KingOfAshes

I think there is always a trade off and limitation of how many truly different creatures can be successively added without overlapping capabilities too much. I always kinda thought that each story map should have mostly it's own unique pool of dinos/creatures to add a more distinctive feel and allow devs to switch around the type of creatures utilised avoiding the overlap. Possibly even add buffs/debuffs on creatures depending on their native biome etc. Not allowing creatures types not in the (all round creature pool) native to the map to be transferred. Then have effectively a free for all creature transfer in the non-story DLC maps like it is now where you're not really concerned about limitations accommodating all tastes.

I agree that ASA can be used as a soft reboot gradually changing, expanding and enhancing many of the features present to diversify gameplay. Especially given that each map will get a separate release gradually down the line. I always thought it was a bit odd that saddles in general didn't have an expanded system for upgrades with pros and cons. Eg. starting off with an easy to make at low lvl leather saddle or wooden platform, then having the ability to upgrade them with metal/chitin for more armour etc and add modifications for extra storage/spikes/mesh(avoid being picked up by flyers) etc at the cost of something like speed/weight and so on. So, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said they should be basically doing TLCs that focus on specific aspects/mechanic/environments each time evolving and expanding the gameplay and not just creatures.

I think transport capable creatures became far less relevant once Cryopods were introduced. Then again PvE is more about enjoying playing in different ways and varying the gameplay more than any kind of strict efficiency to get the upper hand. Who knows, with ASA if they don't add the cryopods on launch and creature pathing is improved maybe that item may not be needed as much adding some emphasis back to the transport creatures.

Does it really matter how they enjoy the game? Sure they may be missing out on the survival aspect, but then again it might be something frustrating instead of enjoyable for them. I mean the whole point is to provide the options for players to customise their gaming experience to their liking and how they do that is their responsibility. Forcing a certain playstyle is rarely a good thing

I can tell you one thing, it hasn't made PS5 more stable. Still crashes and rolls back to a random auto-save point every single time I try to play. On a smaller note, is it just the PS single player version where the damage on the Resin attacks is capped and 10,30 and 50 for each type?

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.

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

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.

It's really impossible to tell without seeing the actual gameplay to at least get a sense of it. I do think for all intends and purposes it will be a totally different game, which is a risk of course. As for the choice to make it locked in 3rd person it has it's pro and cons and depends highly on the mechanics. 3rd person works better for hand to hand combat, while first person works better for ranged combat. Something like HZD has a great mix of both. 3rd person also makes character customisation a much more enjoyable worthwhile thing for the player because your character is always visible on screen, whereas in 1st person it's pretty much irrelevant. Now for exploring a world, 1rst person is certainly much more immersive. Overall, in my opinion at least, it would have been better to keep it in 1st person and only go to 3rd person when you equip a hand to hand weapon (in a similar way to when you ride a dino it switches over). That way it still allows for that new combat system but also keeps that immersion factor during exploration and cave combat intact. Anyways, I suspect one of the big reasons for the long delays might be down to feedback they're getting from whatever alpha version they're testing, so who knows if they end up changing the design before release. Overall, I thing the game is too far off release to even bother speculating without at least seeing a lot of actual gameplay footage

It's probably preferable for them to release Ark2 when it's actually done and avoid a Cyberpunk type release of an overhyped, over promised and under delivered technical mess. As for Ark 1.5, well if they do it (big 'IF' given their record of unfulfilled promises) there are two ways they could go about it in my view. 1) Do a direct port to the engine with minor tweaks as a free patch. IMO that's a lot of work for not a huge pay off unless they bump up the price of the main game to the original sale price. Even then, I don't see it making alot of fresh sales unless it coincided with a successful release of the animated series. 2) They could do it as a paid 'season pass' style where they re-release each map slowly, but instead of a direct port, they also change the maps and creatures re-imagining and fixing/improving game design and mechanics making the game a far more fresh experience again, whilst keeping the overall sandbox design untouched. E.g. Changing the missions and their format for Gen1/2 or adding better hunt missions on other maps etc. Basically apply all the lessons they've learned from all the feedback after each release to elevate the game. Although I'd much prefer the second option, I think the first one is the most likely one

I remember how excited I was for Next Gen Ark in PS5 announcement trailer...so, you might see that upgrade for PC/Xbox but for PS, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Saying that, without any new content, I doubt the upgrade would hold attention for that long on console without the mods(and I mean new fresh maps/creatures/mechanics/gear etc not SOTF type PvP mods). I felt that with the Witcher 3 when the next gen patch came out. I thought I'd replay the whole thing, but barely lasted a few hours even though this is my all time favourite game that I played to death.

I think Therizo is probably the most versatile creatures in the game as it is able to harvest most resource types and fight almost as much as a Rex. Updating the model would be desirable for sure, partly because the small amount of different coloured areas makes the visual variety extremely small(I'm surprised they didn't make X versions etc to address it). I don't think it really needs any new abilities apart from maybe a small ability to jump just to differentiate it a bit more from creatures of it's class and a small weight reduction on the resources it harvests (or carrying weight increase)

I'm not sure why this has not made it into the patch notes, but the PS5 version has introduced significant graphics and performance enhancements. It's not quite there yet in terms of what they promised, but it is a markedly better experience now, so whatever they did, well done!

I do prefer the first person mode in ARK, however from what I can glimpse based on what they've said and shown, Ark2 is looking like a completely different type of game/gameplay. So, it could be that 3rd person suits that design a lot more. Or as a compromise have 3rd person mode engaged when you take out a melee weapon. If combat is as they say 'Souls like' it means the entire game is built on totally different mechanics and barring lore and imagery probably won't have much in common with Ark. As such it will be a massive departure from the winning formula of Ark and quite the gamble. No doubt Modders will make a version more akin to Ark and add FPS mode.

I checked out the latest patch today, just in case... Still unplayable in PS5. The constant stutter, freezing and texture loading are simply unbearable for more than 2 mins. I know...what was I thinking right?

I just find it funny how Ark is coming to PS+ at a time where the game's performance is at its worse on it. Great impression for anyone who hadn't tried it yet....