Dean Hall calls the pre-launch price hike for ARK: Survival Evolved ‘outrageous’

Whether you love or loathe the early access survival sandbox genre, you’ve got Dean Hall’s DayZ to thank for it, although he’s had far less luck with recent titles. Still, history affords him a bit of extra credibility when he talks about the nascent genre, and he took to the online spaces to decry the recent price hike for ARK: Survival Evolved ahead of the game’s launch. The price increase was cited specifically as being “****ing outrageous” and he claimed that the only possible motive for increasing the price was greed.

Hall went on a further tear stating that the game is nowhere near ready for a release and that the obligation of the developers is to remain in early access until the game reaches a higher standard of quality, which Twitter followers have pointed out is something Hall himself did not do with DayZ. We leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide whether Hall is raising legitimate complaints or kvetching about nothing.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Code of Conduct | Edit Your Profile | Commenting FAQ | Badge Reclamation | Badge Key

LEAVE A COMMENT

87 Comments on "Dean Hall calls the pre-launch price hike for ARK: Survival Evolved ‘outrageous’"

Subscribe to:
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most liked
April-Rain
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
April-Rain

I never bought DayZ even at the height of its hype, it was just too expensive for what was really a broken arma mod, as for ARK I did buy that and found that to be too buggy for me which in turn put me off buying alpha pre launch games.

I have not followed ARK but I guess if the bugs are fixed and the graphics and game play are now polished then it would be worth the price increase, but if its still the mess it was in alpha then its a cash grab.

Reader
Jeremy Barnes

They released DLC for an early access title…NEWS FLASH: They’re greedy.

Reader
Dan

Because $50-60 for dayz wasn’t for a pre-release alpha that we still have to this day?

Reader
Duey Bear

Pot calling the kettle black.
Not unusual for a game to increase its price after early access. Wait for a sale.

Reader
enamel

In his defense, he’s an expert when it comes to cashing out a payday with an unfinished product, so he knows what he is talking about.

ceder
Reader
ceder

If people think this is bad, wait until they see the exploitive price for Ark upcoming “Season Pass”. Wildcard’s decision to up the box price is inane but I understand the epistemic bubble of decision making with Wildcard that has led to this.

Reader
Tanek

Has anything been said about it yet? As far as I can tell, no one has even been able to get them to say a season pass will be offered outside of the full purchase pack.

I mean, I assume it will be offered separately, but, for launch anyway, they seem to be ignoring anyone who has already purchased the game.

ceder
Reader
ceder

The fact they list it as a selling point for their deluxe/collector’s editions is pretty compelling proof that they plan to make it a purchase point for those who do not get the collector’s edition (especially via pc).

Also very worthy of note: there is so far no indication that PC purchasers will have access to the collector’s edition swag(junk really imo).

The last year has been showing slowing a shifting priority to consoles in stead of pc(using the pc as the guinea pig/testing platform for things before iterating it on the consoles). Radial menu changes in recent months reflect that priority as well.

It makes sense because they see the console market less saturated than the pc market at this point and as well with the coming new xbox version they’ve been declared a title for, they’ve yet another future market to work with.

This just leaves season pass/future dlc considerations being the only meaty value left to them on pc.

However, they could just shift thinking yet again and stop their season pass plans and just strip it to individual dlcs or worse some other micro transaction style. Honestly they’re using an addiction business plan: get them in cheap/easy to start then once hooked, cut the product and sell for higher there after.

Reader
A Dad Supreme

” The price increase was cited specifically as being “****ing outrageous” “
=======
I would have thought that climbing mountains like Mount Everest and seeking enlightenment would have made one .. less… hostile.

Siphaed
Reader
Siphaed

Enlightenment only makes one more hostile towards the world as they’ve opened their eyes to the hypocrisy and evil ways.

Reader
Armsbend

Developers should really go anon when talking about other people’s games. It just makes you seem oddly jealous.

hamadubai
Reader
hamadubai

they do but nobody notices because nobody cares what anon#387571038 thinks.

