THis is why we as gamers fail.....Blindly paying money for games is a ridiculous practice.....IF the game isnt willing to even give a free trial then i am not interested, especially from a company that has had some really bad games.
I will get the game but I'm waiting. A few of their games launched years ago still have bugs that haven't been worked on.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I'm enjoying it. Needs some work for sure, but I go into early access games expecting 'early access.' I haven't been playing as much because I'm waiting for the server issue to be resolved (moving them to a new hosting place). Overall, a solid C+ atm. I don't require everything to be A+ to be considered fun.
I've played for 1 day so far and really enjoying it, playing on a server with some friends. Took me quite a while and lots of deaths to get to their base but I finally made it and got a bedroll down nearby. Conan has a lot better story and more lore then ark has. It also doesn't use all my memory and crash my computer like ark does. The game is early access and they are very clear about that before you buy. Don't like that model? Don't buy. Simple as that.
FunCom should be making a Conan game the nature of Witcher 3. That's where their strength as a company lies... in adult themes and storytelling. I have no idea why they decided to make MMOs and survival games. It's like if Bioware started making MoBAs
It's an early access title and not a complete game.
My guess is that a lot of people didn't realize what they were getting into because they weren't bright.
Still, others just wanted to experience the game as it was at the moment and will revisit it over the course of the development.
I know I do this with the few early access titles I've bought into. However, I'm still actively playing this game as I think it's very good for what it is at the moment.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It's an early access title and not a complete game.
My guess is that a lot of people didn't realize what they were getting into because they weren't bright.
Still, others just wanted to experience the game as it was at the moment and will revisit it over the course of the development.
I know I do this with the few early access titles I've bought into. However, I'm still actively playing this game as I think it's very good for what it is at the moment.
The logic is sound, but as someone else mentioned.. ARK's still technically in Early Access and has since released a paid DLC. You don't release paid expansion content to a game that isn't even "released" itself, unless you really consider the game released internally but retain the Early Access title for PR slack only. We, as gamers, should be raising holy hell about asking us to pay for expansion content when the base game is still listed as unreleased and unfinished. Instead, we squabble amongst each other and trade insults, all the while publishers and developers push this envelope a little further every time they see the last move fail to elicit a negative backlash of any significant magnitude. We should be shutting this shit down quick, fast, and in a hurry. I find the idea that they even attempt to offer paid DLC while still in Early Access to be, quite frankly, insulting to my intelligence. "Oh, so you've used the money I paid for Early Access (which was supposed to help finish development of the base game) to create another avenue to fleece me for cash, instead of moving the base game to a fully released status? And you were hoping I wouldn't notice that you used my money not to finish the game I paid you for, but to create a new way to ask me for money? Kindly go fuck yourselves!"
That's the very real slippery slope that some folks take issue with when people try to use the "EA" defense. The only people looking at Early Access as true "early access" or beta testing are the gamers. The publishers and developers are making money just the same as gold. They look at it the same, as is made obvious by the Ark example above.
It quite literally just released. Every single game has problems on release. If it's still having this many problems six months down the road, that's when you can say it's failing. People are starting to learn NOT to try out a game on immediate release, so it's entirely possible that the number of players will increase for a bit down the road, then decrease again.
It's an early access title and not a complete game.
My guess is that a lot of people didn't realize what they were getting into because they weren't bright.
Still, others just wanted to experience the game as it was at the moment and will revisit it over the course of the development.
I know I do this with the few early access titles I've bought into. However, I'm still actively playing this game as I think it's very good for what it is at the moment.
The logic is sound, but as someone else mentioned.. ARK's still technically in Early Access and has since released a paid DLC. You don't release paid expansion content to a game that isn't even "released" itself, unless you really consider the game released internally but retain the Early Access title for PR slack only. We, as gamers, should be raising holy hell about asking us to pay for expansion content when the base game is still listed as unreleased and unfinished. Instead, we squabble amongst each other and trade insults, all the while publishers and developers push this envelope a little further every time they see the last move fail to elicit a negative backlash of any significant magnitude. We should be shutting this shit down quick, fast, and in a hurry. I find the idea that they even attempt to offer paid DLC while still in Early Access to be, quite frankly, insulting to my intelligence. "Oh, so you've used the money I paid for Early Access (which was supposed to help finish development of the base game) to create another avenue to fleece me for cash, instead of moving the base game to a fully released status? And you were hoping I wouldn't notice that you used my money not to finish the game I paid you for, but to create a new way to ask me for money? Kindly go fuck yourselves!"
