This thread has boiled down to what I was afraid of. Badly written, poorly thought-out and misinformed OP means any chance of decent conversations goes out the window. Whenever threads discuss money/cost issues, it comes down to small children bickering about whether or not Hearthstone is expensive.
I believe it's OP's desire to hear the dust-system is bad, but I believe it's not. As with all games that run a big amount of collection-based aspects, it takes either money or time to actually 'collect'. If someone is F2P, then that's fine, but you cannot expect to have the same collection as people who pay for the game in terms of pre-orders and adventures. Likewise, the paying folks need to realize not everyone has the same financial freedom or time on their hands. Anyone's standard is not everyone else's standard.
But Hearthstone is a product. And a product, you can either buy or not. You can afford it, or you can't. You can see its value, or you can't. But an inability to stand behind one of these three measurements, does not, ever, mean that the producer has to change its own perception of its product's value.
This thread has boiled down to what I was afraid of. Badly written, poorly thought-out and misinformed OP means any chance of decent conversations goes out the window. Whenever threads discuss money/cost issues, it comes down to small children bickering about whether or not Hearthstone is expensive.
I believe it's OP's desire to hear the dust-system is bad, but I believe it's not. As with all games that run a big amount of collection-based aspects, it takes either money or time to actually 'collect'. If someone is F2P, then that's fine, but you cannot expect to have the same collection as people who pay for the game in terms of pre-orders and adventures. Likewise, the paying folks need to realize not everyone has the same financial freedom or time on their hands. Anyone's standard is not everyone else's standard.
But Hearthstone is a product. And a product, you can either buy or not. You can afford it, or you can't. You can see its value, or you can't. But an inability to stand behind one of these three measurements, does not, ever, mean that the producer has to change its own perception of its product's value.
Thomas Sowell like your comment.
Thomas Sowell mentioned on Hearthpwn - never thought I'd live to see the day!!!
Yeah I’ve decided not to buy the expansions anymore. I feel like this expansion was a waste of money and it feels like it isn’t getting better
Last time i purchased anything, was back in WW and i do not plan to buy anymore shit from them, except with gold. They wanna be greedy as shit? Well, not with my money. Dicks.
This thread has boiled down to what I was afraid of. Badly written, poorly thought-out and misinformed OP means any chance of decent conversations goes out the window. Whenever threads discuss money/cost issues, it comes down to small children bickering about whether or not Hearthstone is expensive.
I believe it's OP's desire to hear the dust-system is bad, but I believe it's not. As with all games that run a big amount of collection-based aspects, it takes either money or time to actually 'collect'. If someone is F2P, then that's fine, but you cannot expect to have the same collection as people who pay for the game in terms of pre-orders and adventures. Likewise, the paying folks need to realize not everyone has the same financial freedom or time on their hands. Anyone's standard is not everyone else's standard.
But Hearthstone is a product. And a product, you can either buy or not. You can afford it, or you can't. You can see its value, or you can't. But an inability to stand behind one of these three measurements, does not, ever, mean that the producer has to change its own perception of its product's value.
Thomas Sowell like your comment.
If Hearthstone were a basic necessity, your barb might be meaningful. But Hearthstone is a luxury, and I don't know of any economist who thinks a free market is a problem where luxuries are concerned.
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
Since this thread has developed in the same direction as every other discussion on this topic, I felt like making a short comment on why the usual defense of "Blizzard wants to make money" and anything that goes in a similar direction is, in my humble opinion, not contributing anything.
First of all, Hearthstone doesn't have the worst F2P or lootbox system. Not by a long shot. That much needs to be said. There are games that charge for more matches or in-game actions per day or lock substantial parts (like player classes) of the game behind paywalls. You can spend hundreds of dollars on FIFA and still not get what you want with nothing like Dust or pity timers that will eventually ensure you can get any lootbox item you want. Compared to the worst offenders, Hearthstone has a relatively fair system.
However, there are also plenty of F2P model games that have been successful for several years without pushing their players into spending hundreds of dollars per year. There are games that value the time a player invests just as much as the money a player invests. They make it their goal to not be exploitative and unfair. Hearthstone, on the other hand, did get undeniably more expensive over the years and has become much more aggressive with monetization: Bigger bundles, more frequent bundles, more (exclusive) stuff contained in bundles, additional single-player content for money along with bonuses for pre-orders and so on. And from a F2P perspective, it has become less fair.
Believe it or not, Hearthstone managed to "survive" the 3 years (2014-2016), in which Adventures were sold as expansions: You could spend 2800/3500 gold to get ALL the new cards, and you did not have to craft any of them, and all the gold and dust you had saved up could be spend on older expansions that you still needed cards from. In those years, Hearthstone has been growing, and became more and more popular, and still made a lot of money. It's not insignificantly the reason why so many people played it for so long, and play it to this day.
While this was still not perfect, perhaps not even really "fair", it sounds like paradise compared to nowadays. There are good reasons why you would prefer expansions over adventures, like a bigger impact on the meta, more cards to try out, better instant access and giving players more freedom what cards to purchase, but it stands that the shift to 3 expansions per year has made Hearthstone a very expensive game and did not help that whole "fairness" aspect at all. And while some of it is justified as the development cost for Hearthstone has also gone up, starting with a much bigger team working on the game nowadays, many players became increasingly frustrated with it and that deserves attention.
Earlier this year, Blizzard made a survey, some of the questions specifically asking if people found Hearthstone too expensive to be competitive or to have fun. Mike Donais asked players on Reddit what they (Team5) could do to make Hearthstone more interesting again. It is obvious that Team5 and Blizzard become aware that players are getting frustrated and leaving. The MAU (monthly active users) numbers are generally declining, and that's not where the game is supposed to go.
Yes, Blizzard is a company and they want to make money. They are still making insane amounts as we are debating. However, you can always ask HOW a company wants to make money. And at this point, even Blizzard realizes that they might have to reconsider their priorities.
