You can talk about being willing to pay for your games all you want, but you're missing the fundamental issue with artifact's economy. Not only do you have to pay a cost to buy the game, and then also have to buy cards, you are forced to trade cards on the value marketplace. And guess what? Valve takes a commission on every sale there. Not to mention, you are actually trading with fake steam money, you can't actually recoup your value in any real sense. It's basically the greediest possible model, not only do you have to put in money for every card, valve is taking money from you every take you make a transaction.
Sure, you might be able to put cheap decks together with out of meta cards pretty cheaply. But for that argument to really hold water, the game also shouldn't have any upfront cost. I don't have to buy a bunch of mtg boosters before I'm allowed to pick up cheap singles and screw around. And the other side is also going to be very true, in demand meta cards are going to be fairly expensive, especially heroes that will have a huge impact every single game.
I think the game could be interesting, but with the economic issues I'm definitely not going to bother. I'm not even that convinced the game is good after watching the tournament. There's definitely a lot of skill involved, but if high skill equaled fun, we'd all be watching competitive brain surgery.
I'm not even that convinced the game is good after watching the tournament. There's definitely a lot of skill involved, but if high skill equaled fun, we'd all be watching competitive brain surgery.
I almost killed myself with my coffee laughing at this bit, gj xD
As for Artifact, I don't think it's gonna get many HS players to play more than HS...as a side-game, perhaps...I've started up MTGA recently and it's fine as a casual game, interesting but expensive to get a lot of cards/decks...I'm not interested in Artifact at all, as some of you as well.
The general gameplay won't appeal to a large player base as HS did and still does. HS simplicity and quick way of playing &making progress has not been matched by any CCG before (not that any serious one of them tried to, though). Artifact is too complex and lacks the necessary transparency & visibility for possible spectators. You simply don't see what's going on when tuning in to an Artifact game unless you are regularly playing it yourself. This makes it rather lackluster in terms of a competitive scene because no one is going to watch it. In HS you know the mechanics in a short time even as a new player or as a spectator-only. Gwent suffered from the same issue and it wasn't even that much more complex, even though CDPR reduced certain aspects with their last huge update.
- dicovering a new archetypes like aggro, one turn swing, etc would change the card prices little bit. For example lets say the meta is stable and suddenly... there is someone playing aggro deck with cheap cards and he is winning alot, that would change the price of these cards because alot of players want it (idk if this is con or pro)
Prices won't change "a bit". They will jump wildly. It will be very possible that your new, shiny $300 tier 1 deck will become pile of garbage worth $5 the very next day.
I am very curious what will Artifact do with their mistakes (OP cards). There are three ways - partially ban it, change it, ignore it. Every solution has its own problems
Also, Artifact can become a gambling problem. I can totally see players who will never play a single Artifact game but will buy packs in hopes to score and get more steam $ than they spent.
I don't understand what GabeN is thinking here(hoping for the dota players to buy this maybe?), their business model is insane:
1. You have to pay $20 just to try the game
2. No way to earn cards just by playing like in other games, you have to buy them with cash
3. Event tickets cost $4.95
4. Being a TCG instead of a CCG means that cards that go in the best decks will be the most expensive - pure P2W
5. Direct trading won't be allowed, you must go through the market which means you lose value to give Volvo a cut
If they stuck with 1-2 of these maybe it would be ok( for example make it buy to play but cards can be earned), but all 5 combined is way too greedy. The game looks interesting and has a big name behind it but i don't think that is enough. TESL is F2P with a big name behind it, has 2 lanes and it failed. Gwent is F2P(and extremely generous), has unique mechanics, the card art/animation is by far the best of any card game and it failed.
Artifact is getting a lot of undeserved hype, what is probably going to happen is all the streamers will play it for a couple months before going back to Hearthstone and it will become just a niche game(which is ok). But all the people thinking it will affect Hearthstone in any way are naive, if anything Activision might get even more greedy after seeing this absolutely incredible money grubbing strategy by Volvo. Artifact's business model makes Hearthstone look generous.
And to all the people who will respond with "omg but you can trade cards" - no you can NOT trade cards. You can only sell/buy them on the steam market which takes a 15% cut for every transaction. So every time you sell a card and buy a different one, you lose 30% of the value and give it to Volvo. Kind of like in Hearthstone when you disenchant a card to craft another one you lose value - only in Artifact you are losing real money that can not be earned for free through playing the game.
If there was a free trial or something i would try it since it looks fun, but no way am i shelling out $20 to discover i don't wanna burn another $200 to be competitive. On a side not(and this is just personal preference), does anyone find the Artifact card art mediocre? Maybe it's just me.
