Unpopular Opinions V. FP should go down more often
999 replies, posted
$80 for any "full" base game is ridiculous
The one-sidedness people have against religion. It's true that religion has caused more chaos than atheism, but it's not the religion itself, it's the idiot that misuses it.
If people are just gonna keep patting companies on the back for this, we're doomed.
I don't mean any offend but if $80 "I-want-nothing-excluded" is a little too much then perhaps affording AAA games may be a bit out of your league. You never need a full collection to fully enjoy card games if you are willing to do a bit of socializing and trading. It rounds back to the "should AAA games continue to cost $60 forever"debate, but it doesn't matter anyway because Artifact in actuality doesn't cost this little for a full collection, probably.
Wow. Yeah, that's going to offend, mate.
I actually thought your initial post was a joke but apparently not.
a full collection right now
thats the thing with tcg games, once a new set comes out over half your cards are worthless, (or all of them if they make it so only the newest set can participate in competitive games, but they'll probably make it the last few sets like hearthstone and mtg) so not offering any free options like hearthstone is just going to kill the game basically on arrival. no one wants a barrier of entry and has to keep paying just to build up a collection to play, phantom drafts aren't insanely popular since you don't get anything out of them. Not to mention repaying later on when new cards come out, finding out most of their previous cards are trash and worth next to nothing on the market. And since theres no trading or anything like that, you get fucked if you're like kripp and pull 7 svens from your starter packs.
No, seriously. This is unpopular opinion, contained exclusively within this forum.
There needs to be a door stopper. I have been through, read and seen both sides of the industry almost on daily basis. Somebody's always unhappy with the price point.
People complained $60 AAA games are too expensive.
People complained $20 indie games are too expensive.
People complained $5 app games are too expensive.
People complained free to play games are too expensive (to enjoy proper).
And so they only start buying during sales.
If there's a decrease in price on all fronts, a year or two later you'll end up in the same situation. You can't keep thinking it from the consumer standpoint. We don't even know how much games should cost but they are already priced at perceived standardized value. There will always be someone who complains about something they can't afford. You are free to call anyone who has better purchasing power "sheeps" or whatever, I'm only trying to be reasonable after witnessing and reading many articles.
People say $60 is too expensive because these days $60 doesn't get you the full game. You usually need the season pass which costs anywhere between $30 and (far more often) $60. So games, if you want the 'complete package', actually cost $90-$120.
People say $20 indie games are too expensive because indie games are often incredibly derivative, and while that also applies to AAA games indie games don't have the breadth of content that AAA games normally do.
People complain about $5 apps because they often don't offer anything over 'free' apps that do the same thing.
Finally people complain about 'free' to play games because the vast majority of them are designed around wasting your time to push you into buying loot boxes. And the term "microtransaction" is a load of horse shit because these days they're asking for $5 a pop.
HAve to be honest Noob, you come across as the kind of person who has far more money than sense. "A fool and his money are easily parted", but these days the fools seem to actively want to get rid of their money.
???
> When new sets arrive, unless power creep, often enables new synergy with otherwise-deemed-useless older cards. The only cases where old cards lost most its value is when rotation occurs in which mostly happens annual or biannually. I believe that initially rotations exists to spice up the meta (still does) but the industry might have been exploiting it for profits. I welcome better alternatives.
> Regarding barrier of entry, I can talk more on it if you want to know more. Bottom line is that I don't want CCG to bind to freemium model which is engineered to be very manipulative. I can even touch on why the "lootbox" card packs don't have as much hold as most other games.
> Phantom drafts are insanely popular right now, way more than constructed.
> Paying for new cards are similar to paying for DLC. Free is good but we should not demand it to be the norm.
> There is trading. It arrives when the game actually arrives in a few days.
Artifact is getting a lot of flak because of its seemingly f2p model with entry price. It is understandable why. After going through a number of economy and game design articles and number crunches, I'm at least convinced and drew a few deductions on why it is not as bad as most outsider thought. At the very least I'm well informed before stepping in.
Pay whatever you think the game is worth. I don't care. Just don't act like you're better than others because you're willing to spend more than them.
It's like those assholes who spend $500 on pre-ripped, acid washed jeans and act like they're hot shit.
