ARK: Survival Evolved

Hahaha, basically the same thing happened to my tribe on OCE Official 134, we're pretty untouchable now

 

yeah, we could pretty much ask taxes to People for playing in the server :P

 

yea, we're in that position as well haha, but we'd rather let the server grow so we actually have people to play with x)

 

yeah, we also try to be Nice to everyone.

 

"try"
*Watchs on da pillaged server*
try moar plox

 

Yea, I don't see the appeal in wiping everyone on the server, or acting as the police with a tax. In the end everyone just leaves the server. In the old server I used to play on (OCE 162), the Asian super tribe wiped everyone and the peak player count went from about 40/70 to 6-8/70.

 

Some people have over 4,000 hours on TF2.

TF2 is free.

Some people have over 2,000 hours on Nuclear Throne.

Nuclear Throne is 10 bucks.

 

yeah.. But TF isn't ark, Nuclear throne isn't Ark.. Please, don't even start comparing games. ARK being Worth the money doesn't have anything to do with other games. KAG was 2 EURO for Me, I have 2500+ hours. I Just wanne say that either You like ark and get alot of play hours, or You don't like It and You only get like 15 hours. And thats becouse the type of game It is. If You have a thing going on, (good tribe, dino's,...) then It is hard to stop. U'll keep going untill You get wiped or untill You're sick of It.

 

Why not compare the games? I'm just proving that some games that cost less appeal to more people and generally gets more hours out of the majority. I'm not against making a game for a certain audience, but if you know your game only appeals to a certain audience, why make it cost so much? That will only detour people more and make the game die very easily. If it did appeal to everyone, then sure it could be of a high price, but it doesn't, so it's very unfriendly to the consumer, thus making the game sell less.

 

Ark doesn't cost that much, and why would they have To make it more cheap simply becouse It's not the type of game that appeals to alot of People ? It's still a quality game, every company would Just make mainstream games If they can make more money with it. If You don't like the type of games like Ark then don't Buy them in the first place. And I think It's more unfriendly To the dev If he almost has To make his game cheap as fuck simply becouse It's not another mainstream game. My point is: If It's a good quality game then It's Worth the money, doesn't matter If It doesn't appeal To 10 year Olds like Call of duty. It Just has to appeal to a certain group.

 

The game has been in the top 10 most played games on steam at any given moment since its release, with 30-50k players at any given time online.
http://steamcharts.com/
http://steamcharts.com/app/346110

 

I'm not saying that developers have to do it, but it's a better business strategy if your game isn't the friendliest in terms of it's mechanics. It puts less pressure on the consumer.

Starbound had a lot of players playing it at first; but overtime it started to die down. That's not to say ARK will have the same fate, but I find it highly likely as a lot; and I mean a lot, of early access games such as itself don't last long, especially games with similar mechanics. (Rust is dead, and so is DayZ) I mean, look how fast DayZ is dying:
http://steamcharts.com/app/221100

And Rust died really quickly, and is very low in players as of now (at least in comparison to it's competitors):
http://steamcharts.com/app/252490

ARK has very similar mechanics to both games, which is why I predict it will die off very quickly. I mean, from the charts it's already dying, most sales seem to only happen during times when the game is on sale. (at least it appears so)

 

The difference between ARK, and DayZ and Rust is that the devs are continuously releasing updates weekly, with major content additions coming ever fortnight. The game is slated for release in June 2016 for not just PC but Xbox One and PS4 as well (the Xbox One version is getting an early access release in the next few days). I know there's a history of early access games flunking, but with the attitude and constant stream of updates, it seems like it'll get released around the time that it is planned to. It'll probably get released before DayZ or Rust hahaha

 

Rust gets weekly updates...

 

Does it get major content additions weekly though?

 

Yes, last time I checked. Even if it doesn't anymore; it's proof that constant updates will not keep players; that's not how it works.

 

That is how it works actually (in alot of cases). Not always, but alot. If people see that the devs are doing their best, working hard on it. Constant updates that improve the game. Then the community will stick with the game alot longer and they will see more potential as the devs give the game alot of attention. And rust doesn't have alot of players ? Always when I try to join a server, pretty much ALL official servers are full. Some of those servers have 250 slots. Maybe there aren't as many players as there were before. But there are still alot.

 

You judge how good a game is doing by their player amount, but rather it's rate of decrease/increase. I would say KAG is doing great saying the player amount hasn't really changed. While with ARK and Rust the amount of players is decreasing a lot.

A game isn't good if you continuously pump out new content; in fact that most of the time is disrespected because it's stupid. I will admit that constant updates do keep players interested, but it doesn't really make them stick with the game longer, because there's no reason to if that's all the interest of the game comes from. Minecraft is living proof of this; the player amount has dramatically decreased because not much people care about the updates anymore. Now granted, Minecraft is actually a good game.

 

A game is good when they continuously pump out new good / game-improving content and when the game itself is "good". And how can people disrespect that the devs pump out new content ? Afcourse, if the updates are game-breaking. But Ark's update are great. And yeah, looking at the decrease / increase amount of players is important. But Rust and Ark are both still doing really good. With alot of popular games there is a big decrease of players after a while, and that is a
phenomenon called "hype". It's a dangerous thing. Ark's interest doesn't come from the updates only, but also from what the game is. Even if you don't like the game you can't deny that the concept is really cool. An island full of dinosaurs and other pre-historic monsters. And the cool thing is that every single creature on the island once lived on earth (irl), some may be a bit over-sized or don't look accurate but they can't nail it 100% since we don't really know how they excatly looked. (And making them look more cool just makes it more awesome :D).

 

Realism doesn't matter in a video game unless the video game is trying to be realistic. Pumping out new content is a cheap way to keep players interested, it does not make a game good, in most cases it just over saturates the game. (ever heard of less is more?) If the game is finished, then it shouldn't need more updates adding content, it should be fun without such.