Friday Update - Perfect 10

    • Pandaemonium wrote:

      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.
      I think their MMR in gauntlet is to keep lower skilled players at around 50% so they are not demoralized whenever they play a gauntlet, so they have considered that I believe. Cosmetic I do agree, although I am not sure how it would be implemented based on what I see in the game, but I expect it to be a thing eventually.

      Bootlace wrote:

      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.
      Artifact actually plays like DotA. I described it to one of my Hex friends(who played DotA) and he's like "this is not a card game, this is freaking DotA!" so safe to say there are resemblances. As I have played DotA before(hardcore when it's a mod in WC3, did not touch a lot DotA2 as I turned my interest in MOBA toward LoL). The three lanes, heroes cross-lane movements(with in-game items too like Blink Dagger and Scroll of Town Portal), global skills, heroes abilities, creep spawn, tower siege, equipments, gold and shopping are very DotA-like. I think they got the forget for a second thing covered.

      I do agree that making a CCG for it is like an easy and safe business decision. But Valve can be daring at times and they have the money to try so, and they did. Even if Artifact fails, they still have plenty of incomes from other games and the Steam platform.

      Your third paragraph also makes perfect sense, but since I am an ex-DotA player who appreciate the model they are using, I guess I am thankful they are not making sense here, especially more so when the DotA community can be toxic as hell. You can do a random google search and find plenty of people suggest that DotA is more fun when you just silence all chats because players there can be super a-holeish. Like people always say LoL community is toxic but my experience is that DotA community is worst.
    • Dont want to quote cause it will make it too long. I think you need like a 60 to 64 percent win rate to break even. So the 50 percent win rate guys may not have the best of times.

      In terms of gameplay, there really is nothing like it except chess or maybe go. It really punishes someone who is not looking a few turns ahead. The hex people shoudnt have too much of a problem. However, I think artifact is more complicated then hex and it could be by a wide margin.
    • Pandaemonium wrote:

      Dont want to quote cause it will make it too long. I think you need like a 60 to 64 percent win rate to break even. So the 50 percent win rate guys may not have the best of times.

      In terms of gameplay, there really is nothing like it except chess or maybe go. It really punishes someone who is not looking a few turns ahead. The hex people shoudnt have too much of a problem. However, I think artifact is more complicated then hex and it could be by a wide margin.
      Theortically, MMR system forces everyone into 50 percents, depending on how tight their MMR matchmaking is. Hence, in my first reply of this thread, I said "EV grinder, GTFO". You essentially cannot get positive EV if the MMR works as it should. Either way, my point on that 50% guy is that this is a system that made newbies more happy. In a typical gauntlet without MMR kind of setting, new players can get destroyed 0-3 repeatedly by pros and feel extremely unhappy. This MMR system prevents that and everyone might go 5 wins once in a while. I think this covered up the lowered skill players fairly well in terms of their emotional investment to the game, in theory. Regular players who just have to have fun in gauntlet and happy with 50% win rate will be fine too. It's the "I'ma grind for dem EV and play for free" kind of crowd that is unhappy at the moment.
    • AceBladewing wrote:

      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.
      Fortnite DID create a new market though. PUBG was targeted very clearly at people who wanted gritty realistic shooters, fortnite used cartoony graphics and build mechanics to appeal to a new audience.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

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

      Right, so why are you so sure someone can't do the same with a TCG?
      I'm not, if you read my comment, I said:


      Eraia wrote:

      Unless someone CREATES a third market, there isn't room for a third big game
      I'm not sure what that third market could be for CGs, honestly. They have a pretty niche appeal due to the high investment required, but I am certainly not saying it's impossible. Just unlikely.

      There was a time when I figured PvE was going to be that, but now one of the big guys is targeting that too. So I really don't know.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • I want a digital card game that:

      • Has no pvp
      • Has no lanes of any kind
      • Is not F2P
      • Is not roguelike
      • Has priority passing so you can answer opponent's stuff + it makes games more complex and interesting
      • Is very replayable because of deckbuilding
      • Has some kind of map where you can freely travel
      • Has battles that are not based on puzzles, but on actual games (AI can have OP cards, but no unfair rule-breaking advantages at the start of a match)
      • Has progression of some kind
      • Sells nothing for real money, but especially not random card packs
      • Has no microtransactions at all, and is preferably built on expansions
      • Is not developed with mobile gaming in mind (can be added later, but must not be a priority)
      • Definitely has no fucking turn or time limits!


      Give me this, and I will throw money at you for the rest of my life or until the game ceases to exist. For some reason, I think I will be waiting for a looooong time. I am starting to think that my preferences do not suit this time and age, which means I might never see my dream game. Times have changed too much, and I feel like developers have to cater to a gaming crowd I will never be a part of. I will always check games that fulfill at least a few of the big requirements though, so there is still hope.

      Fortunately the world is full of good games, so I guess I will keep playing those while waiting.
    • Ertzi wrote:

      Has no pvp

      Is not F2P

      Sells nothing for real money, but especially not random card packs

      Has no microtransactions at all, and is preferably built on expansions


      Give me this, and I will throw money at you for the rest of my life
      How would one spend money on that? In the form of donations to the company? You said that they're not selling cards or have microtransactions.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Ertzi wrote:

      Has no pvp

      Is not F2P

      Sells nothing for real money, but especially not random card packs

      Has no microtransactions at all, and is preferably built on expansions


      Give me this, and I will throw money at you for the rest of my life
      How would one spend money on that? In the form of donations to the company? You said that they're not selling cards or have microtransactions.
      I assume he meant Buy to Play game with expansions sold as expansions like in case of majority of games (non-card games).
    • Yes, buy to play of course. Full price for the core game, which would have plenty of content already. Developers need to start thinking out of the box. There has to be other ways to monetize than microtransactions. It is telling that even suggesting not having them results in a "what, how do you get money then?" kind of response. This is exactly what I meant when I wrote that times have changed. I belong to a different time when it comes to gaming. I will probably never get the game I wish for.
    • In my opinion, only having an one-off purchase IN A LIVING GAME (i.e. one that needs constant maintenance, full support, moderators and is constantly putting out new stuff multiple times per year) cannot cover the expenses.

      Imagine Hex being a 60$ game to purchase and 0$ for the next 4 months, until the next set. Then, unless the next set is MANDATORY to buy at, I dunno, 50$, how can they keep going? How can you fund the next set and people's wages? The upfront payment type games are those that only need minimum maintenance, maybe a few bugfixes and for content they then sell DLCs.

      I don't know about you, but the majority of today's gamers would not pay a bunch of money upfront every time a new set is out (4 months) and a new AZ is out.

      Especially since you say

      Ertzi wrote:

      Has no pvp
      Which means that people don't even get to pay in order to play limited events.

      I don't think you've thought this through.
    • Game development costs way more to produce high-quality games than it did back in the era of 'buying the box.' Up-front costs don't cover game production costs anymore, especially if there is any on-going development as well. It's a player mentality that they can't afford to pay $100 for a game, but can rationalize buying several DLCs or microtransactions that eventually get the total cost out of them, and a developer reality that if you just want to sell a box for $60, then you're either not going to make your money back, or will have to cut corners on your game.

      People these days have very high quality expectations, but lots of people aren't willing to pay the real cost of those expectations.
      Old username: Aradon | Collector backer | Starting a guild for Newbies -- "The Cerulean Acadamy" -- Taking applications once guilds are implemented
    • Companies like EA and Activision have also done a really good job of brainwashing people into believing costs are high with all their rhetoric so they can hide their actual clients' (the investors) profits inside those "very high" costs. It's not the development that costs so much, it's the corporate greed.
      --ossuary

      "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
      - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well
    • Vroengard wrote:

      In my opinion, only having an one-off purchase IN A LIVING GAME (i.e. one that needs constant maintenance, full support, moderators and is constantly putting out new stuff multiple times per year) cannot cover the expenses.

      Imagine Hex being a 60$ game to purchase and 0$ for the next 4 months, until the next set. Then, unless the next set is MANDATORY to buy at, I dunno, 50$, how can they keep going? How can you fund the next set and people's wages? The upfront payment type games are those that only need minimum maintenance, maybe a few bugfixes and for content they then sell DLCs.

      I don't know about you, but the majority of today's gamers would not pay a bunch of money upfront every time a new set is out (4 months) and a new AZ is out.

      Especially since you say

      Ertzi wrote:

      Has no pvp
      Which means that people don't even get to pay in order to play limited events.
      I don't think you've thought this through.
      I don't need to think anything through. I am not trying to develop a game, nor do I give a shit how difficult they are to monetize. I just stated my terms. You can happily keep playing shitty microtransaction games and bleed yourself over random packs. Go for it and I hope you have fun. Additionally, my entire point was that I am not in the majority of gamers. You might think that you have to come up with answers for game developers, but I do not. I have better things to do. If a developer makes a good product that suits my tendencies I will buy it. I won't design the game for them though. If I had any desire to do that I would have seeked a job in game development.

      Another thing that probably excludes me from the majority of gamers: If I could never play another video game again, it would not matter too much to me. It would suck for a while, as I really enjoy them, but I would quickly fill the time with the other hundred or so activities that are competing for my time. So you see, I don't really care if the entire game industry collapses. What I do care about (especially after HEX - thank you for the important lesson) is what I spend my money on.
    • What about a subscription model? I know the collectible and trading aspect of the game is a big draw for people, but I wonder if people would be interested in a card-game product with a Hex-like ruleset, PvE and equipment if you paid a $15/month subscription fee. That'd theoretically get you full access to all the cards for deckbuilding, PvE access, and then unlimited tournament and draft entry.

      Possible variations could include an initial purchase, purchase by set/AZ expansion, cosmetic card AAs in the store, and possibly event ticket costs. If we ran on event tickets, I'd imagine the 15/mo gets you X number of tickets for events, and you could buy more as needed.

      This is a lot closer to the Living Card Game model. If we drop the trading/collectible aspect, would people still be interested in playing a Hex-like game? If so, do any of the above microtransaction models appeal or cross a line for you? Personally, it's hard to imagine an unlimited draft setup, but I also think a lot of people would balk at paying for tickets in a subscription model, too. 15/month is a lot less than what a lot of spenders actually pay for a typical card game, so I imagine income would drop for Hex on a per-person level, but I can't help but think that unlimited drafts would draw a laaaaarge crowd of players, and the higher numbers would be a net increase in income.

      Also, in a subscription model, what release schedule would you need to see in order for it to be worth your while? Something like 1 new set and 1 new AZ per year probably wouldn't cut it for people.
      Old username: Aradon | Collector backer | Starting a guild for Newbies -- "The Cerulean Acadamy" -- Taking applications once guilds are implemented
    • I am wary of subscription-based games as well, simply because I don't always have lots of time to play. I think I would feel pressured to play as much as possible and I don't like that feeling. The game would pretty much have to be so amazing that I would know that I wouldn't need any other games.

      Collecting and progressing my collection is almost essential for me as well. I find it boring if I have all the cards from the beginning, as I would quickly find the best deck and always just use that. That is still not a dealbreaker for me, but I would prefer to collect the cards in game. It's fun finding cool/good cards after being forced to use a crappy deck.

      That said, I would play a subscription-based game where you adventure in themed dungeons where you do a draft in the beginning and have to play with that limited deck. That way you could have all the cards in the game immediately and would still have a fun challenge. You could even have dungeon-exclusive cards. That's just one suggestion that popped into my head. Just add more dungeons from time to time and - tadaa! - unlimited replayability.