished,it is early development".NO you are attaining profit,therefor the developer deems it worthy of attaining profit so excuses are void of any merit.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Isn't it obvious? Gaming companies have realized that "early access" sells and they will abuse it (at least the shady companies with concepts they can't fund on their own) to bilk players out of money without any real confidence that they will finish the product. These guys are taking it to the next level. They've probably blown all their initial funds on champagne and caviar and need more... the only way to do that is something new. This cycle won't complete. They will do this as long as we allow them.
Microtransactions, pay to win, they are all a psychological game these companies play that we, the consumer, allow to happen because we have completely bought into instant gratification and being there "first".
Until we speak with our wallets and brains this trend will continue.
I think you have to take into consideration several things. For one.. this is an "early access title" and it shows. The game has lots of bugs and when you take into consideration that you're reviewing an early access title, you give it a score based on where you believe the game is in development.
Case and point -- MMOs are something you brought up.. how many times have people played a Beta and said.. "this game is great, I played the beta, all the issues I experienced will be fixed on release - for a beta - this is great" only to turn around and give it low marks when the game is in a release state and the bugs persist?
It happens time and again, we've seen it dozens of times with each new release over the years.
Extrapolate that to an Early Access title. Look, there's another game Planet Explorers that has been in Early Access for a long time, and I've played it as well. Over the years its had mostly positive reviews as they constantly make updates and it's a very ambitious game -- but there are ALWAYS tons of bugs.. as a release title it wouldn't be worth the money, and it sells for around half of a released game.
Ark deserves its criticism, I stopped playing because I found the bugs to be bothersome enough that I could wait for fixes. Someone else in this thread gave a pretty comprehensive list of bugs you may experience, which is pretty much on par with what I experienced.. lots of clipping, some teleporting, and more than once did I walk into my closed off structure to find a dinosaur in there.
It's not a release title. It was reviewed as an Early Access title, and they're asking for released prices for expansions when the game still has a lot of issues. I believe the change in reviews isn't just because people don't like the DLC practice, but because the DLC isn't part of Early Access. If it can have release level DLC, it can be reviewed as a release level game, and it is NOT a great release level title.
Fair enough, like I said it's not a game I've played, I was just speaking toward most of the new reviews I've seen compared to what was there before. Which most of those were extremely positive. Whereas the new reviews simply say paid DLC a no no. Which says nothing toward the quality of the product, just a business practice they didn't like..
I have the same opinion on games like COH2 where the base game is well made, yet people score it down based on DLC (which really adds nothing special to the game anyway; outside of the battle of the bulge add-on which is fairly priced and again well made))..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Isn't it obvious? Gaming companies have realized that "early access" sells and they will abuse it (at least the shady companies with concepts they can't fund on their own) to bilk players out of money without any real confidence that they will finish the product. These guys are taking it to the next level. They've probably blown all their initial funds on champagne and caviar and need more... the only way to do that is something new. This cycle won't complete. They will do this as long as we allow them.
Microtransactions, pay to win, they are all a psychological game these companies play that we, the consumer, allow to happen because we have completely bought into instant gratification and being there "first".
Until we speak with our wallets and brains this trend will continue.
You are making the mistake of painting the entire early access line up with one negative brush. There are plenty of companies doing right and offering good products as well as good service in the early access field.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ive been looking at these boards for years, I dont comment often because I think that forums are mostly just a place for people to say the craziest shit they can think of without any repercussion whatsoever. After reading this article (this garbage garbage article) I feel compelled to respond. This is a 30$ game that gives most people that play it hundreds of hours of gameplay. I payed 60 dollars for no mans sky and was done after 20 hours. If they want to release COMPLETELY OPTIONAL dlc that costs 20 dollars, that is still less money than you pay for a AAA game that will net you a worse experience. I guess what im trying to say is that Ark is an amazing game and its updated frequently and well. If they want more money they are entitled to it.
