scorched earth Wildcard, you have one chance to salvage the community.

[Vizzini]

The core game is a fun timesink, I don't regret the money spent on it.  I'll put together a new computer this Christmas and probably go back to see how it plays with "better than claymation" graphics, check out the Allosaurus and anything else new since my last break.  Its a fun sandbox and there's never any hurry for me in SP, so I don't mind bugs and resets.  I knew about those before I spent that money.  I also knew it might never get finished, that much was clear.  I don't do MP, but I could anticipate having some different opinions if I did.

My problem was that it wasn't clear to me that this new content was paid DLC before it dropped as such.

It's their business, and WC can run it however they want... but I feel like I got offered a "free trip" that turned out to be one of those high pressure sales "vacations", which I won't be following up on.  It felt sleazy to have it work out like that.

As for marketers waving their hands, telling people they misunderstood, that they had unreasonable expectations, and all the other damage control they do when customers get upset... that's what marketers do.  There's no point in being angry with them, that's just their nature.

[Ranger1]

21 minutes ago, Critter said:

Sorry ranger- but this game, nor this expansion, atleast considered by many if not most, is not premium content. Premium is what the base game should have been considered before an expansion gated behind $20 was released. All I said is the company gutted its self. Consequences will render later on. For now, I will buy the expansion in support of the gamecalthough I can't play at the moment because I'm fixing my computer. 

Excuses- meet trash can. 

No worries Critter, I always enjoy your posts even when I disagree with you.

I'm still not sure how you can consider this to not be premium content.  They decided over a year ago to expand the desert biome into something much larger than the current map could handle (thank god).  It fit in perfectly with the concept of a variety of ARKs being available as premium, optional content.  This concept was never a secret, and they pointedly talked about it in August last year.

I realize it surprised people that they were following the current industry trend in offering this premium content during development, but people also need to realize they did this in the absolutely best way possible.  While other companies don't bat an eye about developing their premium content with their main team (yes, spending development time working on additional revenue streams), WC subbed the development of this one out to a completely different team... which I'm sure many would vastly prefer.  No major impact was made to development of the core game.

When I purchased this game I read and understood the disclaimer that anything could and likely would change during development, and that the game might not even end up anything close to what it was at the point I joined.  I wish more people would have done the same.

When those that live in the STEAM bubble get done complaining, and realize that they are in the vast minority compared to people that play games outside of steam and well understand this move, I think things will rapidly return to normal.

I'd also like to say that I fully respect your supporting the developer in this case, even though you don't completely agree with them.

[DarkxXPhoenixXx]

I don't understand the problem... Yes, it's in development, but it's damn sure more finished than most games. I would rather have them test a full scale launch of a DLC now, and work it out and get it right, then have an epic failure a year from now. I paid for it, but that's because I greatly enjoyed the original part of the game and am getting lots of enjoyment out of this. Let's be honest here ALL OF YOU have paid 20 bucks for DLC that's given you WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY less even from a "Finished" AAA game.

[vashshadow]

i still say this was a poopty move by devs that have no focus at all and rather make more stupid things then fix the game was sotf needed no are the stupid tournaments they hold needed no thats all things that pulled focus from the game. i really dont care what you white knights have to say at this point i hope WC goes out of business or a meteorite hits there main office or something to me the devs proved they are nothing more then the normal slimy EA devs that are all over steam but these devs just able to con more people

[DarkxXPhoenixXx]

13 minutes ago, vashshadow said:

i still say this was a poopty move by devs that have no focus at all and rather make more stupid things then fix the game was sotf needed no are the stupid tournaments they hold needed no thats all things that pulled focus from the game. i really dont care what you white knights have to say at this point i hope WC goes out of business or a meteorite hits there main office or something to me the devs proved they are nothing more then the normal slimy EA devs that are all over steam but these devs just able to con more people

Unfortunately for you, I doubt either are going to happen. I will just keep being satisfied with a great product so...

[D4u2s0t]

18 minutes ago, DarkxXPhoenixXx said:

I don't understand the problem... Yes, it's in development, but it's damn sure more finished than most games. I would rather have them test a full scale launch of a DLC now, and work it out and get it right, then have an epic failure a year from now. I paid for it, but that's because I greatly enjoyed the original part of the game and am getting lots of enjoyment out of this. Let's be honest here ALL OF YOU have paid 20 bucks for DLC that's given you WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY less even from a "Finished" AAA game.