That's the very real slippery slope that some folks take issue with when people try to use the "EA" defense. The only people looking at Early Access as true "early access" or beta testing are the gamers. The publishers and developers are making money just the same as gold. They look at it the same, as is made obvious by the Ark example above.
That's great but that's Ark. It's very clear to anyone who has played Conan Exiles that it is an early access title.
Should they release a paid expansion to Conan Exiles then people should react accordingly. I however will pay it as I think the game is great and I didn't pay to get the game so I have no problem supporting it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
the people commenting here on games such as this, using words such as "potential", "great" and "promising"...
Should all be shot.
Or how about we take you out back and do the same to you? If you can't see the potential for it to be a bigger game maybe YOU have a problem and are a jaded gamer and should take a break from gaming instead of being a jack ass?
He does have a point; I wouldn't say that they "should be all shot", but isn't that sending game developers a message? That some gamers are willing to buy a game that is not complete, buggy, etc., thus affecting the games that we are offered. If some gamers are so quick to part with their money over a "C+ game", wouldn't you agree that this has and will continue to affect the quality of available games? Of course, I'm not talking about the people who are enjoying the game; we all have different preferences.
"I have found a desire within myself that no experience in this world can satisfy; the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." ~ C. S. Lewis
The rats and other bad people are angry too there's no offline raiding. It's about time sandboxes did this. Either punish the offline raiders or make it gone completely. Degenerates are in heaven when they can destroy a base without anyone guarding it. But they deserve that life....
the people commenting here on games such as this, using words such as "potential", "great" and "promising"...
Should all be shot.
Or how about we take you out back and do the same to you? If you can't see the potential for it to be a bigger game maybe YOU have a problem and are a jaded gamer and should take a break from gaming instead of being a jack ass?
He does have a point; I wouldn't say that they "should be all shot", but isn't that sending game developers a message? That some gamers are willing to buy a game that is not complete, buggy, etc., thus affecting the games that we are offered. If some gamers are so quick to part with their money over a "C+ game", wouldn't you agree that this has and will continue to affect the quality of available games? Of course, I'm not talking about the people who are enjoying the game; we all have different preferences.
It's not like they are pretending that the game is complete and bug free, there is a very clear disclaimer when you buy the game that it's early access and it's incomplete and has bugs. It also says this every time you log into the game. Some people choose to play the game in this state to help support development and that's fine. I played ark when it first came out in early access as well and this game is much better than it was. If someone chooses to buy the game and then complain about bugs after the very clear statement that there would be bugs, then that's on them, not the developer
the people commenting here on games such as this, using words such as "potential", "great" and "promising"...
Should all be shot.
Or how about we take you out back and do the same to you? If you can't see the potential for it to be a bigger game maybe YOU have a problem and are a jaded gamer and should take a break from gaming instead of being a jack ass?
He does have a point; I wouldn't say that they "should be all shot", but isn't that sending game developers a message? That some gamers are willing to buy a game that is not complete, buggy, etc., thus affecting the games that we are offered. If some gamers are so quick to part with their money over a "C+ game", wouldn't you agree that this has and will continue to affect the quality of available games? Of course, I'm not talking about the people who are enjoying the game; we all have different preferences.
It's not like they are pretending that the game is complete and bug free, there is a very clear disclaimer when you buy the game that it's early access and it's incomplete and has bugs. It also says this every time you log into the game. Some people choose to play the game in this state to help support development and that's fine. I played ark when it first came out in early access as well and this game is much better than it was. If someone chooses to buy the game and then complain about bugs after the very clear statement that there would be bugs, then that's on them, not the developer
I agree. @Phry was offering constructive criticism rather than saying he hated the game, despite saying that he probably shouldn't have purchased it. I probably wouldn't purchase a game today without having a free trial.
"I have found a desire within myself that no experience in this world can satisfy; the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." ~ C. S. Lewis
It's an early access title and not a complete game.
