Ark II is Coming to Xbox Series X|S as a Console Launch Exclusive

Last week at The Game Awards, Studio Wildcard took their next dinosaur-sized step with the Ark franchise and thrilled the world by announcing Ark II. The reveal trailer was fully captured in-engine and showcases some of the features and gameplay fans can expect when it arrives as an Xbox Series X|S console launch exclusive in 2022.

[RazzerRedux]

"Sorry, I am a bit soapboxy with this one. Gaming is about entertainment and community and diversion and learning new stories and new perspectives, and I find it completely counter to what gaming is about to say that part of that is to lock people away from being able to experience those games. Or to force someone to buy my specific device on the day that I want them to go buy it, in order to partake in what gaming is about."

-Phil Spencer
https://www.gamesindustry.b...

[DJStotty]

""As a player you are the centre of our strategy," Spencer concludes. "Our device is not the centre of our strategy, our game is not the centre of the strategy. We want to enable you to play the games you want to play, with the friends you want to play with, on any device."

You do realise your comment and also mine, Phil is talking about the xbox ecosystem? Your comment he is talking about forcing people to upgrade to Series X.

This is detailed in the link you provided. Lets provide the full quote :-

"Xbox Series X is the most powerful console out there and it will have absolutely the best versions of our console games. But that's not to exclude other people from being able to play.

"Sorry, I am a bit soapboxy with this one. Gaming is about entertainment and community and diversion and learning new stories and new perspectives, and I find it completely counter to what gaming is about to say that part of that is to lock people away from being able to experience those games. Or to force someone to buy my specific device on the day that I want them to go buy it, in order to partake in what gaming is about.

"Gaming is bigger than any one device, and that is something as an industry that we've embraced all up as we bring more and more players in. I think it's vital to the role that gaming can play on the planet."

He is talking clearly about the transitioning between generations and how they are supporting cross-gen games. And how xbox one players can still enjoy the same games as series x. And was essentially a dig at Sony for their strategy.

From the article you provided :-

"In another recent interview with Jim Ryan, we asked him if he would consider following a similar model to what Xbox is doing. He responded by saying that "it is time to give the PlayStation community something new, something different, that can really only be enjoyed on PS5."

Sony is tasking its studios to make games that are only possible on the more advanced machine, whereas Xbox is asking its studios to make games that can work across generations. It's a difference that's sparked online social media debates over whether the Xbox studios are being held back as a result."

Phil is not saying he does not agree with console exclusive stuff, he is saying xbox games etc should be playable by the whole xbox ecosystem.

Otherwise, why are we not getting halo and gears on Playstation????

[Gazondaily]

The irony here is that Xbox games are available on a lot more platforms than others yet the usual culprits will get their pitchforks out like Phil Spencer is a villain. It is funny to observe the hate train on here whilst the same crowd have none of that energy for being charged £70 for games on a platform that likes to prop up walled gardens that these guys celebrate! 🤣

[RazzerRedux]

Nope. The paragraph I quoted is about as generic as it could be. If you have to write a book trying to spin his words to mean something other than what he explicitly said then you make my case for me.

Bottom line: Spencer should stay off his soapbox. He talks big and does exactly what he preaches against.

@Gazondaily

"It is funny to observe the hate train on here whilst the same crowd have none of that energy for being charged £70 for games on a platform that likes to prop up walled gardens that these guys celebrate!"

You are talking out of your ass. I've given Jim Ryan and Sony all kinds of "hate" for bullshit they have done this year. From Ryan's yapping about "generations" to the way they handled Spider-man Remastered.

But yeah....in typical fanboy fashion, find a way to deflect and make this about Sony.

[DJStotty]

"Nope. The paragraph I quoted is about as generic as it could be."

Razzer, i commented the full quote, the bits you intentionally missed out to try and paint it as if Phil said he wants to do away with all xbox exclusives, or that he has contradicted himself with the article here about Ark 2 being exclusive. Be honest, that was what you were attempting to do. Either for an agenda, or to get the likes, who knows.

The entire article (you quoted, not me) is about the generational transition and how Sony and Microsoft have different strategies. The title of (your article) is "Are Xbox Series X developers being held back by Xbox One?"

