There has been lots of new information about Artifact from PAX West. I'm interested how the HS community predicts Artifact will affect the HS economy, if at all.
There is a decent summary of the goals of the Artifact economy here:
Very limited card rarities (only 3 levels, and one of the most rare card in each pack).
No F2P ($20 to buy the game; $2 packs after that).
Therefore, no grinding for cards.
Valve wants to make cards playable long term (so presumably less aggressive rotation).
Deck sharing between friends.
The stated goal of Valve is the game will be affordable (E.g. you will be able to buy every Common card in the game for just a few dollars).
High market prices will be avoided (E.g. by reprinting cards and/or capping max market prices).
So do you predict that Artifact will affect the HS economy? For example, HS packs becoming cheaper, due to competition, or crafting values being improved?
Why would this affect Hearthstone. The largest part of the playerbase is strictly casual players who play the game because it's free. Gwent didn't affect Hearthstone, Shadowverse hasn't affected it, Faeria hasn't, why would artifact do anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
The UI and art looks mediocre, and DOTA characters have always been pretty bland imo anyway.
It looks like the only people who are actually going to spend $20 are the people who actually play DOTA and the "card game pros" who call every deck they don't play skillless.
I think people underestimate how heavily invested a lot of people are in Hearthstone. Besides, Hearthstone is a good game and a lot of people love the more.
So 20$ 2 ) packs hs starts free and u don’t pay to actually play the game who cares for trading cards. And the people who will play it are streamers that play the other game also. Gwent Shadowverse Féria that other card I can’t. Remember all never touched hearthstone. Most people won’t hop to different card game cause there money is in one already.
"What's Artifact?" said every Hearthstone player ever.
I second this.
I've always thought trading in game would be cool though. Why should a golden Antonidas have the same value as a golden Millhouse? I think there should be a limited trading option, where players can trade cards with equal value. Golden legendary = two legendaries, legendary = golden/2 epics, and so on.
The cost of other games will have no bearing on Hearthstone unless those games are good enough to poach a significant amount of players, and with the extremely low success rate of cards games in general i think that is unlikely to happen. Only time will tell.
Do I have to remind everyone about what happened at the reveal?
Saying Artifact will affect Hearthstone in any way shape or form is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Especially with the new information that's been released, a paid card game, who wants that? Card trading, could very well land them in hot water again with countries such as Belgium due to that being how Loot Boxes/Card Packs were defined as gambling, with the contents being tradable in a marketplace. And also knowing Valve's past I don't trust them saying they're going make an affordable market, just look at games like CSGO and tell me they're not gonna try and monetise the shit out of this game. Hell I don't even think the playbase of Hearthstone will drop even a 1% when Artifact releases.
I will just repost the post that I've made in a similar thread where I explain why it is hard to compete with HS as online card game.
As far as I can tell from my experience: HS will be #1 digital CCG for a very,very long time. MTG is holding the #1 TCG spot for decades. You can blame Blizzard for balancing,changes and other stuff if you want but you gotta admit that all their games are Top-Tier. And Hearthstone is no exception. There might be some other games that will shine like MTG:Arena and Artifact but they won't take the #1 spot because they either are P2W(MTG) or they have really serious competition in form of HS (Artifact). A lot of people and the game developers do not understand sometimes that giving a ton of freebies doesn't means that they will archieve bigger numbers and popularity. Team 5 responsible for Hearthstone are doing amazing job in terms of promotions, card arts, new unique effects (Kazakus, Zombeast),animations, and balanced path of F2P and P2W strategies which improved a lot since the beggining of the game.
Other CCGs are already dissolving:
Shadowverse is basically anime Hearthstone that is played mostly in Japan and South Korea but never became a huge thing worldwide. Ranked climb is not challenging at all since you drop very low after you archieved the highest ranks ( If this is old ranking system have mercy on me, I haven't played Shadowverse for almost a year xD)
Gwent got so obssesed with being better than HS that they just ruined the game. I'm glad I played in high ladder before they destroyed the game.
TESL is kinda good but have little cardpool and they are forced to give so much free stuff in order to stay somehow relevant
Faeria is really good game but too complex for some people so thats why it won't appear attractive to masses. I mean some of the CCG players are freaking out when card has more than 2 sentences in its text.
Duelyst: I bet someone still knows that this games exists.
Blizzard is just doing great job. They are the company that are giving their soul into game developing and milking money from it at the same time. I doubt someone takes the #1 spot from HS anytime soon.
Also another thought that I want to add. Whizbang single handedly obliterated most of the competition too in terms of learning game mechanics and card interactions, big deck variety and being F2P friendly. Just a friendly reminder: for a 1600 dust you are getting 18 refined Tierish 2 or 3 decks. Thats a lot. That is really a lot. It may not be a lot for veteran players, but imagine how much it is for a newcomer.
