So what's the problem Hex is facing now?

    • MTGA bores me. I would be playing Hex or Artifact now if they aren't in their death bed. Now I play MTGA not because it is my top choice, but it is what is left(others like Eternal bores me even further). I think Hex draft is superior to MTG draft by a mile. Constructed, MTG probably wins, but the current standard meta is boring to me, especially the Arena meta which has a rather high numbers of a few decks that I see every single day. I would certainly like MTGA more if they have commander or custom format(MTGO's Penny Dreadful is awesome; so are other player-hosted events[that has dwindled down in numbers by now; I miss the blooming 2013]) and in-client tournament maker.

      I really miss ThrawnOmega's Dungeon Master of Entrath and Funktion's Jankbot tournament.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Goliathus ().

    • Vroengard wrote:

      @AceBladewing you're talking about the battle royale genre, which has a history of 7 years (the first real "Battle Royale" type game was DayZ).
      In comparison, the card game genre and Magic, specifically, has a history of 26 years. We've already seen Pokemon and YGO come and then fade out. It's safer to make predictions, nothing more.
      You can't count the years of physical card games towards the presence of digital card games. We both know the cost of entry into digital card games is much lower than it is with a physical one. That means that it is easier for it to compete.

      Either way, that was only one concrete examole. My point is that predictions like "no one could possibly enter the market and compete now" have often been proven wrong historically.
    • I think HEX could easily have etched out its own niche in the market if they hadn't been so focused on the competitive aspect. What drew me to HEX was synergy decks and the space and support needed to play them. The campaign was fantastic for me and Siege -COULD- have been HEX' golden ticket, had it been set-up as a casual way for the playerbase to create endlessly refreshing content for players, for free.

      I think that's the biggest misstep. Trying to make Siege into a weak, pale imitation of standard PvP was awful and ruined the mode and all the hours spent developing it. Had it been quasi-PvP with casualised gameplay like Gems of War's pseudo-PvP, it would've soared.
    • Firellius wrote:

      I think HEX could easily have etched out its own niche in the market if they hadn't been so focused on the competitive aspect. What drew me to HEX was synergy decks and the space and support needed to play them. The campaign was fantastic for me and Siege -COULD- have been HEX' golden ticket, had it been set-up as a casual way for the playerbase to create endlessly refreshing content for players, for free.

      I think that's the biggest misstep. Trying to make Siege into a weak, pale imitation of standard PvP was awful and ruined the mode and all the hours spent developing it. Had it been quasi-PvP with casualised gameplay like Gems of War's pseudo-PvP, it would've soared.
      Seriously, with every card games out there being so focused on competitive(Have you seen the amount of jank and depression on Arena reddit? A lot of players want a place to play non-competitive stuff), catering to the casual seems like a smart way to go. The campaign is awesome because I can mess around with whatever deck I want to. I can play all kinds of not-competitively-viable cards on it if I choose to, and still win a fair share. There's no card game in the market that allows this just yet. And no, you can't do that in roguelike card games either, like in Slay the Spire you have to make a good deck or you lose. There's no space to be found for a Johnny-Timmy hybrid or a heavy Vorthos in the dTCG landscape so far.
    • Catering to the casual? It is a pipe dream to have a TCG let alone a CCG other than Hearthstone do that. Casuals overall don't spend enough and the whales aren't coming for casual. Your only got to get games like Slay the Spire and such that are 15-20 a pop, not a full fledged gaming card game experience. To many have tried and failed recently.

      And you can very well play non-competitive stuff on Arena, if you want too. I don't play any top tier deck and have fun and can rattle of some wins in a row (tonight for example I made a jank Land D deck and won 4 out of my first 5).
    • HAVOC wrote:

      I said it for years and years and will keep saying it. If Hex had gotten 2v2 / co-op stuff into the game, it would have been much much better off. Sigh.
      Sure, but their vision and scope stopped at single UI gameboard for 2D cards, 2D art, and shadows. The digital game development scope and skillset was tested and proved over the 6 year span to be severely limited and supported by an overly optimistic and forgiving niche die-hard playerbase.
    • Firellius wrote:

      I think HEX could easily have etched out its own niche in the market if they hadn't been so focused on the competitive aspect. What drew me to HEX was synergy decks and the space and support needed to play them. The campaign was fantastic for me and Siege -COULD- have been HEX' golden ticket, had it been set-up as a casual way for the playerbase to create endlessly refreshing content for players, for free.