Besides, it's not just about F2P either. I think people who spend a reasonable amount of money on the game are still getting screwed. A 50$ "pre-order" is a little more than a starter kit. 100$ per expansion is perhaps enough to get the essential, the good cards, but not enough to get the full expansion. And these kind of investments don't even save you from grinding gold, they don't compensate for playing the game less frequently, they are expected on top of playing the game almost every day.
Feel free to talk about free market etc., but if you care about the game, you have to concern yourself not just with how much money Acitivision Blizzard is making, and that players are free to not purchase a product they don't like, but also with how popular the game is, how its popularity is decreasing, and how the game's frustrating reward system is not helping the game in the long run, as frustrated players leave, new players have a rough start and won't stay, and paying customers feeling like their money wasn't well spent.
You can run a F2P business model and care about your product and customers, or you can run a F2P model like an avaricious slimeball who just wants to make more money and doesn't care about anything else. if you care about the game, don't shut these discussions down with arguments that even the developers wouldn't bring up; not because it might cause bad press, but because they don't just care about money either, and seeing players unhappy, both free and paying, is a problem to them as well. They know that without players, their game goes down the drain.
Wild is the most cost effective solution. Meta cards generally stay meta and not many cards are needed per expansion. In the long term you're able to always remain competitive without huge dust investments.
While Saviors of Uldum requires too many Legendaries to have fun, in general as F2P you have enough dust to craft 1 good deck per 4 months. Spending ~$150-200 changes that to about 2 good decks per 4 months, not really worth it in my opinion. Get 3-4 A-games instead.
Most Legendaries and Epics you will not need nor craft.
Compare to Magic or Pokemon, the best decks are not always the most expensive one. Although often, they do contain specific Legendaries and Epics you are *required* to craft which is not possible if you don't complete your daily quests as F2P.
However, there are also plenty of F2P model games that have been successful for several years without pushing their players into spending hundreds of dollars per year. There are games that value the time a player invests just as much as the money a player invests. They make it their goal to not be exploitative and unfair. Hearthstone, on the other hand, did get undeniably more expensive over the years and has become much more aggressive with monetization: Bigger bundles, more frequent bundles, more (exclusive) stuff contained in bundles, additional single-player content for money along with bonuses for pre-orders and so on. And from a F2P perspective, it has become less fair.
From a free-to-play perspective, none of that should matter at all. You should not expect to be able to participate equally in all aspects of the game if you are not paying, and you absolutely should not expect to have access to exclusive cosmetic items.
Single-player content is completely optional, so again, there's nothing wrong with asking people to pay for it. I won't pretend that it's super-generous of them to offer the first wing for free -- that's clearly a continuation of the base business model of offering a taste for free. I would add that this model is in place for every video game publisher that offers free demos.
Also, even as they do now offer a bigger bundle, they never stopped offering the smaller one alongside it. So even moderate spenders are not adversely affected, except by their own feelings of collection envy.
It is patently absurd to say that it's a "shady" practice when a company offers more frequent and deeper discounts. As a consumer of a luxury item, you are welcome to spend as little or as much as you see fit.
Believe it or not, Hearthstone managed to "survive" the 3 years (2014-2016), in which Adventures were sold as expansions: You could spend 2800/3500 gold to get ALL the new cards, and you did not have to craft any of them, and all the gold and dust you had saved up could be spend on older expansions that you still needed cards from.
it is either disingenuous or truly ignorant to compare adventures such as Naxxramus to full expansions like Saviors of Uldum. I have trouble believing you actually can't see the difference.
I can certainly understand why you personally might prefer the Naxx type of content delivery, but at the time there were many players complaining that the best cards were uncraftable and locked behind a pay wall. It seems Blizzard simply cannot win. No matter what they do, they are greedy, greedy monsters in the eyes of the masses who constantly demand something for nothing.
It is obvious that Team5 and Blizzard become aware that players are getting frustrated and leaving. The MAU (monthly active users) numbers are generally declining, and that's not where the game is supposed to go.
The most recent Activision/Blizzard earnings statement indicated a quarter-over-quarter increase in MAUs for Hearthstone, Are you accusing them of lying to their investors? That's a pretty serious charge.
Besides, it's not just about F2P either. I think people who spend a reasonable amount of money on the game are still getting screwed. A 50$ "pre-order" is a little more than a starter kit. 100$ per expansion is perhaps enough to get the essential, the good cards, but not enough to get the full expansion. And these kind of investments don't even save you from grinding gold, they don't compensate for playing the game less frequently, they are expected on top of playing the game almost every day.
Again with the full collection thing? Do you understand that that is not even a remote consideration for most people? You do not need a complete collection to enjoy the game. You don't even need it to be competitive. One pre-order plus accumulated gold and dust is more than enough to get you what you need. Obviously, the more you buy, the wider your options will be, but you don't actually need that much just to play the game.
But if we must discuss it: Do you have any idea how much it would cost you to have a complete collection in Magic: Arena? It's a lot more than Hearthstone, I assure you. Anyone who has ever played any collectable card game can tell you how expensive (and unnecessary) it is to be a completionist.
Feel free to talk about free market etc., but if you care about the game, you have to concern yourself not just with how much money Acitivision Blizzard is making, and that players are free to not purchase a product they don't like, but also with how popular the game is, how its popularity is decreasing, and how the game's frustrating reward system is not helping the game in the long run, as frustrated players leave, new players have a rough start and won't stay, and paying customers feeling like their money wasn't well spent.
Again, quarter-over-quarter increase in MAUs, so I guess popularity isn't as much of a problem as you think.
In reality, Hearthstone does well when the sets are well-designed. There was a big dip last year because people were sick to death of Death Knights, and the odd-even thing was proving to be an even worse mistake. The uptick this year can probably be partially attributed to all of that hot garbage rotating out, and the introduction of stuff that's actually interesting to play.
The business model has been very consistent. if you personally aren't happy with it, you are welcome to spend less, or even nothing at all. But don't fall into the trap of believing your personal experience or opinion reflects that of a majority of users. It's human nature to think that way, but it's very often a huge mistake.