Here's some examples.  This last update wiped both my servers, again.  Maybe 4th or 5th time this has happened, always with the same excuse.  Why could these not be tested ahead of time?  Doesn't take long for a company to test the update, and see if the servers are gong to be ok before public release.  Especially when it's happened.  Now, granted, they are "in the clear" because it's "early access" so it's one of those "Hey, you know what you signed up for" kinda things.  But it seems like a real lazy approach to me.

The bigger concerns, we were all playing on our server, and the beds are messed up.  We couldn't spawn in our beds, we were spawning in random locations around the map.  One of our guys spent a solid hour spawning in terrible locations, getting insta killed upon spawning.  I sat in the redwoods for 2 hours waiting for him to get to me so we could put our first treehouse.  He would spawn, get insta eaten by a dino.  

The frame rates are better, but the frame rate in our base is still HORRENDOUS.  we get maybe 10 fps in base.  We no longer get the 30 second freeze flying in and out of base, but it's still not pretty.  

My problem with the DLC is there are features in the main game that are buggy, not working, or just flat out bad.  I would like to see the team more dedicated to these, and less dedicated to new paid for projects.  This game was delayed for months, promises were broken, (free dlc updates every 2 weeks, what happened to that, also they said no paid dlc till game was done) and maybe some don't mind this.  But when basic features, such as beds not working properly are appearing almost a year into the game, this feels like a bit of a slap to the face.  In any other industry this would be frowned upon, but for some reason gamers are ok with it.  is 20 bucks a lot of money?  No, I think the majority of people here could afford 20 bucks for a map they know they will put tons of hours in.  But for me the money is not the point. If the main game was working how it should, and we had our promised features, (achievements, etc.) I would have bought the new map sight unseen.

 

[DarkxXPhoenixXx]

6 minutes ago, D4u2s0t said:

Here's some examples.  This last update wiped both my servers, again.  Maybe 4th or 5th time this has happened, always with the same excuse.  Why could these not be tested ahead of time?  Doesn't take long for a company to test the update, and see if the servers are gong to be ok before public release.  Especially when it's happened.  Now, granted, they are "in the clear" because it's "early access" so it's one of those "Hey, you know what you signed up for" kinda things.  But it seems like a real lazy approach to me.

The bigger concerns, we were all playing on our server, and the beds are messed up.  We couldn't spawn in our beds, we were spawning in random locations around the map.  One of our guys spent a solid hour spawning in terrible locations, getting insta killed upon spawning.  I sat in the redwoods for 2 hours waiting for him to get to me so we could put our first treehouse.  He would spawn, get insta eaten by a dino.  

The frame rates are better, but the frame rate in our base is still HORRENDOUS.  we get maybe 10 fps in base.  We no longer get the 30 second freeze flying in and out of base, but it's still not pretty.  

My problem with the DLC is there are features in the main game that are buggy, not working, or just flat out bad.  I would like to see the team more dedicated to these, and less dedicated to new paid for projects.  This game was delayed for months, promises were broken, (free dlc updates every 2 weeks, what happened to that, also they said no paid dlc till game was done) and maybe some don't mind this.  But when basic features, such as beds not working properly are appearing almost a year into the game, this feels like a bit of a slap to the face.  In any other industry this would be frowned upon, but for some reason gamers are ok with it.  is 20 bucks a lot of money?  No, I think the majority of people here could afford 20 bucks for a map they know they will put tons of hours in.  But for me the money is not the point. If the main game was working how it should, and we had our promised features, (achievements, etc.) I would have bought the new map sight unseen.

 

I get your frustration, I own and play on a server that's has had some issues myself. However, I can understand their motives. They aren't a charity. When I get mad about other games breaking promises I just remember that star citizens campaign was delayed until 2017.

Scorched Earth shouldn't  be an excuse for WC to stop bug fixes or development. If anything this should mean they can hire more people and produce things faster with less bugs. While it's an odd choice by them, it will blow over.