No spinning needed, that is what the article is about.

"He talks big and does exactly what he preaches against."

Lol, Phil has never preached against exclusives, that is just more made up fud.

Here you go chief, the actual statements made by Phil :-

https://mspoweruser.com/phi...

Notice how he is talking generational exclusives that force you to buy new hardware, not Sony vs Microsoft exclusivity what you are trying to claim.

If he doesn't believe in exclusive content, why oh why, have they just acquired Zenimax media?

[RazzerRedux]

Of course you are spinning. And now you are making up shit I didn't even say. I quoted him directly and applied his words against his actions. That triggers your MS defense mechanism, I guess. Oh well.

"Lol, Phil has never preached against exclusives, that is just more made up fud."

Oh....is that right, "chief"? Bullshit.

"My strategy is more around our own first-party franchises, and investing in franchises that we own, and probably fewer exclusive deals for third-party content," he said. "I want to have strong third-party relations, but paying for many third-party exclusives isn't our long-term strategy."
-Phil Spencer

https://www.gamespot.com/ar...

Five years later and we have a year full of timed third party exclusives that Spencer said wasn't part of his long term strategy. The pattern here is blatantly obvious.

Sorry, but if you can't call him out for this bullshit then you are just being a fanboy. Done here.

[DJStotty]

Razzer's triggered.

"My strategy is more around our own first-party franchises, and investing in franchises that we own, and probably fewer exclusive deals for third-party content,"

And he has followed through on that, no more COD paid deals, a lot less paid 3rd party content, and he has invested in their own 1st party franchises. In the quote you provided "fewer" does not mean zero, none, but they will have some, just not as many as before.

Can't call him out when he has done exactly what he has said.

"Five years later and we have a year full of timed third party exclusives"

Really Razzer? Do we? Please list them, i want some games to play.

Again i am no fanboy, just call out liars that spout nonsense on this site, and they can not handle it.

What is your excuse for this :-

https://wccftech.com/third-...

And i quote :-

(Sony's stance)

"Over the past few days, we have started learning more of Sony's strategy regarding PlayStation 5 exclusivity deals, and a recent report suggests that the Japanese company is being particularly aggressive in this regard,

Speaking on the ResetERA forums, Kinda Funny's Imran Khan provided some new information regarding the PlayStation 5 deals he talked about yesterday, saying that there isn't a major third party publisher that Sony hasn't approached."

(Microsoft's stance)

"According to Khan, Microsoft was willing to make offers as well, but they didn't want to pay the asking price, as Sony went with some very high offers in the first place to secure these PlayStation 5 deals."

Kinda invalidates the entire point you were trying to make now doesn't it? You know how "I want to have strong third-party relations, but paying for many third-party exclusives isn't our long-term strategy."

[RazzerRedux]

Are you serious? This is what you call following through with less third party exclusive deals?

Uh....two second google search says...

12 Minutes
As Dusk Falls
The Ascent
Call of the Sea
Echo Generation
ExoMecha
The Gunk
The Medium
Scorn
Stalker 2
Tetris Effect: Connected
Warhammer 40,000: Darktide
And now Ark 2

And that isn't even all of them.

"What is your excuse for this :-
...
(Sony's stance)"

Did Jim Ryan get on a "soapbox" and preach against third party deals like Spencer? If he did then he is just as much a hypocrite. But you'll have to provide such quotes because I haven't seen them. Either way, this is what you somehow cannot grasp. I have no problem with Microsoft or Sony making deals like these. I have a problem with saying one thing and doing another. Just as I had a problem with Jim Ryan yapping about generations and then flip-flopping on his words over and over again. Did I call him out for it? Hell yes, I did.

"Again i am no fanboy"

lol

"Kinda invalidates the entire point you were trying to make now doesn't it?"

Nope. You clearly don't understand the point. lol...you go on believing what you want to believe. There is no talking to someone like you. You will try to spin and twist the truth every which way in fanboy defense mode. The facts say otherwise.

Phil Spencer talks a good talk about exclusives, but they are factually contradictory to his actions. You are in fanboy mode and blind. I'll just let be wrong.