You can run a F2P business model and care about your product and customers, or you can run a F2P model like an avaricious slimeball who just wants to make more money and doesn't care about anything else.
Free players are not customers. If you think they are -- if you base your arguments on the premise that they are -- you can never be taken seriously in this discussion.
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
Since this thread has developed in the same direction as every other discussion on this topic, I felt like making a short comment on why the usual defense of "Blizzard wants to make money" and anything that goes in a similar direction is, in my humble opinion, not contributing anything.
First of all, Hearthstone doesn't have the worst F2P or lootbox system. Not by a long shot. That much needs to be said. There are games that charge for more matches or in-game actions per day or lock substantial parts (like player classes) of the game behind paywalls. You can spend hundreds of dollars on FIFA and still not get what you want with nothing like Dust or pity timers that will eventually ensure you can get any lootbox item you want. Compared to the worst offenders, Hearthstone has a relatively fair system.
However, there are also plenty of F2P model games that have been successful for several years without pushing their players into spending hundreds of dollars per year. There are games that value the time a player invests just as much as the money a player invests. They make it their goal to not be exploitative and unfair. Hearthstone, on the other hand, did get undeniably more expensive over the years and has become much more aggressive with monetization: Bigger bundles, more frequent bundles, more (exclusive) stuff contained in bundles, additional single-player content for money along with bonuses for pre-orders and so on. And from a F2P perspective, it has become less fair.
Believe it or not, Hearthstone managed to "survive" the 3 years (2014-2016), in which Adventures were sold as expansions: You could spend 2800/3500 gold to get ALL the new cards, and you did not have to craft any of them, and all the gold and dust you had saved up could be spend on older expansions that you still needed cards from. In those years, Hearthstone has been growing, and became more and more popular, and still made a lot of money. It's not insignificantly the reason why so many people played it for so long, and play it to this day.
While this was still not perfect, perhaps not even really "fair", it sounds like paradise compared to nowadays. There are good reasons why you would prefer expansions over adventures, like a bigger impact on the meta, more cards to try out, better instant access and giving players more freedom what cards to purchase, but it stands that the shift to 3 expansions per year has made Hearthstone a very expensive game and did not help that whole "fairness" aspect at all. And while some of it is justified as the development cost for Hearthstone has also gone up, starting with a much bigger team working on the game nowadays, many players became increasingly frustrated with it and that deserves attention.
Earlier this year, Blizzard made a survey, some of the questions specifically asking if people found Hearthstone too expensive to be competitive or to have fun. Mike Donais asked players on Reddit what they (Team5) could do to make Hearthstone more interesting again. It is obvious that Team5 and Blizzard become aware that players are getting frustrated and leaving. The MAU (monthly active users) numbers are generally declining, and that's not where the game is supposed to go.
Yes, Blizzard is a company and they want to make money. They are still making insane amounts as we are debating. However, you can always ask HOW a company wants to make money. And at this point, even Blizzard realizes that they might have to reconsider their priorities.
Besides, it's not just about F2P either. I think people who spend a reasonable amount of money on the game are still getting screwed. A 50$ "pre-order" is a little more than a starter kit. 100$ per expansion is perhaps enough to get the essential, the good cards, but not enough to get the full expansion. And these kind of investments don't even save you from grinding gold, they don't compensate for playing the game less frequently, they are expected on top of playing the game almost every day.
Feel free to talk about free market etc., but if you care about the game, you have to concern yourself not just with how much money Acitivision Blizzard is making, and that players are free to not purchase a product they don't like, but also with how popular the game is, how its popularity is decreasing, and how the game's frustrating reward system is not helping the game in the long run, as frustrated players leave, new players have a rough start and won't stay, and paying customers feeling like their money wasn't well spent.
You can run a F2P business model and care about your product and customers, or you can run a F2P model like an avaricious slimeball who just wants to make more money and doesn't care about anything else. if you care about the game, don't shut these discussions down with arguments that even the developers wouldn't bring up; not because it might cause bad press, but because they don't just care about money either, and seeing players unhappy, both free and paying, is a problem to them as well. They know that without players, their game goes down the drain.
I skimmed your post, but it was much too long to read in it's entirety.
When you grow up, you can run your own company the way you see fit. HS belongs to Blizzard. They get to run it the way they see fit. They don't have to listen to anyone, not even "geniuses" like yourself.
See how simple it is to explain something in two sentences?
Well, i didn't read every reply because too many just didn't hit the topic but instead told people/me how stupid we are.
Ive been playing hearthstone for quite some years now and I'm totally aware of the real definition of the word inflation.
My actual point was you could craft decent and fun meta decks for way less than the average 10-14k dust we have these days. Sure the dust value per card stays the same, however when epics and legendaries become more mandatory it is some sort of inflation. You must be stupid to not see this.
Also my other point was: either change the reward system or change rarity of legendaries and epics. Right now it feels terrible to buy packs/pre orders within reasonable spending ranges (like 50-100 bucks per expansion maybe).
So this actually discourages players WILLING to spend money on the game to do so. The middle ground they had before is gone and instead has become a super greedy strategy of more expansions per year, more mandatory legendaries and adventures you have to pay for.
PS: Please stop telling people Blizzard is a company and needs to make money. Jesus christ we are not retarded... Given how much Blizzard invests into HS this point is a fucking joke though. HS is a holy cashcow for them.
Check out oldguardian's video comparing the average deck costs of previous expansions to this expansion
the average dust cost of decks has more than doubled.
Blizzard knows what they are doing when it comes to milking the most money out of players
Well, the first thing I notice that that he's got Highlander Mage on his list, which is by far the most expensive, and it's not even in the meta.
In fact, there are now a lot of different Shaman variants under 5K dust (with all Shaman decks being under 8,500), and Combo Priest is only 3,920.
So I guess if you honestly believe you need to play all of the top decks, you're going to need a lot of expensive cards. But that doesn't mean the game is more expensive. It means you have expensive tastes and an unrealistic expectation of what you should be able to play for a given amount of money.
