Community Crunch 356: ARK Roadmap Update, Rhyniognatha Concept, and More!

[darkradeon]

1 hour ago, QueenAahlyia said:

This is significantly worse than it was before. Some people need to learn basic math skills. You traded out paying for 2 DLCs ($40), to giving up a bundled game with ASA (Ark 2 ~$60-$80). We have no evidence that ASA will be better than ASE, they haven't even mentioned server stability, pillaring, or duping concerns that have ruined ASE. At least before Xbox/PC players were paying $50 for ASA and Ark 2, then we had time to consider whether or not ASA was worth investing more into before the DLC came out. Now it's all upfront and no Ark 2 bundle. If ASA sucked at least you got Ark 2 in the bundle. ASE servers are still sunsetting. What exactly is the Ark community so proud of in this moment? I'm confused at the people saying this is a win lol. 

this, plus nobody pointed out if pve will have some decay times improvements (cables at 8 days really suck!)

[QueenAahlyia]

Omg yes, thank you! I was thinking about the timers earlier. Having us start over and work from the ground up is going to stump a lot of people who are used to tek and tek gens. Some players have never experienced electrical structures or anything that some of us have worked with in the past. One thing for me is that I can't log in every few days to Ark sometimes, and the decay timers are a problem. If they stop the insane pillaring, they shouldn't have a reason to have such short decay times in my opinion. 

[PaleoGamer]

3 hours ago, margifish said:

Except in the updated post they said the point of putting all the work into ASA instead of just porting over the switch version into ASE was so they could have an evergreen version of Ark 1 for YEARS to come...meaning they're making ASA so people who have no interest in buying Ark 2 will stay there (and still give them money via future DLCs).

I hate to be that guy, but... You do realize that "years to come" is valid even if it is just two years, right?

 

It would be true about the time when ARK II would get released... And looking the way they treated us with all this... Well, I'm not holding my breath.

[Frael]

11 hours ago, Hixbot said:

I don't understand the need for ASA at all.  Just put all development effort into Ark 2.

In the meantime ASE has decent graphics and performs well on mid-range PCs and current gen consoles.  A complete UE5 remaster and trickling in content we already played over the next few years sounds like a complete waste of development time.

My guess is they ran out of money for Ark 2, so delayed it to produce ASA to fund development.

[GhostCreep]

Please don’t get rid of couch co-op on single player. It’s really a good option for families and people who can’t use multiple consoles.

[GamerXD001]

And once again wildcard is doubling down with a poor response...

 

At this rate I definitely will not be buying either AAE or Ark2. Tbh, there are f2p games where developers show better acknowledgment of their communities better than these people do.

 

I REALLY hope wildcard can pull their heads out their ***** and really think about the public servers and how static action like a total shutdown could affect the future of their "franchise".

[Lucian]

4 hours ago, Duffmek said:

but did no work to make them that was the point and i wasnt sure on the payment if any as i said (afaik) so ty for correcting me however i do remember some controversy with the S+ mod been used

Yea they did work on them. They cleaned up a ton after they bought them. I played those maps when they were mods and there were tons of differences. Places where they optimized the maps, patched holes, added content or changed it. I.E, they had professional level designers go through and work on it for weeks before they launched. The historical comments should be here or on steam. 
 

S+ was brought into the base game and some elements were not appropriate (too easy) for it so they were cut. That’s why the mod was open sourced and the option to turn off the integrated version on unofficial so the mod didn’t conflict. 

[martingoye]

You still dont understaand , do you? improvement in game will be great, and we understand is hard work and we got not problem to pay it, but also ours work in those years was also hard, ark is not a common game, is a game that you play and can take you AGES to get mutations in dinos, making new bases. claiming servers etc. all will be lost, you will loose so many players that were the ones that were loyal to the game for years, players that trusted you, players that enjoy the game besides the bugs. most of them, will be gone. and really i dont think many new ones will come, for a 8 years old game, with some graph improvements, and a ark 2 that will be released in 2024, anyways good luck, iam out if i have to start over. like many more,, just check eko petitions to save progress, 6000 people of the 30000 average players already signed, and every day more people sign. when you make this game, you know that this game was one with a slow progress to became a mega tribe, dinos born times. chances of mutations, you know it can take years, to get perfect dinos, and from 1 day to another you wipe all . as i say your work is not free, we got no problem to recognize your effort and pay for a beter engine. but seems to you that our works, means nothing.

 

[Herezja]

For those that use the offical servers, this must be hard but honestly in my opinion (as a PVE only or solo guy) this is the best result.  Dummy spit all you like but games die, servers shut down.  Time to upgrade.

