I think you haven't the faintest of what you're talking about by assuming a bunch of shit with zero context applied to it.
I can safely hate EA's shitty practices both consumer and development without having to hate BFV or anything associated with its current maelstrom of shit from both assy fans and assy devs, and valvc is no different, I can safely hate their regime of governanace and business practices without having seen an iota of this game's mechanics, I can safely hate that valve has decided to re-enter content creation with a fucking card game entering an already saturated and bloated market.
I can hate that valve is throwing literally money to boost an anemic tournament scene when they could be giving that money to an indie dev or existing platform that could better leverage it for something that isn't "buy our not loot boxes in yet another predatory venue".
Maybe next time before donning your trusty steed and mounting your girded loins you can try actually arriving at the right castle, cause your princess isn't even in the same zip code sir knight.
Im not gonna defend valves anti consumer bullshit but I am gonna defend a fun new game made by a passionate team.
For bitching about presuppostion, there sure is shit ton of presupposition in there.
Ive watched Valve news network play the paper version and seen full matches online and your right I cant be certain but it looks quite fun.
Artifact looks like a lot of fun.
Complexity =/ innovation, every mechanic in Artifact has already existed in some form in another TCGs. To me Artifact just seems like a mess, they are trying to cram WAY too much into a card game to have it appear "unique". I mean arguably MTG is the best TCG (Eternal is a bit better for me thanks to it not having to be weighted down by physical game) there is and it isn't that complex, it's just well designed. Having played tons of card games, Artifact just looks to me like someone thought to make it as complex as possible, without much thinking about user or viewer experience. Also the idea of P2P and second hand market dictating prices just seems dumb, they said rarity doesn't matter, but I ain't sold on it. As long as there is different levels of rarity/power, users will value them higher, you can't really escape that, unless Valve dumps cards on players easily (Since they want to have economy surrounding the game, don't see that happening). But, ultimately who knows, haven't tried it yet. just not very optimistic at all.
is the monetization still shit?
Its 20 dollars for 2 started decks and the other cards are unlocked and mostly purchased. They also claimed to place an emphasis on making new cards play different but not be objectively better. They can also be traded bought and sold individually through steam.
tldr: Sorta
Yeah, I won't buy a digital card game that acts like a physical one. I don't get to keep the cards forever, when artifact goes offline, all the money i spend will show for nothing.
Thats fair, though it should be a loooong ass time before it goes offline knowing valve
The game isnt a cash grab? This is a 30$ game that you have to purchase card packs to build more into your deck. Then the market place is the only way to get cards since you are not allowed to trade them acc to other sources. Devs can sit around preaching how they have such determination into a game, that still doesn't mean shit.
Look at battlefront 2, the devs acted the same way all the way till launch. Game looked amazing and authentic, but the base gameplay and monetization was absolute horse shit. Valve is doing the same thing but worse, the marketplace will allow them to siphon even more money while making it the only avenue to pick and choose cards.
I can see your point and its a valid criticism. However I still wouldnt categorize it as a pure "cash grab"
https://m.ign.com/articles/2018/08/31/how-valve-wont-let-artifacts-marketplace-get-crazy-expensive
no in-game currency to spend on cards -- a decision Valve tells me is to avoid the grind that can make other CCGs feel like a job instead of a game.
“At its core, we want you to play the game because you enjoy playing the game,” programmer Brandon Reinhart told me when I visited Valve last week. They don’t want you to feel obligated to do daily quests just so you have enough gold to get a pack that might have the card you want. They want you to just play the game.
So instead of the usual digital model, Artifact is following a physical one like that of Magic: The Gathering -- whose creator, Richard Garfield, is also the lead designer of Artifact. It will have a $20 price tag that gets you two full decks and 10 card packs, and all card packs after that cost $2 each.
Its based on the physical card game payment model, which admittedly might not fit.
So lootboxes? If valve gave a shit, they could have just sold the game for 30-60$ and pump free content with cosmetics to pay for the back end. There has been plenty of TCGs before hearthstone that allowed you to play and build a full deck without having to buy packs. Digital card games are a total scam with the entire emphasis being around card packs. Physical on the other hand can be collected and kept forever and have a lot more use than just playing the game with the cards.
A blurb of corporate speak isn't going to change my mind, when I can see the business model as plain as day. Valve gets 30$ for the base, 2$ per pack, and kickbacks from the market with a lot of restrictions with trading (or no trading so far). They could just make a trading spot for people to trade cards for some kind of resource like DE did with Warframe. But how would Valve get money from that? Its totally money grubbing,
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