Reader
Mark Jacobs

Devs have enough to worry about without attacking each other, even anonymously. I think if you are going to attack someone, using your own name is better but as you correctly said, it will make you look jealous under most circumstances.

Make your game(s) and run your studio the right way is the best way to do things, at least IMO.

Reader
Armsbend

I agree – but IF you are going to do it – be all secret about it or something. The small list of developers that seem to attack other developers doesn’t do them any favors. Leave the attacking to us civilians please.

Reader
Mark Jacobs

I agree, mostly. When developers attack secretly though it just feels dirty to me. If, as a developer, you feel the need to have your negative opinion heard about another dev’s game, I think you should be upfront and honest about it. Otherwise it feels too much like high school crap right? At least when you are upfront, you’re willing to risk your own reputation by calling out the other dev. Again, I don’t think you should do it, but if you are going to do it, at least be open about it and be willing to take the heat for it. That’s one of the many reasons I’m always Mark Jacobs, not someone else, no jolly pirate nicknames, etc.

But I am in violent agreement with you that devs should usually just keep their mouths shut about other devs, especially with something highly subjective, unless it is to say something nice or positive. We have enough negativity in the industry, we don’t need devs to go all Twittery on other devs, especially in cases like this.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
John Bagnoli

Don’t hate.

Reader
Hirku

I wonder if he’ll hold himself to the same standard when he launches his game?

Guess we’ll never know.

Reader
Witches

I’d say he’s multitasking.

The game seems to be decreasing in quality, so it’s probably better that they launch now while it’s not too broken.

Reader
Melissa McDonald

I enjoy ARK as a single player game. ‘Cause Dinosaurs.

Reader
jim

Game’s broken at this point, anyways. Jumped back in a few weeks ago, hearing it was close to release and the building mechanics are worse than they’ve ever been. Even an inch change in elevation completely borks a build and you spend 90% of your time fiddling with bad build mechanics instead of exploring. Public PvP ruins these games every time. Some kids find out tricks you can use with the building mechanics being open and easy, the developers have to try and balance it and, depending on their skill, end up making the mechanics incredibly restrictive and broken so somebody can’t make a floating fortress or too many bridges.

Reader
Tanek

The basic building mechanics have never changed. They have been that bad since day 1.

What the developers have “fixed” because of PvP, though, managed to break nearly every boat build in the game. And, as far as I can tell, they did not even do it because of boats. It was just the fastest blanket way to try fixing invulnerable boxed quetzals as they scramble at the last minute to get a workable launch product.

Reader
jim

Yeah, that boat fix was the one I was addressing with the flying fortress comment. Before I left last time, they had just applied that fix and maybe it was just coincidence, but I found it was a lot more finicky IN GENERAL to work with structures on saddles. You’d end up with random non-buildable areas that would be buildable on the second or third check, parts auto-snapping randomly, etc. The bridge one I might be mistaken on, but last time I tried getting on, I was trying to build a house and a bridge next to it, and I looked it up and read something about how they changed how bridge physics work, or maybe I just completely forgot how bridges work in this game. I tried following the instructions, but given that the new physics were much more restrictive about building supports in certain places and in a certain order than I remember, it just ended up being an exercise of frustration as some shit just suddenly stops snapping right and working, regardless of how well you follow the instructions. I worked on that for a while and then decided to give up and go back to my house, only to find the more familiar issue of not being able to expand my house past the size of a shack because I made the mistake of building near a molehill smaller than an Icthy. And don’t even get me started on trying to lay pipes and fence foundations. :D

Really is a shame. This game could be absolutely mind-blowing if it could just manage to be ON PAR with every other single basebuilder out there. I’ve never seen mechanics as janky as they are in Ark.

Reader
flamethekid .

to be fair thats what generally happens in sandboxes with any sense of freedom people get smart in other to hurt other people.

