There's a lot of reasonable arguments on both sides. I think I fall somewhere in the middle. Here's a well informed opinion that mirrors my own. Not saying Jim's opinion is definitive, but I feel he addresses a lot of really good points: I think a lot of frustration stems from the long "early access" development cycle that is inherent with almost EVERY survival game. It makes the genre predisposed to certain difficulties regarding what designates "full release" status and when is it appropriate to schedule future DLC. In Arks case, I feel some backlash regarding the DLC could have been avoided simply by labeling them as "expansion packs" and distinguishing them as a seperate experience from the main game. It is notable that very few games in the "survival" genre ever reach completion, Ark being one of the few. While Ark is far from perfect, one can reasonably arguable that it has reached a "released state".
I used to watch Totalbiscut for stuff like this, but Jim really does a good job (most of the time) with addressing issues without being an ass about it.