My guess is that a lot of people didn't realize what they were getting into because they weren't bright.
Still, others just wanted to experience the game as it was at the moment and will revisit it over the course of the development.
I know I do this with the few early access titles I've bought into. However, I'm still actively playing this game as I think it's very good for what it is at the moment.
It only took one early access fiasco (Shroud of the Avatar) to cure me of ever spending money on an unfinished game again.
Besides, it's fun to watch all the screaming, crying, and soiling of diapers in forums for these early access games. Probably far more entertaining than the games themselves.
I'll take a look when (if) it officially releases.
It quite literally just released. Every single game has problems on release. If it's still having this many problems six months down the road, that's when you can say it's failing. People are starting to learn NOT to try out a game on immediate release, so it's entirely possible that the number of players will increase for a bit down the road, then decrease again.
Problem is thats the problem. Its been out a week and it has half the players that it did the first week.
Your excuse doesnt pass logic test either, it sold 100K more copies yet playing population is half? People BUY everything they just dont continue to play games that arent that good. Many continue to chalk up wasted money as 'oh well'.
Same token as the people who love to break down their hours played and how much they played. As if them claiming theyre paying 10 cents an hour to be entertained is relevant.. It MIGHT be to them but its still all relative. I have not played a second of Lotro in almost a year yet I have been 'paid' about 10000 lotro point (on two accounts). So I could easily spin "I am completely entertained having them pay ME for simply owning their product" Or I have about 10000 hours in that game and those two lifetime subs cost me 299 bucks. Whats that work out to per hour? ALONG with them also paying me the past few years.
Its the boiling frog analogy at its core. They push the envelope a little but at a time. Get more lazy and less creative and release products that are really bad. The server issue is a prime example. People are surely cutting Funcom a lot of slack there. Because they want to spin that it isnt their fault, but it is.
Like I said people can afford ot defend it for the foreseeable future because it at least made what it cost to make it back already. But that certainly doesnt guarantee it will be developed beyond what they had canned or what mod makers can do with it.
It has a chance, again, like I said, to be an option to ARK or Rust. Definitely not a replacement let alone an advancement. Which should be expected. A game being put out a year and a half after another one SHOULD be 'better' even if it does the same things. Isnt that the logic everyone uses when they wish old games would get taken over and redone?
I am just basing these opinions on observations in terms of player populations and in some instance correlating then to units sold.
i want to love this game but compared to how fun arc survival is and other games in the same category this misses the mark i want to play it but am finding the game play quite frankly boring compared to other survival games. i have played thousands of hrs in arc and only stopped due to server and base game instability which they don't seen to want to fix, which is a plus for conan exiles as it is already more stable just seems to be boring compared, but this is just my experience with it.
I know many of my friends along with myself are taking a break from the game for a few days / weeks until they get the server situation a little more optimized.
The game is alot of fun and by no means a failure they just need to get a few things polished out which they have been doing quite rapidly in daily patches.
It quite literally just released. Every single game has problems on release. If it's still having this many problems six months down the road, that's when you can say it's failing. People are starting to learn NOT to try out a game on immediate release, so it's entirely possible that the number of players will increase for a bit down the road, then decrease again.
Problem is thats the problem. Its been out a week and it has half the players that it did the first week.
Your excuse doesnt pass logic test either, it sold 100K more copies yet playing population is half? People BUY everything they just dont continue to play games that arent that good. Many continue to chalk up wasted money as 'oh well'.
Same token as the people who love to break down their hours played and how much they played. As if them claiming theyre paying 10 cents an hour to be entertained is relevant.. It MIGHT be to them but its still all relative. I have not played a second of Lotro in almost a year yet I have been 'paid' about 10000 lotro point (on two accounts). So I could easily spin "I am completely entertained having them pay ME for simply owning their product" Or I have about 10000 hours in that game and those two lifetime subs cost me 299 bucks. Whats that work out to per hour? ALONG with them also paying me the past few years.
Its the boiling frog analogy at its core. They push the envelope a little but at a time. Get more lazy and less creative and release products that are really bad. The server issue is a prime example. People are surely cutting Funcom a lot of slack there. Because they want to spin that it isnt their fault, but it is.
