ya i agree with you, this games F2P design has failed.
i have stopped spending money on this game and mostly use old sets since iam in wild.
and dont be surprised if the nerds on this forum rage at you. if someone didnt like this games monetization, they probably quit the game and are not on this forum.
So the players on this forum are the ones that defend the game no matter what.cause they dont understand if F2P players go, the game will die. like HOTS .
Translation: I'm too lazy to log in every day and do my quest and win 3 games and then do a tavern brawl once a week to get 80 free packs every expansion along with at least the Brawl pack dust so clearly the design has failed.
Seriously the design is fine, there's just a few F2P people to lazy to capitalize on it. It doesn't take that much effort and the tools to maximize your dust/card efficiency are easily available to anyone.
There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding of video game economics in these posts. The money side has nothing to do with greed or a disrespect/unconcern of the player experience. Quite the contrary. The OP had it correct when he stated that the game is F2P to build a large enough player-base that individuals willing and able to pay for the game will be incentivised. Because multiplayer games are only fun when you have people to play against, you need a large enough playerbase to guarantee any and every player will be able to play the game at their convenience. Games that are already popular become more popular by virtue of friends playing games specifically to play with friends. Similarly you need a large enough playerbase to diffuse the costs of designing and maintaining the software / servers. As there become fewer paying players, the cost of each transaction must go up to cover the same services. This is simple supply side economics theory and is verifiable in literally tens of thousands of companies failures and successes. As the popularity of a game declines, the costs will go up which will make it even less popular and so begins a cycle of decay for a game's lifecycle.
Hearthstone has over 100 million accounts and earned ~$414 million in 2018. That's an average of $4.14 per account (many of which were likely untouched throughout the entire year of 2018). We don't actually have public data on how many accounts actively play (at least 1 game/week average), but that would be a much more important barometer of what the average user spends. More important than what the average user pays is what percentage of the player base actually pays and what is their average cost for our collective ability to play the game at all. If Blizzard doesn't make enough money to cover it's overhead, the game must cease to be. Keep in mind, that overhead has nothing to do with already earned profits. For the game to be sustainable it must earn annually what it costs to keep everything in place that makes the thing happen (servers, developers, offices, tournaments, advertising, etc.) If a game ever ceases to cut even, it must discontinue. Price hikes are a strong indicator that a game is moving toward unsustainability; conversely, it's a sign that the game was underpriced all along. If after the average cost per player is increased and the player base continues expanding, then we know Blizzard was charging us less than the product was worth. Of course the value of a product like this is directly correlated with it's popularity, so the game's value now is greater than it was 5 years ago when it was first released (and at this moment less than it was during 2017 at its peak popularity).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pour the salt, rub the salt, lick the salt.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Translation:
I'm too lazy to log in every day and do my quest and win 3 games and then do a tavern brawl once a week to get 80 free packs every expansion along with at least the Brawl pack dust so clearly the design has failed.
Seriously the design is fine, there's just a few F2P people to lazy to capitalize on it. It doesn't take that much effort and the tools to maximize your dust/card efficiency are easily available to anyone.
There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding of video game economics in these posts. The money side has nothing to do with greed or a disrespect/unconcern of the player experience. Quite the contrary. The OP had it correct when he stated that the game is F2P to build a large enough player-base that individuals willing and able to pay for the game will be incentivised. Because multiplayer games are only fun when you have people to play against, you need a large enough playerbase to guarantee any and every player will be able to play the game at their convenience. Games that are already popular become more popular by virtue of friends playing games specifically to play with friends. Similarly you need a large enough playerbase to diffuse the costs of designing and maintaining the software / servers. As there become fewer paying players, the cost of each transaction must go up to cover the same services. This is simple supply side economics theory and is verifiable in literally tens of thousands of companies failures and successes. As the popularity of a game declines, the costs will go up which will make it even less popular and so begins a cycle of decay for a game's lifecycle.
Hearthstone has over 100 million accounts and earned ~$414 million in 2018. That's an average of $4.14 per account (many of which were likely untouched throughout the entire year of 2018). We don't actually have public data on how many accounts actively play (at least 1 game/week average), but that would be a much more important barometer of what the average user spends. More important than what the average user pays is what percentage of the player base actually pays and what is their average cost for our collective ability to play the game at all. If Blizzard doesn't make enough money to cover it's overhead, the game must cease to be. Keep in mind, that overhead has nothing to do with already earned profits. For the game to be sustainable it must earn annually what it costs to keep everything in place that makes the thing happen (servers, developers, offices, tournaments, advertising, etc.) If a game ever ceases to cut even, it must discontinue. Price hikes are a strong indicator that a game is moving toward unsustainability; conversely, it's a sign that the game was underpriced all along. If after the average cost per player is increased and the player base continues expanding, then we know Blizzard was charging us less than the product was worth. Of course the value of a product like this is directly correlated with it's popularity, so the game's value now is greater than it was 5 years ago when it was first released (and at this moment less than it was during 2017 at its peak popularity).
Pour the salt, rub the salt, lick the salt.