Ive been looking at these boards for years, I dont comment often because I think that forums are mostly just a place for people to say the craziest shit they can think of without any repercussion whatsoever. After reading this article (this garbage garbage article) I feel compelled to respond. This is a 30$ game that gives most people that play it hundreds of hours of gameplay. I payed 60 dollars for no mans sky and was done after 20 hours. If they want to release COMPLETELY OPTIONAL dlc that costs 20 dollars, that is still less money than you pay for a AAA game that will net you a worse experience. I guess what im trying to say is that Ark is an amazing game and its updated frequently and well. If they want more money they are entitled to it.
Someone is missing the entire point of the article...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The only reason they did this paid expansion to an early access game thing is because they had to pay $40 million in a legal settlement to the makers of Dungeon Defenders. They were suddenly in need of cash to keep going, hence the paid DLC.
^ This one of the worst analogies I've read on MMORPG. No, I'm not going to explain why because it's so silly it doesn't warrant one.
It was so bad, I erased the paragraph I was typing about developers deploying games via piecemeal and pricing. Thanks mate.
basically
reducing the review score because of bad business practices is being woefully dishonest as a gamer
Because a moral disagreement on manufacturing practice is parallel to buying a concept and then being charged again for said concept.
Developers can sell unfinished concepts, but consumer review is final. That's f#%ing brilliant.
I am sorry I have stated that I do not agree with that and I have provided examples but I will provide another one.
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.
Here's a hint. Business practice isn't the problem: it's the actual product.
no...which is my point
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
It most certainly is related to the game. You need to stop with the nonsense, your logic makes zero sense.
As to this game, for all the people throwing money at it, when you get down to it, the game still runs like a pig and I doubt the developer has any intention of fixing it. Just another publisher that I will avoid in the future.
Reviews are not done in a vacuum . Even if you would like to ignore the business practices it is not possible for an honest reviewer not be influenced and will accordingly review the game based on the criteria each reviewer has. It's very subjective and no matter how stellar a game might be and in this case it is not this paid expansion raises eyebrows. How it is categorized and how it reflects on the developer is inevitable in the present climate where more scrutiny has surfaced as a result of more developers asking for money for incomplete (sometimes appallingly so) games.
So basically, they took all your early access money and used it to make new stuff to sell you rather than fixing what they already sold you. Lol, welcome to the modern world. You know, android has had a problem with mediaserver going crazy and draining as much as 30% of your battery in a day (oh, forgot to mention, since 2012), if you call ANYONE for help they try to sell you the latest product. They've managed to release a dozen or more new phones but haven't bothered to fix the frustrating malfunction that causes people.... to upgrade... This is the world we live in now.
I keep seeing this recurring theme, over and over. People go on the internet, buy a product under the promise that the product will be improved, and then they get burned. Stop buying stuff that's 'going to be improved' it never gets improved... Otherwise, just say you're buying a half-ass game and try to enjoy it with it's flaws.
The moment they drop a PAID DLC expansion on an Early Access game, said game is no longer Early Access, but as of then "OFFCIALLY" released! They are no longer allowed to retain the "Early Access" status! That is just bulls hit! Period!
And as such, the game should then be re-reviewed as a "RELEASED" game and scored accordingly.
ARK is an okay game for early Access title, but as officially launched title it has way too many issues still.
So People have the full right to re-adjust their review scores right now to reflect the current state of the game, now it's officially released!
THE END!
PS. Valve should seriously adjust their "Early Access" status policy, so Developers can no longer abuse "Early Access" status and get away with these kind of practices.
The only reason they did this paid expansion to an early access game thing is because they had to pay $40 million in a legal settlement to the makers of Dungeon Defenders. They were suddenly in need of cash to keep going, hence the paid DLC.
Reading that article leaves me with a very strong suspicion that Wildcard (primarily Jeremy Stieglitz) were probably guilty as charged.