No F2P ($20 to buy the game; $2 packs after that).
I'm going to hope that $20 gets you a base set equivalent to at least 10 packs. If you're paying $20 just to ENTER the game and to get any real cards you have to buy after that that's far, far worse than a card game.
Cancel that. It's fine. You get 2 base decks and 10 packs.
Valve wants to make cards playable long term (so presumably less aggressive rotation).
Blizzard thought the same thing with Hearthstone. TGT was their attempt to avoid rotating. TGT taught them that it was a very bad idea.
Card games become 'solved' after a while. You figure out which cards work best for the best decks and eventually you don't need to innovate anymore. After that, the meta goes stale. It's a natural element of the beast and why sets exist
(what. You thought it was just for the cash for new cards? Smart business design combines actual smart decisions with optimized profits. Card sets are a necessary part of the game, a highly desired feature that people like, and is a way to install a vacuum cleaner to your wallet)
Point is, they will need constant expansions or it'll get too boring no matter how they design the cards. And that brings the power creep issue. Each set has to be more powerful than the rest or else it'll be ignored due to the old cards. Card game designers can't ignore this, so they have a choice: Rotations, ala the MTG method, or accepting Power Creep, ala Yu-Gi-Oh.
So if they are going to downplay rotations, that means either a lot more power creep or a lot more "TGT" style sets.
The stated goal of Valve is the game will be affordable (E.g. you will be able to buy every Common card in the game for just a few dollars).
"This computer is affordable. You can buy a keyboard for it for only a few bucks."
The cost of a card game isn't determined by the Commons. Slipping a statement like that in and making it sound like it actually matters is shady.
High market prices will be avoided (E.g. by reprinting cards and/or capping max market prices).
'reprinting cards'? Wait, wtf? This is a digital card game, right? So does that mean they're are going to be duplicates of cards in different sets?
Unless you stop letting people buy packs from a set, the limited nature is set by the rarity. That may be solved if the higheest rarity is in each pack, but still reprinting doesn't help here.
Market caps would be a nightmare as that just creates a shortage. Instead of Lich King costing $500 to buy it, you just can't get it at all. Again, how rare the cards are in sets will be the determining factor.
So do you predict that Artifact will affect the HS economy? For example, HS packs becoming cheaper, due to competition, or crafting values being improved?
They aren't after the same playerbase. Artifact is a pay-only TCG while Hearthstone is a F2P CCG. It's like wondering if Fire Emblem will steal customers from Starcraft because both are 'strategy'. They aren't in competition with each other.
Hoping Artifact does well. But even if it becomes as popular as DOTA2 it won't mean a thing over here.
I don't think that Artifact will affect HS at all cuz of the paywall that Artifact has and you have to buy packs only with real money if i'm right. Hearthstone attracts people cuz it's free and has simple/good looking graphics for gameplay, yea maybe grinding for cards takes a while and it may be frustrating sometimes but still you have the option to do it for free and people like that. On the other hand i really hope it would affect it so Blizzard would actually have to try to make the game more fun and come up with fresh and new ideas. Competition would be good for Hearthstone
I don't think Artifact will affect Hearthstone because
1. It's not free.
2. The gameplay, from what I have seen, is a lot different from Hearthstone. Only thing common between them is they both are card based.
But, I don't think Blizzard should dismiss Artifact as another Gwent, Shadowverse or Faeria. The fact that it's developed by Valve is alone enough for Blizzard to take Artifact seriously.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There has been lots of new information about Artifact from PAX West. I'm interested how the HS community predicts Artifact will affect the HS economy, if at all.
There is a decent summary of the goals of the Artifact economy here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad4KvLkRURs
Essentially, there will be:
So do you predict that Artifact will affect the HS economy? For example, HS packs becoming cheaper, due to competition, or crafting values being improved?
0%
Why would this affect Hearthstone. The largest part of the playerbase is strictly casual players who play the game because it's free. Gwent didn't affect Hearthstone, Shadowverse hasn't affected it, Faeria hasn't, why would artifact do anything.
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
Vouch this
Looks bad. Why would you want to play 3 different game boards at the same tine
The UI and art looks mediocre, and DOTA characters have always been pretty bland imo anyway.
It looks like the only people who are actually going to spend $20 are the people who actually play DOTA and the "card game pros" who call every deck they don't play skillless.
Unpopular opinion: Rogue is OP
I think people underestimate how heavily invested a lot of people are in Hearthstone. Besides, Hearthstone is a good game and a lot of people love the more.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
So 20$ 2 ) packs hs starts free and u don’t pay to actually play the game who cares for trading cards. And the people who will play it are streamers that play the other game also. Gwent Shadowverse Féria that other card I can’t. Remember all never touched hearthstone. Most people won’t hop to different card game cause there money is in one already.
