The fact it won't be F2P alone will keep them at the margins of the market: the major and possibly main strength of HS is that it is essentially plug & play.
They could eventually take over only if HS suddenly crumbles on itself, but I doubt it will happen any soon.
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.
They are just cosmetics, you can buy them but they aren't necessary, same with other Valve games like Dota 2 and TF2. If Valve say they are going to make Artifact affordable, I have no reason not to believe them.
i used to play dota but i left it because the way valve take advantage of it's player base. they just want to suck money out of your wallet.
Artifact is just another method to do that, and 20$ for a card game ( come on valve) is just ridiculous . for the first time in my life i am spending money in a game and i am happy about it . i found that happiness only in hearthstone .
Blizzard is not trying to create a CCG, it's trying to create a TCG on PC. Just think about it:
-You have to pay to start to play (Starter deck in TCG)
-The packs cost real money (like in a TCG)
-The card can be sold for money
I think that if they possesed the machinery needed they could have made this game just a real card game, but because it cost less if it's digital they choose that way, and there is nothing wrong with it, this game will cost tens times less than any real TCG and from a guy who played both YuGiOh and MtG and spent a lot of money, this seems the best way. If I am going to buy it I will use the profit I make from Tf2 to buy singles and sell everything I don't need, but I can see why a lot of people will avoid this game.
Hearthstone is going to be the longest running game in history.
The return on investment is too high. They have a team of less than 100 people pulling in over a BILLION dollars a year. My company has 700 people and makes 200 million, plus we have substantial costs on top of labor (machinery, raw material, a shitload of state permits and fees, etc).
With the way expansions and patches work the days, Hearthstone can upgrade indefinitely without ever coming out with "Hearthstone 2".
Artifact is nothing more than a publicity stunt and money grab. It's understandable Valve wants a piece of the action. Even if they achieve 5% of the success of Hearthstone they will make a profit, and therefore worth the endeavor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Anger is the punishment we give ourselves for someone else's mistake.
Hearthstone is going to be the longest running game in history.
The return on investment is too high. They have a team of less than 100 people pulling in over a BILLION dollars a year. My company has 700 people and makes 200 million, plus we have substantial costs on top of labor (machinery, raw material, a shitload of state permits and fees, etc).
With the way expansions and patches work the days, Hearthstone can upgrade indefinitely without ever coming out with "Hearthstone 2".
Artifact is nothing more than a publicity stunt and money grab. It's understandable Valve wants a piece of the action. Even if they achieve 5% of the success of Hearthstone they will make a profit, and therefore worth the endeavor.
^ This. Hearthstone is "dying" for 5 years already with over 70 milion accounts registered in 2017 as a CCG game and being at the top 4 online game worldwide. MTG is "dying" for decades now yet its the biggest TCG still.
I don't think that Artifact will affect HS because today is the first day I ever heard about the Artifact and I do not relly like the visual of the game. Maye it will get better in the future, but... maybe it Maybelline.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EU 11/2015+ , f2p 03/2021+: DK 63/ DH 205 /Dr 277 / Hu 733 / Ma 6666 / Pa 1072 / Pr 1165 / Ro 1791 / Sh 1303 / Wl 707 / Wr 664
Hopefully it tanks it, this game is the Mario Party of card games and Blizzard is too lazy to do any balancing once their poorly thought out cards are released.
Majority of playerbase of hearthstone cries about a cosmetic thats locked behind 80$ paywall.
I kinda like how top tier decks wont be affordable though, it would probably keep the casual mode fun, making decks with what you have lol, and not feel the need to netdeck. I dunno i might try it.
Artifact will definetely draw attention of some players, excluding casual playerbase of course. I will try it out for sure and my friends will, since we all play Dota and the fact that in Artifact you actualy need to think more and rely much less on RNG already gives it an advantage over Hearthstone, at least for us.
It's 20$ to get it and then you STILL have to buy packs. Dramatically reducing accessibility.
Their isn't enough reason to switch from a game people have already invest too much money in.