[DJStotty]

Sigh

Razzer razzer, we are talking PAID exclusive deals, not a developers choice to only release their project on one platform.

Microsoft have not paid for those games you listed, you my friend, are clearly the one who is blind and misinformed.

Scorn - developer choice

https://gamingbolt.com/scor...

And that is the 1st one i did a "quick google search" for

You can not list every single little game indie or otherwise, and claim that it is "Microsoft paid 3rd party deals, phil lied to us all"

[TheProblem]

There is no exec out there that tells as many lies as Phil spencer

[sinspirit]

"Our device is not the centre of our strategy, our game is not the centre of the strategy. We want to enable you to play the games you want to play, with the friends you want to play with, on any device."

In your quote of him. He literally just said that XBox isn't the center of the strategy, and that they want you to play on every device. Just because he would prefer you to play on XBox doesn't mean what he said was XBox only, because it clearly isn't. "On any device" would easily have been "xbox ecosystem" or "across xbox platforms" if it was XBox specific. On top of this, they said before that statement that their own device is not the center of their strategy. So, he's not talking XBox here. Actually understand what was said.

Of course, take everything he says with a grain of salt. They wouldn't bring their biggest exclusives to other platforms. But, he got caught trying to spin negatives over third party deals despite their buy-ups and third party deals themselves.

Scorn is paid. Doesn't mean they can't tell you other reasons for being on XBox. What fool would disregard Steam and PlayStation, which easily are bigger fanbases and easier dev/publisher tools. Claims MS didn't pay for games he listed. Lists one misleading piece of "evidence" for one title. Yeah, that's how you provide an argument these days. Play half truths, misleading "evidence" and feigning confidence.

Oh, and it's ridiculous to be dressing up spin so hard and guising it in confidence to appear right.

[Sunny_D]

"Xbox Series X is the most powerful console out there and it will have absolutely the best versions of our console games. But that's not to exclude other people from being able to play."

I hope he's talking about exclusive games and not multiplatform games cause I have some news for him....

[DJStotty]

@sinspirit

Please read the entire article, he is only talking about generational exclusives, not 3rd party, not 1st party, any game where you have to buy a new console to play, that is what he is saying he is not a fan off.

That is why xbox's strategy and main focus is allowing XBOX gamers the freedom to play wherever they want to play, absolutely nothing to do with Playstation or Xbox exclusives, timed/paid/full/part or otherwise.

It's like saying, "Phil Spencer says he is not a fan of exclusives limited to one platform"

(makes Starfield xbox and PC exclusive - rumours)

https://www.gamesradar.com/...

You see how all this fud everyone is saying about how Phil stated he is not a fan of exclusives (even though he has not said that).

So for clarity for everyone, he wants Xbox games to be playable on any device, PC/Xbox/Iphone/Android. They are still exclusive to the xbox ecosystem. The Xbox ecosystem covers these platforms.

https://medium.com/super-ju...

So when we say exclusive to xbox, we are not necessarily talking the box that is in your TV cabinet.

Hence why he said "our device is not the centre of the strategy", because it isn't, the xbox ecosystem is.

I can play my xbox games wherever i want. That is their goal.

[lelo2play]

Phil Spencer doesn't have to like it, but, he has to do it to compete and sell consoles.

I'm sure Sony doesn't like paying for 3rd party exclusives, but they have to do it.

Like it or not, it's business.

[Mr Pumblechook]

Aaron Greenberg has done such a great job in tying this up as an Xbox exclusive. Next-next-gen graphics, Vin Diesel, dinosaurs and tech and a ginger-haired heroine - Ark II is a Horizon Forbidden West killer.

[IanTH]

@Mar Pumblechook

I'm not as convinced. The devs don't have a great track record with either visual quality or solid performance, and all paid post release content for Ark settled in with a user rating of "mixed" at best. But more to the point, in-engine doesn't tend to mean jack diddly in terms of what a game looks like in gameplay, so I wouldn't count that trailer - with no gameplay - to overcolor your expectations. If "next-next-gen graphics" are your expectation, I'm afraid you'll be setting yourself up for disappointment.