In reality, there are quite a few budget decks to choose from, and you only need access to a few of them -- not the entire roster listed on hsreplay.
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
From a free-to-play perspective, none of that should matter at all. You should not expect to be able to participate equally in all aspects of the game if you are not paying, and you absolutely should not expect to have access to exclusive cosmetic items.
Single-player content is completely optional, so again, there's nothing wrong with asking people to pay for it.
I didn't mention these as examples for how the game is becoming less fair, but for how Blizzard's increasing its efforts to monetize the game. Bad structuring of the paragraph on my part.
it is either disingenuous or truly ignorant to compare adventures such as Naxxramus to full expansions like Saviors of Uldum. I have trouble believing you actually can't see the difference.
I can certainly understand why you personally might prefer the Naxx type of content delivery, but at the time there were many players complaining that the best cards were uncraftable and locked behind a pay wall. It seems Blizzard simply cannot win.
I do see a difference between an adventure and an expansion. I even pointed out why some might prefer expansions over adventures. Not sure what you are confused about.
Anyway, my point was that 2800/3500 gold or 25$ for all new cards in a 4 month period is a lot more accomodating to someone's attempts to keep up/expand his collection than an expansion every 4 months where you can (and likely will) spend 80$ and more without getting close to all the (good) cards. And I think, not having this "break" anymore is too much for many players, while from the business perspective, adventures were not hurting Blizzard either.
Again, I am aware some people felt unhappy about the structuring of adventures as well; how you could only purchase cards in order and not have the option to craft only those that you wanted, but I mostly disagree with these people. Both, because I think an expansion is a lot harder to catch up on than an adventure, and because I think that what you can legimitately criticise about adventures could have also been adressed without giving up the idea entirely.
The most recent Activision/Blizzard earnings statement indicated a quarter-over-quarter increase in MAUs for Hearthstone, Are you accusing them of lying to their investors? That's a pretty serious charge.
I said "generally", as in "with exceptions". Look at the 2018 annual report, and you'll see that Blizzard had 42 million MAUs in September 2017, and they kept declining to 35 Million in December 2018. It directly points out (on page 33): "The year-over-year decrease in Blizzard's average MAUs is due to lower MAUs for Hearthstone and Overwatch".
I'm not remembering the recent quarter report, so I'll trust you that it showed an increase again, and that is worth mentioning. However, I'd wait until the end of the year to see if that trend continues, since it might be due to the new expansion and effects you already described (the Standard rotation that brought so many changes). You can also look at the 2017 report, and you'll see that they had 42 million in September 2016, 41 after that, 46 million in June 2017, and then it dropped again to 42 the following quarter; although that's for the entire Blizzard branch, not only Hearthstone. However, the report does point out that Hearthstone was one of the factors why revenue increased in 2016 compared to 2015, AND why it decreased in 2017 compared to 2016. Maybe they'll be again at a stable 40+ million by the end of this year, but we have to see.
Besides, I don't think a Hearthstone developer would ask the public what would make players return to the game if things were looking all that great to them.
Again with the full collection thing? Do you understand that that is not even a remote consideration for most people? You do not need a complete collection to enjoy the game. You don't even need it to be competitive. One pre-order plus accumulated gold and dust is more than enough to get you what you need. Obviously, the more you buy, the wider your options will be, but you don't actually need that much just to play the game.
What's your point? I agree that nobdoy needs a full collection. Technically, you don't need anything "just to play the game". But I understand if someone wants a full collection, or at least wants to have more options available. And I think someone who spends 100$ every 4 months on the game should get more out of that than 5-8 legendaries out of 23 and maybe 3000 dust in extra cards, and is still expected to play the game frequently.
Do you have any idea how much it would cost you to have a complete collection in Magic: Arena? It's a lot more than Hearthstone, I assure you. Anyone who has ever played any collectable card game can tell you how expensive (and unnecessary) it is to be a completionist.
No, I don't. Does it matter? Is there a minimum price point of a full collection in a digital card game? You can say that Hearthstone is looking better in this specific regard than its competitors, but you don't make an argument for why a high price point for completionists is a tradition worth keeping. I mean, pointing out how others or even all others do it worse is not really a good defense here. Actually, I think that's a good reason for Hearthsthone to do something different. If people like to collect things and cardgames have been historically bad for them, why not have Hearthstone be a cardgame that allows you to be a completionist relatively easily? Now you could say it already is, but only insofar as you don't need to spend quite as much as in other card games. It's still a lot of money.
The business model has been very consistent. if you personally aren't happy with it, you are welcome to spend less, or even nothing at all. But don't fall into the trap of believing your personal experience or opinion reflects that of a majority of users. It's human nature to think that way, but it's very often a huge mistake.
If you are personally happy with it, you are free to keep your spending habits as well. But you can't truly believe that nobody or only a very small fraction of players has a problem with Hearhtstone's pricing. You are active enough on this board to know better how frequent that complaint is, and even though you do your best to tell them at all times how wrong they are, you can't pretend that they don't exist.
Sure, this is not representative, and it's probably not a majority even. However, I think there is more of a point in changing things than in keeping things as they are.
And I actually do believe that changing things would be better for the game. Yes, I lack the inside knowledge to say so with much confidence, but, no offense, I don't think you speak from professional experience either when you effectively say that Hearthstone is in the best state it can be. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me when you try to argue against any sentiments that the game might be a bit too expensive and demanding.
Free players are not customers. If you think they are -- if you base your arguments on the premise that they are -- you can never be taken seriously in this discussion.
Uhm... no, F2P players are still players, even if you don't like them. Maybe you want to argue with the word "customer", but effectively they will be considered "customers" as well. Customer service won't investigate if you've spend any money on the game before they get back to your request. If you participate in a survey, they won't check how much money they can expect from you before considering your answers. Dean Ayala won't do a background check before reading your comment on Reddit. And if you want to suggest that F2P players are irrelevant to the game's success, or any F2P game's success, and thus should not be considered at all in any aspect of game development, I couldn't disagree more with you.
