When I saw that headline, I thought it was going to read “Survival Evolved developer will pay modders $4,000 per month to complete their game.”
Nope, they’re just adding paid DLC and potentially paid mods to their unreleased game. The idea they’re floating though… has merits.
OMG. Finally!
August 8th. 1.0 launch.
Hahahaha! Good luck. $60
HO
LEE
SHIT
I bet this is going to go over like fucking gangbusters!
I’m sure people are going to flock to purchase a $60 game that has been available for years at half that price. Great business move!
Back when I played, they absolutely went bananas with adding tons of content, but I’m extremely disappointed that they never got the combat/movement past the clunky, shitty, pre-alpha state I assumed it was.
“Retail parity”
LOL
They are smoking some serious crack over there.
I’m going to use that line when I go trade in games at GameStop or something.
And… the negative reviews start to flood Steam.
Their reviews were already suffering prior to this, so it’s not going to help.
I do admit that I find it highly amusing that many of the negative reviews I saw were people with upwards of 3,000 hours in the game. I’m sorry, but if you sunk three to five thousand hours in the game, it couldn’t have been that bad.
“The game was cool at first, but it got really boring”. Yeah, dude, you played it for 3,721 hours.
This is like No Man’s Sky in reverse.
All they seem to know how to do is add more stuff. They never seemed to address anything else. Also, wth is retail parity?
I don’t think this is a fair comparison for an EA title. I know we’re still feeling out this glut of EA, but if i spend 100 hours in a game where half the time the save game crashes or most the features aren’t in it, it’s not the same as someone who spent 100 when the features are there and it mostly works.
I daresay that if you were to have played 100 hours it must be working well enough, otherwise you are some kind of insane masochist.
I got my couple hundred hours of fun and at this point it could crash and burn and I still enjoyed what I played. I don’t review an EA game on potential and anyone who does didn’t read the disclaimer when they paid for it.
If something gets objectively worse I don’t care if people update their impressions, but this trend of doing it over business decisions that do not affect the original purchase is just stupid and entitled.
Then again that’s a pretty good description of a lot of gamers these days unfortunately.
I had a game running for 24 hours straight once, to see if I could replicate a memory bug. I wasn’t playing it. I know EA is not the same as beta or alpha but when I participate in those kinds of scenarios, I try to treat it seriously. I’m just saying we shouldn’t equate time before release of 1.0 as the exact same as time after.
Feedback is great and I try to do so when I can, but you don’t necessarily pay for an early access game for that privilege. You pay to play it because it looks interesting and you don’t want to wait.
Plenty of EA games raise their price when they are feature complete and officially released,but it says on every store page that it may never make it that far and to NOT buy it if you are not comfortable with the game as is.
An insane amount of user reviews are piles of useless shit that not only do not understand this, but will arbitrarily give bad scores for whatever reason they please.
I can’t say I loved all of decisions that the developers have made, but it’s still a pretty unique game that has received a ton of patches and content that I enjoyed.
Isn’t that the point of user reviews? To give every customer a voice and let them review products on whatever criteria they want?
I mean, I guess?
I suppose I could review the game and say I didn’t enjoy my 400 hours because the glowing plaid dinosaur they never promised me wasn’t added and help tank their score.
Is that helpful or honest considering the game itself or the stated goals of the developer?
Way too many people confuse their wants with honest feedback, or just make the equivalent of a review shit post or tantrum that is hugely disconnected from reality.
Wait. What?
If my “want” is that I think Ark should perform better on my machine, is it dishonest to say that in my review? How are you differentiating an illegitimate “want” from “honest feedback” in this scenario?