ARK: Survival Evolved, Still in Early Access yet releases a DLC

For those that do not know, ARK: Survival Evolved is your resource gathering survival game akin to the likes of Minecraft, Rust and The Forest. Only with dinosaurs. The game itself is in early access and has been so since 3 June, 2015. Costs around 20-25$.

Now, on 1 September 2016, the developers have released the ARK: Scorched Earth Expansion Pack for around 18-20$. Meaning you would need to purchase it to get what features it has despite already owning ARK: Survival Evolved.

DLC is always a controversial topic, some embrace it fully, reject it entirely or embrace different parts of it. One of the more polar views is that of a day-1 DLC. But what about this? DLC for a game that is not out of development yet?

Is it cheeky to release content to a game in development and ask one pay for it? Should it rather have been included into the core game itself?

What do you think?

If you read most of those whining about are not pure fighting for the gamers and more just greedy people that want it free like the other two DLC released. It is just greedy and whine that is hurting gamers more than helping us out.

The gamers that are screaming and being load about this dislike for it are the type of gamers are are hurting gaming more than any company out there.

So you think it's we the gamers/consumers who are in the wrong and that releasing a DLC, when the game it's for is still in development, isn't a questionable move?

By all means from their perspective this might lead to a increase in revenue which is great for them, from a consumers view it does come off as a little odd when they're still working on the core game itself. Cause Early Access doesn't mean it's been released, it's a more appealing word for Open Beta.

Also the whole whine and greedy part, I'll not deny that there are people who want everything for nothing but most know that getting additional content will cost you and if it was the case that most were "greedy" for wanting things for nothing then people would not purchase DLC's. And the whine part, yes there are those that complain about everything but asking why a developer wants people to buy their DLC when the core game is still in development is a reasonable question.

Had the game been released at some point beforehand, then few would arch their eyebrows at a DLC release. But since it's not, it does make you wonder.

Whatever it's their game, but yeah imo it is poor form to work on another project (especially added content) to a game that remains unfinished. I know there are various steps to game development and if, for example, your level designers are done with the base game then it's fine to move them on to another project while the artists work on weapon models.

But still...poor form imo. Not a big deal, though, just a video game.

*Then again, we get outraged when a "AAA" developer does day-one DLC/season passes and stuff like that, so why shouldn't we get outraged when an indie developer releases day-one DLC as well (actually, as the game is not out of early-release, this is more like pre-release DLC...so worse than day one!)?

"AAA-type games from indie developers" seems to be the trend this past year, and while I was hoping that meant high quality and high production values while keeping the "spirit" of independent gaming intact, I suppose it means we can expect "AAA" type business practices as well, which historically have been to the detriment of the consumer.

A lot of people aren't really good at running a budget, whether it's for their household or their business. My first impression is that they've run their war chest low and are trying to build it back up by offering a product for their current supporters, likely feeling they can make money quicker that way than by waiting for new customers.

Levine kinda burned bridges this way over Bioshock with his inability to balance budget and deadlines. It's kinda why I steer away from EA with devs that don't have an extensive track record....i need to believe they can finish a game first before I buy an unfinished product, because having ideas is actually the easy part.

It is a case by case basic for the DLC and can be different from person to person. There is a different between being reasonable while asking why pay for a DLC for a game they are still working on and going on a rant while attacking the company and anyone the have no problem with it. There is a different between wonder what is going one and calling someone guilty from the start and force evidence to match it. We have no ideal what they did in company but they point to one line of text and use that to show everything that happen for the past few months.

This quick to attack and whine about everything a game company does will not help gamers. We lost any positive from making paid mods more mainstream to people ranting and screaming while waving around some of the worse evidence.

Also I do believe that stating because it is not finish is not a good reason they can not have extra you must pay for.

And you did not mention that they worked on a Xbox version while been in EA.

I think they are a scam company.

They are not the only one.

I am sure you think about that for every company that try to make a profit.

@Treflis: They can release all the DLC content in the world, the game still remain an absolutely unplayable mess on my current rig...

I think i lost everything for a developer who does not even release a game before sending out DLC , it´s clear that they need some cash after that huge settlement they had to pay off.

yeah this is my problem as well. I don't have an issue with high-quality, meaningful "DLC" (we called them "expansion packs" back in my day....), but releasing it before a game is finished is putting the cart before the horse. A misuse of resources. And above all, disrespectful to the thousands (millions?) of people that bought into the game and promises.

Possibly, though I'm also thinking that they likely have taken the money from the Early access sales and split it up so that instead of fuling it directly into finishing the game, they've used parts of it to fund the Xbox version ( That I didn't know about until GMAK2442 post made me aware of it), This DLC and possibly the settlement.

Which does bode the question, if they took part of the money to finish the core game and funded it into a paid DLC to get more revenue so they could finish the game, isn't this something they decided upon at the very least six months into the Early access release? Possibly less months?

It's food for thought cause a DLC like that doesn't take a few months to make, not when it's taken them over a year to work on the core game.

