News Ark: Survival Evolved devs defend paid DLC release

doesnt this break any steam rules regarding early access ?

 

At this point the term early access is meaningless.

Basically now Early Access is just a disclaimer to sell an unfinished game.

Why are the developers working on and releasing an expansion before the main game has been completed? All their early access funds should go towards the initial release of the game, not to expansions.

 

Cant see how it would be breaking steam rules, when steams rules say developers dont need to finish the title to keep the money. If holding developers accountable isnt of interest to them, cant see why them selling DLC would be, they'll just sit there taking their 30% share.

Theres already mods on the workshop enabling all the DLC content into the vanilla game without anyone needing the DLC, cant imagine that includes the map itself though, but the animals and so on are there.

 

It might not be breaking any rules but it is poor on their part and leaves a bad taste for many customers who bought into the game and want it finished. No issue with them releasing DLC once the main game is finished.

 

DON'T PRE ORDER GAMES... that is all.

 

I just think that it's poor practice. I feel like there is a code of ethics regarding games nowadays that some devs follow with great success, but too many simply toss out of the window.

Pre-release is great for smaller studios without tonnes of financial backing in advance. But if you never release the game, or pull rubbish like this then it makes it tough for other people in the future. It's like with crowd funding, great idea for many businesses, then it gets abused by charlatans and/or simple idiots, meaning nobody wants to back stuff anymore.

Similarly, microtransactions bug me as they're often used in a way that doesn't help the wider audience of the game. They can be good, unlocking stuff faster is a decent choice for people with money and not time, and can pay for future content, or having the game free to play in the first place. But I can't stand when a game releases at an AAA price, has microtransactions, and then expects people to pay for DLC? That's three bites of the cherry. Take an example I like, Halo 5. Has microtransactions for req packs, which are easy enough to earn anyway. Those in turn cover things like tournament prize pools and free DLC, of which there are buckets. Great job. Witcher, AAA release price and free DLC, great job. Minecraft, was pre-release, tonnes of content and updates, still going to this day thanks to mod support, great job (even if I haven't liked the game for years).

These people and many others are doing it right, why can't more devs do it ffs? Look how much money they're making!

I'm also a little miffed with early planned, paid DLC. I mean surely when you buy the game, part of what you're already paying for is the development of that content whilst the main game was being finished? People had to sit down, draw up ideas, start roughing things out etc. There will always be things that simply didn't make it into the game in time, it's the nature of deadlines, but sometimes people just need to sit back and think a little.

 

The article neglected to mention that they paid out circa $40m to Trendy Entertainment in an April out-of-court settlement