So then, when can we expect to see full launch? (If ever?)
Does it matter if it launches or stays in alpha?
No Man's Sky launched not in early alpha, and a bunch of people complained it should have been early alpha.
Then people who don't like early alpha would then complain No Man's Sky was...well you get people like you who would and I quote "when can we expect to see full launch? (If ever?)...if No Man's Sky launched in early alpha instead
Then you get the trolls who complain about DLC for Ark. But if the game wasn't in early alpha, you'd get trolls complaining it should be in early alpha.
Or you get the people who complain the game released in a broken state because of all the anti-early access trolls, who then complain the game is broken.
Its a whole bunch of nothingburger if the game is in early alpha or release.
Or.... we could stop releasing survival games in such piss poor states that they would be confused with early alpha products.
Just throwing around crazy ideas here.
Like that junk game Mass Effect Andromeda? Made by an AAA studio? Don't have to look far past the negative user reviews to see that disaster. And all the disastrous videos that were definitely LOL worthy.
Plenty of games from all types of companies, even large ones, end up being shitty. Just look at all the Call of Duty games there are, just remakes of each other non-stop. But people keep buying them. Probably cheap to produce, don't imagine it takes long to re-skin it.
Granted, all the survival games end up being junk usually. Yeah. But at least Ark and Subnautica are two great ones. Yeah a lot of junk survival games, but there are also junk games of all genres even (like I said) by large studios with lots of money.
Doesn't have anything to do with early access or not if a game is good or bad.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
What was wrong with H1Z1 the way it was, nothing DB just figured out a way to get more money by splitting it. Now they have changed it again I'm not sure I'm still interested either.
" Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who Would Threaten It " MAGA
Even if it's small scale Daybreak should make a new game and stop reusing the scraps they inherited from SOE.
I imagine they have plans for some of the existing IPs, otherwise they wouldn't have bought them IMO. So I wouldn't be surprised if they announce some new installment for one of them sooner later. Well... aside from this one. xD
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
So then, when can we expect to see full launch? (If ever?)
Does it matter if it launches or stays in alpha?
No Man's Sky launched not in early alpha, and a bunch of people complained it should have been early alpha.
Then people who don't like early alpha would then complain No Man's Sky was...well you get people like you who would and I quote "when can we expect to see full launch? (If ever?)...if No Man's Sky launched in early alpha instead
Then you get the trolls who complain about DLC for Ark. But if the game wasn't in early alpha, you'd get trolls complaining it should be in early alpha.
Or you get the people who complain the game released in a broken state because of all the anti-early access trolls, who then complain the game is broken.
Its a whole bunch of nothingburger if the game is in early alpha or release.
Or.... we could stop releasing survival games in such piss poor states that they would be confused with early alpha products.
Just throwing around crazy ideas here.
Like that junk game Mass Effect Andromeda? Made by an AAA studio? Don't have to look far past the negative user reviews to see that disaster. And all the disastrous videos that were definitely LOL worthy.
Plenty of games from all types of companies, even large ones, end up being shitty. Just look at all the Call of Duty games there are, just remakes of each other non-stop. But people keep buying them. Probably cheap to produce, don't imagine it takes long to re-skin it.
Granted, all the survival games end up being junk usually. Yeah. But at least Ark and Subnautica are two great ones. Yeah a lot of junk survival games, but there are also junk games of all genres even (like I said) by large studios with lots of money.
Doesn't have anything to do with early access or not if a game is good or bad.
The key differrence being once a game is officially released it has all of the originally planned content and then goes through a post release stabilization period.
I typically buy games now 6 months or more post launch in order to properly "judge" them on whether to buy or not.
With EA titles you regularly run into stabilization and performance issues, significant content and game play updates (did I mention I hate big change?) and defects, all of which are dismissed as "early access" problems which all will be resolved at release.
So release the damn game already, and then I'll buy it.