Ironic that the seemingly less-than-honourable start to the company eventually brought us to paid DLC for an Early Access game. Or perhaps it was just a sign of things to come, lol
My wife and I play Ark regularly. We love it, she does in particular. We have our own issues with the PVE multiplayer servers that I wish would be sorted out, but that's another issue. If you have played Ark recently, then you know damn well that it is pretty much a finished product. Really at this point, they are just adding a few dinos and engrams to improve the experience. I am unsure what else people expect them to be doing in development. Yeah there's glitches, but if we really want to go down that road, Bethesda made all its money selling us glitch ridden product, for well, the whole time they have been a company. In the end, it was never enough to cause an uproar, and people still happily parted with their money to make them top selling PC and Console games. Ark is no different. Am I miffed that we don't get Scorched Earth for free? Yes. Do I think Ark should just admit that they are done for the most part with improving the base game and move on to content patching and updates? Absolutely. However, the only reason people are in uproar, is because they have not officially left early access. Otherwise, they are just pissed they don't get a whole new map, with a whole different set of monsters and environment for free. Which is just more of gamers feeling entitled to everything because they spent a bit of money. Don't get me wrong, I dropped $60 on sale to get two copies for my wife and I, and we have definitely received our monies worth. If your argument is the game hasn't been worth the money, because it has not officially released, I have to disagree. And the new expansion is probably worth the additional $20, and it will probably go on a holiday sale for $10 or $15 later this year, so people should chill. Also, did you know that they lost a huge lawsuit from some douche bag earlier this year, and that they may have wanted to release this free in the base game, but couldn't due to their financial losses? Things like this factor out as well, and while its not great to take that funding out of your backers, if you want development to continue then it might just have to be the way it is. In summary, I think they have dicked around in "Early Access" far too long, and they should just release the "official" version of the game, since they are already there anyways. But they are totally in the right to charge more for an expansion that clearly required months of development time to complete, and a $20 price tag really isn't that bad. I mean, I paid for Battlefront at $80 CAD, and I pretty much have played about 10-12 hours, and without a season pass, I don't even get most of the new maps and content and will have to pay for any fixes they intend to make on that game going forward. I have paid $30 CAD on my copy of Ark and have about 100 hours played, and I already got 1 1/2 "expansions" for free from them. And Battlefront was a "completed" game. Christmas will see us to continue to support WildCard Studios as I am super excited to see what the expansion has to bring to the table.
Game developers have shareholders that demand profits and game developers get laid off if they don't make said profits . There I translated if from whiney millennial to real world English for you.
I find most people here have no idea what goes into software development. Blizzard gets a lot of flak by gamer bums for being incorporated and greedy. But Blizzard often takes out $200-$500 million dollar loans from their investors to start development on any new title. At least. These people need to be paid back or the business tanks. Software development is a risky business, as not all products reach the desired finished state, or manage to pay back the original investment dollars. A company like Blizzard became as large as it did because it consistently retains investor confidence, as their finished product always produces returns, which usually translates into bigger budgets and even better developed games.
Wild Card is no different in this respect. They did not fund this project on the backs of players. It was likely invested in, and anyone paying for early access is contributing to the payback, until the amount borrowed is reached and exceeded. The expansion most likely required additional investment dollars, and charging for the new content is the only way in which they can pay back the development costs and see profit on it. If it fails to reach the sales totals they need, they will be hard pressed to produce another "expansion" in the future. And a company taking the profit made from the original game and using it to fund and expansion is normal business practice.
The only real contention that exists here is the perception that Ark: Survival Evolved is still "Early Access" on steam. The developer likely just views it as easier to leave it as an "Early Access" game than to just release it and change their continued development to patches and content updates. Which is a service to players, as investors would probably prefer that new content additions were sold in DLC packs. So maybe people should stfu before they start not giving a crap about being good to their players, and charging way more.
Also, people should go take a course on software development. System Analysis would give a lot of perspective on the whole development process and understanding how risky the business is and how often investors lose money because production costs well exceed predicted value.
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
If the fact that a diamond ring you bought was created using forced child labor in a blood-soaked war-torn nation DOESN'T reduce your enjoyment of the finished product, then you're just a horrible person. You can't treat how a product was created completely independently of the product itself. They are inextricably linked.
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
If the fact that a diamond ring you bought was created using forced child labor in a blood-soaked war-torn nation DOESN'T reduce your enjoyment of the finished product, then you're just a horrible person. You can't treat how a product was created completely independently of the product itself. They are inextricably linked.
and I am, no question.