I got the DLC and I find it worth the $20 I paid for it.

I still do not believe the statement because the game is not "finished" it is a valid reason they can not release a DLC.

Nobody is saying they can't.

But one can question wether this is a right way to do so as long as the game itself isn't outside of it's Beta state. Wether this sets a presidence where you no longer get Day one DLC but rather Beta launch DLC which very likely could consist of content originally intended for the core game but rather cut and sold just to get additional revenue.

Not the first time they put resources to something other than the main game but this time it cost money for the player to get so they are screaming loudly about it.

I find that there is nothing wrong with working on other side item and project as long as they continue to work on main game which they are doing.

Prove that it was intended to be in the main game but was making into a DLC. I mean real proof and not marketing. "It was going to be apart of the main game because I say it was planned," is lazy way of trying to prove a point.

I never said it was part of the core game, I was refering to a precedence inwhich such a situation could likely turn out to be the case if other developers decide to do the same thing. But I could say I am speculating wether it is the case for ARK, which means I might be correct in my speculation or I might be wrong. Since it's my speculation then it holds no proof either way, which I do realize so one need to take it with a grain of salt.

And what people do seem to "scream loudly" about, is that it's the first ever Paid DLC for a game that hasn't exited the Beta stage. It ain't exactly something that happens often and I suppose most people at the very least expect a game to be released with Day one DLC or with DLC shortly afterwards today. I honestly don't blame them cause it is strange.

Thus why I asked what people's thoughts were on it.

"Early Access"

The main game and this DLC cost less than a full retail AAA title and people are complaining. To me, this just screams entitlement. The developer works hard to bring it's audience content and they rip into them for wanting compensation for their work.

@Treflis: Well we can only take each DLC at a case by case standpoint. We can not make jump in logic like what was planned for the core game or hold devs to their original plan. This overgeneralize hatred for DLC need to stop.

Scorched Earth is a total conversion for Ark. A new map, new creatures from the small to the large, new items to craft and build with. It can be seen as being worth the $20 paid for it. As I said a company has the right to use their resources on other things even if they have a game in early access.

IF you want talk a more shady action look at those that world on Space Engineers. They have a, early access game before Space Engineers and see the dev on it stop in favor of Space Engineers. Luckily they did not do it with their third early access and Space Engineers.

Then again the Ark community is one of the worse out there. I seen this same type of reaction for change up an element in the core game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-IFIBF4Vf0

This video show an update they did to the game this year and they could have been world on the DLC at the same time.

@wiouds : I feel like my point is being brushed away with a whole "people dislike DLC's" view.

I will admit I have a distaste for Season Passes and Day 1 DLC, But DLC as a whole I don't really dislike, at the very least not to the extent some do. With that said, what is stopping those developers who are shady, like the developers of Space Engineers that you pointed out, from taking a game they put in early access and then release DLC's?

For instance, say you pay 20 $ for a Early access game, two months pass and they offer additional content for another 20$ , three months more pass and another DLC with additional content comes out, maybe a little larger so they ask for 35$. Say this repeats for a year or two and the game you originally bought still hasn't moved past Early Access/Beta testing stage and people have dropped possibly over 150-200$ into it. At what point does it become a troublesome development?

I ain't pointing fingers at the developer of ARK and calling them shady, rather that it is suspect despite me understanding their possible logic about it. And I'm pointing at it cause I know there are indie developers out there who are shady and that this might give them a pretense to do the same and possibly at a more questionable scale.

And I know I'm possibly being overly cynical but you can't deny that genuine shady developer might see that getting people to pay for additional content to a game that's not finished is an opportunity for them to earn more easy money.

Alright, "the sky is falling" and "there is a wolf" . Is there some other point you want to make?

Yes, that me being overly cynical of that. My point is you can not make a blanket statement. We all know that any market has genuine shady characters but does not mean it all or even most are shady. Kickstarter brought about many good thing for gamer and not just video gamers but board gamers as well. It bring new game and other item that would not normally be made. On it a man started a kickstarter that talk about making these odd dice and started to get funding. It turns out that a company was already making the dice and people scream about it.

What good is it to not do something because bad things will happen along with good things. This could also bring about even larger and more ambitious EA games.

@wiouds : I think we're getting nowhere with this discussion. It's evident that we're either holding opposite views or talking about different things.

I don't see what kind of benefit a paid DLC for a game that isn't outside of it's Beta stage is for anyone besides the ones who's created it and that it might be a potential insentive for others to abuse it, you don't see a potential issue but rather you somehow see it as a benefit for all, including big studios which I really am struggling to grasp.

Wow way to jump from my stance of trying to see the whole thing both the good and bad to make my stance be I an native fool who only see good thing.

So what if they are an official release yet. Are you saying can not release a paid DLS for a game that: been available form more that year, released a number of changes to the map, release a new dino, released not blueprints, a free new map DLC, a free total conversion DLC and have a different method to play. That makes no sense to me.

