Is Arks 60 dollars worth it?

[Lewiatan]

Considering how unrefined game was released I say it is not worth 60 dollars/euros. 30-40 at most.

[Masurao]

1 hour ago, Ulta said:

In my particular case, that doesn't matter too much. This topic is about whether you got $60 bucks worth out of Ark. And I did. If the base game didn't exist, I wouldn't have been able to have fun no matter whether it was on official, unofficial, or singleplayer, mod community or not afterall, no?

Plus you forgot to mention that those same devs implemented the ABILITY to change things...like the rates on singleplayer or unofficial, and they gave us the ability to have mods and a modding community. Whether you think so or not, that to me counts as 'base game', just because the same devs making the base game made it an option in a sea of many options.

Y'right, I do agree that the game "used" to be worth around...say...$50 for what you could do in the base game. I'll give it that alone, but then they proceeded to just wreck it to a $20-$30 title. Lack of playability is simply what it is. I mean, if things worked the way they were intended, I'd agree that the game is completely there for what its worth, but that is no longer the case. We used to enjoy official servers, getting on daily to do our little things; it was fun, a really great social sandbox.

 

Then it suddenly turned into us just getting on to show each other cool things we did on our own small tethered servers since official had gotten far too broken with content-over-performance mindset that WC enjoyed, so that brought the praise down quite a bit - and I mean knocking the supporting pillar out from beneath it as far as enjoyment goes.

 

I get it that the devs implemented those capabilities, but at the same time some of us never even cared to tamper with single and unofficial, so it was never even on our radar; we just enjoyed the base game how it was. Is it cool? Yes, don't get me wrong. However, the fact that it must be done that way to even gain enjoyment is in and of itself the problem, and is much more costly to boot in order to obtain said enjoyment if you wish for the same experience. That's all I'm getting at. 

 

To me,  added player modified servers do not count as base game. To me, the base game is the game that is ran and supported by the devs in official servers with all of the little events that they have. 'That' to me is the base game in its entirety; what it was meant to be when it hit the ground running. Players don't need to tweak anything or modify specifications, even pay for additional equipment in their homes to enjoy things like they want - just go in, find a server and have at it.

[LouSpowells]

1 hour ago, Masurao said:

Y'right, I do agree that the game "used" to be worth around...say...$50 for what you could do in the base game. I'll give it that alone, but then they proceeded to just wreck it to a $20-$30 title. Lack of playability is simply what it is. I mean, if things worked the way they were intended, I'd agree that the game is completely there for what its worth, but that is no longer the case. We used to enjoy official servers, getting on daily to do our little things; it was fun, a really great social sandbox.

 

Then it suddenly turned into us just getting on to show each other cool things we did on our own small tethered servers since official had gotten far too broken with content-over-performance mindset that WC enjoyed, so that brought the praise down quite a bit - and I mean knocking the supporting pillar out from beneath it as far as enjoyment goes.

 

I get it that the devs implemented those capabilities, but at the same time some of us never even cared to tamper with single and unofficial, so it was never even on our radar; we just enjoyed the base game how it was. Is it cool? Yes, don't get me wrong. However, the fact that it must be done that way to even gain enjoyment is in and of itself the problem, and is much more costly to boot in order to obtain said enjoyment if you wish for the same experience. That's all I'm getting at. 

 

To me,  added player modified servers do not count as base game. To me, the base game is the game that is ran and supported by the devs in official servers with all of the little events that they have. 'That' to me is the base game in its entirety; what it was meant to be when it hit the ground running. Players don't need to tweak anything or modify specifications, even pay for additional equipment in their homes to enjoy things like they want - just go in, find a server and have at it.

