If Hearthstone were to adopt a Living Card Game business model, how much would you be willing to pay per expansion?
The go-to example of a Living Card Game is Netrunner. In that model, you do not buy random packs of cards. Instead, you purchase an entire set, which gives you maximum playable copies of all cards in that set. It's a lot like how Hearthstone's adventures used to be.
In fact, because there are fewer cards in each set in an LCG, let's assume a steady stream of 9 sets per year, 45 new cards per set. That would equate to about the same total number of new cards as Team 5 is currently producing.
Remember, you actually get more than 45 individual cards because you get two copies of all but the legendaries. Also note that in this system, dust and crafting go away because they are no longer needed. New players get all Basic cards for free and must pay for any additional cards. Rotations continue as they always have, and Wild mode still exists. Let's not worry about Arena for the moment, if you please.
For the purposes of this poll, use these classifications:
F2P: You may have spent a few bucks Hearthstone here and there, but you do not spend real money on cards for each expansion as it comes out.
Midrange: You buy some packs of each expansion, but usually not more than $110 worth.
Whale: You spend at least $110 on each expansion.
(I chose $110 because that's the price of the pre-order plus an additional $60 lot.)
Well, this would make the game literally p2w by definition. That on itself is a bad business model. I mean its kinda already that, but technically its not and you can accuse them of that, but you cant prove it. This would prove it.
Also the price would have to be pretty ridiculous, since you would bypass all the random openings. Dont think such a thing could be implemented into HS in its current form.
If I remember correctly, Faeria initially wanted to go pay-to-play route but later decided to go the standard pack-based one. I don't think I know any digital card game with such business model.
By the way, the prices you listed mean that each player would need to pay $180 each year. That's quite a paywall for a game that needs a large playerbase, that's not sustainable. I wouldn't be surprised if the poll tells that most people are not willing to pay the sum each year but you would probably get completely different results, if your proposed model would've required $50-100 a year, pretty much like previous Blizz's 2 adventure+expansion model.
Im conflicted as I miss and prefer the adventure model mixed in with expansions. An expansion or two is great each year but now that we drifted away from 2 adventures 1 expansion, to 3 expansions it's getting very costly to keep up. Adventures were fair, economical and i believe beneficial to blizz and the players. You know how much gold you need to unlock each wing vs the randomness of card packs. I still want an expansion or two a year, but mix in 1 or 2 adventures.
Only part I like is the idea of more frequent, but smaller expansions. It would be quite a development nightmare, but I wouldn't mind seeing each of the 3 yearly expansions split into to parts. I think this could go a long way towards keeping the meta fresh, and allow for balance changes to be made via new cards. rather than through nerfs.
Cut the preorder price in half for each of 6 releases, and keep the current pack pricing the same. All in all, it wouldn't cut the revenue of the game, and we would get that shiny new xpac feeling more often.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I wanna glide down, over Mulholland I wanna write her, name in the sky I wanna free fall, out into nothin' Gonna leave this, world for awhile
* Always play aggro crew * Accept all friend request crew * Don't mind/care if they rant crew * Find it funny that they rant crew * Google translate non english rant crew * Most friends on my friends list are people I've beaten crew Join my crew guys
I used to buy cards, but there is really not much point anymore. The best part about any new meta lately is when it's over. Read the threads if you don't believe me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
I would go along with such a model if you could still pay an equivalent sum of gold to buy the entire set instead of only having the option of spending real money on it.
I wouldn't really be hyped about having HS transition from F2P capable to only being able to purchase sets with real money.
Well, this would make the game literally p2w by definition. That on itself is a bad business model. I mean its kinda already that, but technically its not and you can accuse them of that, but you cant prove it. This would prove it.
Also the price would have to be pretty ridiculous, since you would bypass all the random openings. Dont think such a thing could be implemented into HS in its current form.
No, it would be pay to play, like literally every other video game ever, before the mobile industry infected gaming with f2p cancer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
If I remember correctly, Faeria initially wanted to go pay-to-play route but later decided to go the standard pack-based one. I don't think I know any digital card game with such business model.