[chaosguy67]

The people that are defending this is why game companies still do things like this...   YOU guys are the cause of the problem

[Duffmek]

On 9/5/2016 at 0:12 PM, SlipperySquid said:

We currently have got ARK prime engrams/ Scorched Earth engrams Does this mean the next paid DLC will be Tech Tier engrams?

IF they DARE that poop i am seriously out of this game full stop

[Critter]

On September 6, 2016 at 9:08 PM, chaosguy67 said:

The people that are defending this is why game companies still do things like this...   YOU guys are the cause of the problem

Amen-

[AaBb]

I first learned of this expansion when Steam downloaded a massive update for ARK.  I went to the Steam forum and learned that it was a paid expansion for the game.  I then went to the store page to check that it was still in early access and it was.  These two facts made me rather angry.

Early Access is a pre-release business model that allows developers to start earning some revenue before the project has been finished.  Expansions are a post-release business model that allows developers to continue earning revenue after the project has been finished.  These two things should be mutually exclusive.  This combination is predatory.

Early Access gives developers a shield with which to deflect criticism.  They can, rightly, claim that the game is not finished so any issues that players have must be forgiven because it is a work in progress.  I have absolutely no problem with that.  What I have a problem with is the attempt to maintain that shield while also adopting a post-release business model.

I like ARK, I suspect that I would like the expansion.  At this point I would rather take a 20 dollar bill out of my wallet and burn it than buy Scorched Earth.

[MoogleMan3]

1 hour ago, AaBb said:

I like ARK, I suspect that I would like the expansion.  At this point I would rather take a 20 dollar bill out of my wallet and burn it than buy Scorched Earth.

While I don't agree with you (I love ark and the expansion; if wildcard released another ice age or waterworld expansion tomorrow, I would buy it), your solution for the way you feel is EXACTLY how a situation like this should be handled. Not a million whiny, complaint threads, not steam groups condemning early access games, and certainly not childish, laughable petitions. You're speaking with your wallet, and that alone sends a very clear, to the point message.

On 9/6/2016 at 9:08 PM, chaosguy67 said:

The people that are defending this is why game companies still do things like this...   YOU guys are the cause of the problem

Correction, the people that are still BUYING the game and expansion are why companies still do things like this. For all the complaint threads, how many people do you think are still buying the game and expansion? The money trail doesn't lie. You don't like the practice, don't buy it. Money talks.

[Deadman]

The DLC is a top seller on Steam right now so obviously there is a much greater silent majority who like it as opposed to the vocal minority that condemns it. For me, it doesn't bother me at all that they were working on this DLC, more content is good. But I haven't bought it yet either, I will at some point but probably not until its out of EA.

From the complaints that I'm reading alot of people would be fine with this DLC if it was free, so they're just upset they have to spend money on it more than they are that its a DLC. Oh well, don't buy it then. No reason to give WC so much bad press over something that's completely optional.

[CyberAngel67]

1 hour ago, Deadman said:

The DLC is a top seller on Steam right now so obviously there is a much greater silent majority who like it as opposed to the vocal minority that condemns it. For me, it doesn't bother me at all that they were working on this DLC, more content is good. But I haven't bought it yet either, I will at some point but probably not until its out of EA.

From the complaints that I'm reading alot of people would be fine with this DLC if it was free, so they're just upset they have to spend money on it more than they are that its a DLC. Oh well, don't buy it then. No reason to give WC so much bad press over something that's completely optional.

I don't agree, most people have no issue with the cost of the Expansion. We mainly have a beef with the fact that the game is not finished.

I mean they delayed the actual release to get this expansion finished, that is wrong no matter how you look at it.

[AaBb]

17 minutes ago, CyberAngel67 said:

I don't agree, most people have no issue with the cost of the Expansion. We mainly have a beef with the fact that the game is not finished.

I mean they delayed the actual release to get this expansion finished, that is wrong no matter how you look at it.

I don't think that is true.  From everything that I have read about this so far it seems that the expansion was planned for some time and that another team was working on it.  I agree that the $20 cost is not the issue, however I would not have nearly as much problem with it if it was free and included in the cost of the early access.  The company has said that they released it now for testing purposes.  It is not a finished, polished, product, yet it is being sold as if it was.

