'Ark' Developer Announces New Remaster Alongside Major Delay For Ark 2

shame i enjoy messing around in Ark, even tho its a buggy mess. was Looking forward to ark2.

but its another (big) delay to a Microsoft exclusive, then again is it just so they can try cash in on first one.

i have 10k+ hrs in ark 1 and there is nothing more for me to do and a remaster won't change that. ark 2 at the end of 2024? i won't hold my breath.

Hopefully the remaster does something about the text size in the console ports. Playing it on a Series S, sitting a few feet back from a TV, is difficult since it was clearly meant to be played up close on a monitor. The option to choose between horizontal or vertical split screen for local co-op would be nice too.

These announcements are always phrased in such a weird way. It feels like politician's spin.

This is a message, essentially, about not being ready to release Ark 2 for a very long time. How are we going to spin that? By saying that we are ready to release a roadmap and another version of the previous game.

... Perhaps the punter's won't notice.

I always feel like I'm being played or manipulated by these pr statements.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner It is a long delay, but given the scale of their stated ambition I can see why.
Its a shame this is another game where one publisher has paid to keep the game from releasing on the rival platform. Sony is regularly crucified for making such agreements on pure, but theres no issue when MS do it, lol
I must admit, I'm attracted by the idea of exploring such a world created in UE5, but I just don't have the patience for survival games, so its unlikely I'll be getting this one anyway.
I hope the remaster will keep fans going untill we get the new one, as it sounds like quite a lot of changes..

"We want to make the best game it can be".

If I had a dollar everytime I read that...

I'd rather hear about a 'delay' than a Publisher pushing a game out before its really ready to release. It's not as if I don't have a growing backlog as well as 'new' games releasing every month to play - let alone all the Games on Game Pass I can play.

The time will soon come around. I can't believe its April already...

I wouldn't go so far as to say there are 'no issues' when Xbox do it, @Titntin. Xbox is regularly crucified for doing so on the Push site, yet see no issue when Sony do it themselves. It's just the way it is when fans of a particular platform are speaking on the site representing their platform. It is a rare thing for someone on their own site, to criticise their own platform for having any form of exclusivity that benefits their own platform.

However, I would say that the one difference that I do see when it comes to third-party exclusivity is the scale of the games; Xbox tends to do it with smaller Indy games, AA at most. Sony frequently does it with larger AAA games. I often see people defend Sony for having exclusivity over Final Fantasy for example, by saying that there is no following for the games on the Xbox. However, the truth is, it's very difficult to build that following when the games aren't released on the Xbox.

It is what it is, I guess, but I think that Sony is vilified on here, just as frequently as Xbox is on Push. I guess it's just what 'fans' do...

@Fiendish-Beaver I can only agree at what your saying, except I dont see quite as much of it on push, but maybe im not looking hard enough 😊
There are several games recently where i've become aware of xbox exclusivity contracts (valheim was the most recent), and normally I dont take much notice as ill play where ever the game is. Its just ive read so many blistering attacks on the practise by people using it to justify the activision deal that it just seemed a little weird.. Im not sure the practisce is any better or worse depending on AA or AAA status, but thanks for pointing that out as I havent ever really considered it.
Your quite right about those trying justify FF by saying theres no market on xbox, how can there be a market when sony is hogging the game?

To be fair, though pure has its share of warriors, in general I find this site has more considered posters and I can often get a much better conservation here than on Push. Though platforms are seperated, I like to consider both communities as primarily committed gamers and I find any vilification a bit frustrating.
Been part of gaming for so long now you gotta expect it 😁

Is the remastered version going to be on Game Pass?

@Titntin I do think there are differences between 'paying' to keep games away from a System and/or paying a Studio to help develop and then self publish (or be Published) on Xbox through ID@Xbox Programme designed to help smaller Studios make their games and release them.

Valheim and Ark 2 are part of the ID@Xbox programme and Xbox certainly helped Valheim port and optimise their game on Xbox hardware. That's very different than going to a AAA studio 'owned' by a 3rd Party Publisher and paying them to not release on Xbox.

Independent Studio's not tied to a Publisher is a very different situation. If Sony funds and/or Publishes an independent Studio to help them realise their ambition and bring it to gamers on their Platform, that's OK in my book. Kena, Stray etc may well be equivalents to Valheim, Ark 2, Ascent etc but I can't think of anything Similar to Final Fantasy since Phil Spencer took over. The last game I can think of would be Rise of the Tomb Raider but there is a report that MS co-funded it because SE weren't happy to make another after TR didn't sell as well as expected.

Maybe FF7 or FF16 wouldn't have been made either but then when you factor in 'extra' missions/content in games like Hogwarts, Watchdogs, CoD etc as well those big Multi-platform IP's, it adds up and creates more anger/animosity as they believe Sony are 'deliberately' paying to 'block' content from other gamers rather than using their money to 'help' bring games to their platform that maybe wouldn't come otherwise due to financial or technological barriers. Then you get 'tit for tat' - you kept FF from Xbox, but Xbox keeps Valheim and Ark 2, keep Redfall too after 'promising' not to 'pull' (even though it was never on PS to be pulled) in retaliation to 'justify' Sony paying to block content from Xbox

I'd rather Sony buy Square Enix and own the FF IP, own the Studio and Talent, own the Publishing rights and then have every right to keep it 'exclusive' instead of paying to keep it away from Gamers.

console wars huh. well here's my 2 cent, i hope xbox buys everything and makes it all exclusive!

now, i can not understand why xbox didn't offer double or triple the value of wildcard and have ark 2 exclusive. i mean thats lunch money for them and ark stayed at number 10 to 13 on the top most played xbox games for years.

@Wheatly @rustyduck if that's true you have spent a 6th of the last 7 years since its release playing that game. Given that I assume you sleep too it is closer to about a quarter of your waking life for 7 years.