Artifact is getting a lot of undeserved hype, what is probably going to happen is all the streamers will play it for a couple months before going back to Hearthstone and it will become just a niche game(which is ok).
IMO, That hype is Valve strategy. I think they understand that in few months from launch player base will fall dramatically. But why would they care?
1) they already get at least $20 from each player who bought the game. 2) The bored ones will sell their cards with a cut going to Valve 3) And than that bored people will spend money they got from selling cards to buy new game(s) 4) They'll still have a small playerbase that will keep buying cards\tickets\giving Valve money from card selling.
1) It is Dota but it is a strategy game (no, not really) 2) It has 3 boards at once! (so what?) 3) It has complicated rules and so it is better for competitive players (poker players laugh here) 4) You don't have to grind to get cards. We care about your time (Lol) 5) We'll have huge tournaments with huge prize pools! (guys, you can x10 prize of a sport that doesn't interest me... And it will stay uninteresting for me.) 6) There are so many streamers that are excited about the game! It must be good (Yes. Streamers are guys who just love playing games. It is not what they do for living and they never say or do things for money)
A good portion of HS playerbase are f2p players or very low spenders and the loud minority of them that is on the internet constantly whine about game not being f2p enough. Yea, good luck getting them to play a game where the only way to acquire new cards is through cash xD
A good portion of HS playerbase are f2p players or very low spenders and the loud minority of them that is on the internet constantly whine about game not being f2p enough. Yea, good luck getting them to play a game where the only way to acquire new cards is through cash xD
Artifact: Dead on Arrival the Game
I think Artifact and HS are two different types of markets tho. I mean userbase, and we shall see what happens soon enough
A good portion of HS playerbase are f2p players or very low spenders and the loud minority of them that is on the internet constantly whine about game not being f2p enough. Yea, good luck getting them to play a game where the only way to acquire new cards is through cash xD
Artifact: Dead on Arrival the Game
I think Artifact and HS are two different types of markets tho. I mean userbase, and we shall see what happens soon enough
That's exactly his point though. Some portion of HS user base will gravitate towards Artifact because it's cool, new, and requires more strategy and thought. But a (much) larger portion will not because HS is technically f2p and the game play is relatively simple to figure out.
Those in between, who want a deeper game play experience than HS while also having the option to be f2p, will likely play MTG Arena and skip Artifact.
Also, Artifact has a good chance to attract quite a lot of new players that never were interested in TCG before. Never underestimate power of Steam. Neither you should forget that $20 is only a starting price. Valve will sell it with a good discount at some point.
I think it is stupid to say that Artifact is DoA. It will make money. A lot of money. But a huge chunk of that money will come from people who will try it, play for some time, get bored, sell cards and buy a new game for that money. It will still have a loyal "small" playerbase that will keep spending money on it.
and requires more strategy and thought
It requires more strategy and thought to play. Hearthstone needs no less strategy and thought to play well. It is amazing how marketing can turn a steep learning curve into an advantage.
Also, I am not even sure that Artifact is as complex as they say. I was very surprised to learn that it has no mulligan. It is the most skill intensive stage in any TCG. Going for no mulligan looks like a step to reduce number of meaningful decision not increase it.
Also, Artifact has a good chance to attract quite a lot of new players that never were interested in TCG before. Never underestimate power of Steam. Neither you should forget that $20 is only a starting price. Valve will sell it with a good discount at some point.
I think it is stupid to say that Artifact is DoA. It will make money. A lot of money. But a huge chunk of that money will come from people who will try it, play for some time, get bored, sell cards and buy a new game for that money. It will still have a loyal "small" playerbase that will keep spending money on it.
and requires more strategy and thought
It requires more strategy and thought to play. Hearthstone needs no less strategy and thought to play well. It is amazing how marketing can turn a steep learning curve into an advantage.
Also, I am not even sure that Artifact is as complex as they say. I was very surprised to learn that it has no mulligan. It is the most skill intensive stage in any TCG. Going for no mulligan looks like a step to reduce number of meaningful decision not increase it.
Not dead as in not make money. It will make money when it comes out because you need to buy it, people will play it for a bit and then it will fall into obscurity like Gwent did.
can't wait for everyone who's crying about RNG and NEVA LUCKIEH to do the same in artifact. after all its a card game.
people have waaaay too high expectations for it. some people act like its the HL3 of card games. let me tell you it is not. don't get your expectations too high otherwise you will only be disappointed.