      I think that's the biggest misstep. Trying to make Siege into a weak, pale imitation of standard PvP was awful and ruined the mode and all the hours spent developing it. Had it been quasi-PvP with casualised gameplay like Gems of War's pseudo-PvP, it would've soared.
      Pretty much agree with this but there are multiple factors IMO that caused hex to be where it is. Hex went hard on the competitive scene and wasn't able to realize early or even later on that it wasn't working. Another big factor was that the game was just too expensive. Also, as I hate to say it, constructive criticism didn't seem to go well with Hex. For years, Cory was treated as someone who could do no wrong and questions about monetization and pve content were not taken seriously. PVE is what made hex for me, but if they gave up pve entirely and made the game half as expensive it MIGHT be doing as well as something like eternal.
    • Swigmonkey wrote:

      Catering to the casual? It is a pipe dream to have a TCG let alone a CCG other than Hearthstone do that. Casuals overall don't spend enough and the whales aren't coming for casual. Your only got to get games like Slay the Spire and such that are 15-20 a pop, not a full fledged gaming card game experience. To many have tried and failed recently.

      And you can very well play non-competitive stuff on Arena, if you want too. I don't play any top tier deck and have fun and can rattle of some wins in a row (tonight for example I made a jank Land D deck and won 4 out of my first 5).
      I think we are using "casual" on a different thing. Your "casual" is more on "not playing enough" and/or "not serious in the game" whereas my "casual" is more on "not-so-serious on competitiveness". For instance, one can be hardcore with non-meta build. That's the casual I am talking about, not the kind who play 4 games a day and plays 3 days a week. I am talking about those people who play a lot but just aren't that interested in competitive decks. I would even argue that physical MTG makes their bank through casual players(at least that's one of the points I read from the infamous 'An open letter to Cedric Phillips, Gerry Thompson, and the Pro Magic community at large' blog entry last year, and I agree with his observation) and not the extreme hardcore. In every PvP games out there, there are always more lower-to-middle level players(silver to gold in MTGA) than the hardcore(mythic). It's really hard for me to see why catering to the casual is such a bad idea. In many other genres, the game with casual accessibility are much bigger than the hardcore games. As for whales, I would argue that the biggest whales aren't necessarily the hardcore competitors. Is Colin(arguably the biggest whale of Hex) ever a hardcore competitor? He is more like a collector to me, I don't see him showing up in every premier tournaments of Hex. Many whales friend of mine aren't very good in the many games they whaling in either, they just love spending money. So I really fail to see the relation between whale and competitiveness. I feel like they will just get all the cards because they want all the cards, for competitive or non-competitive reason whatsoever. Also, "bling bling" is an easy way to earn money from whales, MTGA aren't taking the opportunity of those yet.

      I simply don't think that "competitive whale" is the only type of whale out there and one can be competitive in CCG without spending money(assuming the game's economy is decent enough). I would even argue that it's harder to extract money from the hardcore player than casual. Hardcore player research budget decks and research how to grind, whereas a casual will just put some money and get it on.

      As for if there is a market for non-competitive card players, I guess we should wait and see on how TLotR card game performs when it's out of beta.
    • Transience wrote:

      AceBladewing wrote:

      Vroengard wrote:

      MTG:A is a huge success and no other game can compete with it for reasonable income. You can't make both (1) a great game design-wise with (2) a lively competitive scene and with (3) longevity/future prospects when you absolutely HAVE to be content with minimum money.
      Do you not realize how many claims like this have been made in places where someone else DID compete with something and push it out of the top spot? Not just in video games, but any area.
      In this case though.. Arena is really, really good. Like really fucking vomit-inducing good.
      HEX's pvp card design is on par with MtG but HEX had the far better client compared to MTGO. WOTC fixed that and I don't see anyone topping this unless you can generate the same design quality, the same client quality for a much cheaper prize and also attract enough people to get it steamrolling somehow.
      That's not the case at all, the Arena client is hot garbage, and they have no intention to cater to the casual market which is where the vast majority of sales go to. Edh and other eternal formats. Including those in Arena first off is necessary to make it worth even looking at (imo) and is absolutely not an option because it would alienate those who have invested so much in MTGO. They will not win this marketplace, someone else will. Will it be Hex? Based on what I've seen lately definitely not. But there's so much room for someone to do it right.
    • Artifaction wrote:

      Transience wrote:

      AceBladewing wrote:

      Vroengard wrote:

      MTG:A is a huge success and no other game can compete with it for reasonable income. You can't make both (1) a great game design-wise with (2) a lively competitive scene and with (3) longevity/future prospects when you absolutely HAVE to be content with minimum money.
      Do you not realize how many claims like this have been made in places where someone else DID compete with something and push it out of the top spot? Not just in video games, but any area.
      In this case though.. Arena is really, really good. Like really fucking vomit-inducing good.HEX's pvp card design is on par with MtG but HEX had the far better client compared to MTGO. WOTC fixed that and I don't see anyone topping this unless you can generate the same design quality, the same client quality for a much cheaper prize and also attract enough people to get it steamrolling somehow.
      That's not the case at all, the Arena client is hot garbage, and they have no intention to cater to the casual market which is where the vast majority of sales go to. Edh and other eternal formats. Including those in Arena first off is necessary to make it worth even looking at (imo) and is absolutely not an option because it would alienate those who have invested so much in MTGO. They will not win this marketplace, someone else will. Will it be Hex? Based on what I've seen lately definitely not. But there's so much room for someone to do it right.
      Oh, they sure will win the marketplace. You do realise that MTG has (I think) shortest games on average out of all "bigger" ccgs/tcgs, primarily because of a well done client. If they can somehow port it to mobile, they will probably be at the top for a while.
    • A question comes to my mind with all the debates on these forums about hex and its viability - does it matter if it is the MOST successful dominant game in the market place or not?

      Surely for HEX to survive and remain an enjoyable experience for players along with a viable financial entity it requires 3 things:

      1. Enough players for people to find games in the different formats in a reasonable time
      2. Enough continuing new content to retain said players and not stagnate
      3. Enough money coming through the door to cover expenses

      You can achieve these things without dominating the market or even having a massive player base. Many games continue to thrive with very few players simply because their overheads are low. Others survive due to the generosity of the player base - donating content or time to develop it (Look at workshop etc in steam where players contribute enormous amounts of content for free)

      I believe that HEX has the resources and general interest to make it viable. My evidence of this is the numerous posts made by lots of different players about how they favor HEX over other TCG's out there along with the continued interest of now inactive players. Even though HEX is slowly decaying, people are still playing it and posting about it. This is a positive I think.

      Hex is decaying at the moment I believe for two reasons:

      1. Lack of content
      2. An absence from the development team

      On this basis, it should be possible to rejuvenate HEX and the player base by instituting some changes. This will require the current developers to relinquish some control or come back online. I really hope this happens because it would be a terrible shame for this game to go offline when it still has the number of die hard fans and interested parties who would gladly donate their time and effort to give the game a new breath of life. I like to think that there are different interpretations of success and for a TCG this does not mean domination of the market or beating the current market leader in terms of revenue. It could mean - just remaining viable which is a far more achievable goal. Forget beating MTGA - lets focus on survival.

      I hope this community can figure out a way of making this happen, I for one would be willing to do what I can from a time and finances perspective to help. What do you guys think?
    • Artifaction wrote:

      That's not the case at all, the Arena client is hot garbage, and they have no intention to cater to the casual market which is where the vast majority of sales go to. Edh and other eternal formats. Including those in Arena first off is necessary to make it worth even looking at (imo) and is absolutely not an option because it would alienate those who have invested so much in MTGO. They will not win this marketplace, someone else will. Will it be Hex? Based on what I've seen lately definitely not. But there's so much room for someone to do it right.
      They are slowly choking out the support of MTGO it seems. From one of the MTGO bot chain blog kind of thing, I read that the business there is really slowly declining. If it's not for eternal format, MTGO would be dead by now. And yes, the Arena client is hot garbage, it just that being MTG means it can be overlooked. Still, they are winning the marketplace. I think MTGA is already the big 3 of digital card games, losing only to HS and Asia's HS Shadowverse and all these big 3 are looking at the other card games on the rear view mirror. The playerbase of these three are huge compared to the rest of the field(Eternal, Gwent and what not). It's like enraged Hulk vs minimized Ant-Man size-wise.

      Smradd wrote:

      Oh, they sure will win the marketplace. You do realise that MTG has (I think) shortest games on average out of all "bigger" ccgs/tcgs, primarily because of a well done client. If they can somehow port it to mobile, they will probably be at the top for a while.
      This. While the old guards are whining about BO1 being braindead skill-less and high variance, WotC is laughing their way to the bank for scoring the digital players with BO1. Though I don't agree with the well done client but it's worked good enough, that's for sure.
    • Jikky wrote:

      A question comes to my mind with all the debates on these forums about hex and its viability - does it matter if it is the MOST successful dominant game in the market place or not?

      Surely for HEX to survive and remain an enjoyable experience for players along with a viable financial entity it requires 3 things:

      1. Enough players for people to find games in the different formats in a reasonable time
      2. Enough continuing new content to retain said players and not stagnate
      3. Enough money coming through the door to cover expenses

      You can achieve these things without dominating the market or even having a massive player base. Many games continue to thrive with very few players simply because their overheads are low. Others survive due to the generosity of the player base - donating content or time to develop it (Look at workshop etc in steam where players contribute enormous amounts of content for free)

      I believe that HEX has the resources and general interest to make it viable. My evidence of this is the numerous posts made by lots of different players about how they favor HEX over other TCG's out there along with the continued interest of now inactive players. Even though HEX is slowly decaying, people are still playing it and posting about it. This is a positive I think.