[CyberAngel67]

1 hour ago, AaBb said:

I don't think that is true.  From everything that I have read about this so far it seems that the expansion was planned for some time and that another team was working on it.  I agree that the $20 cost is not the issue, however I would not have nearly as much problem with it if it was free and included in the cost of the early access.  The company has said that they released it now for testing purposes.  It is not a finished, polished, product, yet it is being sold as if it was.

It is the truth, while it was another team it is still resources that could have been working on the more simpler bugs in the game while the core team fixed the major stuff.

The expansion was planned in Sept 2015, but work began on it around April 2016 around the time it was announced that the game would be delayed till the Fall.

[AaBb]

2 minutes ago, CyberAngel67 said:

It is the truth, while it was another team it is still resources that could have been working on the more simpler bugs in the game while the core team fixed the major stuff.

The expansion was planned in Sept 2015, but work began on it around April 2016 around the time it was announced that the game would be delayed till the Fall.

What evidence do you have of this?

This is what I have read directly about it:

Quote

Our original vision for ARK always included the creation of Expansion ARKs, along with the infrastructure and technical systems to transfer data dynamically between live ARKs. We determined that it is more sound to iterate on these systems during Early Access than after retail launch, given the significant risks involved if we didn't "get it right". While that meant unveiling the first Expansion early, it also means an easier time integrating further post-launch Expansions into the ARK network.

This implies that the expansion was completed and they decided to release, and charge for it, during Early Access.  They did this because they are afraid that the systems are not in a state that would be acceptable for release.

[ciabattaroll]

10 minutes ago, CyberAngel67 said:

It is the truth, while it was another team it is still resources that could have been working on the more simpler bugs in the game while the core team fixed the major stuff.

The expansion was planned in Sept 2015, but work began on it around April 2016 around the time it was announced that the game would be delayed till the Fall.

You're off by a month. The thorny dragon and the behind the scenes video of Ark (which teased developing the thorny dragon as well as the desert environment) was revealed to the public in March of 2016. Factoring in time required for shooting the video would imply that the work could easily have started in February. That's a full 2 months ahead of time from the press release regarding the delay of live deployment.

[CaptainSalame]

6 hours ago, Deadman said:

The DLC is a top seller on Steam right now so obviously there is a much greater silent majority who like it as opposed to the vocal minority that condemns it. For me, it doesn't bother me at all that they were working on this DLC, more content is good. But I haven't bought it yet either, I will at some point but probably not until its out of EA.

From the complaints that I'm reading alot of people would be fine with this DLC if it was free, so they're just upset they have to spend money on it more than they are that its a DLC. Oh well, don't buy it then. No reason to give WC so much bad press over something that's completely optional.

They already have to deal with the bad press and the whole dlc backslash is far from over.  Plus is too early to measure  the repercussion of the community  backlash.

They can be top seller for now but thats only one front of the business.  Personally  I got one copy fully refunded and 2 rl friends refunded as well  so a small percentage  of what they are earning with the shady dlc is probably leaving at the same time through  refunds,  bad reputation and missing potential buyers that check the deserved negatives reviews. 

[OnePotatoChip]

It's weird. Wildcard promised people that there would be a Desert biome, that we'd be able to tame and ride dragons, that we'd have fire arrows and environmental storms and active hazards. They delivered this and more in Scorched Earth, and, apparently, this means that they misappropriated resources? How can you misappropriate resources on content that you promised the users? Does Scorched Earth resemble a half-hearted cash grab to folks? Was the effort put into this content not worth twenty dollars? Is Wildcard being prosecuted because of other EA titles' errors? I'm not the sort of person who defends someone in the wrong blindly, but this is sounding more and more like a witch hunt. 

[Deadman]

1 hour ago, OnePotatoChip said:

It's weird. Wildcard promised people that there would be a Desert biome, that we'd be able to tame and ride dragons, that we'd have fire arrows and environmental storms and active hazards. They delivered this and more in Scorched Earth, and, apparently, this means that they misappropriated resources? How can you misappropriate resources on content that you promised the users? Does Scorched Earth resemble a half-hearted cash grab to folks? Was the effort put into this content not worth twenty dollars? Is Wildcard being prosecuted because of other EA titles' errors? I'm not the sort of person who defends someone in the wrong blindly, but this is sounding more and more like a witch hunt. 