But perhaps even more to the point than that, Ark and Horizon are absolutely nothing alike. Maybe a bit in setting, but nothing alike in structure or mechanics. Ark is a survival/crafting game (an incredibly bland and boring one, IMO), while Horizon is an open world action game with a narrative focus. It appears Ark 2 is going to add some kind of narrative focus this time, so that brings them closer together, but I still don't see how one could kill the other - they are different games aimed at different crowds.

And I'm sure for as many people who find Vin Diesel's inclusion a pro, there are equally as many who find it a con so maybe we should call that one a wash :-p.

[sinspirit]

Yes, Mr Pumblechook

Having primitive combat with a scifi twist makes this game and Horizon direct competitors. They're absolutely comparable titles and Ark developers are very notable and the game is known for high caliber gameplay and content.

[Knushwood Butt]

I think Mr Pumble was being sarcastic.

[Atom666]

DjStotty pointed it out, but this quote is taken from the middle of a discussion about cross gen. Sorry, but this seems like another intentional misinterpretation of his comments. You know what he was talking about, Razzer.

I also truly don't understand what some expect MS to do on these 3rd party deals generally.

If they don't do some or compete with Sony, then we're likely to see Sony just snatch up even more deals, even cheaper.

He's been consistent that he doesn't like them. Any real gamer should feel the same way, frankly. But unless their competitors agree to stand down, do you truly think it makes any sense for MS to just not do some?

They've done a lot fewer than the "glory days" of the 360. They also seem to target A or AA titles. I don't see how their actions are inconsistent with Spencer's actual words.

[RazzerRedux]

I disagree. You don't say something is "completely counter to what gaming is about" on his "soapbox" when talking about exclusives and timed exclusives in such an emphatic way and addressing "gaming" directly and explicitly like he did only to say....."oh....but this is only about cross gen stuff". No, I don't buy it.

And if he is going to preach and wag his finger then his words can be used to hold him to the same principles he preaches on.

And this wasn't the first time as I pointed out.

"My strategy is more around our own first-party franchises, and investing in franchises that we own, and probably fewer exclusive deals for third-party content," he said. "I want to have strong third-party relations, but paying for many third-party exclusives isn't our long-term strategy."
-Phil Spencer

This follows down the exact same path. And here we are. In no way are the number of third party deals he has made consistent with what he has said. Who cares that he said he doesn't like them? If he said he didn't like them but he has to do them then I could understand that. But that is not what he has said. You know that.

[RauLeCreuset]

This does come across as him speaking on his broader gaming philosophy in response to a cross-gen question. It's somewhat akin to if an MMA fighter gave the following answer when asked why he wasn't engaging in pre-fight trash talk to promote his upcoming fight.

"Sorry, I am a bit soapboxy with this one. Martial arts are about discipline and respect, and I find it's completely counter to what this sport is about to say that part of that is for me to get in front of the press and say disrespectful things about Joe Schmoe to hype a fight. Or to get on social media and say things about Joe Schmoe friends and family to get more PPV buys."

Would it seem hypocritical if he later used trash talk to promote a different fight against another opponent? I would say it would because the comments transcended that specific fight referenced to speak about a broader philosophy about fighting.

[Atom666]

Or we could just look at his comments in light of the actual subject he was discussing? This was a discussion about cross-gen. Go listen to the full interview if it helps to understand why I always think this witch hunt is so absurd.

There's no preaching or wagging of the finger. The guy has been consistent in his interviews and comments about all of this stuff. I know people like to grab these 2 or 3 quotes and scream "gotcha" each time, but it's just foolish to me.

He's literally gone on interviews and acknowledged that it sounds hypocritical to be against things like exclusive content and dlc only to have some 3rd party deals of their own. He's acknowledged that there is a need and a place for them, despite the fact that fundamentally they go against what makes gaming great.

What more do you need exactly? We bitch and moan all the time about lack of transparency from these corporations (and dare I bring up the "we believe in generations" gaff from earlier this year). Yet, when someone is transparent and tells us: "yeah, cross gen should be embraced. 3rd party deals are bad..." we get out the pitchforks.

You might as well call me a hypocrite too then. I fundamentally hate the idea of exclusivity. I don't care what system you own or enjoy. If I'm playing a great game, I hope you can enjoy it too.