But that's not the point here anyway. As I said, there are different ways to run a F2P model, and while Hearthstone isn't the worst, I struggle counting it as one of the best. Their current model is a cause of frustration to some, and I think it's unnecessary and worth changing.
Feel free to tell me I'm talking out of my ass (because I am), but I think it would benefit the game long-term if it was a bit more accessible overall. You can give reasons why it doesn't need to, or even why it shouldn't be, but saying "you think X so you can't be taken seriously" is pretty childish. I entirely disagree with your rather aggressive diction, something far more disqualifying to me than any specific statement you have made, but I still try to respect what you say, even though I fully expect that we will never agree on a single point, and I even expect you have some other quasi-insulting reply ready like "You must be truly imbecilic for believing something I say you must believe due to what you just said". I don't like you, but I won't tell you that you have to agree with me on something or else I wouldn't consider your points.
I skimmed your post, but it was much too long to read in it's entirety.
When you grow up, you can run your own company the way you see fit. HS belongs to Blizzard. They get to run it the way they see fit. They don't have to listen to anyone, not even "geniuses" like yourself.
See how simple it is to explain something in two sentences?
And when you grow up, maybe you learn how to read more than a paragraph and how a discussion works.
@Dunscot I don't dislike you on a personal level, but I greatly dislike the practice of pretending to "discuss" a matter when have done no research and you bring zero facts to the table. A wall of text based on nothing more than uninformed personal opinion is a waste of everyone's time.
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
I've played since beta and have spent money only recently. I don't regret spending money but I probably will save like I used to and avoid paying anything out of pocket.
Something no one has mentioned or maybe people have forgotten but in the early days of 2014 for some time, maybe 6 months or longer, you could reroll your quest infinitely. Every day I got a 100g quest and at the time no one was using arena tier programs so it was incredibly easy to make gold in the arena. The system in arena has changed to. To break even you need 7 wins which makes going infinite much harder.
I quit for 2017 and most of 2018 came back to 4.5k gold and a decent amount of dust. That went very quickly. Recent expac I got the 50$ pre order which netted me hack the system and octosari. So I dusted a bunch of junk which I had never done before.
I played mtg for years and love that kind of pack opening. Cards are also worth real money. Hearthstone is predatory towards the people who can/want to spend 500$. Which is fine, it just means the game gets boring quicker when you don't spend money you can only play 1-2 decks.
Arena is just different now, I had no problem going infinite and now I find myself getting 6 wins all the time, which is just gutting. Yesterday at 9 wins I lost back to back games against Zephyrs!
People have to understand that blizzard is a company though. They employ a lot of people and they need to make money. They probably started doing that and making epics and legendaries more powerful as the expacs went on solely to make money. If anyone remembers back in the day, it was actually a meme how bad most legendaries and epics were. In the classic set, only a couple still see play, and it's loaded with worthless cards like Cho, Millhouse, and The Beast. It's no coincedence that they upped the power level of legendaries over the years. People are way too harsh on blizz for wanting to make money though. Remember the days when it cost 50$ (in 1990s money) to buy an N64 game? Games have way higher quality now, and are a lot cheaper. Look at games like Subnautica. That game cost 19.99$ and it would've been the greatest and most played game ever if it came out in 1999. The video game industry is struggling now because of things like piracy, and companies need to make money.
Sorry, but that is huge BS. To get full expansion you need to spend $450-500 on packs (135 virtual cards!). That is the equivalent of a new PS4 Pro! To get 4 full expansions per year, you have to spend $1800-2000. A normal game, with a budget usually exceeding $300 million, costs $60. Poor Blizzard indeed...
bro, I literally spend 50$ on the preorder for every expac (except for Rastakan's Rumble because I didn't like that expansion, so I only bought 20$ worth) and I have 95% of the cards in the game and 99% of the cards I want in the game (you don't need every card...). And yes poor blizzard... the gaming industry is shite now and most of the employees there have horrible working conditions because they need to in a market where people only buy gigantic budget "sand-box" games like Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption 2, or they buy 5-10$ indy games. Blizzard had to lay off thousands of employees this year because they don't make enough money.
You talk about God Of War like it's supposed to be a way more intelligent purchase, yet no one talks about that game ever except for the week it came out, and there's no multiplayer. That costs 60$ and games like that keep people occupied for 1-2 weeks if they don't burn through it faster. I spent 50 on SoU and am still having a blast and playing it every day.
People have to understand that blizzard is a company though. They employ a lot of people and they need to make money. They probably started doing that and making epics and legendaries more powerful as the expacs went on solely to make money. If anyone remembers back in the day, it was actually a meme how bad most legendaries and epics were. In the classic set, only a couple still see play, and it's loaded with worthless cards like Cho, Millhouse, and The Beast. It's no coincedence that they upped the power level of legendaries over the years. People are way too harsh on blizz for wanting to make money though. Remember the days when it cost 50$ (in 1990s money) to buy an N64 game? Games have way higher quality now, and are a lot cheaper. Look at games like Subnautica. That game cost 19.99$ and it would've been the greatest and most played game ever if it came out in 1999. The video game industry is struggling now because of things like piracy, and companies need to make money.
Sorry, but that is huge BS. To get full expansion you need to spend $450-500 on packs (135 virtual cards!). That is the equivalent of a new PS4 Pro! To get 4 full expansions per year, you have to spend $1800-2000. A normal game, with a budget usually exceeding $300 million, costs $60. Poor Blizzard indeed...
There are only THREE expansions per year. Learn to count before you whine.
Sure, my bad and that completely changes the perspective! Instead of $1800-2000 you have to spend "only" $1350-1500. So it turns out that everything is fine, Blizzard is great and there is basically no problem, right? Why would you pay $60 for, I don't know, game like Cyberpunk 2077 or God of War, if you can have 135 virtual cards (half of which are rubbish) for $500? Only moron would do that!