PVE in ark was a problem in ARK due to trolls waay back then.
this is a problem that the MMO worlds adrift is facing and alot of people are begging for this fixed in a similar manner to the way ark fixed it.

ARK faced the same thing

Reader
jim

Agreed. My only point of criticism is I feel like these games would be a lot more successful and wouldn’t have this issue if they didn’t have to address the “pubbies” crowd. If the majority of players played on local servers with friends and the public scene didn’t dominate the userbase, I feel like the developers could have been more flexible with their design and wouldn’t have had to panic so much over Chinese farmers or bots or what-have-you. You’re absolutely right, though, that, while I think the building mechanics are especially troublesome in this game compared to others, the problem of bloated balancing, in general, isn’t unique to Ark and Ark didn’t necessarily handle the issue with more incompetence than any other developer

Reader
calibarzero

I’m going to play devil’s advocate and say, saying that his argument is invalid because he failed to finish his own game would be like saying the people who are saying his argument is invalid’s opinions are invalid because they never even tried to make a game

he’s still a person who probably enjoys video games like the rest of us, and he’s raising his concerns to the public,

whether or not it deserves more attention than the rest of the community though? I’m not sure about that

Reader
Dystopiq

His history shouldn’t matter. Right is right regardless of who makes the statement, and he’s right. Some people just let their feelings get in the way.

Zander
Reader
Zander

Derek Smart, is that you?

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

Maybe he should launch a game, first. His last one was vaporware and the title before is still in alpha 4 years after its initial release.

Can we stop covering him until he actually like…makes something that’s finished?

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

don’;t count dayz mod? i mean i talk shit directly to a BI dev about dayz sa regularly but dayz mod is a pretty hefty thing he did almost alone.

and dayz SA’s problems are in part because BI didn’t give that team their newest engine or the resources/HR to overcome the issues. despite it being their biggest money maker (and putting the company on the map).

i mean i think this comment is stupid and covering it by the press is stupid but give credit where credit is due :P

Reader
Patreon Donor
Kickstarter Donor
agemyth 😩

DayZ SA didn’t use BI’s latest engine because it was being used to build the engine after that one, oddly enough. Next big patch, .63 (beta), is going to finally break away from the leftover Arma 2 engine tech.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

from what i’ve read a major reason the development has taken so long is they were basically duplicating work that had been long finished in the arma3 engine. never heard this angle but it’s interesting.

Reader
Patreon Donor
Kickstarter Donor
agemyth 😩

Maybe I misspoke about it being “the next engine” for BI since that sort of implies the tech would be meant for something like Arma 4 in the future.

At some point many eons ago when the decision was made to go standalone and give DayZ the development resources it needed they basically branched off the late era Arma 2 engine (last used for Take On Helicopters). That engine was “Real Virtuality 3” and work on Arma 3’s RV4 was presumably already well under way. The engine that DayZ came to run on became Enfusion.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dayz/comments/27umee/before_everyone_loses_their_collective_shit_omg/ci4mpsj/ (this is three years old)

That video, also old, shows some differences when they made the break from the now ancient RV3 renderer to the one they had been working on specifically for DayZ. My own experience with the renderer change has been much better visuals and much better performance overall.

In some sense work was “duplicated”in that the Arma team had to update RV to do things like 64bit and DX11 that DayZ also needed to do, but the way the two games needed to go about that was different and on different branches of their old engine.

Andrew Ross
Staff
Andrew Ross

Personally, I don’t count mods. Hall hasn’t released anything finished but keeps starting new projects. ARK may not be perfect, but at least they’re putting their money where their mouth is, and I can respect that a lot more than other developers cowering behind EA for years, denying responsibility but taking consumer cash just the same.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

also dayz “mod” isn’t just a mod, it’s a total conversion. it’s like calling counterstrike a mod.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

he was had less to do on dayz SA than he did on dayz mod tho. and how dayz SA has gone has almost been due to BI’s bungling of the project – which frankly with what we know (without having to know any inside stuff) publicly about the whole thing i don’t blame him for walking away from dayz SA.

i mean BI literally handed their biggest money maker a skeleton team and a much older fork of the engine with major problems for them to duplicate their own work and then washed their hands of it and basically quietly threw the guy that put them on the map under the bus with the whole thing.