But I recognize exclusivity's importance for these companies. So if I give the opinion that MS needs more exclusives (which I do), it's not that I suddenly changed course. It's because I understand that there is a need for them to some extent. The two thoughts aren't mutually exclusive.

That's no different from Spencer. They're going to fund some content for "exclusives" because they have to. In a perfect world, they wouldn't have to do that. Also in a perfect world, devs and pubs wouldn't need the money. But it's not perfect -- it's business.

[RazzerRedux]

"He's literally gone on interviews and acknowledged that it sounds hypocritical to be against things like exclusive content and dlc only to have some 3rd party deals of their own. He's acknowledged that there is a need and a place for them, despite the fact that fundamentally they go against what makes gaming great.

What more do you need exactly? We bitch and moan all the time about lack of transparency from these corporations (and dare I bring up the "we believe in generations" gaff from earlier this year). Yet, when someone is transparent and tells us: "yeah, cross gen should be embraced. 3rd party deals are bad..." we get out the pitchforks."

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy and you can't whitewash it. You cannot excuse hypocrisy with transparency. That's playing into PR nonsense. Spencer is not being transparent. This goes way back to the Tomb Raider days. It is time to stop giving him a pass for every thing he says.

"You might as well call me a hypocrite too then. I fundamentally hate the idea of exclusivity. "

Did you preach against exclusivity before embracing exclusivity? I don't think you did.

"That's no different from Spencer. They're going to fund some content for "exclusives" because they have to. In a perfect world, they wouldn't have to do that. Also in a perfect world, devs and pubs wouldn't need the money. But it's not perfect -- it's business."

All that is fine. Call it business. Or hell, don't call it anything. Business is business. Fine. Leave it at that and leave the soapbox at home.

Or better yet, tell Greenberg to stop making shit up about this game being exclusive.

"We are excited to be working with the Studios Wildcard team on bringing ARK II staring Vin Diesel exclusively to Xbox Series X|S consoles."
https://twitter.com/aarongr...

Nothing said about timed at all. I mean....that shit was a blatant lie.

[RauLeCreuset]

"He's literally gone on interviews and acknowledged that it sounds hypocritical to be against things like exclusive content and dlc only to have some 3rd party deals of their own."

If you already knew this, then why this game of acting like Razzer quoted Phil out of context to misrepresent his position on 3rd party deals?

[DJStotty]

@RazzerRedux

"You don't say something is "completely counter to what gaming is about" on his "soapbox" when talking about exclusives and timed exclusives in such an emphatic way"

Razzer, he is not talking about exclusives timed or otherwise, read the articles, he is talking about GENERATIONAL EXCLUSIVITY, (i put this in bold because it is the most relevant words).

He is discussing games for instance, where you have to BUY a PS5 or Series X, just to play the game. In other words, why HALO is still on xbox one, why they are putting all 1st party games on xbox one for the 1st 2 years, because he is not a fan of generational exclusivity.

Talk about mountain out of a molehill....

[DJStotty]

@RauLeCreuset

"If you already knew this, then why this game of acting like Razzer quoted Phil out of context to misrepresent his position on 3rd party deals?"

Why the need to quote Phil Spencer at all in the 1st place? What was the intended purpose?

It was quite obvious an attempt to quote Phil out of context, which is exactly what Razzer did in the original comment. Phil and xbox want exclusivity (zenimax deal) Phil's personal stance is he is not a fan of generational exclusivity (where you are forced to buy a new console to play an exclusive).

It's not hard to grasp

[Chris12]

@Razzer - still spinning every day. You love to quote out of context and Shotty has made you look a bit daft. Maybe time to take a rest as you're not taken seriously any more.

[Neonridr]

Razzer, you can't just take a sentence here and there and put them together to sell some narrative. You intenionally left a good chunk out from the stuff he said, which isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

[RazzerRedux]

@Neonridr

"You intenionally left a good chunk out from the stuff he said"

Why are you pretending I didn't put the link that included everything he said in my post? I *intentionally* put it there for everyone to read for themselves.