"What's Artifact?" said every Hearthstone player ever.
I second this.
I've always thought trading in game would be cool though. Why should a golden Antonidas have the same value as a golden Millhouse? I think there should be a limited trading option, where players can trade cards with equal value. Golden legendary = two legendaries, legendary = golden/2 epics, and so on.
The cost of other games will have no bearing on Hearthstone unless those games are good enough to poach a significant amount of players, and with the extremely low success rate of cards games in general i think that is unlikely to happen. Only time will tell.
The same amount that MTG arena has affected it.
core dota players will join hearthstone after fiasco
Do I have to remind everyone about what happened at the reveal?
Saying Artifact will affect Hearthstone in any way shape or form is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Especially with the new information that's been released, a paid card game, who wants that? Card trading, could very well land them in hot water again with countries such as Belgium due to that being how Loot Boxes/Card Packs were defined as gambling, with the contents being tradable in a marketplace. And also knowing Valve's past I don't trust them saying they're going make an affordable market, just look at games like CSGO and tell me they're not gonna try and monetise the shit out of this game. Hell I don't even think the playbase of Hearthstone will drop even a 1% when Artifact releases.
I will just repost the post that I've made in a similar thread where I explain why it is hard to compete with HS as online card game.
Also another thought that I want to add. Whizbang single handedly obliterated most of the competition too in terms of learning game mechanics and card interactions, big deck variety and being F2P friendly. Just a friendly reminder: for a 1600 dust you are getting 18 refined Tierish 2 or 3 decks. Thats a lot. That is really a lot. It may not be a lot for veteran players, but imagine how much it is for a newcomer.
Moving into https://outof.cards/members/firepaladinhs/decks
I'm going to hope that $20 gets you a base set equivalent to at least 10 packs. If you're paying $20 just to ENTER the game and to get any real cards you have to buy after that that's far, far worse than a card game.Cancel that. It's fine. You get 2 base decks and 10 packs.
Blizzard thought the same thing with Hearthstone. TGT was their attempt to avoid rotating. TGT taught them that it was a very bad idea.
Card games become 'solved' after a while. You figure out which cards work best for the best decks and eventually you don't need to innovate anymore. After that, the meta goes stale. It's a natural element of the beast and why sets exist
(what. You thought it was just for the cash for new cards? Smart business design combines actual smart decisions with optimized profits. Card sets are a necessary part of the game, a highly desired feature that people like, and is a way to install a vacuum cleaner to your wallet)
Point is, they will need constant expansions or it'll get too boring no matter how they design the cards. And that brings the power creep issue. Each set has to be more powerful than the rest or else it'll be ignored due to the old cards. Card game designers can't ignore this, so they have a choice: Rotations, ala the MTG method, or accepting Power Creep, ala Yu-Gi-Oh.
So if they are going to downplay rotations, that means either a lot more power creep or a lot more "TGT" style sets.
"This computer is affordable. You can buy a keyboard for it for only a few bucks."
The cost of a card game isn't determined by the Commons. Slipping a statement like that in and making it sound like it actually matters is shady.
'reprinting cards'? Wait, wtf? This is a digital card game, right? So does that mean they're are going to be duplicates of cards in different sets?
Unless you stop letting people buy packs from a set, the limited nature is set by the rarity. That may be solved if the higheest rarity is in each pack, but still reprinting doesn't help here.
Market caps would be a nightmare as that just creates a shortage. Instead of Lich King costing $500 to buy it, you just can't get it at all. Again, how rare the cards are in sets will be the determining factor.
They aren't after the same playerbase. Artifact is a pay-only TCG while Hearthstone is a F2P CCG. It's like wondering if Fire Emblem will steal customers from Starcraft because both are 'strategy'. They aren't in competition with each other.
Hoping Artifact does well. But even if it becomes as popular as DOTA2 it won't mean a thing over here.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I don't think that Artifact will affect HS at all cuz of the paywall that Artifact has and you have to buy packs only with real money if i'm right. Hearthstone attracts people cuz it's free and has simple/good looking graphics for gameplay, yea maybe grinding for cards takes a while and it may be frustrating sometimes but still you have the option to do it for free and people like that. On the other hand i really hope it would affect it so Blizzard would actually have to try to make the game more fun and come up with fresh and new ideas. Competition would be good for Hearthstone
( btw that 3 board thing is looking strange)
Lol, bye !
I don't think Artifact will affect Hearthstone because
1. It's not free.
2. The gameplay, from what I have seen, is a lot different from Hearthstone. Only thing common between them is they both are card based.
But, I don't think Blizzard should dismiss Artifact as another Gwent, Shadowverse or Faeria. The fact that it's developed by Valve is alone enough for Blizzard to take Artifact seriously.