Reader
Tanek

Rather than attacking the person, though, maybe the discussion here should be more about, ‘is he wrong’?

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

i personally think he’s wrong. and i don’t know what the merit in reporting this comment is.

but throwing him under the bus for dayz SA is a shit thing to do.

Andrew Ross
Staff
Andrew Ross

“ARK may not be perfect, but at least they’re putting their money where their mouth is, and I can respect that a lot more than other developers cowering behind EA for years, denying responsibility but taking consumer cash just the same.”

If it’s not clear enough, then just know that I’m saying “Yes, Hall is wrong and so is the way early access is handled by most developers.”

Reader
Tanek

Ok. I apologize. With so many comments starting off with things about Hall, it seemed the dismissals were about the person rather than the statement.

As for the money where their mouth is, I’d probably be willing to accept the price hike if they had put their time into shoring up the existing systems rather than building this jenga tower over two years and then trying to patch the holes at the last minute after announcing a hard launch date and doubling the price.

I don’t like games staying in EA forever, either. And I REALLY don’t like using EA as an excuse for big problems. At least until now, though, the ARK defenders (and, in some cases, Wildcard themselves) have been saying that this that or the other will be “fixed in beta” and telling us we just don’t know how development works. Well, what now? Is this mad scramble supposed to be beta?

So. Do I think ARK as is is worth more than $60? (Expansions, special editions which are not available for PC users who already have the game, etc.) No. I do think it is worth at least the $30 original price if you run your own server. And I think it could have gotten away with a $40 launch price if they follow through and keep fixing big issues rather than just focusing on more expansions.

Andrew Ross
Staff
Andrew Ross

Oh, I agree, not just that a lot of people are attacking Hall (its hard to avoid when he lacks humility), but about Wildcard’s handling of this. The new price is a bit high for my liking, and upsetting considering I was told at E3 that the price hike would only be for physical copies of the game ( http://massivelyop.com/2017/06/23/e3-2017-ark-survival-evolved-on-scope-creep-xbox-one-x-and-leaving-early-access/ ).

That being said, it’s a fully released game now. They have enough faith in their game to stop hiding behind EA and die on their own sword. I can tell you I haven’t recommended the game in awhile and, after this, still probably won’t, but I’m hoping Wildcard will come to their senses. I’m not saying this as a hardcore player (I’ve barely played), but rather as someone who’s mostly watched from the outside and seen some cool stuff surrounded by bugs and some poor decisions.

Reader
Tanek

it’s a fully released game now

Well, not for another month. ;)

I hope they come to their senses, too, but without knowing the actual driving force behind this “retail parity”, I can’t have any faith in it happening any time soon.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Kickstarter Donor
Paragon Lost

Early access, open betas etc, I’m of the mind that they need to go away. More drama appears to happen around these things.

Andrew Ross
Staff
Andrew Ross

I agree up to a point. Early access that isn’t priced for consumers (like $100) for a non-competitive game (or one that will wipe before launch) sends a message that you’re paying for the developer’s ear, not for an unfinished game. Open beta where developers are opening the game for a weekend or so for stress testing and closing the game off again while the feedback is utilized is exactly what that development label is meant for.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Kickstarter Donor
Paragon Lost

Agreed, good clarifications.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

ultimately people were buying beta access to games in NDA closed testing for years before steam early acces/paid beta testing/etc via the black market so the game companies wisened up to get that money for themselves.

it’s the same mentality as selling gold – other people are making money off our game, so we should make that money so let’s do it.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

funny thing about the whole thing is ark could’ve skipped EA completely imo based on our day 1 playing of it.

sure there’s a handful of obnoxious bugs they haven’t fixed and the performance optimization is something to desire but overall it compared nicely with plenty of launched titles despite those thing. and those things won’t be fixed for launch anyway it seems.

in the end it seems it would’ve saved them a bunch of drama on multiple episodes to have “launched” from day 1 instead of doing EA.

