YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Direct Link
Direct Link
ARK: Survival Evolved has sold massively well for a game that isn't even finished. It has over ninety thousand reviews on Steam—yes, it's sold that well.
The DLC in question is "ARK: Scorched Earth - Expansion Pack". It adds a new map, new creatures, new items and so on. It couldn't have been an easy task considering all that content, which means that was time taken away from actually finishing the game itself to create extra add-on paid content. That doesn't sit right with me, considering I am a customer of theirs myself having paid for ARK personally.
The developers wrote up a blog post:
QuoteScorched Earth: Our original vision for ARK always included the creation of Expansion ARKs, along with the infrastructure and technical systems to transfer data dynamically between live ARKs. We determined that it is more sound to iterate on these systems during Early Access than after retail launch, given the significant risks involved if we didn't "get it right". While that meant unveiling the first Expansion early, it also means an easier time integrating further post-launch Expansions into the ARK network. We understand that this isn't everyone's cup of tea, and we appreciate the enjoyment people seem to be getting out of this initial view of how Expansion ARKs can work. Now that we have the systems in place to support them, we can ensure minimal integration issues with subsequent releases after ARK: Survival Evolved itself has launched.
I can completely understand adding in content during Early Access to make sure they get it right, but, this is exactly what Early Access is designed for.
Now, I can also certainly understand games that may not have sold as well adding in extra DLC to help keep development going, but in this case, it does seem to be a slap in the face for people who purchased the original game.
When you look into it a bit further, as reported by gamesindustry.biz it seems the previous lawsuit against Studio Wildcard (the ARK developer) and Trendy (Dungeon Defenders) was settled by Wildcard paying out around forty million dollars.
So, it seems like this is an attempt to recover some costs, but it will lose them a lot of fans in doing so.
This new paid DLC has seen the games overall rating on Steam absolutely dive-bomb into negative ratings ‒ I'm really not surprised by this!
ARK itself is still a mess when it comes to optimization and performance, especially on SteamOS & Linux. I wonder if they will ever truly put time into it, but not likely.
What are your thoughts? Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
I looked at the vid from Xpanded and I think it looks like shit. Completely without detail, like a 10 year old game.
For the hell of it, I checked the depots on SteamDB. And to my surprise, the linux/mac depots are much smaller than the windows one. For this DLC by five times!
That can't be a coincidence. I suspect they removed detail from the world in order to cover up a massive performance problem. So it's basically like "low" when you put it on epic. Maybe someone with both Linux and Windows can verify this.
For the hell of it, I checked the depots on SteamDB. And to my surprise, the linux/mac depots are much smaller than the windows one. For this DLC by five times!
That can't be a coincidence. I suspect they removed detail from the world in order to cover up a massive performance problem. So it's basically like "low" when you put it on epic. Maybe someone with both Linux and Windows can verify this.
0 Likes
Why not just not buy the DLC? Why all the hate? It isn't required or pay to win DLC. Why is everyone in such an uproar? Ark is better quality an most triple A titles when they release....Because it sets a bad precedent. If people let this slide and these devs don't get a heaping helping of negative feedback (thankfully they already have) then Ubisoft, EA, Activision, and the rest are going to start pulling crap like this. Then they will push the envelope further. Then a couple years from now when people are wondering "how did it get so bad" those people that said "Why is everyone in such an uproar?" and defended the Ark devs today need look no further than the mirror when looking for someone to blame.
2 Likes, Who?
I can't say I care if every developer starts doing the same thing. If they've proven themselves and the content looks interesting and decently-priced I'll buy it. If not I'll wait for release and/or stick to the core content. Nothing worth getting my panties in a twist here.
1 Likes, Who?
I can't say I care if every developer starts doing the same thing. If they've proven themselves and the content looks interesting and decently-priced I'll buy it. If not I'll wait for release and/or stick to the core content. Nothing worth getting my panties in a twist here.
I think peoples view on DLC depends quite a bit on whether they primarily prefer single player or multiplayer games.
If you think like a solo player DLC is a fairly simple equation. You pay as much as you want to get the game experience you want.
But dedicated multiplayer gamers are always going to be a tougher audience to sell on anything that allows players to pay to get a different experience than other players, especially so in RPG type games like this.
It's not just about money, it changes gameplay or has effect on size of playerbases, there's a whole bunch of variables that need to be considered.
So even if technically this one particular incident weren't a big deal you'd still get a lot of people that are afraid of letting it go unchecked.
0 Likes
But are reviews getting destroyed by it, or are reviews destroying it?