Like I said people can afford ot defend it for the foreseeable future because it at least made what it cost to make it back already. But that certainly doesnt guarantee it will be developed beyond what they had canned or what mod makers can do with it.
It has a chance, again, like I said, to be an option to ARK or Rust. Definitely not a replacement let alone an advancement. Which should be expected. A game being put out a year and a half after another one SHOULD be 'better' even if it does the same things. Isnt that the logic everyone uses when they wish old games would get taken over and redone?
I am just basing these opinions on observations in terms of player populations and in some instance correlating then to units sold.
Gee hey maybe people are playing other games while they wait for more patches. Week two means nothing. You are also looking at rather shitty metrics to support your claim. Go look at the amount of people on servers etc.
i want to love this game but compared to how fun arc survival is and other games in the same category this misses the mark i want to play it but am finding the game play quite frankly boring compared to other survival games. i have played thousands of hrs in arc and only stopped due to server and base game instability which they don't seen to want to fix, which is a plus for conan exiles as it is already more stable just seems to be boring compared, but this is just my experience with it.
This has a better base than ARK does and many things that will be offered to make it even more interesting as things come up. Once you toss mods into it esepcially.
Comments
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
So the doom n gloom sayers are still around with their sayings. It wasnt cool 2010 and its quite dull now.
I self identify as a monkey.
The game is early access and they are very clear about that before you buy. Don't like that model? Don't buy. Simple as that.
Redneck Gamer Youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC59QVuMC0suY-jjTHneKYgAMy guess is that a lot of people didn't realize what they were getting into because they weren't bright.
Still, others just wanted to experience the game as it was at the moment and will revisit it over the course of the development.
I know I do this with the few early access titles I've bought into. However, I'm still actively playing this game as I think it's very good for what it is at the moment.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
That's the very real slippery slope that some folks take issue with when people try to use the "EA" defense. The only people looking at Early Access as true "early access" or beta testing are the gamers. The publishers and developers are making money just the same as gold. They look at it the same, as is made obvious by the Ark example above.
Should they release a paid expansion to Conan Exiles then people should react accordingly. I however will pay it as I think the game is great and I didn't pay to get the game so I have no problem supporting it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If someone chooses to buy the game and then complain about bugs after the very clear statement that there would be bugs, then that's on them, not the developer
Redneck Gamer Youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC59QVuMC0suY-jjTHneKYgABesides, it's fun to watch all the screaming, crying, and soiling of diapers in forums for these early access games. Probably far more entertaining than the games themselves.
I'll take a look when (if) it officially releases.
~~ postlarval ~~
Your excuse doesnt pass logic test either, it sold 100K more copies yet playing population is half? People BUY everything they just dont continue to play games that arent that good. Many continue to chalk up wasted money as 'oh well'.
Same token as the people who love to break down their hours played and how much they played. As if them claiming theyre paying 10 cents an hour to be entertained is relevant.. It MIGHT be to them but its still all relative. I have not played a second of Lotro in almost a year yet I have been 'paid' about 10000 lotro point (on two accounts). So I could easily spin "I am completely entertained having them pay ME for simply owning their product" Or I have about 10000 hours in that game and those two lifetime subs cost me 299 bucks. Whats that work out to per hour? ALONG with them also paying me the past few years.
Its the boiling frog analogy at its core. They push the envelope a little but at a time. Get more lazy and less creative and release products that are really bad. The server issue is a prime example. People are surely cutting Funcom a lot of slack there. Because they want to spin that it isnt their fault, but it is.
Like I said people can afford ot defend it for the foreseeable future because it at least made what it cost to make it back already. But that certainly doesnt guarantee it will be developed beyond what they had canned or what mod makers can do with it.
It has a chance, again, like I said, to be an option to ARK or Rust. Definitely not a replacement let alone an advancement. Which should be expected. A game being put out a year and a half after another one SHOULD be 'better' even if it does the same things. Isnt that the logic everyone uses when they wish old games would get taken over and redone?
I am just basing these opinions on observations in terms of player populations and in some instance correlating then to units sold.
The game is alot of fun and by no means a failure they just need to get a few things polished out which they have been doing quite rapidly in daily patches.