Steam ARK Price Raises

[Rush2112]

A bargain at $160, let alone only $60.  I really wish they had sold the skins instead of dumping them into ARK for free.  

[HighFlyer15]

6 hours ago, Vesuvious said:

We run 2x Ragnarok servers and have had zero server crashes since Ragna went official dlc... none... not a one.

 

Blaim-o-Meter starts pointing at Nitrado....

Same here. Running it since it was released. No crashes at all.

[TotallyUncool]

11 hours ago, Jat said:

Just a note guys, there was a mistake with the EU price on Steam, we've now contacted Valve to get that adjusted, it should be 60 Euros not 70 Euros. As for why the increase is sooner than the release, it's because we are working towards our Official Retail release, which has the option for pre-orders and in order to work with retailers, we have to make sure we have price parity (or close enough).

Thank you for this! I can now remove this itchy wig and stop pretending to be WC's mum. I thought the pricing was strange, especially compared to other similarly priced games.

[MrDynamicMan]

On 06/07/2017 at 0:49 AM, SlyGuy68 said:

Considering the bugs, broken updates and lack of dev communication on their own forums, and short sightedness of game "improvement", I'd have to say that that is a rip off.

But then again I had expectations that have been let down. So I may be a bit partial in my opinion.

Really? The game has improved *drastically* since launch. My GPS has gone form about 25 to 50, loading times are cut in half, and the only bug I have encountered this year was a minor clipping issue. Content has tripled, the design are pumping out fixes in the gigabytes per week, and the game is approaching polished. They have listened to their community on in numerous aspects (wyvern egg mechanic, fishing, Griffins, to name a small few) and have communicated quite well. Updates get fixed quickly, and patches are constant. 

Sure Dx12 never happened. Sure they couldn't get bridges to work. Sure there are still some performance issues, but this game has come a long way and is a lot more finished than most games. 

[JozaSeraf]

Well they have still a month, they will fix some of things + update more dinos like sabertooth. Maybe even directx 12 comes for us amd users

[Lewiatan]

@Jat 69,99 euro price is still on steam store page. No one will buy this game if that price is still there.

I really doubt this game is even worth 60 euros considering its buggy and unoptimsed state.

[SlyGuy68]

11 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Really? The game has improved *drastically* since launch. My GPS has gone form about 25 to 50, loading times are cut in half, and the only bug I have encountered this year was a minor clipping issue. Content has tripled, the design are pumping out fixes in the gigabytes per week, and the game is approaching polished. They have listened to their community on in numerous aspects (wyvern egg mechanic, fishing, Griffins, to name a small few) and have communicated quite well. Updates get fixed quickly, and patches are constant. 

Sure Dx12 never happened. Sure they couldn't get bridges to work. Sure there are still some performance issues, but this game has come a long way and is a lot more finished than most games. 

You must be on PC cuz I'm on Xbox and I got origami dinos, 20 second lag every time I touch water and let's not forget about the constant crashing and my frame rate has gone down.

And lol Griffins? Never seen one nor do we have Ragnarok. Which is fine, but why dangle the carrot in front of the horse since it can never attain it.

 

And yes it may be allot "more finished" but to raise the price to where it is for where the game is, is absurd.

The fact that they have to constantly fix their updates is silly also. Seriously do they even have a quality assurance department? I question it's existence because every Xbox patch that comes out also comes with new game bugs. Like upside down inventories and dashboard crashing in large (and small) bases.

[Ulta]

I really wanted ot try and back Wc on this...I really did. But after discussing this with a dear friend of mine, I'm sadly going to have to change my Steam reveiw to 'negative' because of JUST the price change.

Don't get me wrong. I love ARK. I want ARK to grow and succeed and my review will still show this. But $60? As much as I feel I got $60 bucks worth of fun out of this game (and I did for sure), pricing it at that magic number is a BIG mistake...by pricing it as if it was a AAA title, WC is throwing ARK into the AAA game pool, which means potential buyers are going to compare it to...OTHER AAA titles, and most on the market right now are WAY more polished, optimized, and less buggy than ARK at the moment. $60 is a LOT, not something most gamers will drop unless they are rich...and heck some even more polished games that might as well be AAA titles like Overwatch aren't even that much!

I don't want new buyers to be turned away just because of the price point...$40 is where I think ARk's overall base price should sit...NOT $60. WC if you read these, PLEASE consider this...you will not get many new EA avoiding buyers with THAT price range...think of your game's health...think of how much imbalance your core game has in it's official PVP servers and how much else is lacking with your game. It has so much potential, but it needs way more time to polish than a month. That's fine, you can do that after release...but NOT at $60! So many more EA avoiding buyers will get it at $40 than they would at $60. Don't ignore the casual gamer anymore! you are cutting off SUCH a huge playerbase with not only Ark's base grindfest and catering towards no-life no-job players, but now with the price, you are basically digging ARk's own grave, and I will weep if/when I see it fall due to your 'content-heavy' mindset that screwed you over during your EA

[Rotix]

25 minutes ago, Ulta said:

I really wanted ot try and back Wc on this...I really did. But after discussing this with a dear friend of mine, I'm sadly going to have to change my Steam reveiw to 'negative' because of JUST the price change.