Reader
mcsleaz

you’re a week late on this story

Reader
Tanek

And ARK is a year late starting to fix bugs. :P

Reader
Roger Christie

Auditioning for a role as the new Internet Warlord.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Phubarrh

How did DayZ’s console release go, anyway?

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

he’s been off dayz for like a year or more now. i don’t think he has much input on that to begin with.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

ahh ark, the ea game that could’;ve skipped ea from day 1 and no one would bat an eye but because they did ea and even delayed their “set in stone” launch date everyone hates on it now for things that no one hates on any other game for ea or otherwise.

the game people will loudly complain about a meaty $20 expansion pack because it’s in EA still while defending star citizen FUBAR fest.

Reader
primal

always have to get star citizen in there dont ya. you be star citizens biggest fan

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

it’s a visible example of something people visibly give a pass to or don’t comment on while bitching about this. so it’s relevant.

but always have to defend your OTL don’t you? XD

Reader
primal

hahaha nope but you always always find a reason to compare something with star citizen. out of the hundreds of early access games you only pick just one to compare to hahahah

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

so what? i actually play and follow that game so it’s familiar to me.

stop being such a mindless fanboy ffs. no wonder the game’s community has such a bad rep. even tho people like you are a tiny minority you are so rabid you make the rest of us look like shit.

Reader
primal

im a fanboy lmao at least i can control myself and mostly get bored of talking about the same stuff over and over yet your constantly banging on about stuff

Besides the point of the topic is they are actual charging HIGHER than AAA price. AAA games on steam usually cost £40. there charging £50 for it right now and seeing as its still apparently full of bugs and crappy optimisation its not worth a more than AAA price so you should expect a certain quality standard that simply isnt there and unless theyve got some magic wand that fixes everything in the relatively tiny amount of time they have till launch. it wont be worth the price

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

oh you decided to actually talk about the topic of the article for once instead of attacking me.

it’s cheaper than AAA games in cad and usd. if it costs more in gbp than past games…. well get used to it. other game companies are charging more to the UK on steam as well as the GBP has taken a pounding the past year.

and chargign more than an early access game before (which is the ACTUAL QQ involved here) is pretty mundane shit for alot of early access games going into launch that no one complains about normally.

Reader
primal

is it cheaper though? there are differences in the wages from each country

point being an early access game can get away with less optimisation but a gold release has a certain quality standard especially for a full priced game. take BF4 or AC Unity, those 2 games were a cluster fuck on launch and deserved all the crap they got. ark shouldnt have a pass because its not part of a massive publisher.

The real point of it all isnt so much the fact that there charging full price but that there charging full price for a game that runs like shit

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

AAA games on steam are $80, ark is $66. it is cheaper. the rezst of your post is irrelevent. your point is erroneous. the qq isn’t that it’s more expensive than AAA games, it’s that they raised the price going into launch.

if it costs more than older gmaes in the UK that’s a completely unrelated matter and you can expect more of that in the coming months and years due to a weaker pound due to brexit.

Reader
kidwithknife

I’m not aware of any AAA games on Steam going for $80 USD, unless they’re bundled with a season pass or something like that. Standard price for a new AAA game in the US is $50-60.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

how many times do i have to type CAD vs USD????

ffs.

Reader
primal

oh right i thought games on steam in US were $60. if its $80 then fair enough.

“Hall went on a further tear stating that the game is nowhere near ready for a release and that the obligation of the developers is to remain in early access until the game reaches a higher standard of quality,”

there you go Hall is saying the game isnt worth full price mainly cus the game isnt ready and needs to be better. but i guess you filtered that out didnt you

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

ark is $60 usd on steam right now.

it’s $66cad.