Hearthstone is just a more polished and better looking game.
The only thing that Artifact has over Hearthstone is the Trading System.
The $20 start isn't some 'entrance fee' like the OP suggests. It's basically a starter pack. You get two starter decks (amounting to 54 cards) and 10 packs (which normally cost $2 each. 12 cards per pack btw).
You can't avoid buying it in order to join but if you are planning to play you'd be a fool NOT to buy it anyway as it's the cheapest price per pack.
It's trying to peg itself as the cheapest non-F2P trading card game,and by how it sounds it may succeed in that (though I heard gwent is easy to get a full collection on little cash so I don't know).
That, along with the pre-built fanbase of Steam/Valve (similar to Blizzard's pre-built fanbase of Wow) and it's set to do well. The problem is that Valve isn't that well known for adapting to problems. If you think Blizzard is slow to change you haven't experienced Valve Time. They will need to be a lot more willing to change course to keep the game afloat.
Blizzard should make a special stream lessons or youtube videos in which they explain the the only way hs should be played is with supa dupa 1000 IQ control/combo homebrewed decks and 30 minutes long match is a minimum time period that proves you're not braindead blah blah something etc.
This is the same formula that WotC has used for decades with MtGo (though admittedly a lot cheaper). I think that there's a reason that they are partly abandoning that economy for a HS inspired one in Magic Arena. They are not doing that without a ton of research. I find it odd that the people behind Artifact are going back to an outdated model. We'll see. Maybe reducing the pack prices is enough to revive it. Still, $20 is a steep entry for a lot of people. Maybe they are purposely targeting the 25+ year old HS crowd and seeing how Blizzard is becoming more and more a kids game in the way they promote the game, I doubt they will do anything to risk losing that player base.
I feel like Hearthstone is the WoW of card games; it has survived the test of time and became the dominant game on the market. Therefore, the impact of Artifact on Hearthstone will be minimal
I think Blizzard will assess the situation first before making a move. Recently, they’ve been sending surveys asking people about their Hearthstone experience and whether they will jump ship, maybe Blizzard’s getting a bit antsy.
The fact it won't be F2P alone will keep them at the margins of the market: the major and possibly main strength of HS is that it is essentially plug & play.
They could eventually take over only if HS suddenly crumbles on itself, but I doubt it will happen any soon.
They are just cosmetics, you can buy them but they aren't necessary, same with other Valve games like Dota 2 and TF2. If Valve say they are going to make Artifact affordable, I have no reason not to believe them.
i used to play dota but i left it because the way valve take advantage of it's player base. they just want to suck money out of your wallet.
Artifact is just another method to do that, and 20$ for a card game ( come on valve) is just ridiculous . for the first time in my life i am spending money in a game and i am happy about it . i found that happiness only in hearthstone .
Blizzard is not trying to create a CCG, it's trying to create a TCG on PC. Just think about it:
-You have to pay to start to play (Starter deck in TCG)
-The packs cost real money (like in a TCG)
-The card can be sold for money
I think that if they possesed the machinery needed they could have made this game just a real card game, but because it cost less if it's digital they choose that way, and there is nothing wrong with it, this game will cost tens times less than any real TCG and from a guy who played both YuGiOh and MtG and spent a lot of money, this seems the best way. If I am going to buy it I will use the profit I make from Tf2 to buy singles and sell everything I don't need, but I can see why a lot of people will avoid this game.
Hearthstone is going to be the longest running game in history.
The return on investment is too high. They have a team of less than 100 people pulling in over a BILLION dollars a year. My company has 700 people and makes 200 million, plus we have substantial costs on top of labor (machinery, raw material, a shitload of state permits and fees, etc).
With the way expansions and patches work the days, Hearthstone can upgrade indefinitely without ever coming out with "Hearthstone 2".
Artifact is nothing more than a publicity stunt and money grab. It's understandable Valve wants a piece of the action. Even if they achieve 5% of the success of Hearthstone they will make a profit, and therefore worth the endeavor.
