hawkeye00021

That's because everything is seriously scaled down for you, if he mimicked your "settings" that rig would run the game several times over on one box without any effort. Happy trolling.

Wow, ok. I'm just going to say in a very black and white manner that under no circumstances can something of greatness be accomplished without good and bad feedback unless you want slaves in which case you could build a pyramid or great wall no problem. I will try not to overreach with examples because people will call them too dramatic. The lack of the communities input would be devastating unless WC wanted to create and release a game like this without income generated by the early access risk takers. We have all invested time and money into the creation of this thing now and are very much "entitled" to an opinion. I'm not being censored when I voice that opinion nor are most reasonable people or I would quit. I don't want my money back, I got that in entertainment but my time I have been using that to help not to tear down the work of hard developers. That time is valuable and I will continue to help find a few bugs here and there but even I am burnt out and no one is yelling at me. For that, I feel bad for the staff and wish them the best. ARK is still one of the most played games on steam so there is always that. That's all I've got left, I think I have communicated clearly what I wanted to and I've also voted with my wallet for what it's worth and I'll assist when I feel like that has been earned more than the several original copies I purchased for myself and others.

Do you know how many bugs I've found? You support the game how you want, but if you seriously cannot grasp bad feedback as a positive thing on the road to developing a product you don't understand how this works. Submit your review, and carry on.

I think if they answer these questions and publish those answers, we would have a big win. I would certainly change my review based on ETAs that are never hit anyways and I know that sounds like sarcasm but it really isn't.

There are various server rating sites though I'm not sure the rules on posting them here. This is probably off topic as well, if you PM me I'd be happy to send you at least one decent one I know of. I host a server and I'm pretty sure I cannot delete comments.

As long as you are ok with a carefully worded negative review, either way I am happy to see that feedback no matter how it reaches the devs and I hope they are too. I work for a company that releases software and there are 6k of us supporting our products. I'll be the first to say that while negative feedback can be personal it's also the most useful way to influence change when you are vested in something. Walking on eggshells will not do any good and while these people that say "blah blah I don't want to pay for DLC" could have left that part out and just said, "I think we missed out on something because of" or any number of other spins you could place on that review I'm not sure it really matters. I do think had WC been very clear why they needed an influx of cash that the particular argument over charging for it might have been toned down but I'm not going to say there aren't thousands of people that are simply upset at what is a pretty low price tag. I am sorry if I misunderstood your audience.

No, I reviewed the product based on what I read and expected from launch to now. The company makes games, if you are referring to the law suit or people being upset about getting charged for the DLC perhaps I could agree with you on those reviews. I don't care about monetizing the DLC but I do care that it's 1 year later and much of what I was excited about is super delayed and the DLC has been quoted as being more polished than what I'm currently playing. I'm afraid steam doesn't allow you to review a business practice just the product released on their platform. I think the DLC has positive reviews so that's something....

It's a review of a product based on opinion, I'm really not sure where you are going with this. People were happy and then a company did something to upset them so the once positive review they had of the company (reflected on the game as their creation) turns negative because that's now how the person feels about the game and somehow that's on the reviewer?

They could have done in-game items, it's not hard to monetize a game without diverting so many dev cycles. I know they said they did not know much about game economies and didn't want to go that route but I do not see the hard at all. If this was really about testing the addition of new ARKs perhaps there is something there but that of course raises the question as to how many ARKs will there be? Will we end up paying several hundred to have them all? You said the didn't charge for The Center and well that's one way to look at it or you could remember that it was free and by most accounts less buggy before they took over. I have talked to many players... everyone I know doesn't care at all about the 20 bucks. We all pretty much agree that we would have preferred about any other way to give WC money without diverting resources from The Island and I guess the Center, Prim +, and SoTF at this point.

You... the worst kind of consumer. Yes you could vote with your wallet as I am doing but on top of that you could provide feedback and yeah sometimes you have to get pretty negative when you try to be diplomatic and get the company line. I'll be honest, I like what a certain someone had to say to the community because I felt like I moment of realism was reached no matter who was right or who was wrong. Are you suggesting that if I pay for something like internet and it doesn't work so I take to social media to complain it paints me as the end user in a negative light? You might understand some of the cash flow process but I think you are missing the other half. Anyways, for me I run a server and we have a tight community but even then sometimes players will quit and later I will find out it is because they were really upset about something and my policy is to tell me about even the smallest thing that is bothering you so I can make it right but they don't and then they are gone and never come back. I think WC has thick enough skin to take some criticism so they know how to approach something like this again or perhaps address immediate concerns. If the players base just starts bleeding off and they have to scratch their heads we might simply end up with more dinos (maybe that's now what everyone wants) to try to keep the game alive when all the feedback is right here in their faces. The negative reviews aren't exactly good for an EA game and I think they will help WC and not hurt them in the long run.

What is it about you people? Money has very little to do with this. Perhaps ARK would like to move to a monthly sub, I would be fine with that. Use my sub cash to FINISH the game and not add so much content that even those of you without lives can keep up with it all. I'm not saying that it's bad to have a ton of content either, but I think most of us would like to see more than a freaking dino added into The Island. We were told about these cool things like weather effects and WC delivered... just not really on the map a lot of us started on and don't want to leave. I'll pay xx money to have those features ported if that's what it takes. I'll even buy The Island again if I can get the cool effects given to other ARKs. I will not purchase this DLC to jump start development that already exists, it's time to port the weather effects back now that they have been done.

Pfft, bring it on bro. I have disposable income... you want to stop at 100?? Weak man. Why can't there just be a game for the 1%?! Kidding, I'm stuck at 5-7% depending on what you read that day. You want a less crowded server base? Stop being such a broke pansy and host a VPS around 250.00 a month and do some advertising. You don't have to depend on WC servers, I don't.