KingOfAshes

Have you ever watched that Robot Chicken SW episode where they do the ''I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!''. That's how this goes....

One of the main reasons I bought PS5 was because of the next gen update they promised and never delivered. Funnily enough this comment mirrors ones on Steam highlighted by a youtuber by the same 5 or so accounts. Copy paste...''I'm buying the game for friends for PC & consoles''. How....''strange'' Then again, everyone knows you buy a £500 console and £60 games for a dozen friends....calm down there Operah Winfrey

Barry is the best overall I'd say. It's present in pretty much every map and does it all, speed, jump,water,combat,shoot from the back. It also stuns the ever present sharks/crocs/piranhas if you feel like using something to tame stuff under water further down the line. Maewing is available in less maps and it's main utility traversing around.

UE5 is still at it's infancy stages really but has immense potential. The benefits wildcard listed are purely theoretical aimed to impress. The key is always optimisation and let's be honest the track record of the devs in that department is...far from a shining example even with an engine that's been around for ages and have been very knowledgeable with. But, to be fair to them they did state it (alas in a sly way) that ASA will be a test bed for them to learn more about UE5. So, you should expect nothing less than a super rough ride and likely a push back of ASA's release for like 6 months or so. They might even stick on it 'early access' as a disclaimer of the....shall we say sub-optimal release.

It's not a Re-make, just an engine ''upgrade''(if they can even get it functioning by release), so there won't be any actual changes really apart from the odd minor tweaks to some gameplay (eventually). This is basically a rushed cobbled together 'wish list' of deliverables they put together and posted to pad it out on paper in order to be able to stick a chunky price on it. It's not something they had actively planed, prepared and worked on. Chances are they'll pull all their teams together to get some sort of working base product by September, then leave a skeleton crew on it after 3 months importing the DLC maps and bug fixing while they shift over all the resources back on the ARK2 project. Any genuinely new content, mechanics overhaul and changes will only really come from Mods as always. Given how modders will also have to start learning the engine, any such stuff won't be out for years. In short, you're getting the exact same thing with visual tweaks in a staggered release scheduled over the next 2yrs. So, barring the first few hours of excitement seeing the new visuals, you'll experience a $60 de javu

Ok, so at least there is some acknowledgement of the problem this time around. If this was done in the first place, perhaps things wouldn't be as bad. So, $60 for a remaster is still steeper than I would have expected even including the DLCs, but still a bit better than the original insane pricing. For that premium price though, I expect this to launch as a finished product and not a buggy unplayable mess 2042/Cyberpunk/Ark1 style for ALL platforms. The fact that you have nothing to show for ASA when you're making such a big announcement (coupled with admitting the engine is still too new for you) and even though you're promising an August launch(plus past history) doesn't instil any confidence to be quite honest. This is 100% one of those cases of wait and see what state it is on launch before considering a purchase. You've also not mentioned any adjustment to the new paid DLC, so I'll assume it's still the same. Now, I don't play official servers so although it doesn't affect me, I stand with the people who are affected by this anti consumer move to shut them down on Day 1 of ASA as a matter of principle. After all, if you don't stand with others who get shafted, nobody will stand with you when you get shafted later. So, at the very least you need to keep those servers up for one more year just like any other company does for a hell of a lot more time with a lot less active players in them. With that premium price you're charging for the re-master, you owe it to your customers and at least try and claw back some respectability and good will. In conclusion, I firmly believe you need to take one more step at least to meet your customers in the middle. That's the last post I'll make on this subject. As always, based on the actions I see, I'll vote with my wallet as that's the only thing that really counts. Is this a Todd Howard type quote before Fallout 76 released? ''I've read it on the internet that some of our games have bugs''. I'm getting a de javu feeling....

Ark2 will be out on PS when the PS6 is out. Two more yrs minimum for XBOX/PC release. 1-2yr of exclusivity and content work and another 1-2yrs for a PS version just like Ark1 took to be on PS4. So, yeah... I still remember their subsidiary stating Atlas would release on PS and PS5 would get next gen Ark upgrade like the Xbox 2yrs ago...never happened. I have to disagree. When you make a deal with the devil for money, you can't be considered blameless afterwards when s** hits the fan. They're joined at the hip for many years now and profited quite alot. They both share the blame just like they share profits, but you don't blame individual people who are not the leadership decision makers in both companies