Actually not. You have to spend ~$300 for every new expansion. The rest needed cards you can craft from dust received and free stuff from Blizzard. So "just" about $900 a year to play. Not bad, right?
As F2P I am not willing to spend a cent because all these things were clear to me first time I installed HS a couple of years ago and got some introduction from my friend. So I am focusing on playing one class with all needed cards with several weaker classes along so far. But it looks like in another 1-2 years I will have majority of key cards in my collection. It's a big fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thomas Sowell like your comment.
Just do not need to craft every netdeck you see.
Thomas Sowell mentioned on Hearthpwn - never thought I'd live to see the day!!!
Missing lethal since June 2015.
Last time i purchased anything, was back in WW and i do not plan to buy anymore shit from them, except with gold. They wanna be greedy as shit? Well, not with my money. Dicks.
Eh?
The more good cards you have available the more innovative decks you can try out.
If Hearthstone were a basic necessity, your barb might be meaningful. But Hearthstone is a luxury, and I don't know of any economist who thinks a free market is a problem where luxuries are concerned.
"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
Since this thread has developed in the same direction as every other discussion on this topic, I felt like making a short comment on why the usual defense of "Blizzard wants to make money" and anything that goes in a similar direction is, in my humble opinion, not contributing anything.
First of all, Hearthstone doesn't have the worst F2P or lootbox system. Not by a long shot. That much needs to be said. There are games that charge for more matches or in-game actions per day or lock substantial parts (like player classes) of the game behind paywalls. You can spend hundreds of dollars on FIFA and still not get what you want with nothing like Dust or pity timers that will eventually ensure you can get any lootbox item you want. Compared to the worst offenders, Hearthstone has a relatively fair system.
However, there are also plenty of F2P model games that have been successful for several years without pushing their players into spending hundreds of dollars per year. There are games that value the time a player invests just as much as the money a player invests. They make it their goal to not be exploitative and unfair. Hearthstone, on the other hand, did get undeniably more expensive over the years and has become much more aggressive with monetization: Bigger bundles, more frequent bundles, more (exclusive) stuff contained in bundles, additional single-player content for money along with bonuses for pre-orders and so on. And from a F2P perspective, it has become less fair.
Believe it or not, Hearthstone managed to "survive" the 3 years (2014-2016), in which Adventures were sold as expansions: You could spend 2800/3500 gold to get ALL the new cards, and you did not have to craft any of them, and all the gold and dust you had saved up could be spend on older expansions that you still needed cards from. In those years, Hearthstone has been growing, and became more and more popular, and still made a lot of money. It's not insignificantly the reason why so many people played it for so long, and play it to this day.
While this was still not perfect, perhaps not even really "fair", it sounds like paradise compared to nowadays. There are good reasons why you would prefer expansions over adventures, like a bigger impact on the meta, more cards to try out, better instant access and giving players more freedom what cards to purchase, but it stands that the shift to 3 expansions per year has made Hearthstone a very expensive game and did not help that whole "fairness" aspect at all. And while some of it is justified as the development cost for Hearthstone has also gone up, starting with a much bigger team working on the game nowadays, many players became increasingly frustrated with it and that deserves attention.
Earlier this year, Blizzard made a survey, some of the questions specifically asking if people found Hearthstone too expensive to be competitive or to have fun. Mike Donais asked players on Reddit what they (Team5) could do to make Hearthstone more interesting again. It is obvious that Team5 and Blizzard become aware that players are getting frustrated and leaving. The MAU (monthly active users) numbers are generally declining, and that's not where the game is supposed to go.
Yes, Blizzard is a company and they want to make money. They are still making insane amounts as we are debating. However, you can always ask HOW a company wants to make money. And at this point, even Blizzard realizes that they might have to reconsider their priorities.
Besides, it's not just about F2P either. I think people who spend a reasonable amount of money on the game are still getting screwed. A 50$ "pre-order" is a little more than a starter kit. 100$ per expansion is perhaps enough to get the essential, the good cards, but not enough to get the full expansion. And these kind of investments don't even save you from grinding gold, they don't compensate for playing the game less frequently, they are expected on top of playing the game almost every day.
Feel free to talk about free market etc., but if you care about the game, you have to concern yourself not just with how much money Acitivision Blizzard is making, and that players are free to not purchase a product they don't like, but also with how popular the game is, how its popularity is decreasing, and how the game's frustrating reward system is not helping the game in the long run, as frustrated players leave, new players have a rough start and won't stay, and paying customers feeling like their money wasn't well spent.
You can run a F2P business model and care about your product and customers, or you can run a F2P model like an avaricious slimeball who just wants to make more money and doesn't care about anything else. if you care about the game, don't shut these discussions down with arguments that even the developers wouldn't bring up; not because it might cause bad press, but because they don't just care about money either, and seeing players unhappy, both free and paying, is a problem to them as well. They know that without players, their game goes down the drain.
Wild is the most cost effective solution. Meta cards generally stay meta and not many cards are needed per expansion. In the long term you're able to always remain competitive without huge dust investments.
While Saviors of Uldum requires too many Legendaries to have fun, in general as F2P you have enough dust to craft 1 good deck per 4 months. Spending ~$150-200 changes that to about 2 good decks per 4 months, not really worth it in my opinion. Get 3-4 A-games instead.
Most Legendaries and Epics you will not need nor craft.
Compare to Magic or Pokemon, the best decks are not always the most expensive one. Although often, they do contain specific Legendaries and Epics you are *required* to craft which is not possible if you don't complete your daily quests as F2P.
Per account.
From a free-to-play perspective, none of that should matter at all. You should not expect to be able to participate equally in all aspects of the game if you are not paying, and you absolutely should not expect to have access to exclusive cosmetic items.
Single-player content is completely optional, so again, there's nothing wrong with asking people to pay for it. I won't pretend that it's super-generous of them to offer the first wing for free -- that's clearly a continuation of the base business model of offering a taste for free. I would add that this model is in place for every video game publisher that offers free demos.
Also, even as they do now offer a bigger bundle, they never stopped offering the smaller one alongside it. So even moderate spenders are not adversely affected, except by their own feelings of collection envy.
