Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
They decide the heading of the game in the broad sense and THEY and ONLY THEY wil decide when they leave alpha.
They continuously proved they are not the " we got the money ,so tough cookies for you" type of people. The updates are big and meaningfull and the game has made MASSIVE strides with every new alpha state.
So far, the game is playable, it's fun, it has random gen, mocap zombies, and can be really fun.
I have NO idea what you imagine will change when they release the game, since you already have all you need.
I find it annoying that your type of "complainers" have trickled into the alpha scene and i hope steam will start blocking complainers that buy alpha games for the sole reason to complain.
Alpha is alpha, PERIOD.
Ive played singleplayer for few in-game days to get the grip of it, and after that ive played it with my friend co-op. During four 4-7 hours long sessions, we managed to get all the possible weapons excluding chainsaw and we are missing one part from the bike. Started constructing a big-ass tower/castle as well. Exploring doesn't really exist in this game, every single city is pretty much the same, all the houses, forests, hills, snowy mountains.. They all look same (due to random gen of course), therfor its not interesing at all.
On the other hand, year and a half ago i downloaded ARK: Survival Evolved during a free weekend. After i've spent few hours there, i decided to give up buying it because it felt SO empty, and i wasnt that big of a dino fan anyways. Here comes july 2016, i bought ARK, forced my bro to play coop with me, downloaded few recommended mods, and then we played for nearly 100 hours for 2 straight months, yet we're still only like lvl 47, explored 1/8 of the island (which isn't randomly generated, its full of caverns that work as challenging dungeons, full of points of intrests), and didnt really waste much time on building structures.
You get the point now? After 25 hours of playing 7d2d (if you get lucky then you get everything much quickier, i've left few important crafting items and a complete ak47 behind me, because i didn't want the end-game stuff after 6 hours of playing) there is nothing left to do besides building houses, towers, skycrappers, digging basements, which are all uglier than minecraft structures.
So yeah, it's a shame that a game with such potential is developing sooooooo slow.
It's a shame, that after 0.16 update it will take another half a year for the next one. If only these updates were big enough or bugless to justify the waiting time..
i certainly did not buy it "for the sole reason to complain about it being in alpha stage". Happy about the explaination?
Game 1 alpha =! Game 2 alpha.
So your comparing one game with multiple mods loaded compared to a vanilla version of 7dtd? Thats a bit unfair, go play Vanilla ark and let us know how much fun your having, or download some of the exceptional 7dtd mods and try thouse.
It boils down to the fact that your perception is wrong. The only correct statement you made is that Game 1 alpha =! Game 2 alpha.
Ark released basically at the end of their alpha phase, and 7dtd released extremely early in the alpha phase.
Ark was in development for years before it ever released on steam.
Average development time for games is 5-7 years and 7dtd is currently at 4 years with probably about 1-1.5 years more time to go before its out of alpha so its not really taking forevor to do.
Also last time I checked 7 days to die blows Ark away in terms of reviews of the users, and 7 days to die doesn't release paid dlc while still in alpha to milk more money from gamers.
"
Let me think why i didn't compare modded ARK to modded 7d2d. Maybe its because 7d2d doesn't support mods? Vanilla ARK is still awesome by the way.
"Ark released basically at the end of their alpha phase, and 7dtd released extremely early in the alpha phase. "
Awesome argument, you got me there.
But lets stay serious, don't you think that ARK devs were more fair that they released the game to public when it was actually playable?
"Average development time for games is 5-7 years and 7dtd is currently at 4 years with probably about 1-1.5 years more time to go before its out of alpha so its not really taking forevor to do. "
Where did you get this lol.
"Also last time I checked 7 days to die blows Ark away in terms of reviews of the users, and 7 days to die doesn't release paid dlc while still in alpha to milk more money from gamers."
How is that revelant? Houseflies love poo, hurray, lets eat poo.
Big part of the negative reviews (besides the rage about paid DLC) are frustrated people with awful PC's, or people with 5k hours played that voted neg because of "multiplayer griefers"
You know what's the story behind the paid DLC? http://www. gamesindustry. biz/articles/2016-03-24- trendy-sues-studio-wildcard -over-origins-of-ark-survival-evolved
Again, no one forces you to buy it. The game feels complete already.