That statement I quoted stands on its own and it applies generally. Locking people away from being able to experience a game is exactly what an exclusive is. Forcing someone to buy my specific device on the day that I want them to buy it is what timed exclusives are designed to do. So we can dance around the context but his statements still fundamentally goes against the practices he and Microsoft engage in on a regular basis.

@x_xavier_x

I did no such thing. Spencer's rattling on about exclusives has been a matter of convenience and he needs to just stop. As for the rest of your rant....well that is all it is.

@Neon

"goes against the practices Microsoft and Sony engage in on a regular basis.

Fixed it for you."

No you didn't unless Jim Ryan was standing on that same soapbox. Pretty sure that is not the case. It isn't the practice of third party exclusives, it is the preaching against it while still engaging in the practice that I dislike.

[Neonridr]

"goes against the practices Microsoft and Sony engage in on a regular basis."

Fixed it for you.

You didn't space out what you said, you make it seem like he said all of that in one go, which is so far from the truth.

[RazzerRedux]

Just realized what you were trying to imply with your post and I cannot let it stand.

"Razzer, you can't just take a sentence here and there and put them together to sell some narrative. "
"You didn't space out what you said, you make it seem like he said all of that in one go, which is so far from the truth."

The paragraph I quoted was not individual sentences put together. He did indeed say what I quoted "in one go".

"Sorry, I am a bit soapboxy with this one. Gaming is about entertainment and community and diversion and learning new stories and new perspectives, and I find it completely counter to what gaming is about to say that part of that is to lock people away from being able to experience those games. Or to force someone to buy my specific device on the day that I want them to go buy it, in order to partake in what gaming is about."

There is nothing there to "space out". That is one contiguous statement. This implication that I pieced together separate sentences into one statement is completely false.

[Neonridr]

@RazzerRedux - sorry I just meant you cherry picked that statement to stand on its own. I don't know what the heck I was writing there before, lol, my apologies. At the end of the day, you can not like the practice, but sadly it's something that both sides are guilty of.

[DJStotty]

@Razzer

"Locking people away from being able to experience a game is exactly what an exclusive is. Forcing someone to buy my specific device on the day that I want them to buy it is what timed exclusives are designed to do. So we can dance around the context but his statements still fundamentally goes against the practices he and Microsoft engage in on a regular basis."

I think you have the companies mixed up, Microsoft are putting their exclusives on all platforms, so they are not the ones forcing you to buy a specific device, but allowing you to play wherever you like. Sony are the ones that go with generational exclusivity, so if we want to play the next god of war, or the next Gran Turismo, we HAVE to buy a PS5 to play it. This is what Phil is against. He wants xbox gamers to have say a transitional period, so gamers can enjoy the games now and upgrade later.

"It isn't the practice of third party exclusives, it is the preaching against it while still engaging in the practice that I dislike."

Phil has not preached against 3rd party exclusive content, just that they should be focusing on their own 1st party.

""Sorry, I am a bit soapboxy with this one. Gaming is about entertainment and community and diversion and learning new stories and new perspectives, and I find it completely counter to what gaming is about to say that part of that is to lock people away from being able to experience those games. Or to force someone to buy my specific device on the day that I want them to go buy it, in order to partake in what gaming is about."

Again here he is discussing the xbox ecosystem and the Series X platform, not Sony vs Microsoft gaming as a whole.

[NeoGamer232]

It is a bit better because it is only console launch exclusive.

But, I don't think gamers should be locked out of any games, even if it is for a small period of time.

Exclusives are stupid. I call them the "easy marketing button". What is the easiest way to sell a console? Make stuff people want that is exclusive. What is the real way a console should be marketed? Make really good hardware and have really good OS/Firmware and services/subscriptions people want.

As a gamer I don't think anyone should have to buy multiple devices to enjoy games. Exclusivity create division in the gamer community.

[x_xavier_x]

You intentionally misinterpreted Spencer's comment to justify your anti-XBOX agenda. It's distinctly obvious that you are taking Spencer's words out of context. Well, obvious to anyone who's not an immature fanboy.

My question to you is why do act like this? What is the purpose of continually bashing MS and Xbox owners like your on Sony's payroll? Honestly, what do you get out of it?