It is patently absurd to say that it's a "shady" practice when a company offers more frequent and deeper discounts. As a consumer of a luxury item, you are welcome to spend as little or as much as you see fit.
it is either disingenuous or truly ignorant to compare adventures such as Naxxramus to full expansions like Saviors of Uldum. I have trouble believing you actually can't see the difference.
I can certainly understand why you personally might prefer the Naxx type of content delivery, but at the time there were many players complaining that the best cards were uncraftable and locked behind a pay wall. It seems Blizzard simply cannot win. No matter what they do, they are greedy, greedy monsters in the eyes of the masses who constantly demand something for nothing.
The most recent Activision/Blizzard earnings statement indicated a quarter-over-quarter increase in MAUs for Hearthstone, Are you accusing them of lying to their investors? That's a pretty serious charge.
Again with the full collection thing? Do you understand that that is not even a remote consideration for most people? You do not need a complete collection to enjoy the game. You don't even need it to be competitive. One pre-order plus accumulated gold and dust is more than enough to get you what you need. Obviously, the more you buy, the wider your options will be, but you don't actually need that much just to play the game.
But if we must discuss it: Do you have any idea how much it would cost you to have a complete collection in Magic: Arena? It's a lot more than Hearthstone, I assure you. Anyone who has ever played any collectable card game can tell you how expensive (and unnecessary) it is to be a completionist.
Again, quarter-over-quarter increase in MAUs, so I guess popularity isn't as much of a problem as you think.
In reality, Hearthstone does well when the sets are well-designed. There was a big dip last year because people were sick to death of Death Knights, and the odd-even thing was proving to be an even worse mistake. The uptick this year can probably be partially attributed to all of that hot garbage rotating out, and the introduction of stuff that's actually interesting to play.
The business model has been very consistent. if you personally aren't happy with it, you are welcome to spend less, or even nothing at all. But don't fall into the trap of believing your personal experience or opinion reflects that of a majority of users. It's human nature to think that way, but it's very often a huge mistake.
Free players are not customers. If you think they are -- if you base your arguments on the premise that they are -- you can never be taken seriously in this discussion.
"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 skimmed your post, but it was much too long to read in it's entirety.
When you grow up, you can run your own company the way you see fit. HS belongs to Blizzard. They get to run it the way they see fit. They don't have to listen to anyone, not even "geniuses" like yourself.
See how simple it is to explain something in two sentences?
Things do cost WAY more than previous expansions.
Check out oldguardian's video comparing the average deck costs of previous expansions to this expansion
the average dust cost of decks has more than doubled.
Blizzard knows what they are doing when it comes to milking the most money out of players
Well, i didn't read every reply because too many just didn't hit the topic but instead told people/me how stupid we are.
Ive been playing hearthstone for quite some years now and I'm totally aware of the real definition of the word inflation.
My actual point was you could craft decent and fun meta decks for way less than the average 10-14k dust we have these days. Sure the dust value per card stays the same, however when epics and legendaries become more mandatory it is some sort of inflation. You must be stupid to not see this.
Also my other point was: either change the reward system or change rarity of legendaries and epics. Right now it feels terrible to buy packs/pre orders within reasonable spending ranges (like 50-100 bucks per expansion maybe).
So this actually discourages players WILLING to spend money on the game to do so. The middle ground they had before is gone and instead has become a super greedy strategy of more expansions per year, more mandatory legendaries and adventures you have to pay for.
PS: Please stop telling people Blizzard is a company and needs to make money. Jesus christ we are not retarded... Given how much Blizzard invests into HS this point is a fucking joke though. HS is a holy cashcow for them.
Well, the first thing I notice that that he's got Highlander Mage on his list, which is by far the most expensive, and it's not even in the meta.
In fact, there are now a lot of different Shaman variants under 5K dust (with all Shaman decks being under 8,500), and Combo Priest is only 3,920.
So I guess if you honestly believe you need to play all of the top decks, you're going to need a lot of expensive cards. But that doesn't mean the game is more expensive. It means you have expensive tastes and an unrealistic expectation of what you should be able to play for a given amount of money.
In reality, there are quite a few budget decks to choose from, and you only need access to a few of them -- not the entire roster listed on hsreplay.
"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 didn't mention these as examples for how the game is becoming less fair, but for how Blizzard's increasing its efforts to monetize the game. Bad structuring of the paragraph on my part.
I do see a difference between an adventure and an expansion. I even pointed out why some might prefer expansions over adventures. Not sure what you are confused about.
Anyway, my point was that 2800/3500 gold or 25$ for all new cards in a 4 month period is a lot more accomodating to someone's attempts to keep up/expand his collection than an expansion every 4 months where you can (and likely will) spend 80$ and more without getting close to all the (good) cards. And I think, not having this "break" anymore is too much for many players, while from the business perspective, adventures were not hurting Blizzard either.
Again, I am aware some people felt unhappy about the structuring of adventures as well; how you could only purchase cards in order and not have the option to craft only those that you wanted, but I mostly disagree with these people. Both, because I think an expansion is a lot harder to catch up on than an adventure, and because I think that what you can legimitately criticise about adventures could have also been adressed without giving up the idea entirely.
I said "generally", as in "with exceptions". Look at the 2018 annual report, and you'll see that Blizzard had 42 million MAUs in September 2017, and they kept declining to 35 Million in December 2018. It directly points out (on page 33): "The year-over-year decrease in Blizzard's average MAUs is due to lower MAUs for Hearthstone and Overwatch".
I'm not remembering the recent quarter report, so I'll trust you that it showed an increase again, and that is worth mentioning. However, I'd wait until the end of the year to see if that trend continues, since it might be due to the new expansion and effects you already described (the Standard rotation that brought so many changes). You can also look at the 2017 report, and you'll see that they had 42 million in September 2016, 41 after that, 46 million in June 2017, and then it dropped again to 42 the following quarter; although that's for the entire Blizzard branch, not only Hearthstone. However, the report does point out that Hearthstone was one of the factors why revenue increased in 2016 compared to 2015, AND why it decreased in 2017 compared to 2016. Maybe they'll be again at a stable 40+ million by the end of this year, but we have to see.