I didn't want to condescend. Sorry. I only voice my opinion that it seems irresponsible to shun and demand just because they don't agree with how much something should cost.
it is sound and beneficial to the customer to pay valve 200-300$ every few months just to remain competitive in their new card game.
I think the model is sound when getting into to the nitty-gritty instead of a blanket ban on microtransactions.
I do not, however, agree on the price they have set, if the estimations are true.
Although I love Half life 2 and its episodes, I think it's aged worse than Half Life 1
I may have some bias, I tried not to. It isn't easy to stomach supporting a model like this, but I can see how the model can be beneficial to the players.
If Valve is truly lost to the greed, they would have chose to make it f2p. f2p draw big crowds and make more than most premium games, yet they chose this risk and stick to the controversy. On the surface it seems like worst of both worlds, but upon scrutiny, it is found that the lost of the ability to grind for free packs is a blessing. Hear me out, f2p are precisely engineered (with a lot of statistics) to push players into paying $$$ by devaluing their efforts/hour so much, most will give in. By taking this aspect out, it removes the obligation to participate in getting free stuff. People should not defend this blindly, by cognitive it is very difficult to ignore free, and companies exploit this to the fullest.
In return, Valve made the rates much more reasonable, instead of f2p where they have much more room to gouge because of player's time investment. If someone finds the service too expensive, they may immediately choose to abstain instead of being lured in because 'free'. In addition, I have reasons to believe that the lootboxes will not have as much hold here. Not only that the market and keeper draft exists to skip the process all together, there is no promise of quick riches, as every pack already contain one of highest rarity AND there are no cosmetics to drive the price even higher. Unless one has severe gambling problems, there are very little reason to spam packs (after the market opens) because they can't get 10000% return in value by getting lucky. I will not hold my judgement on this until we know exactly how much high-demand cards will cost. We were looking at ~$15.
By this design, and by how most card games are enjoyed, having a full collection is not, and never been, compulsory when trading and lending is available. It keeps the out-of-game socializing that buy-once-own-all and subscription models does not promote. In addition, formats such as keeper draft and pauper format would not be popular otherwise.
However, I may concur that the rates aren't reasonable enough. A few hundred is still too much and just because other card games are more expensive isn't a good enough reason.
If it does cost ~$80 (or 60 in any case, cheaper the better), I think this model would be awesome for collectible games. It is closer to pay-what-you-want after the entry cost.
I do still have more to say regarding the pay-per-entry 'event ticket' but I'll leave it for now.
Unfortunately, by 'trading', I meant "sell it on the market and Valve takes a cut". Exchange of cards between friend are not available at launch, probably to combat third party gambling sites.
I hope they come up with a solution, and soon. On the latter, you are able to borrow entire decks from friends, which is good.
what the fuck is the point of digital card games if we're going to design them like physical ones
People who set their profile picture on facebook to them kissing their girlfriend or some shit. That's disgusting, who the hell kisses girls..? Ewwww am I right??!!??!? 😷
its way easier to find someone to play against
lods of emone
Do you watch Rick & Morty?
r/iamverysmart
Computerized card games have been utilizing tools offered by the digital medium. The most obvious ones are matchmaking, complex randomness, automation and ability to errata.
Oops, sorry. I was frustrated.
Matchmaking
Doesn't matter what game you play, CCG/TCG, MOBA, etc. this is a shitty fucking excuse for defending a game's model of monetization. I remember seeing this a lot when people defended LoL for having that system, but for people who don't want to play a single/just a few characters over and over and over again (when there are so many options made to be experimented with) these systems really feel limiting as all hell.
that big avatar has gone to your head my son
Working / playing with limitations and growing a collection is a game of its own, getting everything from the get go do defeat the purpose of that concept.
I will admit that it is ground for some of the most exploitative form of monetization, I only wish for the best for both the players and developers.
I was upset at others being upset at me for stating my threshold. We should be more civil about it from this point forward.
sure it uses the digital format to its advantage in some of the gameplay, but in balance? business model? every predatory, anti-consumer decision gets justified by the fact it's comparable or better than real life CCGs
You asked if card games benefit from being made digitally, and I gave you an answer. Yes. Definitely. Absolutely.
The business model could and should be (way) better, I do not deny. More games like Faeria or Slay the Spire (singleplayer) would be welcoming.
I will still assert that there is a point in making digital card games. No growth will happen from abstaining.
geez slow down, no one said anything about "abstaining"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.