Anger is the punishment we give ourselves for someone else's mistake.
^ This. Hearthstone is "dying" for 5 years already with over 70 milion accounts registered in 2017 as a CCG game and being at the top 4 online game worldwide. MTG is "dying" for decades now yet its the biggest TCG still.
Moving into https://outof.cards/members/firepaladinhs/decks
I don't think that Artifact will affect HS because today is the first day I ever heard about the Artifact and I do not relly like the visual of the game.
Maye it will get better in the future, but... maybe it Maybelline.
EU 11/2015+ , f2p 03/2021+: DK 63 / DH 205 /Dr 277 / Hu 733 / Ma 6666 / Pa 1072 / Pr 1165 / Ro 1791 / Sh 1303 / Wl 707 / Wr 664
Hopefully it tanks it, this game is the Mario Party of card games and Blizzard is too lazy to do any balancing once their poorly thought out cards are released.
Majority of playerbase of hearthstone cries about a cosmetic thats locked behind 80$ paywall.
I kinda like how top tier decks wont be affordable though, it would probably keep the casual mode fun, making decks with what you have lol, and not feel the need to netdeck. I dunno i might try it.
No for obvious reasons.
It's 20$ to get it and then you STILL have to buy packs. Dramatically reducing accessibility.
Their isn't enough reason to switch from a game people have already invest too much money in.
Hearthstone is just a more polished and better looking game.
The only thing that Artifact has over Hearthstone is the Trading System.
Boy, the art is pretty bad, and it looks intricate in a bad way
This is kinda reminding me of the threads of "How will Wildstar or Star Wars: The Old Republic affect World of Warcraft?"
Not sure if hyped yet.
Artifact will definetely draw attention of some players, excluding casual playerbase of course. I will try it out for sure and my friends will, since we all play Dota and the fact that in Artifact you actualy need to think more and rely much less on RNG already gives it an advantage over Hearthstone, at least for us.
The $20 start isn't some 'entrance fee' like the OP suggests. It's basically a starter pack. You get two starter decks (amounting to 54 cards) and 10 packs (which normally cost $2 each. 12 cards per pack btw).
You can't avoid buying it in order to join but if you are planning to play you'd be a fool NOT to buy it anyway as it's the cheapest price per pack.
It's trying to peg itself as the cheapest non-F2P trading card game,and by how it sounds it may succeed in that (though I heard gwent is easy to get a full collection on little cash so I don't know).
That, along with the pre-built fanbase of Steam/Valve (similar to Blizzard's pre-built fanbase of Wow) and it's set to do well. The problem is that Valve isn't that well known for adapting to problems. If you think Blizzard is slow to change you haven't experienced Valve Time. They will need to be a lot more willing to change course to keep the game afloat.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
so you are paying 20 dollars to play the game and for every pack you spend another 2 dollar ? well have fun with the money eating shit.
question : is it like complicated like gwent ? if yes it wont see much player... hearthstone is good becouse its just simple and easy to understand.
More like T3 to T5 decks.
This is the same formula that WotC has used for decades with MtGo (though admittedly a lot cheaper). I think that there's a reason that they are partly abandoning that economy for a HS inspired one in Magic Arena. They are not doing that without a ton of research. I find it odd that the people behind Artifact are going back to an outdated model. We'll see. Maybe reducing the pack prices is enough to revive it. Still, $20 is a steep entry for a lot of people. Maybe they are purposely targeting the 25+ year old HS crowd and seeing how Blizzard is becoming more and more a kids game in the way they promote the game, I doubt they will do anything to risk losing that player base.
I feel like Hearthstone is the WoW of card games; it has survived the test of time and became the dominant game on the market. Therefore, the impact of Artifact on Hearthstone will be minimal
*cluck*
I think Blizzard will assess the situation first before making a move. Recently, they’ve been sending surveys asking people about their Hearthstone experience and whether they will jump ship, maybe Blizzard’s getting a bit antsy.
Hopefully nuke it out of existence, but I highly doubt that.