Dark and Light is on sale, encourages players to enjoy bugs

    
25

Are you sitting around the house, whining to your mom that you’re bored? Are you doing that while technically being 35 years of age? Then there’s always Dark and Light to check out, considering that the sandbox is now out on early access — and is being sold at 17% off until August 3rd.

You might want to hold off a few days before heading into it, however. The team is frantically patching it in response to server instability and other issues, so it’s still in that post-release chaotic period that sends weaker players back to their beds to hide under covers.

In the meanwhile, the team suggests that you enjoy the bugs as content: “Some players have discovered couple of fun things in the build and we are working towards a fix. However, they are extremely fun in their current state, so we hope you all enjoy the laughs in the mean time. Whether it be hitching a ride on your friend’s Griffin’s wing tip or shrinking yourself down to Ant Man size.”

newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Witches

35? I’m only 33 and 11/4!

While i don’t think the bugs are anything out of the ordinary (i’ve seen worse in AAA games with considerably more funds), i have seen games in alpha with less bugs, we really need a scale for early access since it seems to mean different things for different devs, EA1 means very early alpha, while EA10 means what used to be EA, a finished game being available a little bit earlier than scheduled.

Chronic Enigma
Reader
Chronic Enigma

Its pretty fun. Definitely buggy, definitely early access, but the premise and underlying gameplay and stuff is there. Typical sandbox, like conan and ark mixed and added fantasy.

This actually would be GREAT as an MMO. The only issues right now is players can kill the city people so you cant trade for gold etc. That will get fixed and there are PVE servers.However, well worth the 25 bucks, especially since its pretty decent now and will just get better.

Reader
Charles Dodge

Agree , worth $25, might as well get CFFF as well.

shadanwolf
Reader
shadanwolf

Wish this was an mmog,but it is not.So,I won’t play it

Reader
Dug From The Earth

Lol the top positive steam review lists this as one of the pros:

“- If you like sandbox games, you can do way worse than this one.”

Thats like saying “This food is literally garbage, but you could be eating poop, so bonus points!”

They follow it up with this pro:

“- This game will be great.”

Talk about judging a book entirely by its cover.

Reader
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Yuri Geinish

I tried it. The graphics were clearly upscaled from 720p or lower, thus everything looked ugly. Refunded.

Reader
Charles Dodge

There was a slider for render quality ,which on mine was set to middle when first logged in, it had a ugly pixelled look (like you said) , once you move the slider all the right far right it looks great, and I have 4 k monitor. The other stuff, low, medium, high and epic; didn’t really change the look of graphics as much as the render quality. That said, with GTX 780 TI at UHD (4k) with nearly all features turned on to high and nearly all boxes ticked, I was getting 30-35 fps.

Reader
Joe Seabreeze

Some people just don’t have the patience to move a slider I guess.

Reader
cista2bpo

So, how many players per server did they settle for in this? It was once an MMO, but….?

Chronic Enigma
Reader
Chronic Enigma

70 per server. world size similar to ark.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Kickstarter Donor
Paragon Lost

Damn, Citadel Forged, these guys and others all doing server tech on the cheap and it shows. :/

Reader
MesaSage

Do you remember when they used to pay you to find bugs – instead of the other way around?

Andy McAdams
Staff
Kickstarter Donor
Loyal Patron
Andy McAdams

I gotta be honest, this kind of sentiment bothers me. Mostly because it completely devalues the largely thankless work of the existing quality assurance folks who put in long hours, document that crap out of things, and write testing scripts to make sure the product goes out in the best way possible.

Additionally, regardless of early-access or not, there is literally no way to simulate thousands of concurrent players doing all the kinds of crap in your game that you didn’t expect them to do and breaking stuff left and right. There’s no QA lab in the world that can come close to simulating that.

And as for “paying for it,” its not like it doesn’t cost them anything to let you into the game. As soon as they start doing early-access, they start incurring costs — in hardware costs, customer service staff, electricity, etc. Not saying they aren’t generating revenue from the early access sales, but I have a really strong inclination that it’s not nearly as much after expenses as you think it would be, and except in rare cases they are probably not hitting a profit off of early-access sales.