Well there is a witch hunt in the gaming community against DLC, especially if its for an EA game. It really doesn't matter how good the content is, soon as I heard they announced Scorched Earth I knew they would be getting a huge wave of criticism for it. It always comes down to the same issue though, the majority of people have zero understanding how game development works or why devs do what they do. This is why you see the constant whining with any EA game about bugs that aren't fixed, content that isn't out yet, updates taking too long, why it isn't optimized yet, etc... Most people just don't grasp what they're getting into when they actually buy into an EA game.

WC's reasons for making this DLC make perfect sense, its completely reasonable to me. However, most people don't see these things objectively. They see paid DLC for EA game and instantly hate it regardless.

[AaBb]

8 hours ago, Deadman said:

WC's reasons for making this DLC make perfect sense, its completely reasonable to me. However, most people don't see these things objectively. They see paid DLC for EA game and instantly hate it regardless.

I doubt that we disagree on the facts of the situation.  I did see paid content for an Early Access game and I did instantly hate it.

13 hours ago, AaBb said:

We determined that it is more sound to iterate on these systems during Early Access than after retail launch, given the significant risks involved if we didn't "get it right".

It is an unfinished product based upon another unfinished product.  On one hand they are immune from criticism of the technical issues that the game has because it is pre-release, on the other they are selling additional content for it like it is a finished product.  They are trying to play the system both ways and it is, in my opinion, the wrong way to treat your customers.

[Divine]

The Devs has put endless hours into this game. There blood, sweat and tears! they have not released this game yet because its not a finished product and they don't want to release something that they don't think is complete, which is fair enough, and a good decision. Scorched earth has been in development for a very long time, for games to survive and grown DLC cant always be free and if you have played scorched earth it is def worth its money. You got The center for free, you got SOTF for free, You have 100s of mods for free thats way more than many games out there give you. How many Games can you say listen to there players, get there players involved in the development process? in the testing, ideas, mods, community forums... ark have been soooo involved with there players! be more grateful, think of things that you have, and think this is another way to support the game you love and to think if you support this DLC maybe more will come in the future. and this game can go on for years and years.

Ok sorry about the Rant. but very passionate about the game and the people in it <3

[Jerryn]

Speaking strictly as a player, who at times has not liked certain events or changes, I have to say (this was a reply to something else, but sort of grew in to a train of thought that took on its own life...my apologies in advance if you actually read it all):

Sorry, but they are not immune from criticism on technical issues.  This is a straw man based on over extrapolation due to not everyone in the community agreeing on how the game is being developed or should be developed.

I agree, ever bug and issue should be pointed out.  And every bug and issue that can be fixed should be fixed; at least the major ones, assuming they are not a UE4 issue that cannot be worked around(which usually results in brittle code).

The issue is the timing.   Some people want what they want right now and at no other time, and they make it very clear(to put it politely).  And, sometimes they also imply a covenant that was clearly not in place when the purchased the game in its original state(aka "as is") to try and support that "do what I want, right now' stance.   Then, it is usually other members of the community that provide counter arguments; not Wildcards, as are busy on other stuff and don't have time to rehash the same debates, over, and over, and over again.

On the few times they do post anything, it appears to be ignored anyway and/or taken out of context to keep the same 'debates' going. 

As a purchaser, you can either accept or reject the idea that the game is being developed in an iterative fashion and that they are mainly(but not exclusively) adding content at this time.  If you reject the premise, you have the options to 1. not like it but enjoy the game anyway, 2. stew about it and not enjoy/quit the game, 3. pontificate about it (which could include enjoying or not enjoying the game; players choice), or 4. whatever else makes you happy/unhappy.  And if you pontificate then other users have the same right to pontificate back if they do not accept your point of view; welcome to the community.

So, for so long as Wildcards is working on this game(including the SE expansion), we, as a community should point out the issues and bugs, and, hopefully, provide constructive criticism with the idea to get the game done.  Ironically, it is because they do listen to us, the community, that so much more content is being added; I for one am ecstatic about that.  But, I have also accepted the fact the game is not in a release state and that I may, and will, and have had, issues at times.  If I ever hit a point where I cannot accept that concept, I will put the game aside and come back to it later; it is sort of the same concept I use for console ports to the PC, as I wait for someone to mod them so that they capitalize on the features of the PC.