Yeah, I think many people missed that although Scorched Earth is available on launch, you still need to pay an extra $20 for that pass to get it. Ark2, I still firmly believe it's not the technical aspects of UE5 that caused the delay but rather a realisation that the design doesn't work well and needs two yrs of re-design from the ground up. Despite the title, the description makes it sound like a spin off title and who knows what it will look like at all by release. Even they don't know really. Also, they're touting a lot of fixes/features/asset upgrades for ASA in the roadmap to sweeten the bitter pill. However, how much trust can you place on these being delivered and well functioning based on their own premise that the technical aspects of UE5 prevented them from releasing ARK2 and that they'll use ASA as a test bed. If ASA is only 5 months away, wouldn't you go out of your way to show actual gameplay and features rather than tiny teasers to try and convince customers of how good it is to swallow the proposed price gouging and that it's worth it? Or will it be a buggy mess missing most features at launch and the excuse will be ''well UE5 is new but don't worry we'll fix it and add the features further down the line like we did Ark1, trust us guys!''. Four creatures (possibly the runner ups of the competition) and a map for a paid DLC already sounds more like a community map like Fjordur rather than any previous paid DLC. In other words very lacklustre by comparison. All I'm saying is you can't trust any promise without backing evidence and certainly can't trust any time scales at all in the road map. Best not to hype and wait for actual actions and evidence. Flashy trailers like 2042 etc and teasers just won't cut the mustard. They have to show the real deal, the gameplay and features.

I didn't say simple though. Simple is very different to 'not possible' and in their very own words the groundwork had already been done in the Switch version. The reality is it could have been done and they could have charged say $5-$10 for a patch upgrade for their PS4/Xbox customers and given how numerous they are, the income would have still been very high. Sure, the visuals and performance would not be that much better on the older hardware (same seen on Fortnite UE5 version on those systems), but that would have meant nobody was being left out/behind and could still share mods, cross play etc so would be reasonable to pay for it. Plus no loss of servers etc... Would this mean more time to get it done? Yes. Would it have been better for the customers? Yes. Would it have meant not releasing a full priced game in ARK2's place and profiting the same keeping stocks higher? Yes. And that is ultimately the choice made. Plus, I see a lot of content creators defending the $50 price as effectively getting two for one while avoiding the obvious fact that PS customers pay 80% of that price for one game(how's that math working?). And lastly that the vast majority of the console Ark customers do have the old consoles and are being shut out. I'm sure if they could have afforded it and it was possible they would have upgraded and will now be left behind. There is one obvious downside I can really see. If you didn't do the upgrade for all the DLCs before releasing the patch, those would become unplayable unless you run both side by side until the DLCs are also remastered. So one could say the 'remaster' is away to go around this. But, what kind of remaster have you seen that doesn't include the already released DLC in the base price? And this is not a 'TLoU' type remaster when all the assets/animations have been re-done from the ground up that we're talking about. If it was a remake ( like Daemon's Souls) with all new assets/animations/gameplay, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And one last thing. Why aren't they doing one bundle for Xbox/PC and a separate one for ASA ON LAUNCH DAY do you think? Because anyone who buys it over that first year will be counted and touted to be a pre-order boosting the numbers for the shareholders etc. No, anyway you cut it, this is an anti consumer move that could have been handled far better

I browsed a bit to get some info on UE5 and to my understanding the engine was created specifically to allow UE4 games to be ported over to UE5. In other words UE5 can effectively re-create the results of UE4 without all the bells and whistles of course. Just like Fortnite UE5 runs on PS4/Xbox atm. To me it seems possible the upgrade could have been done on those systems keeping player progression etc. Couple that with shutting down the official servers on day 1 of ASA (when the last paid for DLC was 2yrs ago and normally most games keep these running for 5-8yrs after that point) it's undoubtedly a way to force players into a brand new full price purchase and an anti-consumer tactic to simply re-package the game, re-title it as a new game to justify a full price in place of Ark2. Lastly, as you're still selling ARK1, have you changed the description to reflect that service is being removed in a few months? Or people who are just buying it and trying it out will come to find out in 5 months that service disappears? Even though I'm not using public servers and will not be affected, I still think this move is a bad one and if you just sit back and not protest, it opens the door to more anti-consumer moves being made with impunity. At the very least, if you worry that Ark2 will not have anywhere near the success and appeal as Ark1, you could have done the Free basic upgrade and then turn it into a live service game running along side (releasing new paid for DLCs/skins etc) with potential crossover of assets etc since the engine will be the same without going down this greediest route. Anyways...it's just a game, so although I can't be upset about a game, the mentality I see does bug me though.

And here's another question...I did a quick search and UE5 is compatible with PS4/Xbox and Fortnite UE5 is also running on those consoles. So, even though they may not get all the visual bells and whistles/features as next Gen, given UE5 can deliver at least the same results as UE4 on them and remain cross-platform...I don't see why the upgrade isn't the same as what Fortnite did.

Wildcard sees PS customers as 2nd rate since the Microsoft deal. Hence the PS5 upgrade that never was. A 2nd rate customer who gets milked to fund a new game for XBox/PC at that. Some say by paying you support the Devs, but why would a PS customer pay more to get less every time? That's just being the sucker! There were so many other good ways this whole thing could have gone, especially given Ark2 is not a sequel but a spin off since it's a completely different genre for all intend and purpose. Alas, the only thing that matters is how you vote with your money and I ain't paying a penny until it's on sale for a small fraction of the asking price and the content & good mods are available.