However I am here to let you know that the vast majority of people do not consider these things when the look to make purchases. I am I would suggest actually a member of the majority. Doesnt make it right but I am here to tell you I am very confident that most people buy for the product, not for the ethics of how its made.
more over, I am hear to tell you with a very high level of confidence that when Consumer Reports writes a review its about the product, not the companies ethics.
Although I am a horrible person and you have already established that I still feel its dishonest to write a review where what is expected is a review of the product and what one gets instead is a review of the company. I might be a horrible person but at least I am honest about my actions
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What exactly is the difference between Star Citizen selling ships for fundraising during development and Shroud of the Avatar land and houses and items with Ark selling a feature pack?
They have to fund development, they decided not to do a few critters but make something they can offer in the long run that is worth the money it seems.
Why get all worked up about semantics? You would be all ok with it if they just removed the EA tag??
Played: Pretty much any fantasy MMO, some did not even make it to release ... Favorites: UO, EQ2, Vanguard, Wurm Online, Salem, ESO, Creativerse Playing: ESO, Creativerse, Guild Wars 2 Anticipating: (sigh) ... maybe Ashes of Creation
... You would be all ok with it if they just removed the EA tag??
THAT is what the whole flap is all about. Not because they're selling DLC's, but because they're selling new content before the "base game" is actually finished.
The "Early Access" tag is supposed to describe a certain status in development. It allows a game to charge an access fee while still being riddled with bugs and with content being incomplete (whatever that means nowadays).
ARK is a great game, but it's still full of glitches and bugs. Most players expect those to be fixed, but nobody makes too much of a fuss because the game is still in Early Access. Supposedly...
If Wildcard start selling paid expansions now, they're really saying that the bugs and glitches are probably going to be around for a lot longer than everyone thought.
My wife and I play Ark regularly. We love it, she does in particular. We have our own issues with the PVE multiplayer servers that I wish would be sorted out, but that's another issue. If you have played Ark recently, then you know damn well that it is pretty much a finished product. Really at this point, they are just adding a few dinos and engrams to improve the experience. I am unsure what else people expect them to be doing in development. Yeah there's glitches, but if we really want to go down that road, Bethesda made all its money selling us glitch ridden product, for well, the whole time they have been a company. In the end, it was never enough to cause an uproar, and people still happily parted with their money to make them top selling PC and Console games. Ark is no different. Am I miffed that we don't get Scorched Earth for free? Yes. Do I think Ark should just admit that they are done for the most part with improving the base game and move on to content patching and updates? Absolutely. However, the only reason people are in uproar, is because they have not officially left early access. Otherwise, they are just pissed they don't get a whole new map, with a whole different set of monsters and environment for free. Which is just more of gamers feeling entitled to everything because they spent a bit of money. Don't get me wrong, I dropped $60 on sale to get two copies for my wife and I, and we have definitely received our monies worth. If your argument is the game hasn't been worth the money, because it has not officially released, I have to disagree. And the new expansion is probably worth the additional $20, and it will probably go on a holiday sale for $10 or $15 later this year, so people should chill. Also, did you know that they lost a huge lawsuit from some douche bag earlier this year, and that they may have wanted to release this free in the base game, but couldn't due to their financial losses? Things like this factor out as well, and while its not great to take that funding out of your backers, if you want development to continue then it might just have to be the way it is. In summary, I think they have dicked around in "Early Access" far too long, and they should just release the "official" version of the game, since they are already there anyways. But they are totally in the right to charge more for an expansion that clearly required months of development time to complete, and a $20 price tag really isn't that bad. I mean, I paid for Battlefront at $80 CAD, and I pretty much have played about 10-12 hours, and without a season pass, I don't even get most of the new maps and content and will have to pay for any fixes they intend to make on that game going forward. I have paid $30 CAD on my copy of Ark and have about 100 hours played, and I already got 1 1/2 "expansions" for free from them. And Battlefront was a "completed" game. Christmas will see us to continue to support WildCard Studios as I am super excited to see what the expansion has to bring to the table.
No. Developers leave it in "Early Access" so they can avoid responsibility and accountability!
Leaving the game in "Early Access" means they can avoid critical reviews, as they can keep throwing the excuse around that the game is still in Development.