Reader
Knight Porter

False comparison. Tons of people are more than happy to call Ark and Star Citizen both out on their BS.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

it’s not a false comparison because there’s also tonnes of people that give SC a pass or defend it while talking shit about ARK.

when the ark thing isn’t even bad in the entire context of kickstartered video games in general.

so what if they were in EA when they released a meaty DLC for $20 on a $20 game? why is that even a big deal without the context of kickstarter game monetization schemes?

Reader
Sray

I’m with you dk. While I think it was a poorly considered move to release a DLC pack during early access, but in the grand scheme of shitty things early access games have done in terms of monetization ARK’s doesn’t even rank in the top 20.

Reader
Tanek

Dismissing complaints about something because “well, it isn’t as bad as this other thing” is not a great road to be on. We’d only ever have “valid” complaints against the worst of the worst. And that line would keep moving down.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

ultimately even without the comparison to other games the whole thing is so minor and not all that bad at all in any context that the whole qq fest is rather silly to begin with.

but in the context of everything that goes without comment or gets a pass or even gets defended often by the same people qqing about this it gets even sillier.

apparently there’s alot to bitch about wrt this game that is legitimate and worthwhile. but none of that is getting a qq fest because instead we’re bitching about a meaty expansion pack for an early access game for w/e silly reason i don’t understand.

and to be clear i don’t even like ark much at all. the only fun part of it imo is when you’re first running around naked on a fresh server looking for your friends. i think adding grind and progression to this genre is a missed opportunity by both ark and rust and others that’s a damn shame.

i just think the whole bitching about ark does with it’s monetization is silly. like this whole “raising the price is outrageous before launch” thing is rediculous because frankly it’s something plenty of other games have done and is quite acceptable for them to have done with zero bitching about it or comment and plenty of justification for it from all involved and quite copisetic.

Reader
Sray

Tanek, you’re absolutely right. I’m just saying that the amount of crap thrown at ARK for early access DLC is way out of proportion compared to many other -more popular- games that don’t get one tenth the crap for being ten times worse (looking at you H1Z1, with your day one consumable microtransactions).

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

honestly hizi is alot worse but i don’t see certain people complaining about that one when they talk shit about much less worse behaviour from ark.

it’s pretty obnoxious and hypocritical imo. but with hizi in alot of specific cases i chalk it up to mindless brand loyalty. which those particular people tend to defend the undefendable from the likes of SOE/DBG.

Reader
Tanek

I kinda figured H1Z1 would not get as many complaints because it had fallen nearly completely off any radar.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

anyways as said below, again don’t take my defense of ark here as undermining the legit complaints you and other players have about their balancing choices and such.

i just think this and dlc thing are stupid to have such big qq fests about.

Reader
Sray

At peak daily play time H1Z1 has twice as many concurrent players as ARK. That’s hardly off the radar.

Reader
Tanek

I truly had no idea. I barely hear anything about the game other than the King of the Kill part.

Reader
Sray

That’s what I’m referring to when I say H1Z1. You can also give them crap for starting an esports league while in early access: “hey, let’s start a professional sports league, and then finish inventing the sport.”

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

that’s the one anyone still plays. but it’s quite popular even on twitch.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Patreon Donor
Ashfyn Ninegold

I don’t play either game. My mild interest in ARK diminished as game changes sent the community into a death spiral. Whether it’s ready for release, who knows. Not sure it matters what another developer thinks on that score.

Hiking the price out of EA, however, affects everyone. You could say it’s an early-adopter perk or you could say it’s the first game to do this and won’t be the last. Stuff like this spreads fast in the EA world.

I expect other EA games will begin to hike prices at launch. That being the case, if you’re interested in a title, better to just wait until it’s on sale on Steam for 75% off.