0 Likes
t
Bad precedent? its a good precedent! crossing my fingers to devs from ubisoft, EA and activision copy from wildcard and start launch their games for 20 bucks and their dlcs also!!! ofc!
Why not just not buy the DLC? Why all the hate? It isn't required or pay to win DLC. Why is everyone in such an uproar? Ark is better quality an most triple A titles when they release....Because it sets a bad precedent. If people let this slide and these devs don't get a heaping helping of negative feedback (thankfully they already have) then Ubisoft, EA, Activision, and the rest are going to start pulling crap like this. Then they will push the envelope further. Then a couple years from now when people are wondering "how did it get so bad" those people that said "Why is everyone in such an uproar?" and defended the Ark devs today need look no further than the mirror when looking for someone to blame.
Bad precedent? its a good precedent! crossing my fingers to devs from ubisoft, EA and activision copy from wildcard and start launch their games for 20 bucks and their dlcs also!!! ofc!
1 Likes, Who?
I have played ARK for 352 hours. So I do have a a good idea how it works, and where the problems are.
Grindy-ness is one of these, and I think one of the reasons it's still early access. They haven't been able to find reasonable default duration and resource usage for the recipes. And yes, you can change these settings for your single player game or your server.
Other problems include too long startup times, and graphical glitches on linux.
Grindy-ness is one of these, and I think one of the reasons it's still early access. They haven't been able to find reasonable default duration and resource usage for the recipes. And yes, you can change these settings for your single player game or your server.
Other problems include too long startup times, and graphical glitches on linux.
0 Likes
This is absolutely ridiculous. They had to know the kind of reaction it would get and they did it anyway. It isn't bad reviews causing the problem, they caused the problem by choice. Some people have suggested it is due to lawsuit costs/losses, which makes sense. Players did not cause those loses and they should not be paying for them. People have already paid for an incomplete game, the company should be making good on what people already paid for. They should not be crapping on people that already paid, to try and get more money from them. It is a horrible precedent. It says to devs, hey you can get people to pay for unfinished products. Not only that, but you can get them to pay for more unfinished crap before you finish the crap they already paid for. You don't ever even have to finish a product, just keep putting all the unfinished crap you want out there and have people pay for it. If you get some unexpected costs come up that has nothing to do your customers, who cares just make an addition to your unfinished crap and charge them for it.
If they really needed the money, they should have released the product and then released a DLC.
Some people may not have a problem with this, obviously most people do. Overwhelming so, if think it is ok you might want to more thoroughly consider the other side of the argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, you have the right to your point of view. There are really good reasons people are opposed to this.
If they really needed the money, they should have released the product and then released a DLC.
Some people may not have a problem with this, obviously most people do. Overwhelming so, if think it is ok you might want to more thoroughly consider the other side of the argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, you have the right to your point of view. There are really good reasons people are opposed to this.
0 Likes
This is absolutely ridiculous. They had to know the kind of reaction it would get and they did it anyway. It isn't bad reviews causing the problem, they caused the problem by choice. Some people have suggested it is due to lawsuit costs/losses, which makes sense. Players did not cause those loses and they should not be paying for them. People have already paid for an incomplete game, the company should be making good on what people already paid for. They should not be crapping on people that already paid, to try and get more money from them. It is a horrible precedent. It says to devs, hey you can get people to pay for unfinished products. Not only that, but you can get them to pay for more unfinished crap before you finish the crap they already paid for. You don't ever even have to finish a product, just keep putting all the unfinished crap you want out there and have people pay for it. If you get some unexpected costs come up that has nothing to do your customers, who cares just make an addition to your unfinished crap and charge them for it.
If they really needed the money, they should have released the product and then released a DLC.
Some people may not have a problem with this, obviously most people do. Overwhelming so, if think it is ok you might want to more thoroughly consider the other side of the argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, you have the right to your point of view. There are really good reasons people are opposed to this.
Correction, people have paid for an incomplete game that gets weekly if not daily updates to the codebase and new content constantly.
That isn't a correction at all, it is just additional information. Just because a product gets updates does not make it complete or released. An unfinished product pretty much has to get updates in order to become complete.
Last edited by m2mg2 on 9 September 2016 at 2:37 pm UTC
0 Likes
This is absolutely ridiculous. They had to know the kind of reaction it would get and they did it anyway. It isn't bad reviews causing the problem, they caused the problem by choice. Some people have suggested it is due to lawsuit costs/losses, which makes sense. Players did not cause those loses and they should not be paying for them. People have already paid for an incomplete game, the company should be making good on what people already paid for. They should not be crapping on people that already paid, to try and get more money from them. It is a horrible precedent. It says to devs, hey you can get people to pay for unfinished products. Not only that, but you can get them to pay for more unfinished crap before you finish the crap they already paid for. You don't ever even have to finish a product, just keep putting all the unfinished crap you want out there and have people pay for it. If you get some unexpected costs come up that has nothing to do your customers, who cares just make an addition to your unfinished crap and charge them for it.