Don't get me wrong. I love ARK. I want ARK to grow and succeed and my review will still show this. But $60? As much as I feel I got $60 bucks worth of fun out of this game (and I did for sure), pricing it at that magic number is a BIG mistake...by pricing it as if it was a AAA title, WC is throwing ARK into the AAA game pool, which means potential buyers are going to compare it to...OTHER AAA titles, and most on the market right now are WAY more polished, optimized, and less buggy than ARK at the moment. $60 is a LOT, not something most gamers will drop unless they are rich...and heck some even more polished games that might as well be AAA titles like Overwatch aren't even that much!

I don't want new buyers to be turned away just because of the price point...$40 is where I think ARk's overall base price should sit...NOT $60. WC if you read these, PLEASE consider this...you will not get many new EA avoiding buyers with THAT price range...think of your game's health...think of how much imbalance your core game has in it's official PVP servers and how much else is lacking with your game. It has so much potential, but it needs way more time to polish than a month. That's fine, you can do that after release...but NOT at $60! So many more EA avoiding buyers will get it at $40 than they would at $60. Don't ignore the casual gamer anymore! you are cutting off SUCH a huge playerbase with not only Ark's base grindfest and catering towards no-life no-job players, but now with the price, you are basically digging ARk's own grave, and I will weep if/when I see it fall due to your 'content-heavy' mindset that screwed you over during your EA

I agree fully with this. I love Ark too but it is not worth $60. This game is one month away from release and it clearly needs more time. Now if they wipe the servers on top of this. A lot of people will probably quit. 

[powerstuck]

On 7/5/2017 at 9:31 PM, Currahee said:

I'd only hope all those that say ARK is a rip off or not worth it include how many hundreds of hours of entertainment that they've already received for their money. 

I know most won't include it ... lol ?

1786 hours...you can consider this a lot, but over a course of almost 2 years...this is not. 

It equates to a bit less than 75 full days. Consider that I played WOW for 7 years and had at least one toon at 250 days played...ark is a small part of my gaming hours. 

Was it entertaining in the beginning ? Of course it was. But the state the game is at, today, 30 days from official release, there is nothing satisfactory with it. None whatsoever. Actually, I don't regret having a chance buying it for 20$, because it's not worth more than that even today. 60$ is an absolute ripoff. 

As for those who may consider buying it...DO NOT BUY SCORCHED EARTH DLC...Why ?

Because with base game, you get a free Ragnarok DLC. Ragnarok has the biomes, dinos, items and everything else Scorched Earth has. 

[spacejam]

On ‎7‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 1:26 PM, Volcano637 said:

Nah that wasn't at all about the wipe. It was about the discussion I had we a few people on how the official release date wasn't an eta. Which I said it was not. Someone else said it was, then I said they were wrong. And o just happened to be right. 

That was all that was about

I was just stirring the pot, The next 4 weeks will be interesting with updates and final release coming. ! cant wait to see what happens

[StarKillerX]

I'm not sure why people are complaining since early access became a thing the idea was, get a game at a discount and not only help the dev finance the continued development of the game but also provide feedback and suggests which can help make the game better and have features you desire added. Well the moment they said they were having a retail release in, what 6 weeks after they announced it, that period of time was over and now it's basically just pre-orders that you don't need to wait to play.

Before they gave the August date for release, people buying the game had no idea if or when the title would actually release, and were rewarded for taking the chance on it but why should those who wont buy early access but would buy it a once it's gone gold and is set for release get the benefit of the early access discount?

It likely that had so many not bought early access to Ark over it's two+ years in early access it wouldn't be being released now, or at the very least the game that was released would have been far less ambitious and have far less content then the game we are not playing because of that I have no issue with all of them (well all of us) getting a steep discount and those who wouldn't risk it being expected to pay much more.

[Bogger]

You have all the game issues,the disgusting dlc while in ea move,now this almost quadruple price raise?This company is right up there with publishers like Activision and EA,as anti consumer as it gets.Despicable.Oh and besides being despicable,it's bloody stupid,buzz around the game has long since died out(always a problem with long time ea games) so you throw up a much higher price point upon release?We live in an age where information is readily accessible to all,only shooting yourselves in the foot with yet more controversy. 

[ciabattaroll]

34 minutes ago, Bogger said:

the disgusting dlc while in ea move

Again with this dead horse. Wildcard is not the first to make use of releasing DLC during Early Access, just (possibly) the first to offer actual content as DLC instead of just skins or a digital artbook.