By the way, the prices you listed mean that each player would need to pay $180 each year. That's quite a paywall for a game that needs a large playerbase, that's not sustainable. I wouldn't be surprised if the poll tells that most people are not willing to pay the sum each year but you would probably get completely different results, if your proposed model would've required $50-100 a year, pretty much like previous Blizz's 2 adventure+expansion model.
Perhaps $15 per pack would have been better; I only chose $20 because it was close to the old adventure price point. But I think if they went the cheaper route, they wouldn't be able to include nearly as much solo content as they do now.
Also, please note that players wouldn't NEED to buy every pack. You only buy the ones you like, and you know ahead of time exactly what you are getting. You only NEED to buy them all if you want a full collection -- a feat that has never been necessary in order to succeed in the game.
As things are today, you have to spend WAY more than $180 per year to get a full collection.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Poll is convoluted. Think you just should have had a yes/no sort of poll to the model you are proposing.
Honestly, I was already expecting a 60 percent "no" rate, so a simple yes/no would have been extremely uninformative. I think it's valuable to know, for example, how many people are simply unwilling to pay any amount, ever, as opposed to those who do pay in the current model, but would not buy LCG packs. (No offense, but if you're totally unwilling or unable to spend money, your opinion really doesn't figure into the business model discussion.)
If Blizzard were to do any market research -- on this or any topic -- you can bet they'd want to weigh people's opinions based on spending habits.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Poll is convoluted. Think you just should have had a yes/no sort of poll to the model you are proposing.
Honestly, I was already expecting a 60 percent "no" rate, so a simple yes/no would have been extremely uninformative. I think it's valuable to know, for example, how many people are simply unwilling to pay any amount, ever, as opposed to those who do pay in the current model, but would not buy LCG packs. (No offense, but if you're totally unwilling or unable to spend money, your opinion really doesn't figure into the business model discussion.)
If Blizzard were to do any market research -- on this or any topic -- you can bet they'd want to weigh people's opinions based on spending habits.
Honestly, I think they already did that research, which is why hearthstone is F2P, overwatch is $40 with a cosmetic cash shop, and starcraft just went free.
Fact is, you may far more money on microtransactions than you would with a base price. This is why Blizzard, the companhy with the only MMO that managed to succeed with a subscription model long after all others failed, didn't go LCG.
Btw:
"No, it would be pay to play, like literally every other video game ever, before the mobile industry infected gaming with f2p cancer"
Pay to play is why my console gaming life ended after the SNES. For many of us it's not a case of 'refusing to pay' and more about being completely unable to pay at all. Decades later my life is STILL not in a state where I could dump $60 into an entertainment product without major "can I pay to keep the lights on" budget issues.
You call it cancer, but since the days of MUDs back in 1997 the F2P model is what has allowed me to keep playing, even when that model included elements that make Battlefront 2 look like a saint. I've seen swords capable of killing people in one hit go for $1000 and saw entire social ecosystems, players and developers, revolve around glorifying and worshiping the whales that could afford it.
I have no love for this "Fee to pay" system much of the industry is loving, but do note that there's a big reason why the F2P market is so popular, particularly with the 50% of the population of each game that will never, ever pay a dime into the game. Most of us would simply not be playing anything if everything was pay to play.
If Hearthstone went subscription I would be gone. Not by choice, but gone still. Given the people who play F2P games, most of the population would go with me. I'm sure there are other games out there that are decent and are LCG. Those that prefer that style can play those. Myself, I'll keep with my F2P limited collection and let the whales be whales.
If Hearthstone went subscription I would be gone. Not by choice, but gone still. Given the people who play F2P games, most of the population would go with me. I'm sure there are other games out there that are decent and are LCG. Those that prefer that style can play those. Myself, I'll keep with my F2P limited collection and let the whales be whales.
You are correct that the f2p population would leave; I would never dispute that. But you are incorrect if you think that would harm Hearthstone. Cut the game's population in half, and there are still more than enough people to keep the queue active.
You are also incorrect about there being decent LCGs for PC. The only one I know of is Lord of the Rings, and it's still in Early Access on Steam.
I'm sorry you're having budget issues, but that's not my problem. I can pay, and I want to pay, and what I want to pay for is a game without microtransactions and randomized card packs. And honestly, it makes more business sense for Blizzard to listen to those who are paying.