If they really needed the money, they should have released the product and then released a DLC.
Some people may not have a problem with this, obviously most people do. Overwhelming so, if think it is ok you might want to more thoroughly consider the other side of the argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, you have the right to your point of view. There are really good reasons people are opposed to this.
Correction, people have paid for an incomplete game that gets weekly if not daily updates to the codebase and new content constantly.
That isn't a correction at all, it is just additional information. Just because a product gets updates does not make it complete or released. An unfinished product pretty much has to get updates in order to become complete.
You're acting as if the game is in an unfinished state, lacks content, and is problemed. You're incorrect on all counts... It's unfinished because they are adding so much. It is a complete gaming experience in regards to content by all means. It has been a complete experience since the day it was released. The only thing that is unfinished is the optimization. They could stop adding content now ( or 8 months ago ) and the game would be a complete gaming experience. You're going to fault a dev for going way up and above and adding insane levels of content to a game? You need to take your anger to devs that have poor update cycles and release full releases that are BS instead of directing it towards devs that give way more than they need to in order to make a product completely awesome instead of just "finished"... Game devs must have the worse jobs in the entire world trying to please gamers. Do everything great and one thing that people deam wrong and you go from a very postive review to a terrible review. No rewards for the good only hate and damn nation for the one "mistake"...
/Jason
Um... Early Access is by definition unfinished. It hasn't been released in any way other than Early Access. There are known issues, mentioned in several threads on this website and I think even in this thread. So I'm not wrong on any counts. You can just say you don't agree with my point of view. Continuing to make completely inaccurate statements does not promote your case. You seem to have anger with dev's of other games which you need to take up with them. They could release the game and keep adding content to the base game and release DLC's, lots of developers do this and customers do not have a problem with it. They could refund the money for people that bought the DLC and the reviews would turn around. They could release it and reviews would likely turn around. They want to keep it Early Access and charge for DLC, why? If as you say it is so much better than released products, there would be no issue with that. You are blaming customers for a situation that is clearly the developers fault.
Please find something I am actually wrong about before you make a "correction" or call me wrong again.
0 Likes
I actually blame gaming customers because most of them are kids and/or are completely unrealistic in their views. Just read through the steam forums or reviews for any game title to see it....
That we agree on. However in this case I think the customers are right. I'm not saying the game is bad, but I am saying the dev/publisher is wrong and deserves it. They can turn it around, but they need fix their mistake one way or another. Release it, or refund. I haven't played the game, but if it is as good as you say there is no problem with them releasing it. Nothing would stop them from continuing to update it, or add new content and they would not get this level of backlash for releasing DLC's.
0 Likes
Nor Mantis Sep 9, 2016
I actually blame gaming customers because most of them are kids and/or are completely unrealistic in their views. Just read through the steam forums or reviews for any game title to see it....
That we agree on. However in this case I think the customers are right. I'm not saying the game is bad, but I am saying the dev/publisher is wrong and deserves it. They can turn it around, but they need fix their mistake one way or another. Release it, or refund. I haven't played the game, but if it is as good as you say there is no problem with them releasing it. Nothing would stop them from continuing to update it, or add new content and they would not get this level of backlash for releasing DLC's.
You hit the nail right here. All the dev's did was released an expansion in early access. But the game is still better than most fully released AAA games these days. They should just release it. That is, to me, their only mistake. Having 2 words on steam, "Early Access" In the quote the dev's said..
"We determined that it is more sound to iterate on these systems during Early Access than after retail launch, given the significant risks involved if we didn't "get it right". While that meant unveiling the first Expansion early, it also means an easier time integrating further post-launch Expansions into the ARK network. "
So they are testing how to release expansions so they can get the systems right, nothing wrong with that in my eyes. Although I have bias, I love this game and have played close to 400 hours and the expansion is great fun played it for 8 hours last night. If this game was not as good as it is my opinion would be vastly different.
All it needs is optimization, it is awesome right now and I would not be upset if they released it today.
It make this topic interesting and why it is getting so much press. The game is popular, I just looked on steam there are 53,044 people playing right now. Not bad at all. This expansion is a success no matter how much backlash it has. Its fun. Did the devs make a mistake,yes. For me, it is worth every penny, I would gladly pay full price for the base game and expansion right now knowing the 100's of hours of enjoyment I have got from it. It is still a great price for a game packed with content and growing every week. ARK is one of Linux's best games in my opinion.