Besides, I don't think a Hearthstone developer would ask the public what would make players return to the game if things were looking all that great to them.
What's your point? I agree that nobdoy needs a full collection. Technically, you don't need anything "just to play the game". But I understand if someone wants a full collection, or at least wants to have more options available. And I think someone who spends 100$ every 4 months on the game should get more out of that than 5-8 legendaries out of 23 and maybe 3000 dust in extra cards, and is still expected to play the game frequently.
No, I don't. Does it matter? Is there a minimum price point of a full collection in a digital card game? You can say that Hearthstone is looking better in this specific regard than its competitors, but you don't make an argument for why a high price point for completionists is a tradition worth keeping. I mean, pointing out how others or even all others do it worse is not really a good defense here. Actually, I think that's a good reason for Hearthsthone to do something different. If people like to collect things and cardgames have been historically bad for them, why not have Hearthstone be a cardgame that allows you to be a completionist relatively easily? Now you could say it already is, but only insofar as you don't need to spend quite as much as in other card games. It's still a lot of money.
If you are personally happy with it, you are free to keep your spending habits as well. But you can't truly believe that nobody or only a very small fraction of players has a problem with Hearhtstone's pricing. You are active enough on this board to know better how frequent that complaint is, and even though you do your best to tell them at all times how wrong they are, you can't pretend that they don't exist.
Sure, this is not representative, and it's probably not a majority even. However, I think there is more of a point in changing things than in keeping things as they are.
And I actually do believe that changing things would be better for the game. Yes, I lack the inside knowledge to say so with much confidence, but, no offense, I don't think you speak from professional experience either when you effectively say that Hearthstone is in the best state it can be. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me when you try to argue against any sentiments that the game might be a bit too expensive and demanding.
Uhm... no, F2P players are still players, even if you don't like them. Maybe you want to argue with the word "customer", but effectively they will be considered "customers" as well. Customer service won't investigate if you've spend any money on the game before they get back to your request. If you participate in a survey, they won't check how much money they can expect from you before considering your answers. Dean Ayala won't do a background check before reading your comment on Reddit. And if you want to suggest that F2P players are irrelevant to the game's success, or any F2P game's success, and thus should not be considered at all in any aspect of game development, I couldn't disagree more with you.
But that's not the point here anyway. As I said, there are different ways to run a F2P model, and while Hearthstone isn't the worst, I struggle counting it as one of the best. Their current model is a cause of frustration to some, and I think it's unnecessary and worth changing.
Feel free to tell me I'm talking out of my ass (because I am), but I think it would benefit the game long-term if it was a bit more accessible overall. You can give reasons why it doesn't need to, or even why it shouldn't be, but saying "you think X so you can't be taken seriously" is pretty childish. I entirely disagree with your rather aggressive diction, something far more disqualifying to me than any specific statement you have made, but I still try to respect what you say, even though I fully expect that we will never agree on a single point, and I even expect you have some other quasi-insulting reply ready like "You must be truly imbecilic for believing something I say you must believe due to what you just said". I don't like you, but I won't tell you that you have to agree with me on something or else I wouldn't consider your points.
And when you grow up, maybe you learn how to read more than a paragraph and how a discussion works.
@Dunscot I don't dislike you on a personal level, but I greatly dislike the practice of pretending to "discuss" a matter when have done no research and you bring zero facts to the table. A wall of text based on nothing more than uninformed personal opinion is a waste of everyone's time.
"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
Dust inflation is fake
I've played since beta and have spent money only recently. I don't regret spending money but I probably will save like I used to and avoid paying anything out of pocket.
Something no one has mentioned or maybe people have forgotten but in the early days of 2014 for some time, maybe 6 months or longer, you could reroll your quest infinitely. Every day I got a 100g quest and at the time no one was using arena tier programs so it was incredibly easy to make gold in the arena. The system in arena has changed to. To break even you need 7 wins which makes going infinite much harder.
I quit for 2017 and most of 2018 came back to 4.5k gold and a decent amount of dust. That went very quickly. Recent expac I got the 50$ pre order which netted me hack the system and octosari. So I dusted a bunch of junk which I had never done before.
I played mtg for years and love that kind of pack opening. Cards are also worth real money. Hearthstone is predatory towards the people who can/want to spend 500$. Which is fine, it just means the game gets boring quicker when you don't spend money you can only play 1-2 decks.
Arena is just different now, I had no problem going infinite and now I find myself getting 6 wins all the time, which is just gutting. Yesterday at 9 wins I lost back to back games against Zephyrs!
bro, I literally spend 50$ on the preorder for every expac (except for Rastakan's Rumble because I didn't like that expansion, so I only bought 20$ worth) and I have 95% of the cards in the game and 99% of the cards I want in the game (you don't need every card...). And yes poor blizzard... the gaming industry is shite now and most of the employees there have horrible working conditions because they need to in a market where people only buy gigantic budget "sand-box" games like Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption 2, or they buy 5-10$ indy games. Blizzard had to lay off thousands of employees this year because they don't make enough money.
You talk about God Of War like it's supposed to be a way more intelligent purchase, yet no one talks about that game ever except for the week it came out, and there's no multiplayer. That costs 60$ and games like that keep people occupied for 1-2 weeks if they don't burn through it faster. I spent 50 on SoU and am still having a blast and playing it every day.
Actually not. You have to spend ~$300 for every new expansion. The rest needed cards you can craft from dust received and free stuff from Blizzard. So "just" about $900 a year to play. Not bad, right?
As F2P I am not willing to spend a cent because all these things were clear to me first time I installed HS a couple of years ago and got some introduction from my friend. So I am focusing on playing one class with all needed cards with several weaker classes along so far. But it looks like in another 1-2 years I will have majority of key cards in my collection. It's a big fun.