When SOE announced H1Z1 I thought, finally a real studio will deliver a proper zombie / survival game in a released state, but they did no better than Rust, Ark, Warz and many others,.
Always incomplete, unstable, not optimized, the pattern has continued even to present times as seen by Conan Exiles, D & L, and many others.
Almost all end up in a multi year or even never ending early access cycle with Ark and H1Z1 being two titles that released expansions before delivering the finished game.
In fact this new announcement contains features I always expected from the original game once they "finished" it, but no, clearly the pattern is to rename/reskin the old game and sell it again.
I'll be surprised if this incarnation ever comes out of early access and still I have yet to play a modern survival game.
Oh yes, I don't know anything about Subnautica but Ark is not a title to hold up as a good example, its quality and completion state are still considered questionable even though its finally launching. (Consoles only, right?)
Regardless, one or two winners and dozens of bad games does paint a picture of success.
Early Access is an idea which needs to DIAF as far as I'm concerned and i will continue to support launched games.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So then, when can we expect to see full launch? (If ever?)
Does it matter if it launches or stays in alpha?
No Man's Sky launched not in early alpha, and a bunch of people complained it should have been early alpha.
Then people who don't like early alpha would then complain No Man's Sky was...well you get people like you who would and I quote "when can we expect to see full launch? (If ever?)...if No Man's Sky launched in early alpha instead
Then you get the trolls who complain about DLC for Ark. But if the game wasn't in early alpha, you'd get trolls complaining it should be in early alpha.
Or you get the people who complain the game released in a broken state because of all the anti-early access trolls, who then complain the game is broken.
Its a whole bunch of nothingburger if the game is in early alpha or release.
Or.... we could stop releasing survival games in such piss poor states that they would be confused with early alpha products.
Just throwing around crazy ideas here.
Like that junk game Mass Effect Andromeda? Made by an AAA studio? Don't have to look far past the negative user reviews to see that disaster. And all the disastrous videos that were definitely LOL worthy.
Plenty of games from all types of companies, even large ones, end up being shitty. Just look at all the Call of Duty games there are, just remakes of each other non-stop. But people keep buying them. Probably cheap to produce, don't imagine it takes long to re-skin it.
Granted, all the survival games end up being junk usually. Yeah. But at least Ark and Subnautica are two great ones. Yeah a lot of junk survival games, but there are also junk games of all genres even (like I said) by large studios with lots of money.
Doesn't have anything to do with early access or not if a game is good or bad.
There is a huge difference between a few games being unfinished in a large, proven genre (such as Mass Effect to RPG's) and an entire genre in which every almost every game is released in an unplayable state, never to be finished.
Hell, most of the unpolished flops in the RPG world aren't even AAA. They're usually games from AA studios (like Two Worlds or The Technomancer). I'd take that over the genre of amateur hour projects like survival games any day of the week. Hell, if you were to rate even a "great" survival game, like Ark, among the standards of the RPG pantheon, it would barely fall in the middle, if we're being generous.
The quality standards of the survival genre are far, far below industry standard. That's just a reality. But it isn't like the genre isn't capable of much more. Breath of the Wild has already shown us how it can be done with its highly polished gameplay, strong weapon variety, and food/crafting mechanics that don't just boil down to "refill the thirsty boy meters every 5 bloody minutes."
a bit too late. playing Fortnite where u can build base and traps for wave of monsters.
guess they had focus pve after Player unknown Battlegrounds release...
So then, when can we expect to see full launch? (If ever?)
Does it matter if it launches or stays in alpha?
No Man's Sky launched not in early alpha, and a bunch of people complained it should have been early alpha.
Then people who don't like early alpha would then complain No Man's Sky was...well you get people like you who would and I quote "when can we expect to see full launch? (If ever?)...if No Man's Sky launched in early alpha instead
Then you get the trolls who complain about DLC for Ark. But if the game wasn't in early alpha, you'd get trolls complaining it should be in early alpha.
Or you get the people who complain the game released in a broken state because of all the anti-early access trolls, who then complain the game is broken.