0 Likes
I actually blame gaming customers because most of them are kids and/or are completely unrealistic in their views. Just read through the steam forums or reviews for any game title to see it....
That we agree on. However in this case I think the customers are right. I'm not saying the game is bad, but I am saying the dev/publisher is wrong and deserves it. They can turn it around, but they need fix their mistake one way or another. Release it, or refund. I haven't played the game, but if it is as good as you say there is no problem with them releasing it. Nothing would stop them from continuing to update it, or add new content and they would not get this level of backlash for releasing DLC's.
You hit the nail right here. All the dev's did was released an expansion in early access. But the game is still better than most fully released AAA games these days. They should just release it. That is, to me, their only mistake. Having 2 words on steam, "Early Access" In the quote the dev's said..
"We determined that it is more sound to iterate on these systems during Early Access than after retail launch, given the significant risks involved if we didn't "get it right". While that meant unveiling the first Expansion early, it also means an easier time integrating further post-launch Expansions into the ARK network. "
So they are testing how to release expansions so they can get the systems right, nothing wrong with that in my eyes. Although I have bias, I love this game and have played close to 400 hours and the expansion is great fun played it for 8 hours last night. If this game was not as good as it is my opinion would be vastly different.
All it needs is optimization, it is awesome right now and I would not be upset if they released it today.
It make this topic interesting and why it is getting so much press. The game is popular, I just looked on steam there are 53,044 people playing right now. Not bad at all. This expansion is a success no matter how much backlash it has. Its fun. Did the devs make a mistake,yes. For me, it is worth every penny, I would gladly pay full price for the base game and expansion right now knowing the 100's of hours of enjoyment I have got from it. It is still a great price for a game packed with content and growing every week. ARK is one of Linux's best games in my opinion.
They could very easily test with free DLC. They didn't need to charge for a DLC while in Early Access to test that function. If they wanted to test they should have tested with free DLC. If they want to charge, release the game and charge for it. It really isn't very complicated.
My biggest concern is other dev/publishers follow suit and we end up with all these games eternally in Early Access, not fixing issues or following through with what was supposed to be core content but charging for a bunch of DLC. From my point of view you go Early Access so you can get some funding for your game before it is complete, you also get people to bug test your game, give you feedback on it and pay you for it. I don't think I've ever bought an Early Access game for this reason. In my view the dev/publishers get more than fair return from customers on Early Access games, this feels like glass just got put on the stick if you know what I mean. They want to get all benefits of Early Access, plus all the benefits of having a released game but take none of the drawbacks of either. In my opinion they are getting off easy.
Last edited by m2mg2 on 9 September 2016 at 8:13 pm UTC
0 Likes
Nor Mantis Sep 9, 2016
They could very easily test with free DLC. They didn't need to charge for a DLC while in Early Access to test that function. If they wanted to test they should have tested with free DLC. If they want to charge, release the game and add DLC. It really isn't very complicated.
True. They have released 2 free DLC. A total conversion pack, and a map. Both are great. Another reason I don't mind paying. The price is still well worth what you get. It is jammed full of content. Even at 400 hours I still have unseen areas and things to explore on the base map! Never mind the 2 other maps officially supported. Add in the conversion pack and an expansion its almost a new game. With all of it added together is still cheaper than most AAA games.
Last edited by Nor Mantis on 9 September 2016 at 8:08 pm UTC
0 Likes
I actually blame gaming customers because most of them are kids and/or are completely unrealistic in their views. Just read through the steam forums or reviews for any game title to see it....
That we agree on. However in this case I think the customers are right. I'm not saying the game is bad, but I am saying the dev/publisher is wrong and deserves it. They can turn it around, but they need fix their mistake one way or another. Release it, or refund. I haven't played the game, but if it is as good as you say there is no problem with them releasing it. Nothing would stop them from continuing to update it, or add new content and they would not get this level of backlash for releasing DLC's.
You hit the nail right here. All the dev's did was released an expansion in early access. But the game is still better than most fully released AAA games these days. They should just release it. That is, to me, their only mistake. Having 2 words on steam, "Early Access" In the quote the dev's said..
"We determined that it is more sound to iterate on these systems during Early Access than after retail launch, given the significant risks involved if we didn't "get it right". While that meant unveiling the first Expansion early, it also means an easier time integrating further post-launch Expansions into the ARK network. "
So they are testing how to release expansions so they can get the systems right, nothing wrong with that in my eyes. Although I have bias, I love this game and have played close to 400 hours and the expansion is great fun played it for 8 hours last night. If this game was not as good as it is my opinion would be vastly different.