Why do games keep going this? Because it’s expensive to run an open free beta where you have to front all the costs for this crap. They aren’t just “cashing in.” Granted, I have no love for heavy-handed monetization of Snailgames, but at least give credit where it’s due.

Reader
Dug From The Earth

Hmmm.. last I checked, the QA folks you mention, get a paycheck. Thats the thanks they get for the long hours, documenting, and testing to make sure the product goes out in the best way possible.

As for the original posters comment, Im not sure where MesaSage is coming from, but ive been PC gaming since 1989, and I can never remember a time when a company would pay non-employees to test their games.

Sure, getting into a beta was a privilege, one that you typically had to prove to the company that you were willing and able TO actually do the testing they wanted. Not just “demo” the game to see if it was something you wanted to buy. There was no “Random draw” or “first come first serve” system for getting into a beta. You actually had to apply, like a job, giving system specs and beta testing experience.

But that aside, you are right, no company can simulate 1000s of players on a game. I think the thing in question today is how these companies go about GETTING those 1000s of players to do their testing. They do it today under the guise of “hey, pay us, and we will do you a favor and let you play early”. IMO that is a load of BS.

When a movie studio needs 1000s of extras to stand in the background, they dont make those extras PAY to do it. Most of the time its a free thing “hey, wanna be an extra in our movie, maybe get your face on screen? come on down!” and in some cases, they will even PAY the extras. Game studios should be doing similar, but instead are abusing the system to increase the chances of selling their game.

Reader
MesaSage

Our usability labs paid out for even an hour of testing.

Reader
Dug From The Earth

What company do you work for? Paying outside testers is pretty above standard of them, especially if they are doing it in large bulk. (many companies will hire a small handful of outside testers, that they pay, but when it comes to a larger “beta”, this typically isnt the case)

Reader
MesaSage

Sorry if my opinion bothers you. I used to work in the industry. I’m well aware of what goes into making software at the highest level. I spent the hours, as did my team and the other teams we depended on. We never put anything out there that wasn’t rigorously tested and the earliest we let outside people in was beta.

If Test and QA today were so good, then it wouldn’t ship with show-stopping shit that passes for early access today. Defending the practice shows a lack of real awareness.

If a company isn’t willing to make an investment in infrastructure and give people some kind of monetary compensation (how about a free copy, to start), in the condition that games that are being released today, then it will never amount to much more than a steaming pile.

They ARE cashing in, because they prey on the behavior of the modern, trained consumer who would rather not spend brain cells making a decision that can be solved with cash. Standards have become so lowered and what was once unacceptable has now become baseline. Sorry you weren’t around to experience it when it was better.

Andy McAdams
Staff
Kickstarter Donor
Loyal Patron
Andy McAdams

I feel like trying to further elaborate my point won’t be constructive.

So, happy trails. /salute

Reader
Necromonger

Well said.

Its like this across the whole industry of gaming…

Look at how the market transformed from the mid 80’s to now.
Back in the day you bought 100% completed bug free game.
Today they sell you alpha games that are more then 1 year away from being in a beta state and the people buy it like no tomorow and start to whine about the state of the game…

Early acces / preorders / DLC / Pay to Win it ruined the whole industry for gamers…
And yet alot of gamers keep supporting this rubbish and Studio’s continue to create half assed games.

Its sad…….its realy realy sad :(

Reader
Solaris

I am interested in Dark and Light but am happy to wait until it’s closer to release. In the meantime I’ve found the similar Citadel Forged in Fire to be highly playable and fun.

Godnaz
Reader
Godnaz

Glad to hear you have some experience with Citadel. I went from excited for both games to slowly backing away from both games. I may decide to give Citadel a chance then.

Reader
Charles Dodge

Tried both, and as of now, I am enjoying Dark and Light more. Granted I only played about 4 hours on CFFF, and got disconnected a lot.

Reader
Solaris

I’ll def give D&L a go after it’s been in EA a few months. Citadel ran great from the get go for me. D&L was a mess. i could not get in half the time and when I did just terrible performance.

Reader
Charles Dodge

Yeah, as of right now I been playing Citadel a whole lot more then DNL.

Reader
Charles Dodge

Dark and Light took me nearly 4 hours to start enjoying it, since it had a steep learning curve ( least for me). There was no guide to go by. I am enjoying more and more as time passes, have built my first house !