I am going to have a new Ark, not a port or half baked upgrade but a new one that even if the maps are similar Or even more or less the same are going to be better faster smoother and I can run about building my base and raising my critters and I for one do not mind paying for that.  
In fact, I prefer it because it puts the onus on Wildcard to make it worthwhile.

Edited April 10, 2023 by Herezja

[martingoye]

I dont know who are wild card marketing agents. but this is the result of this upgrade choise you made

[GP]

1 hour ago, martingoye said:

I dont know who are wild card marketing agents. but this is the result of this upgrade choise you made

Actually that is the result of the original roadmap, not the updated roadmap. I suspect there will be many that may now be happier with the updated package but don't bother to change their review.

[slejo]

2 hours ago, GP said:

I suspect there will be many that may now be happier with the updated package but don't bother to change their review.

Tell me, how updated package is better?

$60 - for ASA
$60 - for ARK 2 - i bet Ark 2 will be not less priced than ASA package

Thats $120 for Ark player for game. Im not happy to spend so much bucks for a game.

Edited April 10, 2023 by slejo

[Frael]

2 hours ago, GP said:

Actually that is the result of the original roadmap, not the updated roadmap. I suspect there will be many that may now be happier with the updated package but don't bother to change their review.

No, it was the result of them still trying to sell the game as an online game when it's imminently shutting down. Just read the reviews.

 

Edit: It seems they have changed their description of game to not include official servers but the point still stands.

 

Also, if you read through this thread you can see most people are still unimpressed by the updated roadmap

Edited April 10, 2023 by Frael

[GP]

18 minutes ago, slejo said:

Tell me, how updated package is better?

$60 - for ASA
$60 - for ARK 2 - i bet Ark 2 will be not less priced than ASA package

Thats $120 for Ark player for game. Im not happy to spend so much bucks for a game.

Well the issue here is no-one knows the price of ARK 2. You are assuming an early access game will be full price at $60. So you are looking at the worst case scenario. Nothing wrong with that, but you are unhappy about something you don't know yet.

Hell we can only assume that they are still making it as an early access game. But personally i'm not concerned about the fact I may have to raise an additional $60 over nearly a 2 YEAR period before the game releases.

[darkradeon]

2 hours ago, GP said:

Actually that is the result of the original roadmap, not the updated roadmap. I suspect there will be many that may now be happier with the updated package but don't bother to change their review.

original and updated road map ate basically the same. only difference is the bundle package. that is why a lot of people are still mad/disappointed

Edited April 10, 2023 by darkradeon

[Duffmek]

8 hours ago, Herezja said:

For those that use the offical servers, this must be hard but honestly in my opinion (as a PVE only or solo guy) this is the best result.  Dummy spit all you like but games die, servers shut down.  Time to upgrade.

I am going to have a new Ark, not a port or half baked upgrade but a new one that even if the maps are similar Or even more or less the same are going to be better faster smoother and I can run about building my base and raising my critters and I for one do not mind paying for that.  
In fact, I prefer it because it puts the onus on Wildcard to make it worthwhile.

pray tell me HOW is this 'new ark' going to run smoother and be better in less than 5 months running on UE5 when the devs are STILL learning how it works? they couldnt fix some bugs and patch stuff without breaking something else - dummy spit? nope trying to understand WC / snails idiotic decision making is the front and center of these rages - some games die yes but some live for much longer, personally i think WC didnt think ARK would be the everlasting game they expected and therefore had zero plans to keep any money flowing in past the DLC' swhich left them in a hard place.

 

My trust and faith in WC and snail is gone i have been burnt too many times to care what happens in their future now because all i have ever expected is the minimum and still been disappointed lol thats near 10k hours on official with a 2/3 year break in the middle, thats raising babies with no cryo-pods no maewings etc etc ....

 

I wish u GL in the 'new ark' cause its not new its just reskinned with bells and shiny gfx - (which tbh as it stands on a decent comp at epic looks dam fine anyway) - moving bushes and grass (which will be turned to low / off due to performance issues on the servers) 

 

sigh have fun.

[laohoo]

Ark: Survival Evolved is the worst optimized UE 4 game I've ever played. You claim to have developed a better new game using UE5, but if you can't even optimize UE 4, I doubt you can make a better game using the latest UE5. This is clearly a lie.

[SolidCore]

I am very disappointed and have been eagerly awaiting Ark 2.  Alas it seems the past is doomed to repeat itself for Studio Wildcard having not learned from Sony Online Entertainment and how they handled Star Wars Galaxies.

