Calico45

I am a little late, but I would assume that Genesis will not be very friendly to beginners. Quite frankly no one but the developers will truly know until it is here, but having to guess means a no from me. Then again, I don't play PVP. Everyone has already mentioned the story and if it particularly mattered to you I doubt we would have this same forum discussion. Play them in whatever order you feel comfortable with, but I personally like the feeling of "ramping up" the maps in order. That all being said, there is something special about being apart of a launch and having a new DLC to explore. Something special enough to some to outweigh the hardships. I imagine solo PVP has taught you a thing or two about that, positives and negatives aside, and when it comes down to the bottom line it is ultimately the same structure and gameplay on every map no matter the differences. Flip a coin if you have to. You don't have much to lose if you were going to buy the DLC anyway.

Also imagine that this customer has already ordered three pizzas from this place that took months and months to cook them, and then though unhappy with the process still decides to order another and gets upset with the same wait and flakiness. At some point it isn't just Dominoes or whatever pizzaria's problem. Even if it is far from ideal, they have done it from the beginning and have shown no intention to stop; yet customers keep ordering with undeserved expectations. I think what bothers the "positive" people is that you don't have to preorder and raging over something seemingly obvious to some feels unnecessary. Just don't bother before release if delays bother you. I was not the only one able to guess that they would do another delay from past behavior. If you want to refund it, go ahead. You do you, delays suck, disappointment suck, etc. I think everyone can understand those feelings, we are all affected by this after all, but short of being blind sided or malicious intent it is difficult for me and I imagine others to feel particularly slighted.

Perhaps I am in the minority, but I like to know what is going on. I am a fairly reasonable person, in my opinion. Things happen. Delays happen. I know in particular Wildcard tends to delay games. I just want to be in the loop. If it is February now; fine. Still January; fine. Christmas 2020; fine. Just tell me. That being said, I have been kind of ignoring the situation since there hasn't been any news.

Also, it will be a story map so there will be new explorer notes and a continuation of the "official story." Beyond that, expect a few new creatures, new items, and at least one standard selling gameplay mechanic in addition to the map. That seems to be the general formula for the paid expansions.

Fair enough, I suppose. I do agree that is absolutely depends on the developers being open to change and picking what changes are actually possible and will work to benefit the game. It certainly has the ability to be pretty difficult to discern the opinions of the majority and still balancing with the minority, but I cannot really speak much more on a general level here. When it comes to making changes and balance, it is really on a case by case basis, but I do believe all customer feedback should have its due. Not the same investment, of course, but I don't like the thought of completely ignoring any consumer because they are not part of the majority. I would just want a public acknowledgement for a big enough issue and a confirmation that the game is going another way and, better yet, why. I am not actually sure how uniform it is. It is nothing like Ark PvP versus PvE, of course, but I certainly feel like that is a divide between those that prefer a top down management game and those that want some ground level interaction with the animals. I really think the main reason it was not an issue for the new game mode is because the online market did not function well or, really, at all at times during the beta. They aspired to have a purely player driven economy for purchasing all animals with absolutely no controls and the price gouging and scarcity of community challenge animals especially began immediately. Personally, the online market made a whole mode of the game nearly unplayable in the beta and obviously I was not the only one that thought that way. I do not think I was ever a part of a disguised early launch, but if there are no substantial additions and it does not follow the early access model it does sound disingenuous. I just do not understand the goal of disguising a soft launch as early access, since it be selling the game at a traditionally cheaper price for what benefit? Selling a preorder beta perk makes money through extra preorders and maybe higher tier editions or season passes, which is why I would think developers may consider it, but this I am not sure about the motivation. I sort of agree here, but I always somewhat have to blame the publishers/developers/etc. for the emergence of the rental mentality. Live service, especially at its worst, and full on subscription games do feel like a rental. Not to mention subscription services like the Xbox game pass and streaming attempts like Stadia, which I feel have their place but are still separate from engaging with an individual game. I am still at more of owning the product mentality, or want to, but I avoid those sort of games usually. As for the negative reception and deception accusations, I think there is always going to be some negative with everything and it just has to be dealt with. The nature of dealing with the public, I suppose. Here, I do not know. I understand your point is that you would want it as fruitful as possible and theoretically that means using the best of the best, while limiting the ability of exploiters to profit. However, if they are spending the time and resources to vet potential testers I would assume it would be in their best interest to do it internally with hired beta testers. I don't think there would be a good way to balance the two in the same beta. Either do it internally or open the flood gates, more or less; both have their pros and cons. I do not really care either way, so long as its a solid final product. I could see a stress test, though I would consider bug squashing somewhat a part of that. I could also see it as testing the waters for reactions, more so if they were open to change. Then again, I could also see it as a cash grab. Not saying the latter is right or probable, but I doubt it is too far outside of the realm of possibility for games in general. For Ark, while I am not sure they are above the behavior, I do not think we are getting that consumer beta. I would think it would be easier with just pass holders, compared to the entire community, but I have no clue how many they have sold. Theoretically speaking, I would assume the more eyes and bug reports the better, but I have to give it to you that compared to an internal beta who is to say which would be better without results to go off of?

Not that I am really aware of. From what I understand, they tease content and features through steams and the mysterious mysteries but there is no official list or anything. The closest is the gamepedia page or something similar. People are just going off of that assuming it's going to be a simulation of some sort and have a lot of water content. Plus, we did get a look at some biome stuff from the extra life stream, but it was mostly items/creatures and we never saw anything compared to a map or an organized product description. Granted, they did have to put something on the Steam page, but I don't think that explains it very well, either.