Most developers build a game, and that game has settings. If you don't like the settings, you don't like the game. Wildcard didn't do that. Wildcard gave three game modes:

1) Official Online: Fixed vanilla settings determined by the developer
2) Unofficial Online: Choice of vanilla settings or customizable settings determined by the server admin
3) Singleplayer: The choice of vanilla settings or customized settings determined by the player

You've stated that you "never cared to tamper with single and unofficial." That's the confusing part to me and many others. You want to play the game with the settings you like...but you've never bothered to try the game modes that allow you to play with the settings you like. From the perspective of people who have played both, this mindset seems completely devoid of logic. If you don't like the vanilla settings and want different settings, you have the option...but it sounds like that's not what you want. Despite all of the customizability of this game, it sounds like you want the vanilla settings to be customized to your preferences.

Yes, starting your own server with the settings you prefer will cost you money...but joining an unofficial server with settings you like costs you absolutely ZERO dollars. I suggest you play around some on unofficial servers, and if only for a moment please do us all a favor and reconsider your expectation that Wildcard should be footing the bill for a server customized to your liking.

 

[Ulta]

2 hours ago, Masurao said:

Y'right, I do agree that the game "used" to be worth around...say...$50 for what you could do in the base game. I'll give it that alone, but then they proceeded to just wreck it to a $20-$30 title. Lack of playability is simply what it is. I mean, if things worked the way they were intended, I'd agree that the game is completely there for what its worth, but that is no longer the case. We used to enjoy official servers, getting on daily to do our little things; it was fun, a really great social sandbox.

 

Then it suddenly turned into us just getting on to show each other cool things we did on our own small tethered servers since official had gotten far too broken with content-over-performance mindset that WC enjoyed, so that brought the praise down quite a bit - and I mean knocking the supporting pillar out from beneath it as far as enjoyment goes.

 

I get it that the devs implemented those capabilities, but at the same time some of us never even cared to tamper with single and unofficial, so it was never even on our radar; we just enjoyed the base game how it was. Is it cool? Yes, don't get me wrong. However, the fact that it must be done that way to even gain enjoyment is in and of itself the problem, and is much more costly to boot in order to obtain said enjoyment if you wish for the same experience. That's all I'm getting at. 

 

To me,  added player modified servers do not count as base game. To me, the base game is the game that is ran and supported by the devs in official servers with all of the little events that they have. 'That' to me is the base game in its entirety; what it was meant to be when it hit the ground running. Players don't need to tweak anything or modify specifications, even pay for additional equipment in their homes to enjoy things like they want - just go in, find a server and have at it.

Perfectly fine for you to think that. Thanks for the civil conversation =) I'll just agree to disagree, and let you have your own opinion. I still enjoy ARK enough to say through the entirety of owning it, that I got 60 bucks worth of fun out of it and then some.

There was a reason I bought Skyrim on console, only to return it to get the PC version and enjoy it 10x more than I already was.

[Masurao]

1 hour ago, LouSpowells said:

Most developers build a game, and that game has settings. If you don't like the settings, you don't like the game. Wildcard didn't do that. Wildcard gave three game modes:

1) Official Online: Fixed vanilla settings determined by the developer
2) Unofficial Online: Choice of vanilla settings or customizable settings determined by the server admin
3) Singleplayer: The choice of vanilla settings or customized settings determined by the player

You've stated that you "never cared to tamper with single and unofficial." That's the confusing part to me and many others. You want to play the game with the settings you like...but you've never bothered to try the game modes that allow you to play with the settings you like. From the perspective of people who have played both, this mindset seems completely devoid of logic. If you don't like the vanilla settings and want different settings, you have the option...but it sounds like that's not what you want. Despite all of the customizability of this game, it sounds like you want the vanilla settings to be customized to your preferences.

Yes, starting your own server with the settings you prefer will cost you money...but joining an unofficial server with settings you like costs you absolutely ZERO dollars. I suggest you play around some on unofficial servers, and if only for a moment please do us all a favor and reconsider your expectation that Wildcard should be footing the bill for a server customized to your liking.