"Because a few can abuse DLC, we should not allow DLC"Follows the same logic as
"Because a few can be affect by video game we should not allow video game"

I'd say it's possibly problematic to release a paid dlc when the game has not left it's beta stage yes, because why finish a game when you can leave it in Beta and have consumers pay for more content?

And at no point have I seen you voice anything besides how the issue isn't bad but rather how being questionable about it is bad, so do pardon me for taking a leap on you only seeing the good thing despite it being what you have voiced from the get go. Since you at no point agreed that it could be problematic, how was I to know you held that view?

Also your logic leap is wrong, like I said I'm not against DLC per say. But I do think a game ought to be finished before one gets offered additional content at a price and I'd find it questionable to release a paid DLC if the game has not been finished. Had ARK been released and this DLC came a week afterwards, or even two days afterwards, I doubt others and I would arch a brow.

Scam? why would you hand a gold mine to EA? or any major developing house if you think you can go on your own and do it instead.

To be fair i do not blame them for running with the ARK idea even tho they may have been otherwise employed.

Not to mention that they have to work on it in their spare time , since any work done on EA time would be contractually EA´s.

That is exactly the point.

Something like scorched does not come out as complete as that within 6 months so they have to either have taken something they planned for the "UNRELEASED" early access Ark or worked on it for a long time which could mean less resources and time spent on the main game.

I personally do not care how good it is, when you have a game in early access it means "in development" meaning that when you stop developing it, you release it, not develop DLC and release it to dry out more money.

It´s a unmoral way and bad ethical.

Games that bother with early access tend to unofficially stay in early access forever...

Because they did not change the statues from Ea to finished, they can not lease a paid DLC. Well that a mety thing to get mad about.

The game is not finished. SO WHAT! As I try to say before that overgeneralized statement is not good enough. Say other can abuse it does not mean it should not be done. You can only a DLC for itself.

And that highlighted part there is why you and I are not going to see eye to eye on the issue. I think it's questionable to ask consumers to purchase a DLC when the game it's for isn't finished, you shrug it off as not a big deal.

I think it questionable to attack a DLC using overgeneralized statement to condemn a specific DLC while ignore the context of that DLC. Yet, you shrug it off as not a big deal.

It´s more questionable to accept bad and horrible business practices just because you may happen to like the dlc´s content.

What they are doing here is bad , because a DLC does not come out of the blue, either they spent resources, which could have been spent on the main game or they took out content from the main game.

And are you really saying that you are ok with that practice? because if you are then you just invalidated any future remarks you may have any other developers business decision.

Because it does not matter what a DLC contains, it doesn't matter if it was mere horse armor or something like Blood and Wine for Witcher 3. It's still a DLC that consumers need to pay for to get additional content to a unfinished game. And that is questionable.

The resources to the DLC has to have come from consumers that's already purchased the unfinished product, thinking it will stimulate the Developers to get it finished, Having them then take those resources and fund them into a DLC that they then ask consumers to purchase before the core game is finished. That is not something one ought to shrug off and not question. Clearly you disagree.

A company should always be putting resources into new source of income. If they do not then that would be more questionable than anything brought up in the topic.

Then why did you critizise those that made Space Engineers for having worked on two other Early access game and simply stopped on them once they got the money for those sales?, Surely they took the resources that revenue provided and put it into a new source of income.

IF you want talk a more shady action look at those that world on Space Engineers. They have a, early access game before Space Engineers and see the dev on it stop in favor of Space Engineers. Luckily they did not do it with their third early access and Space Engineers.

They stopped development on their first game.

So?

Shouldn't a company always be putting resources into new source of income and it would be questionable if they didn't?

That's what you said wasn't it?

Kick-starters, early access all seem to have shown to not be a sustainable plans for video game funding (at least yet). But maybe one day they'll figure this out. We've all seen what happens when you oversell what your game does have (aka No Man's Sky) and then here's a game that has DLC before being released? That doesn't make any sense. I want to support this game, but I'm still waiting for this game to be done before I do.

But that has nothing to do with abandoning a early access game without releasing a completed form.

Why not?

Developers are not obligated to finish a game they'll take a loss on, infact from a sheer business perspective it's better to drop it if it'll cost more to finish the product then what they'd earn on the finished product.

From a consumer perspective it's seen as a slight betrayal ( Which is why you critizise those that made Space engineers), even more so if they've already handed over money in an attempt to help ensure it's release. And it also is questionable for consumers if the developer turns towards them and go " Look we used part of the money we got from you to make this additional content, now if you buy it then we'll maybe finish the game with the money we get from you this time. Maybe."

This is precisely why I'm not a fan of paying for a promise of a product; any business model like season pass, early access or kickstarter. It's like paying the builder even before the house is finished (anyone who ever dealt with contractor would tell you how asinine that idea is). If you are going to pay money then make sure you think the current state of the product is worth what you are paying, not what the product COULD potentially be in the future.