And that's what I have a problem with! I don't mind them dropping a Paid DLC on a game, but then they need to show some balls and change the status of the game to "Officially released".
Ark does seem like it's a better game than it gets credit for, but I also think Devs should be held accountable for bad practices. If they screwed with people in the past, it's not right to recommend the game to people because they are likely to do it again.
... You would be all ok with it if they just removed the EA tag??
THAT is what the whole flap is all about. Not because they're selling DLC's, but because they're selling new content before the "base game" is actually finished.
The "Early Access" tag is supposed to describe a certain status in development. It allows a game to charge an access fee while still being riddled with bugs and with content being incomplete (whatever that means nowadays).
ARK is a great game, but it's still full of glitches and bugs. Most players expect those to be fixed, but nobody makes too much of a fuss because the game is still in Early Access. Supposedly...
If Wildcard start selling paid expansions now, they're really saying that the bugs and glitches are probably going to be around for a lot longer than everyone thought.
so the end user gaming experience and the end user dollars spent would basically all be the same the only difference is what name you call the game.
seems rather silly to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
Case and point -- MMOs are something you brought up.. how many times have people played a Beta and said.. "this game is great, I played the beta, all the issues I experienced will be fixed on release - for a beta - this is great" only to turn around and give it low marks when the game is in a release state and the bugs persist?
It happens time and again, we've seen it dozens of times with each new release over the years.
Extrapolate that to an Early Access title. Look, there's another game Planet Explorers that has been in Early Access for a long time, and I've played it as well. Over the years its had mostly positive reviews as they constantly make updates and it's a very ambitious game -- but there are ALWAYS tons of bugs.. as a release title it wouldn't be worth the money, and it sells for around half of a released game.
Ark deserves its criticism, I stopped playing because I found the bugs to be bothersome enough that I could wait for fixes. Someone else in this thread gave a pretty comprehensive list of bugs you may experience, which is pretty much on par with what I experienced.. lots of clipping, some teleporting, and more than once did I walk into my closed off structure to find a dinosaur in there.
It's not a release title. It was reviewed as an Early Access title, and they're asking for released prices for expansions when the game still has a lot of issues. I believe the change in reviews isn't just because people don't like the DLC practice, but because the DLC isn't part of Early Access. If it can have release level DLC, it can be reviewed as a release level game, and it is NOT a great release level title.
Well i can agree with this statement,i would HOPE most realize that THIS SITES reviews are almost ALWAYS with an agenda that is not even related to gaming but more so based on paid endorsements,not always but usually.
None the less a common trend is that the whole idea of "early access" is just WRONG in many ways and NOT something we should ever endorse.
There is ONLY one premise behind early access and that is to attain profit from an unfinished unwarranted product,i am sure most people understand how wrong that is.
I centered on both statements for a reason because you cannot claim a game is FUN if it is not even a game yet or a finished game yet,fully expecting change and what could go in any direction at any time.In this case we are talking about an expansion not a game but in essence all expansions are is a new small mini game area.
People should also remember the state at which ARK was released for PROFIT and that was a VER ybad poorly unfinished state.I am saddened that so many are FOOLED by the EXCUSE "oh it is suppose ot be bugged and unpolished,it is early development".NO you are attaining profit,therefor the developer deems it worthy of attaining profit so excuses are void of any merit.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Microtransactions, pay to win, they are all a psychological game these companies play that we, the consumer, allow to happen because we have completely bought into instant gratification and being there "first".
Until we speak with our wallets and brains this trend will continue.
I have the same opinion on games like COH2 where the base game is well made, yet people score it down based on DLC (which really adds nothing special to the game anyway; outside of the battle of the bulge add-on which is fairly priced and again well made))..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
http://www.inquisitr.com/2999282/ark-survival-evolved-lawsuit-settled-ugly-battle-ends-with-defense-countering-claims/
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
As to this game, for all the people throwing money at it, when you get down to it, the game still runs like a pig and I doubt the developer has any intention of fixing it. Just another publisher that I will avoid in the future.