That's actually insane....

lol and a huge chunk of that was on the laggy og xbox one. it was more like living the game than playing. loved it.

Another game delay. I'm...like... really shocked and stuff.

@BAMozzy Thanks for your reply, which I would agree makes a lot of sense. I have a lot of time for the ID@xbox program and everything that Microsoft does in that space. It's brought some fantastic games to GP.
Id also agree that those titles are similar to Kena and stray, the association between the dev and publisher being strong and supportive.
Much as I also fear the 'tit for tat' situation you describe, im not too sure how it will be avoided as its been such an established marketting tool, particularly for Sony, and clearly works. To be fair I think people who are offended by this the most are enthusiasts like many of us here, so Im not sure that cost of offending us is one that will influence future behavior, which is a shame.
I think if both companies had more first party output, their would be less preasure to gain "advantages" on 3rd parties.
It would be much better for all companies concerned if efforts to differentiate their products were by making positive changes rather than depriving rivals of an asset, but I suspect that things are likely to continue as is, and we will see more of it. Hope I'm wrong though 🙏

@Titntin I think Phil Spencer realises the importance of OWNING IP's hence the fact they have acquired Zenimax and soon A/B as it's IP's that bring in people to their ecosystem and its 'financially' better to them if they own IP's that they have full control over and the Talent in the Studio's to keep making games.

However that gets turned around too - buying up the market, making a third Party Studio a 'first party' that could have, or was working on multi-platform software to keep games away so you'll never win really - the narrative will always be twisted to suit an argument - especially between opposing 'fanboys'.

At the start of the XB1 era, PS only had Knack and Killzone - so the narrative was exclusives don't matter, performance in 3rd Party matters more - 1080p not 900p. As the generation went om and Sony got into their stride as Xbox dried up on 3rd Party exclusives, the narrative changed - Xbox soon had the best performance but no games - although started to address that back in 2018 - its just taken a while for those deals to pay off with 'AAA' exclusives as they've generally released multi-platform (contracted to so honoured) or 'smaller' game - understandably as games take many years to make from Scratch. However, they only really 'changed' direction and decided to 'compete' in a different way When Phil took over and then Xbox 'merged' into Microsoft to be a 'Game Publisher' so needed Studio's and IP's to deliver...

@BAMozzy I couldn't t disagree with any of that, thats about the truth of it 👍

@rustyduck prepare to lose your hours. they are shutting servers of original.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner no time soon i would think. im already done with the game.

@rustyduck in August they are shutting servers for the original game. then you need the next gen version to play. this article is missing loads of info

On the one hand, I applaud them for delaying instead of patching, I also respect that they knew ARK II's "primitive only weapons, strict third person, souls-like combat and serious tone" isn't what ARK 1 was so they are releasing a new "better" version of ARK 1.

On the other hand, they can swivel for disabling the servers for the original game and effectively holding long-time fans to ransom and expecting them to pay for even more DLC afterwards.

Personally speaking, if it hits gamepass I'll check it out but I'm not buying it.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner o wow, shutting down the servers!? had no idea. this is why one should never build a large base or tame/raise more than needed.

@Titntin i have said i am ok with Sony or Microsoft buying timed exclusives, as i understand the risk and reward it brings for the platform. So they make business sense to me, what i don’t like that Sony does is pay to have it never release on another platform, having it 6 months to a year earlier is fair play, maybe annoying from some, but it’s fair play, but to pay for it to never come out without just buying that team and bringing them in house. I have some issue with that. I own all 3 Consoles, so i am not out from playing it, but i hope others share those same feelings and not bash one over the other for payed time exclusivity.

@rustyduck you have 10k hours and you aren't excited about a remaster? Now that's bizarre.

@Green-Bandit I feel almost exactly the same.
I wasn't aware that any contracts around this practise have been released or examined, but anyone contractually stopping a product from ever being released on another machine should be stopped - absolutely agree. I'm not that happy with timed exclusives but I doubt they will stop, but life time exclusions from a platform are definitely anti-competitive and should be stopped.
Has it been confirmed that Sony is dictating this, or is this best guess about why Square act the way they do? If we don't know for sure, then it seems these exclusivity deals need a long hard look at, and the practice needs to be examined by the authorities just as much as the deal was.

I always suspected that once a game had had 6 months on one platform SE didnt see a lot of point on releasing it elsewhere if the sales projections were not good. Doesn't make sense to me but its SE and a lot of what they do don't make sense. If its contractually barred from releasing elsewhere then that's a real problem, but I wasn't aware there was any evidence of that and thought it was all over-reach when people were arguing an adopted position.

@Titntin and thats just the thing we are only seeing and hearing little bits of what Sony has or hasn’t done with their deals. But reports have shown to not allow games to go to GP, and we know Street fighter and Final Fantasy has not been on PS with smoke suggesting fire around Sony blocking those games to hit the platform. I can not sit here and tell you 100% that is the case even tho the evidence points to that. But if that is the case i am not in favor of those deals. Rumors are showing Sony wanted timed deal for Starfield. Sony knows a game sells and has the most hype in a 6-12 month window. They go after those deals and rightfully so, but don’t keep the games from gamers on other devices. PS did you see the Starfield limited controller for Xbox? I am amazed at how badass that truly is.

@Green-Bandit - yeah that controller looks great! I'm not the greatest xbox contoller fan (just the original and 2 forza special editions and a xim nexus) but it will be hard not to go for one of them if they are not too pricey! badass is the right word.

@Titntin yeah man i don’t really do many controllers. I prefer the all Black Stock Xbox, and i sold my white PS5 ones for Black. I keep it simple, but this one looks like something i might get if it comes out and isn’t sold out in 2 mins.