 

I feel like you didn't understand my post. I get that it'd seem devoid of logic because you didn't fully understand it, so thats fair.  You may have missed the part where I said that we enjoyed just hopping onto the game and into an official(vanilla) server and enjoying ourselves until the game was wrecked by what would be the current issue(low pop lag, duping, pre-controlled pop, and lack of server room, etc). None of that had anything to do with settings that we could manipulate - it was something the devs still can't really even fix. Despite that, we 'were' fine how things were before it had gotten out of hand. I'm not sure how its unfathomable that someone would jump onto a game without intent to make their own server completely to their liking - which by the way, joining an unofficial that is 'completely' to your own liking without making your own is a little difficult, since others may not have the exact same tastes as you. By your logic alone, no one should really have intent to play a game and experience the immersion for what it really is when they boot it up.

 

I already dabble on unofficials since it and singleplayer are the only methods of play at this point, but thats not why I'm here. I'm here to tell you why I think this game isn't worth the price tag right now. Just because I'm given a different piece of cake after almost killing myself on the previous unsavory slice doesn't mean that I won't have a comment on the flavor. If things worked like that, no one would 'ever' have a problem with anything. At all. Ever.

 

WC is already "footing the bill" for the servers I 'used' to enjoy playing; they're called Officials, I believe. At least thats where I hope some of those profits are going toward..

 

[LouSpowells]

52 minutes ago, Masurao said:

I feel like you didn't understand my post. I get that it'd seem devoid of logic because you didn't fully understand it, so thats fair.  You may have missed the part where I said that we enjoyed just hopping onto the game and into an official(vanilla) server and enjoying ourselves until the game was wrecked by what would be the current issue(low pop lag, duping, pre-controlled pop, and lack of server room, etc). None of that had anything to do with settings that we could manipulate - it was something the devs still can't really even fix. Despite that, we 'were' fine how things were before it had gotten out of hand. I'm not sure how its unfathomable that someone would jump onto a game without intent to make their own server completely to their liking - which by the way, joining an unofficial that is 'completely' to your own liking without making your own is a little difficult, since others may not have the exact same tastes as you. By your logic alone, no one should really have intent to play a game and experience the immersion for what it really is when they boot it up.

 

I already dabble on unofficials since it and singleplayer are the only methods of play at this point, but thats not why I'm here. I'm here to tell you why I think this game isn't worth the price tag right now. Just because I'm given a different piece of cake after almost killing myself on the previous unsavory slice doesn't mean that I won't have a comment on the flavor. If things worked like that, no one would 'ever' have a problem with anything. At all. Ever.

 

WC is already "footing the bill" for the servers I 'used' to enjoy playing; they're called Officials, I believe. At least thats where I hope some of those profits are going toward..

 

While I appreciate the further explanation, I understood your point just fine the first time. The problem has nothing to do with what either of us understand, it's a matter of perspective and a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of the game. It was not my intent to convince you that that this game was or was not worth $60, that would be pointless. You had expectations that were not met, and based on your stated expectations I was attempting provide a broader perspective of the purpose.

[wolfblade1989]

If Minecraft is worth 20-30 for you, then Ark is work 60.

[Nesster]

A few weeks ago I would have said no. Because of the hard time I had building stuff mainly. Coming from Rust, I was starting to feel the game was like a badly polished, almost rushed, piece of software. But now with a few bases around the island and all the stuff I didn't even come close to discover, all the plans I have on the table, and how well it's starting to be for me in the game, I say hell yes. It's amazing how much this game has to offer. So much to do, so little time ...

Definitely worth it

[ehuhoser]

yes for me worth every dollar in hundreds of hours spent on PC and xbox.

[Masurao]

3 hours ago, Ulta said:

Perfectly fine for you to think that. Thanks for the civil conversation =) I'll just agree to disagree, and let you have your own opinion. I still enjoy ARK enough to say through the entirety of owning it, that I got 60 bucks worth of fun out of it and then some.

There was a reason I bought Skyrim on console, only to return it to get the PC version and enjoy it 10x more than I already was.

Indeeed, you as well. A lot of people nowadays like to jump right into the throat grabbing and snarky insulting gibberish; its nice when folks don't always resort to it. 

 

I feel the same way about Planetside 2 belonging on the PC.