Its a whole bunch of nothingburger if the game is in early alpha or release.
Or.... we could stop releasing survival games in such piss poor states that they would be confused with early alpha products.
Just throwing around crazy ideas here.
Like that junk game Mass Effect Andromeda? Made by an AAA studio? Don't have to look far past the negative user reviews to see that disaster. And all the disastrous videos that were definitely LOL worthy.
Plenty of games from all types of companies, even large ones, end up being shitty. Just look at all the Call of Duty games there are, just remakes of each other non-stop. But people keep buying them. Probably cheap to produce, don't imagine it takes long to re-skin it.
Granted, all the survival games end up being junk usually. Yeah. But at least Ark and Subnautica are two great ones. Yeah a lot of junk survival games, but there are also junk games of all genres even (like I said) by large studios with lots of money.
Doesn't have anything to do with early access or not if a game is good or bad.
Evidently, you have never played CoD. Good or bad is your opinion.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
They should have made a real MMO. I don't want just pve or just PvP survival servers. I want an MMO style system that has both on the same server with factions or a flagging system. Daybreak knows how to do that because they have history in MMOs with both systems.
It seems to me they have taken SOE's awesome map, removed it, removed your ability to build anywhere, removed the towns, and replaced it all with an empty map wherein the same seven wrecked cars and trucks repeat every few hundred yards?
I have explored about half the new map so far and am very underwhelmed; however, I must admit the new character mechanics are pretty useful.
How many times/ways are they going to rehash the exact same game and file it under new names for the purpose of creating new revenue from the same game?
This has been one super lazy lame business since taking over,first rehashing new servers for EQ and then H1Z1 separated into different games but NONE of the versions ever saw much effort ever.
They claimed the original game was early access,well FINISH the dam game,but nope they dissected it to try and rip off the consumer.
DB has shown me no ability or effort to be a game designer,i have no idea to the real truth ,why they took over this business is a real mystery.
How? They gave their original customers both games for the original price..
PUBG is 95% the same as H1Z1:KOTK, but costs $30 while KOTK has been on sale for $9.99.
"Just survive" if it ever becomes something then hey maybe we get another game, I think I paid $20 total for both when I bought this originally.
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
It could be worse, they could just reskin the thing and relauch it like Sergey Titov has been doing for years.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Just Survive, what Daybreak is desperately trying to do by releasing the same game for the third time...
I don't agree that Daybreak is simply trying "to survive".
Survive - for me - suggests an "autonomous studio" trying to keep it games going, hoping to release new experiences and so forth. Spend money in the short term perhaps to - hopefully - grow the company and make more money in the longer term. To be turning out games for many years to come. Even when SoE were owned by Sony I always felt that SoE was in it for the long haul.
Daybreak - for me - isn't an autonomous studio ...... its a revenue stream.
CN paid $X + whatever they lost on the gamble that was EQN. They expect enough revenue to cover the purchase price and ultimately make a profit on the deal. So I expect no risks. No major investments just the bare minimum to keep things ticking along. This fits that philosophy. And if that means the company closes in 5 years or whatever so be it. As long as it has made a profit.
Remember the first hype dev live play, "the game will be a massive mmo with the scope and size of america"
^^ sigh
what they need to do is get planetside 2 and start expanding it, its a capable already made engine - what they did with it for h1z1 was total butchery, what a waste.
Comments
Plenty of games from all types of companies, even large ones, end up being shitty. Just look at all the Call of Duty games there are, just remakes of each other non-stop. But people keep buying them. Probably cheap to produce, don't imagine it takes long to re-skin it.
Granted, all the survival games end up being junk usually. Yeah. But at least Ark and Subnautica are two great ones. Yeah a lot of junk survival games, but there are also junk games of all genres even (like I said) by large studios with lots of money.
Doesn't have anything to do with early access or not if a game is good or bad.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
What a load of crap, it was soe who hindered EQ, I use that word because EQ is not dead Mr maladramtic.