34 minutes ago, Bogger said:

now this almost quadruple price raise?

It's actually double. ARK's Early Access price was listed at $30, and has been subject to numerous discounts through its two years in Early Access. $60 is very much the average price for games, specially multi-platform ones.

 

34 minutes ago, Bogger said:

(always a problem with long time ea games) so you throw up a much higher price point upon release?

Maybe I'm just the odd man here, but I don't really see how two years in Early Access counts as a "long time".I mean, it might just be prior experience with closed and open beta phases of various other games but I feel like if they were to be in Early Access for anything less than a year then it would feel that they weren't really "a game still in development" as much as they were just being a glorified beta phase.

I mean, let's take a non EA game as an example. Grand Theft Auto 5 started development in 2009 and came out in 2013. How much of that time would be considered "too long" were it an Early Access game? Now take that and compare it with ARK where work started as early as October of 2014, didn't open up to the public until June of 2015, and is slated to come out in August of this year.

[Bogger]

50 minutes ago, ciabattaroll said:

Again with this dead horse. Wildcard is not the first to make use of releasing DLC during Early Access, just (possibly) the first to offer actual content as DLC instead of just skins or a digital artbook.

It's actually double. ARK's Early Access price was listed at $30, and has been subject to numerous discounts through its two years in Early Access. $60 is very much the average price for games, specially multi-platform ones.

 

Maybe I'm just the odd man here, but I don't really see how two years in Early Access counts as a "long time".I mean, it might just be prior experience with closed and open beta phases of various other games but I feel like if they were to be in Early Access for anything less than a year then it would feel that they weren't really "a game still in development" as much as they were just being a glorified beta phase.

I mean, let's take a non EA game as an example. Grand Theft Auto 5 started development in 2009 and came out in 2013. How much of that time would be considered "too long" were it an Early Access game? Now take that and compare it with ARK where work started as early as October of 2014, didn't open up to the public until June of 2015, and is slated to come out in August of this year.

Firstly,just because wildcard didn't set the precedent doesn't make it any more excusable,it should never have been done and should never be done going forward.Secondly,it matters not what the average price is,what matters is what the thing was being sold for 2 years prior.Thirdly,comparing an ea game to a game in closed development is apples to oranges besides which a game like the one you cite with a development team that has built up years of goodwill from gamers and has a proven track record of quality games(and a massive publisher on board) would never need to even consider ea ,aside from that the 2 years Is a very long time in gaming where the game has been out in the wild.It's a special game indeed that keeps its beginning popularity for years afterwards,which ark is definitely not.That's not a knock on the game itself(though it has problems) but reality,the player numbers are plain to see.I don't think you would really believe bumping the price up is going to help efforts in reaching new gamers,especially with the furore around it on what it did cost?You know this has made news with many youtube creators?I'm not sure how insular wildcard are or people on here,but their(wc) rep wasn't the best before this price rise.

[ciabattaroll]

24 minutes ago, Bogger said:

Firstly,just because wildcard didn't set the precedent doesn't make it any more excusable,it should never have been done and should never be done going forward

When you buy into an Early Access game, your purchase goes towards funding the developers as they toil on their main game. DLC stuff are optional things that are in no way essential to the main game and as such aren't covered by your purchase. As much as I'd like to say it shouldn't be a thing, it's only in the realm of peoples expectations that it has any ground to stand on.

24 minutes ago, Bogger said:

Secondly,it matters not what the average price is,what matters is what the thing was being sold for 2 years prior.

Two years prior it was being sold as a discounted price with the added "benefit" of being on the ground floor of a game as it is being developed. Now it's priced as a game hitting its release. If anything, Early Access games are great in that aspect as no other industry charges you less for having what's the equivalent of a backstage pass.

24 minutes ago, Bogger said:

Thirdly,comparing an ea game to a game in closed development is apples to oranges

You're right. GTA doesn't have to filter out every armchair game developer with their "my uncle works at nintendo and this is how you should do things" posts in them. All they have to worry about is their vision of how they believe the game should be and just work on that. And with that isolation, a bigger team, and a higher budget, it's STILL taken them longer from development to release than ARK.

24 minutes ago, Bogger said:

It's a special game indeed that keeps its beginning popularity for years afterwards,which ark is definitely not.

Having constantly held a position in steam's top 10 for the past two years that it's been in early access would beg to differ, and that's without it having a legacy franchise to back it up, unlike GTA5.

24 minutes ago, Bogger said:

I don't think you would really belive bumping the price up is going to help efforts in reaching new gamers,especially with the furore around it on what it did cost?You know this has made news with many youtube creators?

If youtube creators want to view it as some sort of price gouging tyranny, that's on them. I've viewed this in the same way that I've always viewed it : games are in discounted prices while they're still in Early Access. When I first got the game I basically explained it to my friend in this manner : a $30 EA game means that you buy a $60 game with $30 worth of bugs.