There really are tons of F2P games out there -- those who prefer that style can play those.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If Hearthstone were to adopt a Living Card Game business model, how much would you be willing to pay per expansion?
The go-to example of a Living Card Game is Netrunner. In that model, you do not buy random packs of cards. Instead, you purchase an entire set, which gives you maximum playable copies of all cards in that set. It's a lot like how Hearthstone's adventures used to be.
In fact, because there are fewer cards in each set in an LCG, let's assume a steady stream of 9 sets per year, 45 new cards per set. That would equate to about the same total number of new cards as Team 5 is currently producing.
Remember, you actually get more than 45 individual cards because you get two copies of all but the legendaries. Also note that in this system, dust and crafting go away because they are no longer needed. New players get all Basic cards for free and must pay for any additional cards. Rotations continue as they always have, and Wild mode still exists. Let's not worry about Arena for the moment, if you please.
For the purposes of this poll, use these classifications:
(I chose $110 because that's the price of the pre-order plus an additional $60 lot.)
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
I am mid-range and I would say no. Card opening is part of the fun.
Currently attempting to get 12 Win Keys with each class. (Complete!)
Paladin, Priest, Hunter, Mage, Druid, Warlock, Shaman, WarriorCurrent arena win average 62.1% 11/1/2017 (5-8 wins per key)
no. the cost would be far more than $110 by the way. It would be in the thousands.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Well, this would make the game literally p2w by definition. That on itself is a bad business model. I mean its kinda already that, but technically its not and you can accuse them of that, but you cant prove it. This would prove it.
Also the price would have to be pretty ridiculous, since you would bypass all the random openings. Dont think such a thing could be implemented into HS in its current form.
- Click Here To Join Us On Discord! -
Nope. Opening packs, crafting, and building a collection piece by piece is a big reason why I play.
I just want no triplicate epics until you don't collect 2x of each epic in a set. It still takes around 250 packs per exp, so why not blizzard?
If I remember correctly, Faeria initially wanted to go pay-to-play route but later decided to go the standard pack-based one. I don't think I know any digital card game with such business model.
By the way, the prices you listed mean that each player would need to pay $180 each year. That's quite a paywall for a game that needs a large playerbase, that's not sustainable. I wouldn't be surprised if the poll tells that most people are not willing to pay the sum each year but you would probably get completely different results, if your proposed model would've required $50-100 a year, pretty much like previous Blizz's 2 adventure+expansion model.
Im conflicted as I miss and prefer the adventure model mixed in with expansions. An expansion or two is great each year
but now that we drifted away from 2 adventures 1 expansion, to 3 expansions it's getting very costly to keep up.
Adventures were fair, economical and i believe beneficial to blizz and the players. You know how much gold you need to unlock
each wing vs the randomness of card packs. I still want an expansion or two a year, but mix in 1 or 2 adventures.
Only part I like is the idea of more frequent, but smaller expansions. It would be quite a development nightmare, but I wouldn't mind seeing each of the 3 yearly expansions split into to parts. I think this could go a long way towards keeping the meta fresh, and allow for balance changes to be made via new cards. rather than through nerfs.
Cut the preorder price in half for each of 6 releases, and keep the current pack pricing the same. All in all, it wouldn't cut the revenue of the game, and we would get that shiny new xpac feeling more often.
I wanna glide down, over Mulholland
I wanna write her, name in the sky
I wanna free fall, out into nothin'
Gonna leave this, world for awhile
Nope, probably not.
I play Hearthstone because it's free.
It's also fun. But mainly because it's free.
* Always play aggro crew
* Accept all friend request crew
* Don't mind/care if they rant crew
* Find it funny that they rant crew
* Google translate non english rant crew
* Most friends on my friends list are people I've beaten crew
Join my crew guys
I used to buy cards, but there is really not much point anymore. The best part about any new meta lately is when it's over. Read the threads if you don't believe me.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
I would go along with such a model if you could still pay an equivalent sum of gold to buy the entire set instead of only having the option of spending real money on it.
I wouldn't really be hyped about having HS transition from F2P capable to only being able to purchase sets with real money.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Poll is convoluted. Think you just should have had a yes/no sort of poll to the model you are proposing.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland