Friday Update - Perfect 10

    • AceBladewing wrote:

      No solid single player mode means I probably won't be interested. That's a shame, I was hoping I could get into artifact.

      CoSVII wrote:

      I’m sorry but this style of game does not appeal to me. No PvE is just confirming a hard pass for me.
      We are on the same boat here.
      I feel for you guys. :(
      The Wardens of Entrath is a large, open to public community of Hex enthusiasts with a mission to help and support Hex players and content creators alike!

      Find us on our Discord server or website!
    • I bought into Hex's pve potential pretty hard... I don't think I'm likely to get into another tcg/ccg for a long time to come. Things like Slay the Spire or Children of Zodiarcs... but a full fledged tcg/ccg? I doubt it. Between the fact that living up to the dream of Hex will be hard, and the fact that the way this happening has just left such a sour taste for me, it just seems unlikely.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Eraia wrote:

      I bought into Hex's pve potential pretty hard... I don't think I'm likely to get into another tcg/ccg for a long time to come. Things like Slay the Spire or Children of Zodiarcs... but a full fledged tcg/ccg? I doubt it. Between the fact that living up to the dream of Hex will be hard, and the fact that the way this happening has just left such a sour taste for me, it just seems unlikely.
      haven't played slay in a long while, have they added new stuff yet? And what is this children game you mentioned
    • I really don't understand what Artifact were thinking:

      1) It's got an initial paid cost (huge initial barrier).
      2) It's the most complicated recent TCG I've seen
      3) It doesn't seem very streamer friendly
      4) The TCG business model is out of fashion and they don't even seem to allow direct P2P trading

      Sot it's definitely not doing a good job targeting the HS crowd, and not sure why anyone into MTG would prefer artifact over either paper/MTGO/MTGA. I also don't think DOTA fans will be able to play this due to the aforementioned complexity of the game... I don't know who this game is supposed to target. You can only throw money at paid tournaments and sponsored content for so long until you realize your game just doesn't have the right product-market fit. Maybe I'm wrong, surely Richard Garfield and Valve know what they're doing right....
    • AnomalyCobra wrote:

      Eraia wrote:

      I bought into Hex's pve potential pretty hard... I don't think I'm likely to get into another tcg/ccg for a long time to come. Things like Slay the Spire or Children of Zodiarcs... but a full fledged tcg/ccg? I doubt it. Between the fact that living up to the dream of Hex will be hard, and the fact that the way this happening has just left such a sour taste for me, it just seems unlikely.
      haven't played slay in a long while, have they added new stuff yet? And what is this children game you mentioned
      Children of Zodiarcs was a kickstarter funded Strategy RPG that incorporated some card and dice game mechanics. It was a pretty cool game. Not the best game ever, by any means, but definitely one I'm glad I supported and played.

      As far as Slay the Spire... I don't know. I don't use Steam(I hate Valve's business model and consider them to be largely incompetent as game developers so don't want to support them), and so far it's Steam exclusive. I've seen people play it enough to know I'm interested, so I'm just waiting for it to be available on a platform I use to give it a try.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Bootlace wrote:

      I really don't understand what Artifact were thinking:

      1) It's got an initial paid cost (huge initial barrier).
      2) It's the most complicated recent TCG I've seen
      3) It doesn't seem very streamer friendly
      4) The TCG business model is out of fashion and they don't even seem to allow direct P2P trading

      Sot it's definitely not doing a good job targeting the HS crowd, and not sure why anyone into MTG would prefer artifact over either paper/MTGO/MTGA. I also don't think DOTA fans will be able to play this due to the aforementioned complexity of the game... I don't know who this game is supposed to target. You can only throw money at paid tournaments and sponsored content for so long until you realize your game just doesn't have the right product-market fit. Maybe I'm wrong, surely Richard Garfield and Valve know what they're doing right....

      to be fair i have to disagree:

      1) paying for a game is/was still usual - you get value for this purchase in form of packs and entry tickets - so its just like buying any other game - even cheaper compared to for example a single players shooter with about 6 hours gameplay.
      2) its faaaaaaaar less complicated as it looks, i would say its even easier as magic due to the easier priority/combat solution
      3) that is true - but its not that awfull as mtgo ;) (well with plugin its quite fine on pc, but mobile still sucks)
      4) a lot of ppl prefer TCGs ofer CCGs - its not the majority of course - its not a casual cash grab as HS - also valve wants to put it into the esports corner quite hard and imo the nature of a tcg fits better into esport as a ccg.

      thats just my 2 cents - but yeah - they will never reach a game like HS regarding active players, but it still can be very successful.
      Austrian Kickstarter & Slacker Backer
      -=] Dont mess with the bull, you gonna get the horn [=-
    • For me, I have zero interest in competitive multiplayer card games, and games where you ignore your opponent completely and just smash your face against their board state turn after turn. I want modern Shandalar. I won't be playing any other card games in the future that don't have a proper PVE campaign, and don't include pass priority. I'm not interested in playing a card game I can't respond to actions on... I fucking hate Hearthstone and all card games like it.
      --ossuary

      "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
      - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well
    • I see a loooot of people on their forums getting hung up on a $20 initial cost and then microtransactions in game. It's baffling how many people don't understand that the initial purchase is just a frontloaded batch of the microtransactions you'd make later in the game. I believe MTGO STILL does this, with an initial $10 buy in and then you get 10 free tickets. It's actually a good strategy to get people that are interested actually invested in the game and get their money out of it by buying packs. $20 isn't too much to try out a game, even if you're not sure you're interested in it, and once you've bought in, you take it a lot more seriously than if it's 'just a free game' that you try and then judge prematurely.

      Also, it keeps out people who plan on just playing for free, which don't really do any good to Valve as long as they have enough players to fire events. It's a lot better signalling than listing a game as 'Free to play' when the obvious intent is for people to spend money on packs and tickets. Better than Hex listing itself as free to play, and acting like you can just grind for gold. Tell people up front that this is a game that costs money, and teach them how to spend that money with your initial business model. It's a good idea, and I actually found myself wishing Hex did that from the start shortly after Steam launch.

      As for complexity, I think their thought process was something along the lines of "We have Richard Garfield, let's just make sure this is a good game at its foundation," first, and then "What makes this game stand out from its competitors? We'll market it to people who don't like HS's simplicity" later.

      And I don't think that TCGs are an outdated business model. Their biggest selling point is a way to draft, which LCGs like Netrunner struggled with. It's a pretty well-understood model for veterans of the genre, who view other things like LCGs and CCGs with misgivings, so this is probably more evidence of companies trying to figure out the digital card game demographics. Valve's clearly targeting MtG folks over HS here by trying to engage with collection-builders, drafters, complexity, etc.
      Old username: Aradon | Collector backer | Starting a guild for Newbies -- "The Cerulean Acadamy" -- Taking applications once guilds are implemented
    • I say the same thing to anyone who expects to see another T/C CG make it big as I say to anyone who expects another big MMO: You're unlikely to see any new guys break in as anything more than small fries now that we have two massive successes. Magic holds the heavy competitive market, HS holds the casual market. Unless someone CREATES a third market, there isn't room for a third big game... there'll be small games with medium audiences that'll come and go, but we're unlikely to see another BIG player unless someone does something vastly different. Especially now that HS is doing PvE as well.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • People used to think that about MMOs, but FFXIV's recovered pretty well and isn't going anywhere, and Guild Wars 2 has managed to hold it's ground decently well as well. I think the door's open for a good MMO, it's just that a lot of developers don't go into it trying to compete with WoW, and just make something a little more temporary.

      Valve's big enough to compete with Wizards over TCGs, so if they really try, I could see them succeed. That being said, I still don't know much about Artifact, and a lack of PvE isn't doing them any favors from this forum board, so we'll see. Pretty much all they have going for them right now is Richard Garfield's name.
      Old username: Aradon | Collector backer | Starting a guild for Newbies -- "The Cerulean Acadamy" -- Taking applications once guilds are implemented
    • Obsidian wrote:

      I see a loooot of people on their forums getting hung up on a $20 initial cost and then microtransactions in game. It's baffling how many people don't understand that the initial purchase is just a frontloaded batch of the microtransactions you'd make later in the game. I believe MTGO STILL does this, with an initial $10 buy in and then you get 10 free tickets. It's actually a good strategy to get people that are interested actually invested in the game and get their money out of it by buying packs. $20 isn't too much to try out a game, even if you're not sure you're interested in it, and once you've bought in, you take it a lot more seriously than if it's 'just a free game' that you try and then judge prematurely.

      Also, it keeps out people who plan on just playing for free, which don't really do any good to Valve as long as they have enough players to fire events. It's a lot better signalling than listing a game as 'Free to play' when the obvious intent is for people to spend money on packs and tickets. Better than Hex listing itself as free to play, and acting like you can just grind for gold. Tell people up front that this is a game that costs money, and teach them how to spend that money with your initial business model. It's a good idea, and I actually found myself wishing Hex did that from the start shortly after Steam launch.

      As for complexity, I think their thought process was something along the lines of "We have Richard Garfield, let's just make sure this is a good game at its foundation," first, and then "What makes this game stand out from its competitors? We'll market it to people who don't like HS's simplicity" later.

      And I don't think that TCGs are an outdated business model. Their biggest selling point is a way to draft, which LCGs like Netrunner struggled with. It's a pretty well-understood model for veterans of the genre, who view other things like LCGs and CCGs with misgivings, so this is probably more evidence of companies trying to figure out the digital card game demographics. Valve's clearly targeting MtG folks over HS here by trying to engage with collection-builders, drafters, complexity, etc.
      Letting people try something before forcing them to pay is a player-friendly model, especially for something as complicated as a TCG. Also even non-paying players can be hugely benefitial from multiple perspectives so I doubt Valve wants to keep these players out. By the way the 20$ would be fine if it avoided key microtransactions for the life of the game (like Overwatch) but we know very well that's not how it works in TCGs.

      MTGA offers an OPTIONAL friendly 5$ bundle that gets you a ton of value, I find that a better way to get players use to spending money. Hex's PvE campaign is also very player friendly - you can try it totally free before committing money. MTGO's 10$ thing is way outdated, and reason they're not using it anymore in MTGA.

      Also I didn't say TCG is outdated, just out of fashion...meaning it's yet another barrier youre creating for people to get into your game. I think there's a niche of players who appreciate TCGs (and I'm one of them, but I've come to accept that F2P feels more friendly and perception is more important than reality in this case as we can see from public reactions to the business models). Question is will Valve be happy targeting just a niche that appreciates TCGs and leaving the mass F2P market out? I just think the combination of all the hurdles will limit this game's popularity and they won't get anywhere close to HS or MTG's success.
    • Obsidian wrote:

      People used to think that about MMOs, but FFXIV's recovered pretty well and isn't going anywhere, and Guild Wars 2 has managed to hold it's ground decently well as well. I think the door's open for a good MMO, it's just that a lot of developers don't go into it trying to compete with WoW, and just make something a little more temporary.

      Valve's big enough to compete with Wizards over TCGs, so if they really try, I could see them succeed. That being said, I still don't know much about Artifact, and a lack of PvE isn't doing them any favors from this forum board, so we'll see. Pretty much all they have going for them right now is Richard Garfield's name.
      But if you think about it... WoW is MTG. Guild Wars is HS. FFXIV did what I talked about: Created a new market. They turned the Final Fantasy audience into a market, and made a good enough game for people to want to stay.

      As far as 'competing with Magic' goes, nobody can. Just like nobody can compete with WoW for WoW's audience. It's not about a company being 'big enough to do it', it's about people getting COMFORTABLE. People, as much as they complain about a game, get comfortable with it. They're used to it, they have all their friends there, they have their characters with all their achievements in an MMO or their thousands of dollars investment into an enormous collection... and even if you design a 'better game', you can't code in 'comfort' or 'time invested' - so you can't compete.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Bootlace wrote:

      I really don't understand what Artifact were thinking:

      1) It's got an initial paid cost (huge initial barrier).
      2) It's the most complicated recent TCG I've seen
      3) It doesn't seem very streamer friendly
      4) The TCG business model is out of fashion and they don't even seem to allow direct P2P trading

      Sot it's definitely not doing a good job targeting the HS crowd, and not sure why anyone into MTG would prefer artifact over either paper/MTGO/MTGA. I also don't think DOTA fans will be able to play this due to the aforementioned complexity of the game... I don't know who this game is supposed to target. You can only throw money at paid tournaments and sponsored content for so long until you realize your game just doesn't have the right product-market fit. Maybe I'm wrong, surely Richard Garfield and Valve know what they're doing right....
      Here's my take. They don't want the F2P CCG crowd. In a world where most digital CGs are CCGs, Valve decided to aim at a different market that is not well-touched instead of competing against all the other CCGs for the same crowd. Alternatively, you can look at Valve being money-hunger and say "you don't want to pay then GTFO". CCG crowd is obviously not the primary target, that's for sure. Everything in the game said so. MMR pairing in gauntlet, market tax and enforced trading in Steam market, linear negative-EV prize structure. They all just yell "you pay up or GTFO. Freeloader, GTFO. Trader, GTFO. EV grinder, GTFO". They are essentially filtering out any player's ability to profit and focus on making this a game to play a game, not an opportunity for anyone to be super economic about.

      I went into the preview tournament with no knowledge and i picked up the game rather easily. I don't think it's super complicated but there is a lot of awesome stuff you can do to outplay your opponent which is good. I think I can follow what's going on so it's streamer friendly, or at least not unfriendly.

      The model is probably just the same as my first paragraph, aiming at a different market.

      It plays differently to MTG so people who aren't interested in MTG but prefer a TCG model might play it. There are also MTG players who don't like both MTGO(garbage UI) and MTGA(CCG model) and Artifact could be a digital outlet for them. DotA fans...let's see if they Valve can convert them into card gamers. I mean, Blizzard has turned non-card gamer Blizzard Cultists into card gamer(or "card gamer", if you don't think anyone who plays HS only deserve to be called one).

      Smradd wrote:

      If I trust any gaming company to make a good game, that company is gonna be valve. 90% of their games are great.
      I'm definitely gonna buy into artifact, at least it gives me 2 drafts to get started with those 20$.
      Or 5 phantom drafts. Based on the EV, I would go with 5 phantom drafts than 2 keeper drafts. Their keeper draft prize structure looks like a trap to profit from people who don't get the TCG economy where one can get cards in market and picking cards one want in draft is whatever.

      Cernz wrote:

      to be fair i have to disagree:

      1) paying for a game is/was still usual - you get value for this purchase in form of packs and entry tickets - so its just like buying any other game - even cheaper compared to for example a single players shooter with about 6 hours gameplay.
      2) its faaaaaaaar less complicated as it looks, i would say its even easier as magic due to the easier priority/combat solution
      3) that is true - but its not that awfull as mtgo ;) (well with plugin its quite fine on pc, but mobile still sucks)
      4) a lot of ppl prefer TCGs ofer CCGs - its not the majority of course - its not a casual cash grab as HS - also valve wants to put it into the esports corner quite hard and imo the nature of a tcg fits better into esport as a ccg.

      thats just my 2 cents - but yeah - they will never reach a game like HS regarding active players, but it still can be very successful.
      I think it's complicated in a different way. The 3 lanes gameplay and interaction give a lot of chance for good players to outmaneuver the opponent, but it's just too different from Magic to be a straight comparison.

      Bootlace wrote:

      Letting people try something before forcing them to pay is a player-friendly model, especially for something as complicated as a TCG. Also even non-paying players can be hugely benefitial from multiple perspectives so I doubt Valve wants to keep these players out. By the way the 20$ would be fine if it avoided key microtransactions for the life of the game (like Overwatch) but we know very well that's not how it works in TCGs.
      MTGA offers an OPTIONAL friendly 5$ bundle that gets you a ton of value, I find that a better way to get players use to spending money. Hex's PvE campaign is also very player friendly - you can try it totally free before committing money. MTGO's 10$ thing is way outdated, and reason they're not using it anymore in MTGA.

      Also I didn't say TCG is outdated, just out of fashion...meaning it's yet another barrier youre creating for people to get into your game. I think there's a niche of players who appreciate TCGs (and I'm one of them, but I've come to accept that F2P feels more friendly and perception is more important than reality in this case as we can see from public reactions to the business models). Question is will Valve be happy targeting just a niche that appreciates TCGs and leaving the mass F2P market out? I just think the combination of all the hurdles will limit this game's popularity and they won't get anywhere close to HS or MTG's success.
      In an age where most companies are giving up P2P and go the route of F2P, I actually appreciate Valve giving a chance to the P2P model again. I am really not a fan of F2P, especially the freemiums, because in my experience, the community of a F2P game is...more horrible than a P2P game. It could just be my personal experience, but I find that the community of paid games are much better(maybe barring the super mainstream games like CoD), like they are more mature on average and they are just enjoyable to socialize and play with compared to the F2P games I have played. I really don't mind the P2P model if it filters out some toxicity by having a price tag. Of course, that's my personal opinion.

      Oh, judging by how much outcry and people want free draft mode on Reddit, I am actually fine if Artifact stays this way. Man, I am F2P in games but I am not as ridiculous as those people. I feel like Valve trying to filter out this kind of extreme freeloader is a fine move.
    • If the monetization is exactly what we think it is then I am not sure if artifact is going to be a hit. Obviously the game can go on for years given who is running it.

      What surprises me is that there has been no mention of cosmetics. Cosmetics you are rewarded as you play would be something that lower skilled players could sell on the marketplace. Right now the average person is not going to go all in on artifact. Yes people from hex can understand the game, but we are definitely not the average CCG gamer.
    • Eraia wrote:

      I say the same thing to anyone who expects to see another T/C CG make it big as I say to anyone who expects another big MMO: You're unlikely to see any new guys break in as anything more than small fries now that we have two massive successes. Magic holds the heavy competitive market, HS holds the casual market. Unless someone CREATES a third market, there isn't room for a third big game... there'll be small games with medium audiences that'll come and go, but we're unlikely to see another BIG player unless someone does something vastly different. Especially now that HS is doing PvE as well.
      I bet there were people saying something similar about battle royales before fortnite came along.
    • Goliathus wrote:

      I mean, Blizzard has turned non-card gamer Blizzard Cultists into card gamer(or "card gamer", if you don't think anyone who plays HS only deserve to be called one).
      This is a good point and I think every big gaming franchise can have its own CCG if they take the same approach that Blizzard did in that they made it VERY simple to get into for a non TCG gamer (but ofc still with plenty of depth) and they made the card game actually play like the game it's based after. When you cast a bliizard or pyroblast or play some legendary creature, you almost forget for a second that you're playing a card game.

      If you have those two things down then it's a no brainer to make a CCG as 1) it gives them something to play on their phones when they're not playing your core game, 2) it's an evergreen genre so it will stay relevant for a long time regardless of technology/graphics upgrades, 3) it's insanely monetizable, and 4) it even serves to make your core franchise even more 'sticky' as the characters within the game each get uniquely featured.

      I don't know if Artifact achieved this with their game as I don't play DOTA or MOBAs in general. But the business model still doesn't make sense to me especially when you consider DOTA's model which is completely the opposite. I think it would have made much more sense to try to at least attract your existing players first and foremost instead of trying to cater some unknown hardcore TCG players which might or might not care about your game.