[AngelicIceDiamond]

Yeah well Phil is Naive to think he can get away with not having 3rd party exclusives this whole time especially having next to no studios all these years they needed those 3rd party's the most. This is one flip that will actually benefit him and the console.

[badz149]

Was the first game already out of Early Access? I didn't know that. Played it on PC for the Pokemon mod, because riding a Zapdos was kinda what I was looking forward to back in the day but that was about it for me. Not my cup of tea.

So will this 2nd one be an Early Access too?

[spwittbold]

Anyone have some Lipitor for all the high levels of salt in this thread? =D

[Rimeskeem]

2022.... What about before that though?

[Vx_]

looks very bad, who cares when it comes. 1st game still in beta.

[potatoseal]

This announcement means about as much as Godfall being a Console Launch Exclusive. Who cares?

[Antnee534]

So how long till its on playstation thats what I really want to know. I was planning on getting an series x so I'm happy ill have a game to play on the system, but I do prefer Sony so I really hope it eventually comes to playstation.

[jznrpg]

It will it’s obviously timed . The info hasn’t been released . It’s usually 6months to a year but has been shorter or longer

[masterfox]

Vin Diesel Noooooo!! why!!?!why ?

[Omegasyde]

Dude Covid had Hollywood scrambling for work.

[Kabaneri]

Hopefully it runs better than the first Ark did....

[IanTH]

Yeah, that game ran like crap even on high-end systems, and - to be frank - looked downright ugly. It was completely confounding to see such an ugly thing being rendered on screen while performance tanked lol.

[ZeroX9876]

I dont mind waiting, to be honest the extra money from MS will help them to make sure its well optimized and by putting more effort one console at a time. Everybody wins in the end. We waited a bit for ps4 to get it after xbox one, so lets just do the same this time around.

This title seems much more ambitious than the first one, hyped to see what they'll come up with!

[IanTH]

The fact it seems more ambitious kind of scares me - this game always ran horribly, and the first game was pretty straightforward with visuals that we could say, charitably, weren't pushing the envelope lol. Consoles could have framerates in the low 20s, included lots of hitching & frame tearing, and all that with resolutions that dipped as low as 640p. The new consoles are far more powerful, granted, but it ran terribly on high-end PCs as well.

Perhaps MS will be able to give them a hand, but that team trying for something more ambitious does kind of scare me lol.

[CaptainObvious878]

I agree. I quite enjoy ark, but if the game was more polished it would be a much more enjoyable experience.

If focusing on one console could help then I can wait. Especially as I expect all the DLC up until that point to be released on the PS5 for the same price.

[SinisterKieran]

Ohhh noooio I really wanted to play as vin diesel...haha

[HannibalLecter]

Did they ever finish the first Ark or is that still in beta?

[Nuvem]

Good. By all means, keep it. God forbid that aberration coming to PlayStation.

[BattleCat]

Didnt greenberg lie some days ago and told us its an xbox exclusive ?

[masterfox]

How dare you MS never tell lies !!!

https://giphy.com/gifs/SkyT...

[Software_Lover]

Meh (for me), I don't like the Ark games. The controls seemed off and I got into the game so late that I felt overwhelmed.

Also .................. 2022? Call me when we get through 2021 first.

[jznrpg]

I never played the first game so if I do want to play this one I can wait for the timed deal to end not a big deal to me . Yes timed exclusives are bad but they aren’t going away . I am leaning towards getting an Xbox in a 3-4 years or a Pro but not right now

[Chexs1990]

You didn't really miss out on anything.
The developers were so focused on creating paid expansions and new spin off games, that they didn't even finish and optimize the first one.

It ran like a s**tshow on both PC and Consoles, with PC eventually being kind of smooth

[kryteris]

they forcing it to run on the series s? that's a shame.

[CantThinkOfAUsername]

Really wish both companies would stop doing this BS. It helps no one and it doesn't increase sales. Just put the game on every platform and anyone who's interested will buy it on their preferred platform.

[jBlakeeper]

The only reason Phil Spencer is suddenly a huge advocate for the “gamers shouldn’t have to choose a specific platform to experience a game” POV is because Xbox has been and will continue to be lesser when it comes to exclusives. 🤷‍♂️