1 hour ago, LouSpowells said:

While I appreciate the further explanation, I understood your point just fine the first time. The problem has nothing to do with what either of us understand, it's a matter of perspective and a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of the game. It was not my intent to convince you that that this game was or was not worth $60, that would be pointless. You had expectations that were not met, and based on your stated expectations I was attempting provide a broader perspective of the purpose.

 

Eh, its not like it matters much regardless. They made a great game but kept shoving too much into it too fast as opposed to fixing what was there already, so unless they were to get rid of some things and piss a lot of the megalomaniacal player base off that feed on their duped, high-tek spoils, I feel as if my expectations of how good officials used to be will never become a reality again. As bad as it was, it was still pretty fun before all of this. My group was going to pitch in for another copy after a server rig was set up, but we're withholding any further support until WC gets their act together. As someone stated in another thread: Its the only other way to really speak to them. Such a small voice, though.

 

Its fine either way. We're patient.

[Friesian]

My boyfriend bought this game for me on my Xbox one to try to get me back into gaming since I hadn't played anything in over a year and was just using it for Netflix at this point, and I'm not sure how much he payed for it, but I personally wouldn't spend $60 on it after playing it for a month or so. 

It's a beautiful game and was a lot of fun at first. I really love building in this game and have a blast with it. I've put in the time to tame myself some farming Dinos, so building is relatively breezy. But that's about where the fun ends for me. 

The lag and glitchiness are where my main gripes start, as well as the sheer amount of time some single tasks take on official, but that's where I'll stop with actually listing the reasons I personally wouldn't pay 60$ or more for it. Also, unpopular opinion here, but I've also got a case of the ass about seeing so many people, rather their concerns are legit or not, being told to go buy another console in order to enjoy playing the game as a solution to their problem. Nobody should need two consoles to play one game. 

[Jaric]

WildCard infuriates me at times, but as much time as I've spent playing their game I can't really say it's not worth the price of admission.

[Mrstcrook69]

Farcry Primal is "worth" 60$ with like 25-35 hours to beat...but a never ending game like ARK isn't? Think of dollars spent to hours played and it's a no brainer. 

We can all name TONS of games that have bugs or glitches and they're from top companies. These guys are new. Can someone tell me of these perfect lag-less never glitchy online multiplayer games that have the same amount of hours of playtime? Serious question BTW is like to check them out.

...i don't understand why a newer company with MUCH less money, technology and people at their disposal...mainly all resources in general..have to somehow do what's never been done..and do it perfect for it to be considered "worth" 60$..

Go back and play GTA 3 or 4 and see how laughably bad it is...then realize that GTA 5..the biggest game ever, made by a billion dollar company STILL has problems....but let's just forget how bad THAT online launch was and focus on how my trees texture won't render quick enough lol.

When Ark 3 4 or 5 have the same problems then we got something to complain about. 

 

 

[Diceman]

Game is awesome!

[ShinDude]

6 hours ago, Diceman said:

Game is awesome!

Sure is. If you can play it that is, me and many others cant due to constant freezes and disconnects. Not everyone gets this, seems to be random but connected to using "old" version of UE.

 Its a great idea and concept. Great potential. But.... "Handled" by someone not knowing how to handle it so it actually works.

Even after release it is  so full of bugs and glitches. If you like random disconnects, duping,, glitching out, losing tameas and you character and similar stuff. Sure , give it a go.

[TwelveFuture96]

It is so worth it i love the game but there are a few bugs here and there in the game  but they are still trying to fix theses bugs in the game...

[RAYGUNcam]

If you do not already own the game and plan on getting it I'd recommend getting the explorers edition which I think is $100, if you get this you'll most likely get one DLC free depending on the price of the last one if my assumptions are correct because SE and Aberration are $20.

[ShinDude]

"Trying" is the right word. And remeber if you yourself experience a few bugs. There is a crapload out there. Far from everyone gets all bugs.

 

[LouSpowells]

16 hours ago, Mrstcrook69 said:

Farcry Primal is "worth" 60$ with like 25-35 hours to beat...but a never ending game like ARK isn't? Think of dollars spent to hours played and it's a no brainer. 