Well, they promised to do a PS5 upgrade 2 years ago and then pretended they didn't and never delivered. Not the first time they go back on their word/announcement, is it? Now, even that ASA, won't release till end of Sept/Oct despite what they say. I mean any time scale they give is always a joke. Personally, despite what they're saying about it being some sort of huge overhaul of the game, I doubt it will be anything other than a glorified direct port. It's just marketing speak to try and justify a Full new game price tag. The most unforgiveable part of this plan though has to be the charging for season passes instead of the DLCs being part of the price tags as Re-masters always do. That is just such an anti-consumer greedy move

Ok, I'll try to make this a relatively impassionate analysis and what I read between the lines of what they posted. What we know about Ark2 development The game is a completely different title from Ark1 based on their design overview and if anything, it's more of a spin off title rather than a sequel. I firmly believe the game is in what's generally called ''in development hell''(think of Battlefield 2042 or Anthem). This means the original design concept(not bugs or technical issues as it has never stopped them before when it came to pushing out content) has not panned out as a good marketable product based on their testing. The first one year delay was an attempt to try slightly adjust the design to try and salvage it and make it good enough for release. It failed. So, the choice was to either release it and flop, or go back to the drawing board and completely redesign the gameplay, which will take a minimum of another 2 years to even be in early access state (if you think they'll suddenly hit the release window of 2024 when they've never hit any window before, you're still not paying attention) From a FREE Graphical update to a FULL PRICE ''new'' game The UE5 upgrade was unambigiously announced to be a FREE update by the Devs in January. I believe that may have been the original intention, however as I stated at the time I did not believe this would turn out to be true. This is because it made no financial sense to put effort and resources on that instead of new content for the new ARK2 game if it were to released as scheduled even with a short further delay. Also, because they have a track record of going back on their word on big promises and then pretending like nothing happened(PS5 next gen upgrade promise being the big standout for me). Delaying a game release for another 2yrs+ would necessitate new significant funding and require something similar to the Genesis DLC Pass (which wasn't originally planned). So, the answer was staring at them in the face. Re-release Ark1 instead as a full price ''New Game'' providing the similar revenue as Ark2 would have done, but at a minimal development cost and time. If my assumption is right, the art department has pretty much done most of the work needed for Ark2 and would normally start working on new DLC stuff for that game. As most of the time consuming stuff needed for the UE5 Ark1 upgrade would be art related while the redesign of Ark2 would be the rest of the departments, this would also be a win-win for them. Also, the opportunity to add new paid for Mod content and cosmetics for added revenue in what is now marketed as a ''new game'' was a great opportunity and something they would have introduced in Ark2. Hence, where we stand today... Paid Mods The description really looks like a carbon copy of Bathesda's Creation club for Fallout 4. There was outrage when that was announced. Now, personally I don't have a problem with paying for good quality content at a reasonable price. I used to be a modder for a highly successful Mod team in the game COH and we did it all for free of course. So, overall I don't have an issue with the concept even though I get it if you're used to all the free Mod content for so many years. My Opinion on the decisions Personally I'm not a fan of Souls type games, so Ark2 was already off the menu as they clearly want it to be in that vein. Also as a PS owner, I can't be fussed about a game that might release in 5-6 years on that platform and as before continue to get 2nd rate support. Ark2...don't care. For the UE5 upgrade of Ark1 , I fully expected a paid for 'patch upgrade'. Breaking a promise from a free upgrade to a paid upgrade is bad enough. However, calling this a full price re-master and not including all the DLC as part of that price is unforgivable. Frankly after the announcement of the free upgrade, I leaned more towards the DLC maps being sold at a discounted price. But charge full price for each again separately ? That's just way too greedy leaving a very bitter taste once again. Will I buy it? No, certainly not at launch but in some sort of sale AFTER at least the first DLC has released and if it's not just a glorified porting of the exact same assets, There needs to be a lot of new stuff(significantly different from Ark1) in it to be worth the purchase. Even with my all time favourite game, Witcher 3, when the Next Gen Free update I was waiting for a long time dropped it didn't hold my interest for more than a few hours in. It's just not enough of a reason to drop that amount of money to get the exact same experience I've been having for 2K hours.

The thing is, a 2-3 months delay is one thing but 2 years is another. Long delays indicate very problematic development that most times results in a botched and underwhelming result. It's more often the case rather than 'it's done when it's done' resulting in a polished result, especially given the track record. Anyways, it'll be interesting to see that 'roadmap' as I'm starting to get Star Citizen/Cyberpunk vibes. One thing is pretty much certain, you don't release a roadmap if you're a few months off a release. You're looking at a 12-ish month delay. And as a PS5 player, that means 2-3 yrs wait so....I'm really only interested to see if they honour the idea of UE5 upgrade in a timely manner or do the same as before, announcement followed by silence and then a year of pretending not to know anything about it.