I remember all to clearly another studio doing the same thing that Studio Wildcard is planning on doing. Sony Online Entertainment pulled the same thing and forced players to change to a completely new system for Star Wars Galaxies called the Combat Upgrade (also known as CU) followed by New Game Enhancements (also known as NGE). These changes completely went against what the majority of the players wanted, minus force feeding them these changes with a cost (which is what Studio Wildcard is doing). The game hemorrhaged players, many of whom felt deeply unsettled by the changes wrought on the game's design and purpose.

I for one will not be switching over to the "Ark: Survival Evolved remaster" aka Ark: Survival Ascended as well as our guild. We will be happy to play on our private servers.

"Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

Edited April 10, 2023 by SolidCore

[slejo]

5 hours ago, laohoo said:

Ark: Survival Evolved is the worst optimized UE 4 game I've ever played. You claim to have developed a better new game using UE5, but if you can't even optimize UE 4, I doubt you can make a better game using the latest UE5. This is clearly a lie.

The worse thing is.. they still learn UE5 and they want to sell remastered game in 4 months after they say those words:

Quote

Unreal Engine 5 is incredibly new technology to us (and all developers), and we aim to use this cutting-edge tech to its fullest potential while creating a game with never-before-achieved scope at Studio Wildcard. As we learn more about the engine and develop the sequel, we have adapted our workflows and adjusted our pipelines to accommodate this new next-generation paradigm, and because of everything that involves, we need more time for development.

Then as we may guess, they will release ASA, but traditionally we customers will be frustrated beta testers.

[DreadMaverick]

After looking at the changes agian, I see that Survival Ascended is actually Ark 2. Especially when the new DLC drops, will make it fully Ark 2 to me.

And Ark 2 is really Ark 3 to me now, in my perception.

Since wild baby dinos will be in Survival Ascended, I hope all egg laying species have nests. And mammals have dens. If not at launch then future DLC should do this (please Wildcard).

I also believe that Animals should get new nursing/feeding animations too, at some point in the future (please). New animations from their parents and from the player (please).

Not to seem like a broken record, but it would be cool if every egg layer had nest locations. I loved the deinonychus nests, the game is full of great species'.

Edited April 10, 2023 by DreadMaverick

[scubadivingmaui7]

I don’t think you guys get it.

Lowering the price is nice, but I still think you’re going to get hurt by doing this. You’ve ruined the trust of a lot of people and I don’t think ASA is going to be the money maker you wanted.

But you need more money. I understand that. People have to pay the bills. Which is why I ask, rather than repackaging Ark and selling it at the price of a full game, why don’t you make more expansions for the ORIGINAL Ark to tide you over until Ark 2’s release? 

That’s actual new content that I and many others would buy. I’m not going to buy a full-priced graphics upgrade just to get a new DLC though. Why not scrap ASA entirely (or lower the cost, or add new content to OG Ark at the same time as the remaster) and add new expansions to original Ark?

I’m not going to buy the remaster for several reasons, including…

1. Even though the price is better (unless you wanted Ark 2) it’s still ridiculous that people who bought alllll your DLCs over the years are being charged full price. Compare this to other updates or remasters that gave pre-existing owners a discount or upgraded them for free. I’m not paying full amount for a game i already own, and I’m frankly pissed you’d suggest that.

2. ‘Weaponizing of FOMO’ I’d be willing to support you if you released more DLCs for OG Ark, or gave a discount for the remaster to pre-existing owners, but the fact that you’re not doing that, while only releasing new stuff to the remaster, makes me feel like you’re trying to pressure people to only buy the remaster. As someone’s who’s supported wildcard over all these years, this really rubs me the wrong way. This isn’t inspiring me to buy more stuff, it’s inspiring me to never touch your products again. I don’t like being pressured, and rather I feel like I’m being punished for  purchasing things from you in the past. Since I’ve been burned once, why would that inspire me to purchase things from you in the future?

3. The situation with mods. Frankly I can’t enjoy Ark without mods and for all i know many of my favorites will never make it to the remaster. On top of that, I might have to pay for them now? Wow, what a deal. Not to mention overwolf impacts performance and is shady as all heck. Again, makes me LESS, not more, inspired to buy the remaster.

4. Not sure how well UE5 will run on my computer. I have a pretty good rig and have never had problems, in fact I can usually play Ark on epic settings, however my graphics card is several years old at this point. Frankly I’m not interested in upgrading my computer for a single game - especially not one I’ve already bought at full price. Ironically the reason I bought the computer in the first place was primarily to play Ark, so I’m not thrilled on having to spend more money for the sake of a single game. 