We can all name TONS of games that have bugs or glitches and they're from top companies. These guys are new. Can someone tell me of these perfect lag-less never glitchy online multiplayer games that have the same amount of hours of playtime? Serious question BTW is like to check them out.

...i don't understand why a newer company with MUCH less money, technology and people at their disposal...mainly all resources in general..have to somehow do what's never been done..and do it perfect for it to be considered "worth" 60$..

Go back and play GTA 3 or 4 and see how laughably bad it is...then realize that GTA 5..the biggest game ever, made by a billion dollar company STILL has problems....but let's just forget how bad THAT online launch was and focus on how my trees texture won't render quick enough lol.

When Ark 3 4 or 5 have the same problems then we got something to complain about. 

This is the part that I have trouble with as well. The simple question of "Is Ark worth $60?" is silly at it's core. Is it worth $60? Well...yeah, if you like it. Are the bugs? Of course. There are ALWAYS bugs and issues in released games that most reasonable customers are willing to overlook if they enjoy the game. If they don't enjoy the game and are asked to give reasoning, they're going to use the same reasons people who like the game overlook to demonstrate why they dislike the game.

 GTA5 is a perfect example of this. I love the hell out of GTA5 and am probably somewhere north of 1100 hours. I have another buddy who bought it at the same time and has 6-10 hours. He played the story mode, then played online and said he hated it due to the absurd loading times and piss-poor methods for getting groups for missions together. I'm willing to overlook the negatives because the destination has a value that overshadows it. My buddy doesn't feel the same way. 

Despite the "whiteknight" cries I see directed to me all the time, I see the flaws in Ark. I see the areas that require improvement...but the game in and of itself is enjoyable enough for me that I can overlook certain shortcomings. Others don't, but that's the nature of subjectivity. 

Is Ark worth $60? I can't provide a concrete answer to that question. Is Ark worth $60 to me? Yes. Very much so....especially considering I paid $20. I've done the napkin math...and considering my played time, there isn't a single video game I've played that is a better value for me than Ark. I've got like 3600 hours in the game. Even if I had paid $60 for the game, that's still $0.016 per hour for entertainment that - for the most part - I've really enjoyed. The only other game I've played that much (probably more) was World of Warcraft...and there's no value comparison whatsoever considering I paid $60 for the game, $40-60 for at like 5 expansions, and $15 per month for the years I played the game. 

Is Ark worth $60? Totally. For me. Is it worth $60 for anyone else? Well...the hell if I know...but if someone is going to tell me it isn't, I have a smorgasbord of empirical evidence that suggests otherwise based on subjectivity, despite the bugs and flaws that I see. 

[SCEDeadeye]

I still say no

[zoomziller]

I get where u r coming from, ark is still quite buggy and is not yet fixed

[Vrallox]

I forgot to mention that since one of the bosses, the dragon, can't be defeated properly without resorting to employing glitches the game is technically broken since you can't complete the game the way the developers intended.

Huh. I guess that means that the people of Wildcard released a broken game so they can't even say they successfully launched it. At least they have to have an asterisk added when they do say it.

I suppose that can go in the pile of reasons why it's not worth $60. "Endgame content incomplete and/or broken."

[NaturallyMoist]

Is it worth losing $60 to play Ark? Yes.

Do WC deserve $60 from you? Unlikely.

[UrbanLinks]

This game has got to be the worst game i have ever played.  The lagging from the official servers makes playing the game almost non-existent; i'm lagging when on a tame, i'm lagging when i am not, i can't open or shut doors at times and i am continuously lagging out from the game.  What a waste of my money complete pile of crap. 

[PuffyPony]

I'd strongly advise playing player dedicated servers over Official. Official servers are rampant with issues not related to the game itself, and as a rule of thumb, player dedicated servers tend to be much more stable and have a better community on them. I believe some people on the Forums advertise their player dedis, so I'd recommend looking around.