      Hex is decaying at the moment I believe for two reasons:

      1. Lack of content
      2. An absence from the development team

      On this basis, it should be possible to rejuvenate HEX and the player base by instituting some changes. This will require the current developers to relinquish some control or come back online. I really hope this happens because it would be a terrible shame for this game to go offline when it still has the number of die hard fans and interested parties who would gladly donate their time and effort to give the game a new breath of life. I like to think that there are different interpretations of success and for a TCG this does not mean domination of the market or beating the current market leader in terms of revenue. It could mean - just remaining viable which is a far more achievable goal. Forget beating MTGA - lets focus on survival.

      I hope this community can figure out a way of making this happen, I for one would be willing to do what I can from a time and finances perspective to help. What do you guys think?
      I hate to be that guy but there have been good suggestions on the forums for years on how hex could change and they have been ignored. We are just a bunch of folks talking to each other over a dead game. Hexent and Cory have very damaged credibility and they are not even pretending to try anymore.
    • AceBladewing wrote:

      My point is that predictions like "no one could possibly enter the market and compete now" have often been proven wrong historically.
      Oh, for sure, they CAN compete. For the scraps. I never said that we can't have digital card games. Not one with the original scope of Hex though.

      Jikky wrote:

      does it matter if it is the MOST successful dominant game in the market place or not?
      It only matters because the scope of what Hex wanted to do (PvE, PvP, ESport/competitive scene & 2v2) means you need a fuckton of money.
    • Pandaemonium wrote:

      Jikky wrote:

      A question comes to my mind with all the debates on these forums about hex and its viability - does it matter if it is the MOST successful dominant game in the market place or not?

      Surely for HEX to survive and remain an enjoyable experience for players along with a viable financial entity it requires 3 things:

      1. Enough players for people to find games in the different formats in a reasonable time
      2. Enough continuing new content to retain said players and not stagnate
      3. Enough money coming through the door to cover expenses

      You can achieve these things without dominating the market or even having a massive player base. Many games continue to thrive with very few players simply because their overheads are low. Others survive due to the generosity of the player base - donating content or time to develop it (Look at workshop etc in steam where players contribute enormous amounts of content for free)

      I believe that HEX has the resources and general interest to make it viable. My evidence of this is the numerous posts made by lots of different players about how they favor HEX over other TCG's out there along with the continued interest of now inactive players. Even though HEX is slowly decaying, people are still playing it and posting about it. This is a positive I think.

      Hex is decaying at the moment I believe for two reasons:

      1. Lack of content
      2. An absence from the development team

      On this basis, it should be possible to rejuvenate HEX and the player base by instituting some changes. This will require the current developers to relinquish some control or come back online. I really hope this happens because it would be a terrible shame for this game to go offline when it still has the number of die hard fans and interested parties who would gladly donate their time and effort to give the game a new breath of life. I like to think that there are different interpretations of success and for a TCG this does not mean domination of the market or beating the current market leader in terms of revenue. It could mean - just remaining viable which is a far more achievable goal. Forget beating MTGA - lets focus on survival.

      I hope this community can figure out a way of making this happen, I for one would be willing to do what I can from a time and finances perspective to help. What do you guys think?
      I hate to be that guy but there have been good suggestions on the forums for years on how hex could change and they have been ignored. We are just a bunch of folks talking to each other over a dead game. Hexent and Cory have very damaged credibility and they are not even pretending to try anymore.

      I think the most probable thing is that hex's operation leads to its poor revenue. Hex's earnings are very conscientious. To be honest, besides investing about $200 at the beginning of the game, I made dozens of times more money from the game (cash and money in the game) and I never spent money in the game since the money I got in the game is enough for me to squander.


      Now I feel ashamed, if I continue to invest some money in each new version, will the situation of hex be different?
      Sorry, I used to be naive.
    • Same Iwanna, but I am only in that situation because I was a kickstarter. An average person with a 50 percent win rate would be shelling out quite a bit of money especially if they wanted to pve and draft. The highly competitive person who was winning tournaments or doing great in them was not the average person by definition.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Oh, for sure, they CAN compete. For the scraps. I never said that we can't have digital card games. Not one with the original scope of Hex though.It only matters because the scope of what Hex wanted to do (PvE, PvP, ESport/competitive scene & 2v2) means you need a fuckton of money.
      I give up. It's best to just let you live in your world of absolutes.