All it needs is optimization, it is awesome right now and I would not be upset if they released it today.
It make this topic interesting and why it is getting so much press. The game is popular, I just looked on steam there are 53,044 people playing right now. Not bad at all. This expansion is a success no matter how much backlash it has. Its fun. Did the devs make a mistake,yes. For me, it is worth every penny, I would gladly pay full price for the base game and expansion right now knowing the 100's of hours of enjoyment I have got from it. It is still a great price for a game packed with content and growing every week. ARK is one of Linux's best games in my opinion.
They could very easily test with free DLC. They didn't need to charge for a DLC while in Early Access to test that function. If they wanted to test they should have tested with free DLC. If they want to charge, release the game and add DLC. It really isn't very complicated.
Cam'on, its just 20 euros for a game with thousand of hours of gameplay... cam'on
0 Likes
Cam'on, its just 20 euros for a game with thousand of hours of gameplay... cam'on
You say that as if everyone that buys it will play it for thousands of hours. Some people have other things to do and play some games here and there on the side. From the other side, that is also thousands of hours of free testing you just did for them on top of the 20 euros you gave them. Seriously, you can play tic tac toe for thousands of hours too. That means nothing. I haven't heard anyone say the cost is to much, or there isn't enough game play. The problem is that the game is still early access. You're giving answers to a question that hasn't been asked. It has nothing to do with what you are saying. You want to make a bunch of money on a game, release a game. You want people to pay you to test your Beta game, have the decency to only ask them for money once, or at least release the silly game before asking for more.
0 Likes
Geez, I feel like some silly obsessed Evangelist. I'm a keep my mouth shut now.
0 Likes
Nor Mantis Sep 9, 2016
My biggest concern is other dev/publishers follow suit and we end up with all these games eternally in Early Access, not fixing issues or following through with what was supposed to be core content but charging for a bunch of DLC. From my point of view you go Early Access so you can get some funding for your game before it is complete, you also get people to bug test your game, give you feedback on it and pay you for it. I don't think I've ever bought an Early Access game for this reason. In my view the dev/publishers get more than fair return from customers on Early Access games, this feels like glass just got put on the stick if you know what I mean. They want to get all benefits of Early Access, plus all the benefits of having a released game but take none of the drawbacks of either. In my opinion they are getting off easy.
Here I agree with you %100 and I feel the same way. But in my opinion the devs have delivered on all their promises, minus the optimization, with a ton have extra stuff on top. This game is far beyond my expectations. I don't think its a buggy mess. It runs well for me, the graphical glitches are minor and don't effect me much. I get a solid 50-60 fps on high setting with the expansion. It never crashes on me. For me the game is solid. That is why I will turn a blind eye to this mistake and feel like I have given money to devs that deserve the money. But its the eye of the beholder I guess. If you have trouble with the game, as many do, or never played I can see how this will rub you the wrong way. If the game wasn't, in my opinion, as good as it is then I would have a different story to tell.
Interesting discussion, it brings out the best and possibly the worst of early access practices. I believe WildCard are an early access success story. I have my moneys worth and love their game. If they called it quits and we didn't get another update I would be happy. I cannot say the same for a lot of early access games I have purchased.
0 Likes
Nor Mantis Sep 9, 2016
Geez, I feel like some silly obsessed Evangelist. I'm a keep my mouth shut now.
LOL
Sorry I enjoy your comments and I totally see your point and it is the correct one. But my mind is clouded by the urge to leave work early and go play ARK..
Last edited by Nor Mantis on 9 September 2016 at 8:45 pm UTC
0 Likes
I'm glad they are getting called out on this and having their name dragged through the mud, they deserve to be.
Look, I get the lawsuit settlement hirt them and they felt the need to recoup the money right away. That doesn't make this right, though. Paid DLC for a game still in early access is a very dangerous precedent and we (consumers and media alike) need to make damn sure that the message comes across loud and clear "this sort of crap will not be tolerated". We can't allow other publishers and developers to think they can get away with crap like this.
Releasing paid DLC for a title still in active development opens up all kinds of cans of worms. For example, how much of the content in the DLC is content that was originally supposed to be added in to the base game during early access? Also, how much time was taken away from fixing the multitude of serious bugs to make this DLC?
We can't allow thos to become the new standard. DLC and microtransaction practices have already gotten bad enough as it is.
This, right here. Absolutely - allowing this to become the defacto standard will be a devastating blow to gaming, for the consumer.
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me