Dead means, dead, finished, gone, EQ is not gone. Or perhaps you mean that pile of shit that was EQ Next, in that case say what you mean.
The new EQ is called Pantheon.
Why ?
By adding a few features and renaming/relaunching the same game, you can maximise your ROI !
Perhaps they can even split this game into 2 separate versions 6 months from now, and do it all over again...
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
MAGA
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
I typically buy games now 6 months or more post launch in order to properly "judge" them on whether to buy or not.
With EA titles you regularly run into stabilization and performance issues, significant content and game play updates (did I mention I hate big change?) and defects, all of which are dismissed as "early access" problems which all will be resolved at release.
So release the damn game already, and then I'll buy it.
When SOE announced H1Z1 I thought, finally a real studio will deliver a proper zombie / survival game in a released state, but they did no better than Rust, Ark, Warz and many others,.
Always incomplete, unstable, not optimized, the pattern has continued even to present times as seen by Conan Exiles, D & L, and many others.
Almost all end up in a multi year or even never ending early access cycle with Ark and H1Z1 being two titles that released expansions before delivering the finished game.
In fact this new announcement contains features I always expected from the original game once they "finished" it, but no, clearly the pattern is to rename/reskin the old game and sell it again.
I'll be surprised if this incarnation ever comes out of early access and still I have yet to play a modern survival game.
Oh yes, I don't know anything about Subnautica but Ark is not a title to hold up as a good example, its quality and completion state are still considered questionable even though its finally launching. (Consoles only, right?)
Regardless, one or two winners and dozens of bad games does paint a picture of success.
Early Access is an idea which needs to DIAF as far as I'm concerned and i will continue to support launched games.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Hell, most of the unpolished flops in the RPG world aren't even AAA. They're usually games from AA studios (like Two Worlds or The Technomancer). I'd take that over the genre of amateur hour projects like survival games any day of the week. Hell, if you were to rate even a "great" survival game, like Ark, among the standards of the RPG pantheon, it would barely fall in the middle, if we're being generous.
The quality standards of the survival genre are far, far below industry standard. That's just a reality. But it isn't like the genre isn't capable of much more. Breath of the Wild has already shown us how it can be done with its highly polished gameplay, strong weapon variety, and food/crafting mechanics that don't just boil down to "refill the thirsty boy meters every 5 bloody minutes."
guess they had focus pve after Player unknown Battlegrounds release...
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
I have explored about half the new map so far and am very underwhelmed; however, I must admit the new character mechanics are pretty useful.
http://wyrdblogging.blogspot.com/
How? They gave their original customers both games for the original price..
PUBG is 95% the same as H1Z1:KOTK, but costs $30 while KOTK has been on sale for $9.99.
"Just survive" if it ever becomes something then hey maybe we get another game, I think I paid $20 total for both when I bought this originally.
GAME TIL YOU DIE!!!!
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
Although I guess if the bag is "The name", then the bag might be considered new but the contents inside it aren't?
...I wouldn't really call removing the "H1Z1" from "H1Z1: Just Survive" as "brand new" either, though.
Survive - for me - suggests an "autonomous studio" trying to keep it games going, hoping to release new experiences and so forth. Spend money in the short term perhaps to - hopefully - grow the company and make more money in the longer term. To be turning out games for many years to come. Even when SoE were owned by Sony I always felt that SoE was in it for the long haul.
Daybreak - for me - isn't an autonomous studio ...... its a revenue stream.
CN paid $X + whatever they lost on the gamble that was EQN. They expect enough revenue to cover the purchase price and ultimately make a profit on the deal. So I expect no risks. No major investments just the bare minimum to keep things ticking along. This fits that philosophy. And if that means the company closes in 5 years or whatever so be it. As long as it has made a profit.
^^ sigh what they need to do is get planetside 2 and start expanding it, its a capable already made engine - what they did with it for h1z1 was total butchery, what a waste.