Artifact also has the most dreadful gampelay that I've ever seen. Keep one hand but play across 3 boards?! What kind of garbage is that?! I get it, it is like the old wotc Star Wars TCG that I've used to play (you have 3 boards and you fight for control over 2 of them) but the whole hand to resource to damage gameplay system was specifically tailored to support that kind of idea. This is just 1 hand, 1 deck, 3 boards -.-
If a TCG game will get too complex then it won't have such success as HS or it won't even come close.
1. Not everyone has TCG minds.
2. It won't fit for mobile too much, which is often times on the go gameplay. HS is perfect for this as most powerful decks are those least difficult.
3. If a game is too difficult it also becomes too hard to watch on twitch so the competitive scene slows down. I mean if You get into the game then sure you'll understand everything happening on screen. HS isn't very complex so it's easier to get to know what's happening even without too much of HS experience.
So far his game looks awful, honestly. "Tryout" tournament was so boring to watch.
You can talk about being willing to pay for your games all you want, but you're missing the fundamental issue with artifact's economy. Not only do you have to pay a cost to buy the game, and then also have to buy cards, you are forced to trade cards on the value marketplace. And guess what? Valve takes a commission on every sale there. Not to mention, you are actually trading with fake steam money, you can't actually recoup your value in any real sense. It's basically the greediest possible model, not only do you have to put in money for every card, valve is taking money from you every take you make a transaction.
Sure, you might be able to put cheap decks together with out of meta cards pretty cheaply. But for that argument to really hold water, the game also shouldn't have any upfront cost. I don't have to buy a bunch of mtg boosters before I'm allowed to pick up cheap singles and screw around. And the other side is also going to be very true, in demand meta cards are going to be fairly expensive, especially heroes that will have a huge impact every single game.
I think the game could be interesting, but with the economic issues I'm definitely not going to bother. I'm not even that convinced the game is good after watching the tournament. There's definitely a lot of skill involved, but if high skill equaled fun, we'd all be watching competitive brain surgery.
Yeah, no.
Release the Kraken!
No way to grow your collection without injecting more cash. Period. I’ll pass thanks. It’s a total money pit.
I almost killed myself with my coffee laughing at this bit, gj xD
As for Artifact, I don't think it's gonna get many HS players to play more than HS...as a side-game, perhaps...I've started up MTGA recently and it's fine as a casual game, interesting but expensive to get a lot of cards/decks...I'm not interested in Artifact at all, as some of you as well.
You can't stop the signal.
The general gameplay won't appeal to a large player base as HS did and still does. HS simplicity and quick way of playing &making progress has not been matched by any CCG before (not that any serious one of them tried to, though). Artifact is too complex and lacks the necessary transparency & visibility for possible spectators. You simply don't see what's going on when tuning in to an Artifact game unless you are regularly playing it yourself. This makes it rather lackluster in terms of a competitive scene because no one is going to watch it. In HS you know the mechanics in a short time even as a new player or as a spectator-only. Gwent suffered from the same issue and it wasn't even that much more complex, even though CDPR reduced certain aspects with their last huge update.
Prices won't change "a bit". They will jump wildly. It will be very possible that your new, shiny $300 tier 1 deck will become pile of garbage worth $5 the very next day.
I am very curious what will Artifact do with their mistakes (OP cards). There are three ways - partially ban it, change it, ignore it. Every solution has its own problems
Also, Artifact can become a gambling problem. I can totally see players who will never play a single Artifact game but will buy packs in hopes to score and get more steam $ than they spent.
you can withdraw money from steam via games/skins trading (with some % loose obv)
I don't understand what GabeN is thinking here(hoping for the dota players to buy this maybe?), their business model is insane:
1. You have to pay $20 just to try the game
2. No way to earn cards just by playing like in other games, you have to buy them with cash
3. Event tickets cost $4.95
4. Being a TCG instead of a CCG means that cards that go in the best decks will be the most expensive - pure P2W
5. Direct trading won't be allowed, you must go through the market which means you lose value to give Volvo a cut
If they stuck with 1-2 of these maybe it would be ok( for example make it buy to play but cards can be earned), but all 5 combined is way too greedy. The game looks interesting and has a big name behind it but i don't think that is enough. TESL is F2P with a big name behind it, has 2 lanes and it failed. Gwent is F2P(and extremely generous), has unique mechanics, the card art/animation is by far the best of any card game and it failed.
Artifact is getting a lot of undeserved hype, what is probably going to happen is all the streamers will play it for a couple months before going back to Hearthstone and it will become just a niche game(which is ok). But all the people thinking it will affect Hearthstone in any way are naive, if anything Activision might get even more greedy after seeing this absolutely incredible money grubbing strategy by Volvo. Artifact's business model makes Hearthstone look generous.