But, sadly, it appears that some would rather not be constructive and attack the game and company by using the review system on Steam as a way to try and bully the company into doing what they want.  Ironically, if they were truly concerned about the game being finished, they would instead post honest reviews of the game, due some true due diligence on the expansion (and drop the straw man attacks), and provide constructive input; which would exclude things like attacks on the devs(which, in my opinion, is in poor taste and pretty much tells me you have nothing of value to add), conspiracy theories (if you have 'proof' of wrong doing, then you should be handling it a different way; I know I do), and trying to bully the company and burn the product to the ground through vengeful reviews.

I am not saying anyone has to like the expansion or the concept under which it was released, but you can express those opinions without the vitriol, without the character assassinations, and without the vengeful 'do it my well or else I will make you pay' attitudes.  To be clear, I am not saying everyone, or even a lot, are doing this, but I think we can seem this occurring in a part of the population.

As for the expansion, if it were $20 for a boomerang, a whip, and a few odd creatures, I would not be supportive of that and would certainly not get two copies of it.  However, if I found the core game as still being mostly sound, based on the current state of development, that I would have to be honest in my review of it.  Likewise, until I had purchased the expansion, I would not be able to honestly review it. 

Sadly, I think those of us who are the most content don't always take the time to post a review, as I know I have not done.  However, I will be rectifying that on both the core game and the expansion.

But, I think the expansion is almost another game, and I hope more will follow in the future.  It is a bit unusual for the expansion to be released at this point in the core games development.  But, at the same time, knowing what I know about it, based on the same sources of info everyone else can find, I can understand and accept the premise.  And, if I did not understand or accept it, I don't have to buy it; it does not even fit the 'pay2win' straw man that is being floated about.  And, believe it or not, just because some of us have a 'moderator' title does not grant us inside information; I found out about the expansion at the same time and the same way as everyone else.  And, like others, we are also players, even if some would use the fact that we have a 'moderator' title as a way to try and minimize our personal opinions, instead of actually discussing them.

As for saving the community, that is really up to the community, assuming it really needs saving.  From my point of view, it appears some would burn the forest down to kill a single bug.  However, not all of us are swayed by those who yell the most, yell the loudest, or use the most name calling.  It is so easy to blame others for our own decisions and actions, and for our own assumptions.  Not saying that somethings couldn't be communicated different or better, but, at the same time, these are not life and death events...it is just a game.  (okay...maybe more than a game...but it has not killed me...yet...oh no!)

 

On a positive note, some games I have sort of ignored because of mixed reviews, I will be taking a second and much deeper look at now, since I have seen how useless, misleading, and vindictive some reviews can be.  The downside being I have not had time to play any new games for quite some sometime, after the last purchased I made (which I got for less than $30...yeah sales!).

[AaBb]

33 minutes ago, Jerryn said:

Sorry, but they are not immune from criticism on technical issues.  This is a straw man based on over extrapolation due to not everyone in the community agreeing on how the game is being developed or should be developed.

As I think this might have been a response to what I said I would like to clarify what I meant.  The review scores on Steam are labeled "Early Access Review" and most of them give a pass to performance and bugs that they would not in a released game.  I have no problem with that, I buy some Early Access games including ARK.  Subscriptions and Downloadable Content are post-release business strategies to continue making money from an already successful project.  I have no problem with that either, I have bought plenty of DLC for games that I like.  The problem is the combination.  ARK expects to get the Early Access Review pass while behaving like the game has already been released.  That is an exploitation of the system.  As with all exploits the problem lies both with the exploiter and with the system.

40 minutes ago, Jerryn said:

On a positive note, some games I have sort of ignored because of mixed reviews, I will be taking a second and much deeper look at now, since I have seen how useless, misleading, and vindictive some reviews can be.  The downside being I have not had time to play any new games for quite some sometime, after the last purchased I made (which I got for less than $30...yeah sales!).

Nearly all of the recent negative reviews included the DLC as a reason that the reviewer did not recommend the game.  That is not useless, misleading, or vindictive, it is the reviewer's opinion and their recommendation.  The falling review score on Steam reflects in part the customer's revocation of the Early Access Review pass.  People are being far more critical of performance issues and bugs in their more recent reviews.  If the company believes that the game is finished enough to release paid content then it is finished enough to be reviewed like a finished game.