My frustration is directed towards Studio Wildcard, plain and simple. Abstraction may have done the port but it was Wildcard who approved (forced?) its release in its abysmal state, and approved of it remaining that way for years. Further, Abstraction publicly stated (due to the backlash) that they wanted to fix the port but weren't permitted to do so by Wildcard. Following those comments it was Wildcard that had Abstraction legally silenced regarding the port in any capacity.
So while Abstraction may have done a poor job it was Wildcard that has done wrong by consumers.
@Joebl0w13 You can facepalm all you want but prior to release they also promised to patch in DLC support shortly after launch. It's taken four years for that to happen and that has the potential to make a tidy financial return. You think the relatively low financial incentive of local MP is going to encourage them to move any faster on that?
Good will needs to be earned, and Wildcard has a long way to go before they deserve even the slightest amount of trust from Switch owners.
Very true. Players who bought the game when it launched paid $50 for it. This was when ARK was on PC and being sold for about $20 (It was in Early Access I believe). Many players paid for it as DLC was to be added. Now we're told we will be getting just the base game. Also, while most players might be ok with repurchasing the DLC, for some of us in low income countries, it's a sizeable sum of money.
An Update on ARK: Ultimate Survivor Edition for Nintendo Switch
in Announcements
Posted
Very true. Players who bought the game when it launched paid $50 for it. This was when ARK was on PC and being sold for about $20 (It was in Early Access I believe). Many players paid for it as DLC was to be added. Now we're told we will be getting just the base game. Also, while most players might be ok with repurchasing the DLC, for some of us in low income countries, it's a sizeable sum of money.