I’ve stopped buying EA titles because 1) the game often changes dramatically during development (ARK, case in point); 2) a really good game can be abandoned by the developers, leaving it almost, but not quite finished; and 3) it never gets to a really playable point and much of the EA promise is never met, even with a working developer. I’ve had all three of these things happen to games I’ve bought in EA. Now, I just wishlist a EA game I’m interested in and wait and see if it ever launches or meets its store page promise.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

idk that they’ve really dramatically changed ark in any radical fashion. most of what they’ve done is tinker with tuning (which is moddable on your own servers) and add a shit tonne of animals. and in teh $20 dlc a new map and MOAR animals.

otherwise they haven’t changed much – which unfortunately includes not fixing the handful of rather obnoxious bugs- noting here what i said above about they could’ve skipped early access and said i twas launched from day1.

Reader
Tanek

•There is still no good way to mitigate the Great Bird Nerf without mods.
•The “fix” for water breeding was to remove stasis entirely, a mechanic that has existed from the beginning and seemed to make sense. We have lost quite a few dinos to this change.
•The “fix” for quetzal boxes was to change ALL platform building rules, breaking many boat designs rather than targeting the problem (there is a setting for this on private servers, but using the config will once again allow the boxed birds).
•Addition of all the extra dinos may seem great, but that managed to overshadow the dinos from earlier and the “TLC pass” that was going to happen for those has been canceled or put off indefinitely.

And that is just a few of the problems caused by changes. I did not even go into problems that have existed for nearly the whole 2 year EA cycle.

Things like this lead people to wonder why these problems were not addressed, or at least planned through, much earlier. To only start the big push to fix big problems AFTER announcing a set-in-stone release date and doubling the price is quite risky for a company that has never been very good at setting deadlines.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

it sounds like there’s alot of legitimate complaints to be made about the game. so don’t feel i am fanboying it.

as i said below i don’t even care for the game much as i don’t like the gameplay beyond the very first part before establishing a base in the first place. so don’t take my defense of it in this thread as fanboyism. i just think the visible qq on reddit and in the media is overblown to shreds and missing the legit complaints to have about it.

Reader
Arktouros

The ability to cross transfer ARKs and raid other server clusters basically demolished a lot of the community as colossal mega tribes can carve out whole chunks of servers to farm for resources and then basically invade other servers with impunity. Massive raids on some of these maps and server clusters have shown vaults full of duped items like Elevator tracks for resources as well. These are massive changes that rock the community and in many cases have driven people out of Official servers entirely.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

hdn’t heard about that one but i do recall that server transferance was something alot of people were asking for due to legit reasons. but ofc the zerg guilds have meta’ed it to their advantage like they always do. damn shame.

in any case the official servers were always shit to begin with anyway due to various reasons that are coded in the game, and not unique to ark specifically.

Reader
kidwithknife

No idea about the state of ARK; $60 seems like a reasonable price for the amount of content and replay value, but I haven’t played it myself so there may very well be things I don’t know about it. This is pretty much just Hall self-promoting though, trying to score himself points with the Twitterati cryaby crowd.

Reader
Loopy

So, couple of things to clarify here:

1. The game is still officially in Early Access. While most EA games are offered at a substantial discount, or completely free, Ark is going with a premium price.
2. The price point discussed here has been almost doubled since its last iteration.
3. The actual price of the game is $60 USD for base game, or $68 USD bundled with the DLC, or if you live in Europe – 70 Euro. This is what most (complete) console games go for, and the prices are not on par with PC games, especially not survival ones.
4. The guy tweeted his opinion, he didn’t go out to news outlets to give out interviews. I don’t really see that as self-promotion in any sense, but more so echoing what a lot of people are feeling about the price hike.

Reader
Fisty

This fucking guy. Does he not know his reputation and the can of worms he opens when he comments on this shit?

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
BalsBigBrother

While the complaint is legitimate imo Mr Hall needs to learn about stones and glass houses

wpDiscuz