And to all the people who will respond with "omg but you can trade cards" - no you can NOT trade cards. You can only sell/buy them on the steam market which takes a 15% cut for every transaction. So every time you sell a card and buy a different one, you lose 30% of the value and give it to Volvo. Kind of like in Hearthstone when you disenchant a card to craft another one you lose value - only in Artifact you are losing real money that can not be earned for free through playing the game.
If there was a free trial or something i would try it since it looks fun, but no way am i shelling out $20 to discover i don't wanna burn another $200 to be competitive. On a side not(and this is just personal preference), does anyone find the Artifact card art mediocre? Maybe it's just me.
WIll try,, if game will be bad, i make refund. For now game looks okay
IMO, That hype is Valve strategy. I think they understand that in few months from launch player base will fall dramatically. But why would they care?
1) they already get at least $20 from each player who bought the game.
2) The bored ones will sell their cards with a cut going to Valve
3) And than that bored people will spend money they got from selling cards to buy new game(s)
4) They'll still have a small playerbase that will keep buying cards\tickets\giving Valve money from card selling.
Artifact's marketing seems to be focused
1) It is Dota but it is a strategy game (no, not really)
2) It has 3 boards at once! (so what?)
3) It has complicated rules and so it is better for competitive players (poker players laugh here)
4) You don't have to grind to get cards. We care about your time (Lol)
5) We'll have huge tournaments with huge prize pools! (guys, you can x10 prize of a sport that doesn't interest me... And it will stay uninteresting for me.)
6) There are so many streamers that are excited about the game! It must be good (Yes. Streamers are guys who just love playing games. It is not what they do for living and they never say or do things for money)
A good portion of HS playerbase are f2p players or very low spenders and the loud minority of them that is on the internet constantly whine about game not being f2p enough. Yea, good luck getting them to play a game where the only way to acquire new cards is through cash xD
Artifact: Dead on Arrival the Game
I think Artifact and HS are two different types of markets tho. I mean userbase, and we shall see what happens soon enough
That's exactly his point though. Some portion of HS user base will gravitate towards Artifact because it's cool, new, and requires more strategy and thought. But a (much) larger portion will not because HS is technically f2p and the game play is relatively simple to figure out.
Those in between, who want a deeper game play experience than HS while also having the option to be f2p, will likely play MTG Arena and skip Artifact.
Also, Artifact has a good chance to attract quite a lot of new players that never were interested in TCG before. Never underestimate power of Steam. Neither you should forget that $20 is only a starting price. Valve will sell it with a good discount at some point.
I think it is stupid to say that Artifact is DoA. It will make money. A lot of money. But a huge chunk of that money will come from people who will try it, play for some time, get bored, sell cards and buy a new game for that money. It will still have a loyal "small" playerbase that will keep spending money on it.
It requires more strategy and thought to play. Hearthstone needs no less strategy and thought to play well. It is amazing how marketing can turn a steep learning curve into an advantage.
Also, I am not even sure that Artifact is as complex as they say. I was very surprised to learn that it has no mulligan. It is the most skill intensive stage in any TCG. Going for no mulligan looks like a step to reduce number of meaningful decision not increase it.
Not dead as in not make money. It will make money when it comes out because you need to buy it, people will play it for a bit and then it will fall into obscurity like Gwent did.
can't wait for everyone who's crying about RNG and NEVA LUCKIEH to do the same in artifact. after all its a card game.
people have waaaay too high expectations for it. some people act like its the HL3 of card games. let me tell you it is not. don't get your expectations too high otherwise you will only be disappointed.
Artifact also has the most dreadful gampelay that I've ever seen. Keep one hand but play across 3 boards?! What kind of garbage is that?! I get it, it is like the old wotc Star Wars TCG that I've used to play (you have 3 boards and you fight for control over 2 of them) but the whole hand to resource to damage gameplay system was specifically tailored to support that kind of idea. This is just 1 hand, 1 deck, 3 boards -.-
If a TCG game will get too complex then it won't have such success as HS or it won't even come close.
1. Not everyone has TCG minds.
2. It won't fit for mobile too much, which is often times on the go gameplay. HS is perfect for this as most powerful decks are those least difficult.
3. If a game is too difficult it also becomes too hard to watch on twitch so the competitive scene slows down. I mean if You get into the game then sure you'll understand everything happening on screen. HS isn't very complex so it's easier to get to know what's happening even without too much of HS experience.