5. And finally, I just don’t trust you guys. Ark and Atlas were in horrible states at launch, you’re using scummy FOMO tactics to try to drive sales of ASA, you’re not giving a single damn discount to people who already bought everything and I feel like I shouldn’t have purchased your expansions over the years because now I’m being punished for it, last week’s bundle was a blatant attempt to drive sales of a game we don’t even have FOOTAGE of yet, and you only included the dlc’s in the full package when everyone erupted at you. So no, I’m not going to buy ASA, my interest in Ark 2 has tanked, and so has my trust in you as a company.

Lots of people think this way. However, that makes me ask, if you need money, why don’t you continue releasing expansions for OG Ark? That I would buy, and support you because

1. It’s actually new content. I’m not being charged full price for stuff I already own, I don’t feel like I’m being ripped off, and I don’t feel like I’m being punished for purchasing it like I do the old DLCs following the ASA announcement. It’s ACTUAL new content for a game that, at the end of the day, I mostly enjoy.

2. It would actually make me trust you more because you’re not punishing the people who won’t repurchase content they already own, nor does it feel like you’re transparently weaponizing FOMO.

3. I know you can do it. This isn’t a new engine, you’ve made several DLCs on UE4. I won’t have cold feet like I will with Asa or Ark 2. 

4. I know my mods will continue to work and I can play the game the way I enjoy.

Frankly, I don’t see WHY you wouldn’t release the new maps and creatures to both versions. There’s a whole heap of people who have lost trust in you and won’t buy the remaster. Releasing expansions for OG ark not only helps fund your company, but will get you money from the WHOLE fanbase rather than the smaller percentage who purchase ASA, and it will start to re-inspire trust in you for the countless people you’ve turned away. It’s win-win in all scenarios, frankly I can’t imagine why you WOULDN’T do it.

Edited April 10, 2023 by scubadivingmaui7

[IGacha]

As long as we get to keep characters and bases I wouldn't mind paying for a (new) remastered game. But $60 is too much, half the price would be fair, and DLCs should carry over as well.  

[DreadMaverick]

8 hours ago, slejo said:

Tell me, how updated package is better?

$60 - for ASA
$60 - for ARK 2 - i bet Ark 2 will be not less priced than ASA package

Thats $120 for Ark player for game. Im not happy to spend so much bucks for a game.

Hi, you must have never played a Call of duty or Sports video game before.

Call of duty is very similar each time, $60+ each time, fun each time and worth the $60 each time. 

Sports games have some innovation, and you can see that a lot of effort goes into developing them each year. But the gameplay is usually the same or a few minor changes (rarely major changes to gameplay).

Those Sports games sell for $60 each year, and sell well.

I may be mislead, but reading your post convinces me that Ark must be worth less than any other game, for you.

You must be PC only. For the average console player $60 is like the price of any game, even games with 4 hours of content.

I'm sorry if anyone hates Studio Wildcard and Ark so much that they believe it's products are worth less, or that it's effort is worth less, than the efforts of developers behind popular shooters and popular sports games.

I love those games, but I'm not joking that I'd trade them all for just 1 copy of Ark Survival Ascended right now.

[BullPei]

After reading a couple of the comments above I'm sure you'll get the picture. However, saying amen to these comments doesn't take away the feeling of being stabbed in the back by wildcard.

No, it doesn't matter I need to pay for an overhauled game. What pisses me off (in a way you really don't get) is the hours we've enjoyed playing the game these past 8 years being gone with the click of a button. To get another promise (we've heard so many in that time) not being fullfilled (you can not convince me a different engine will make all problems disappear overnight). And most of all. All our hard work can not be brought over to Ark ascended. So 8 years of hard work is gone.

Our fun in this game is gone now. Probably won't be coming back either. We've played a broken game for 8 years and still enjoyed it. Yet "your way of fixing the primary issues" is NOT HOW YOU TREAT YOUR FANBASE!

Keep it up WC. Microsoft is bringing you to the sewer faster then you can flush a turd.

ARK 2 can stay on Xbox. It'll just be another rank B exclusive Microsoft can be "proud" of.

 

[DreadMaverick]

Survival Ascended is Ark 2, Ark 2 is Ark 3.

I believe it will help people understand the substantial changes implemented for Survival Ascended if it becomes "Ark 2: Survival Ascended". Please Wildcard.

The normal Ark 2 can be called "Ark 3: Survival Destined" or "Survival Giga/Tyrannus". Or something cool like that. 

Personally I know that Survival Ascended should be Ark 2. Thank you.

Edit: I've got it! "Ark 3: Survival Forever"! That's a great name.

Edited April 10, 2023 by DreadMaverick