The reason you have to wait, is because the team realized early on, its better to have a larger, more stable release, with lots of new features, then large amounts of smaller, buggier updates that dont add much. Because, PEOPLE. WHINE. NO. MATTER. WHAT. If they put out weekly updates that added very little (because alpha 16 is adding a TON) and had tons of bugs and issues? People would flip out at them. Not to mention that a lot of the changes theyre making require players to restart games, and lose saves, which would make people yet again, whine more if it was constant. I recommend you look at the official blog, where madmole (one of the devs) puts up weekly if not twice a week videos about whats being worked on, and what progress theyve made. Also, you bought a game in alpha, after reading an alpha disclaimer, dont complain if its not the full game. For your information alpha 16 includes (since you were complaining how little it had):
Socket city generation for random gen, making cities look unique, divided into districts, not a large square block, flowing with the terrain, including more POI's, giving each town names.
It includes the electricity system, adding in generators, signs, lights, traps, wiring.
It includes new bear models, possibly a new snake, more zombie types,
distant poi system which makes it so when you look in the distance you see models for housing/businesses in the extreme distance.
Its adding the first multiblock models for shapes, which they had to remake their entire system for to support at player demand, allowing arches and other shapes to come.
Its adding the paint tool, allowing you to change the face of any block or model to almost any other texture in the game making it much easier to customize or beautify a base.
Youre complaining about how a random generation algorithm doesnt look as good as a map thats been tailor made by hand in a different engine, thats rediculous, try playing the naveganze map if youre wanting something like that to compare it to.
Shame that once you learn some tricks, the game gets easy and loses the "harsh survival" feeling.
There is a lot of flaws with your argument,
1, 7dtd has plenty of mods. Valmod, starvation mod, etc. They add quite a bit of content to the game.
2. It's a mixture of dates. Many games such as Fallout games have shorter development cycles because they re-use assets and engines. Many of the features dont have to be built from the ground up. Its quite common for games to take 5+ years and there is no correlation between time in development and game failutes. Plenty of games that took a long time to make have done great, and plenty of games released quickly have failed.
3. The ratings of a game given by its users is quite applicable to how much fun a game is. While everyone doesn't have the same tastes when a game is overwhelmingly positive then that means they did something right. When a game gets bad reviews then they did something wrong. Especially as these are user reviews not influenced by money.
4. As far as Ark having more content its your opinion. Apparently many over at the Ark forums feel that it does not have enough content as 300 types of dino's isn't much different then having 10 types. The complaints range from not enough actual content, to the dev's focusing to much on adding more types of dino's and not fixing bugs
http://steamcommunity.com/app/346110/discussions/0/451850468369079561/
http://steamcommunity.com/app/346110/discussions/0/351659808487272144/
5. Early Access is not meant to be released in a shiny playable state. Its buggy and often performs like garbage. If you were expecting otherwise then thats your own fault for not bothering to read the EA warnings posted everywhere.
As for paid DLC in an alpha game, the reason doesn't matter. Their developers broke the law, tried to hide it and got caught. Perhaps it was because of the lawsuit but its highly doubtful they would spend months developing content to pay a fine they didnt even know they were going to get, So they either spent a month or two and released DLC for a cash grab or they had been planning it for a while.
Go to the official forum to have a more unbiased discussion:
https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?37735-Developer-Diary-Alpha-14&highlight=Optimazation
Yeah, Ark. Great game.
There are about 45000 steam reviews
(There are many more people who bought the game and didn't review)
Multiply that by 10(sale number) then subtract steam's cut (revenue split) to get how much they make at mininum.
This doesnt factor in people that bought the game at full price (25)
The rough calculations lead me to believe this has sold easily over 60 000 copies, less than 1/3 of playershave crafted the stone axe, the maximum amount of people playing was last month at over 20 000, I assume that those people have crafted the stone axe
So its fair to complain that even with literally 100 000s of $ they are being this slow
yes its alpha game there is bugs and other flaws to be expected, but with this amount of revenue and time it should have faster progress
this is especially true if you look at mods like true survival, which completely expands the crating systems and adds a ton of new items, enemy patterens, and effects(if this was made by a dev and i didnt know this ignore this)
My entire post may be wrong because things can be very complex and I do not have all the information and my conjectures are based off of cursory research and calculations.