Not so random, but I did not see anything when I was going through the thread, but will there be any announcements about the results or closure of the survey? Just any sort of comment acknowledging it after its release. Personally, I am kind of curious about any specific similarities and divergences.

That is pretty skeptical, don't you think? I mean, I certainly agree there is a need for serious testing and the details or lack thereof of a beta do not tell you much about a company. However, I do think community feedback has the potential to affect launch details of a game and positively, too. I am not sure about Ark Genesis in this particular case, but just to name a game I kept up with recently that did is Planet Zoo. Did it take advantage of all its feedback? No, but it did make adjustments prior to an official launch based on feedback from a preorder beta and one of the best things that came out of it was a brand new career game mode that did not require online market interactions with challenge conditions not found in the offline sandbox mode. This is not a given consequence of a beta, but it is certainly possible for a serious one. Also, I do admit a beta is akin to launch, but I don't agree that it is automatically the same as early access. To use the example from before, Planet Zoo only had certain items, modes, and content in general available for the beta. They also closed the beta around a month before the official launch. I don't know what Ark Genesis would do, especially considering its past as an early access game, but the same rules do not necessarily apply since early access is supposed to be a playable game regularly updated until completion while betas are for bug squashing and technical adjustments; two pretty different purposes. As for the beta being a scam, I assume you mean using it as a perk to sell preorders of the season pass. Planet Zoo got its own flak for that by bundling the preorder beta with the deluxe version of the game, but I would not really consider it a scam. Nor early access games, really. People sign up at their own risk and the potential outcomes of early access should be more well known now than when the practice first began. In the Planet Zoo example, people were upset that they had paid for the beta and it was neither the whole, smooth game nor continued access. What they had wanted was an early access version, not to bug squash, and I can only be so sympathetic with the people that decided to pay the extra money without knowing what they were purchasing. I agree, it is usually better to wait the game out for a safer, smoother experience. However, it is hardly the same as say Fallout 76 where people dropped $60 or more for better editions and then it was practically unplayable at the official launch date. If businesses want to sell and consumers want to buy, why not if there is no deception? As for community bug testing, I don't see why the skills would be relegated to specific motives. For sure, exploiters will always push the boundaries for their own gains, but that does not mean they will be the only ones to find the exploits or that the number of reports be will be too insignificant to be useful. I do not know the whole Ark community, but it is pretty sizeable to say they would be completely useless here. If you are right, though, and a public beta is completely useless on a technical level and just another level of early access, it does not mean there should not be one. On the contrary, if it is just for fun anyway why not go ahead and release some of it for those willing to pay? Like I said earlier in the thread, I am pretty indifferent to Ark getting a beta and do not expect it, but I do not think it would be a bad thing or completely useless either.

I don't know how I feel about a brand new type of game, but I would not mind some more story being involved as long as it does not strangle gameplay. If we maintain the same level of freedom, all is good there. I do at least want an ending cutscene, though, considering it is not necessarily a given. As for PvP, I understand everyone's points on both sides, but official can do whatever it wants and I would not complain. Mandating it for private servers would not be my cup of tea.

I have to agree with you on Valguero. It was nice to get a new, free map with more shared creatures, but there is not enough substance from Aberration for its area. It didn't have to have everything, but it shouldn't have felt bare either. I feel like it won't have the staying power Ragnarok does in the slightest. The intrigue felt like it wore off pretty quickly, even if it was fun while it lasted. Now we can only hunger for Genesis unless we get some touch ups on the old content.

Honestly, I really like the story aspects of the maps. They make me want to play there, even if they are largely inconsequential to the gameplay. SE is my second favorite map, even if it is punishing, and adding some sort of ending to it would make me want to play it more. More exclusives, map extensions, etc. would be great for sure, but one cut scene and release the Tek Wyvern saddle and I would be thrilled.

I kind of doubt it at this point, as well. I really like Ark, but the Switch port is just sad: no updates, no DLC, no communication. I bought it for Switch first, then grabbed the PC and PS4 versions later. I had assumed they would have to ramp it up like the other ports, adding updates and eventually releasing the DLC. Why not when they had for the other ports and were, hopefully, planning on Switch being a full fledged port as well? That is the second thing I most misunderstand (first being why not just make a statement on whether it is dead or not?); if this was planned as a full fledged port (and if not, why even port it?), then why weren't the DLCs in the pipeline? Surely they wanted to sell them. The closest I can come to an explanation is that Switch sales were disappointing, but surely they wouldn't have been so disappointing if it had received regular updates and the eventual DLC. It just feels like the port had been abandoned before release; it never had a chance of being successful.

I like the idea of a closed Beta as a reward for purchasing the pass in advance, but I would be fine without one, too. Betas are for namely bug squashing, admittedly, but I am not sure how much I would want to deal with Ark Beta level bugginess. Also, it is not like it is necessarily abnormal to not have one either. I am not expecting one and even if I might not partake myself, I would like to see the information from the Beta.

I want a large map with multiple biomes (looking good), a variety of unique creatures old and new (also looking pretty good), the standard sell point gameplay mechanic (looking like water stuff this round), and coherent story tidbits (I am still a little sore about having no ending cutscene of any kind for SE, no matter how much I love the map). Really, though, as long as it functions properly and is not rolled back, from the sneak peak I will probably be pretty happy. New automatic Tek stuff is always appreciated.

I think you are right at this point. I didn't expect much, but was still slightly disappointed by the stream reveals. Not so much in the content itself, but just that it felt sparse where a fair portion had been teased prior. Especially in comparison to the Extinction reveals.