I keep seeing this recurring theme, over and over. People go on the internet, buy a product under the promise that the product will be improved, and then they get burned. Stop buying stuff that's 'going to be improved' it never gets improved... Otherwise, just say you're buying a half-ass game and try to enjoy it with it's flaws.
They are no longer allowed to retain the "Early Access" status! That is just bulls hit! Period!
And as such, the game should then be re-reviewed as a "RELEASED" game and scored accordingly.
ARK is an okay game for early Access title, but as officially launched title it has way too many issues still.
So People have the full right to re-adjust their review scores right now to reflect the current state of the game, now it's officially released!
THE END!
PS. Valve should seriously adjust their "Early Access" status policy, so Developers can no longer abuse "Early Access" status and get away with these kind of practices.
Ironic that the seemingly less-than-honourable start to the company eventually brought us to paid DLC for an Early Access game. Or perhaps it was just a sign of things to come, lol
I find most people here have no idea what goes into software development. Blizzard gets a lot of flak by gamer bums for being incorporated and greedy. But Blizzard often takes out $200-$500 million dollar loans from their investors to start development on any new title. At least. These people need to be paid back or the business tanks. Software development is a risky business, as not all products reach the desired finished state, or manage to pay back the original investment dollars. A company like Blizzard became as large as it did because it consistently retains investor confidence, as their finished product always produces returns, which usually translates into bigger budgets and even better developed games.
Wild Card is no different in this respect. They did not fund this project on the backs of players. It was likely invested in, and anyone paying for early access is contributing to the payback, until the amount borrowed is reached and exceeded. The expansion most likely required additional investment dollars, and charging for the new content is the only way in which they can pay back the development costs and see profit on it. If it fails to reach the sales totals they need, they will be hard pressed to produce another "expansion" in the future. And a company taking the profit made from the original game and using it to fund and expansion is normal business practice.
The only real contention that exists here is the perception that Ark: Survival Evolved is still "Early Access" on steam. The developer likely just views it as easier to leave it as an "Early Access" game than to just release it and change their continued development to patches and content updates. Which is a service to players, as investors would probably prefer that new content additions were sold in DLC packs. So maybe people should stfu before they start not giving a crap about being good to their players, and charging way more.
Also, people should go take a course on software development. System Analysis would give a lot of perspective on the whole development process and understanding how risky the business is and how often investors lose money because production costs well exceed predicted value.
However I am here to let you know that the vast majority of people do not consider these things when the look to make purchases. I am I would suggest actually a member of the majority. Doesnt make it right but I am here to tell you I am very confident that most people buy for the product, not for the ethics of how its made.
more over, I am hear to tell you with a very high level of confidence that when Consumer Reports writes a review its about the product, not the companies ethics.
Although I am a horrible person and you have already established that I still feel its dishonest to write a review where what is expected is a review of the product and what one gets instead is a review of the company. I might be a horrible person but at least I am honest about my actions
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
They have to fund development, they decided not to do a few critters but make something they can offer in the long run that is worth the money it seems.
Why get all worked up about semantics? You would be all ok with it if they just removed the EA tag??
Played: Pretty much any fantasy MMO, some did not even make it to release ...
Favorites: UO, EQ2, Vanguard, Wurm Online, Salem, ESO, Creativerse
Playing: ESO, Creativerse, Guild Wars 2
Anticipating: (sigh) ... maybe Ashes of Creation
The "Early Access" tag is supposed to describe a certain status in development. It allows a game to charge an access fee while still being riddled with bugs and with content being incomplete (whatever that means nowadays).
ARK is a great game, but it's still full of glitches and bugs. Most players expect those to be fixed, but nobody makes too much of a fuss because the game is still in Early Access. Supposedly...
If Wildcard start selling paid expansions now, they're really saying that the bugs and glitches are probably going to be around for a lot longer than everyone thought.
No. Developers leave it in "Early Access" so they can avoid responsibility and accountability!
Leaving the game in "Early Access" means they can avoid critical reviews, as they can keep throwing the excuse around that the game is still in Development.
And that's what I have a problem with! I don't mind them dropping a Paid DLC on a game, but then they need to show some balls and change the status of the game to "Officially released".
THE END!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me