- people are lured into it for different reasons and with different strategies
- they are encouraged to keep spending
- their stupid brains don't realize it's a trick to keep you invested so you never stop playing
- the target audience seems to be kids of at most 24 years of age. Yes, they are kids. Men grow up at around 26-28. A 24 year-old male is rarely a grown-up person with respect to life and choices (i.e. there are always exceptions but that's not the point).
- netdecking is amplifying all of the above
Smart moves from blizzard? Sure. Immoral much? Definitely. Does "immoral" make lots of money? Oh yea baby, let it flow. Should we do something about it? Definitely. Why don't we? Because we are too stupid or suffering from a god complex. What's that??? When the game's whales need to feel powerful or like they matter in this world, they spend their very-easily-earned money on this game. But isn't it their right? Of course, but it also shows how "smart" they are and why things never change in this world.
Meanwhile, the homeless guy you see every day on your way to the bank, to retrieve your 1million$ pocket money, has almost froze to death because he can't afford a ride to the nearest shelter.
PS: i'm waiting for the world to have matter replicators so we won't require money anymore, for almost anything. No one starves to death, no one lacks basic clothing etc. An economy without money and based on research and self fulfilment is the best humanity has to offer. Too bad it's gonna be an utopia for a good while due to greed and power. Technically we are not that far from it - quantum mechanics and computing is the first step.
Geez this thread is a bit scornful but I agree with some of their sentiments as a veteran of the Whispers of the Old Gods.
When I think about whether or not Hearthstone has passed the test of time, I would focus heavily on if Hearthstone is still fun to play when compared to its earlier versions. To me, it does not matter if it has millions of players since a game like Call of Duty can be rereleased annually with little improvements and possibly worse design but can still garner tons of revenue.
I'll admit that Hearthstone has had some major improvements in the last decade such as having duplicate protection for Legendary cards or creating Battlegrounds for folks sick of Constructed and Arena. But there were some changes that felt really detrimental to the health of the game that I really did not like such as Demon Hunter being really powerful in its initial release. There have also been some major power creep that is slowly transforming Hearthstone into a faster paced game that can ignore the other person's stuff.
So basically what I'm saying is that as a veteran player, good ol' Hearthstone died a while ago in terms of being fun to play. In fact, it has gotten so much more expensive to play due to more classes being added without increasing the amount of cards obtained in a pack. It has become less Free 2 Play friendly over the years which encourages people into crafting and playing certain netdecks to try to make the most of what they got. Yea it may seem good that Hearthstone is still earning a lot of revenue but so are other mobile games in the market that encourage gacha mechanics. I think Hearthstone has become a hollow shell of itself that looks flashy and fun but playing it feels like a chore.
Maybe I'll change my mind when some of the egregious cards rotate out and they start to playtest cards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Was friends with Paladin, now Death Knights are my homies.
I am always confused at responses on this forum that essentially say that HS is trash. I would think that the Venn Diagram of 1. People who don’t like HS and 2. People who frequent this niche forum would look similar to the “2” side of a die.
Keep voting Democrat and I'm sure your utopian world will come true. Because at that point I'll eventually see homeless people on the way to my bank...as you suggest we all see every day. Peddle your BS somewhere else snowflake...we're all stocked up here.
Let's say a nice family who keep their home in good condition are selling lemonade to everyone else in the neighbourhood. It's very wholesome and everybody on the block gets along.
Now imagine a new family moves in. They don't care about the state of the home or their garden and instead of lemonade they sell crack to out-of-town junkies, making the neighbourhood a shithole. To top it all off, they destroy the original lemonade recipe and claim the old family were cultists hucking poison.
The house is in disrepair and the whole street is flooded with crackheads, but it's still standing, barely. If you count this as passing the test of time then yes, Hearthstone has stood the test of time.
It did. The game is more fun then ever before. Sure it breaks sometimes, who cares? Just play less in that times. And to the guys who claimed blizzard is evil incarnate: did you write your comment from a windows pc, a Samsung/apple/huawai phone? Do you heat with gas or coal? Do you drive a car? Do you wear cheap clothes? Or vote trump? Etc pp. Society is bad. Big companies are all bad. So why don’t you Protest against big money/tech/Elon musk or whatever in the real world and make a difference instead of trolling in an online forum of a game you don’t like?
This article is terrible. Nowadays, we are full of improvised journalists who don't have the slightest idea of anything and talk nonsense. You cannot use SensorTower, Reddit, SullyGnome etc.. to present data and numbers. This article is just terrible and very bad written. Sources like SensorTower are estimating the number of users, and they multiply the estimated users by a coefficient (average game type) in order to obtain the revenue. But I mean, we have the Blizzard's financial statements eh. This information is public, we don't need an estimated like that. There are the active users inside the financial statement, check it and design the chart. Active users for Blizzard in general is going terribly.
Revenue is also a terrible benchmark. It doesn't mean anything if HS made 660 in revenue. Then if the costs were also 660 the profit is 0. Revenue presented like that is not a benchmark. You have to present it with costs and similar games. If Gwent for example made 120 revenue with 60 costs and HS made 660 revenue with 630 costs, what game is more successful in terms of revenue and profit, Gwent no? So, revenue, like this, is a stupid benchmark.
This article is also very inconsistent in the argument. Point 1: "Hearthstone has 4.5 million active monthly players". Point 6: "Hearthstone had 23.5 million active players in 2020". So, why the journalist is saying that the game is a success if with his fancy sources is declaring a disaster? He wrote that HS lost 19 million of active users in 2 years, and he is saying that it is a success. OK.
This article is just terrible. This is an argument for people that understand/know finance, and not for a kid and his fancy sources.
i've played hearthstone since beta. it peaked at Journey to Un'Goro and then got worse with every expansion.
the game is a terrible sh*t show. gone are the days of actually outplaying your opponent. it turned from a good card game to an RNG single player mode and if you disagree, you either don't know the good hearthstone or you're lying to yourself.