Valve's card game reveals modes, features and prices
123 replies, posted
Nah. I really think we've just reached a point where old dev companies past their prime days are starting to do stupid stuff and kill themselves out of said stupidity. Blizzard, Valve, BioWare, etc.
In Valve's case it's their fault for using the dumb flat structure that doesn't work. The old devs put too much faith in people not to be shitty.
Artifact? Stupid? You don't really seem to grasp the genius here, do you? It's going to bring in bazillions of dollars, guaranteed. They aren't making dumb decisions, they're making greedy decisions. There's a big difference. Sometimes greed can be coupled with stupidity. Look at EA and Battlefront II. But in Valve's case, they are legit evil masterminds who have finely crafted techniques to extract maximum revenue from gamers' pockets with the least amount of effort.
There's an updated FAQ: Artifact
It provides more details on game modes, ladder and prizes from event tickets.
Essentially you can (after the 20 dollars) play and keep earning packs for free if your win rate in Phantom Draft is >60%, but it is a zero sum solution.
Well yeah they started the whole thing with skins on a mainstream level
not sure why they thought it was a good idea to follow a flawed model instead of reinventing it
IMO, the traditional TCG monetization model set the bar pretty high in terms of what players will tolerate. In my case, things like shelling out hundreds on packs to get the cards you wanted were the norm. In general you had to pay out the ass to stand a chance against other people who probably did the same thing.
To game developers wanting to make VG forms of TCGs they must've realized that they can just follow the same model for free, since TCG fans are already used to that kind of treatment. It's not "being greedy", it's "following tradition".
So personally I'm glad online TCGs like Hearthstone are a little nicer than that when it comes to their model. When you compare it to other videogames, it comes off as greedy, but when you compare it to old TCGs, it's way more generous. Artifact's model seems a little more generous from what I've seen.
Artifact's model could definitely be a lot more greedy if they really tried. I'm still a little bumped that we have to tolerate compromises. They need to enable trading asap.
I'm also a bit surprised that they didn't attempt compendium or subscription model (dota+). It would be interesting.
Fun fact: Did you know that Valve is actually the same company behind Half-Life, the ground-breaking first-person shooter from 1998
Place Negative Review
Fun fact: A sizable amount of people like a good card game with complexity in them and don't hate on things just because it isn't what they wanted.
Agreed, MTG is great.
Man, looking at this is really tanking my desire to play the game
"Ravage has a 50% chance to stun Treant, its gonna be really bad if he doesn't land that stun"
"Intimidate has 50% chance to move the target dude to midlane and 50% chance to move them to bottom lane, this one player HAS to have him land in mid to have a chance to win the game.."
"All allied units have 50% chance to survive lethal damage.." Oh look, all the units survived (it was like 6% or 3% chance for that to happen)
"That hero has 25% chance to look right, if that happens then the other player is still in the game.."
The game seems completely infested in coinflip RNG which will either make or break the game, which seems insanely stupid. Tournaments seem pointless when luck is a deciding factor in who wins the game, its the exact same problem as in Hearthstone.
The monetization of the game already was offputting enough, but I think watching this stream killed my desire to play the game.. Real shame, because I was actually looking a lot forward to playing this.
I assume you are primarily talking about this match?
Spectacular game aside, a lot of plays that leads up and resolves the RNG can be played around, planned ahead, committed less, or compensated for worst case scenario. In addition, losing a lane gives you benefits in other lanes, as heroes and resources can be redeployed to other lanes, gaining initiative, and stranded enemies heroes. From the words of many players, videos and articles I've read, "there's so many ways to misplay, the better player will always still wind up on top".
Look, obviously my petty words isn't going to change any mind. But if this game is a completely decided upon RNGfest, not only we'll hear (negative reception) of it heavily from the players, the preview tournament top 8 couldn't compose of some of the best players across multiple games. Please at least reconsider, I've hear of this complaint so many times. When the game arrives and it does end up a complete dice roll of a game, I'll apologize for being a goddamn sheep, but so far I'm convinced of what I hear and see.
The only good thing I can say about Artifact is that the little dragons that carry your card deck between screens are adorable af
Normally I would call this mindset petty, but this is the one company that I feel deliberately earned it's hate
They made one of the best FPS series of all time with impressive advancements, passive storytelling in the first and at-the-time incredible physics and facial animation in the second.
They made an easily moddable engine with a wealth of tools that fostered an incredible modding community.
Then they end their flagship series on a cliffhanger, and leave their modding tools broken by updates that the community has to bend over backwards to work around. They string the fanbase along for 10+ years for an ending saying "it's coming" when internally key people are leaving and no one wants to work on it.
Then they put their money exclusively into microtransaction cash cows that prey on people with a weakness for gambling and collecting. CS:GO, DOTA 2, and a fucking card game. Innovation is dead at Valve.
Valve used to be my very favorite game studio.
and Half-Life followed Quake's trend.
it is so easy when you don't point out what each game brought to the table.
I don't want to stir any discourse, but I do understand where the contempt is coming from. Valve unearthed the ultimate money-making business model and now they can't pry their eyes away from it. They should've just stayed humble and work on awesome single player games. Valve never stopped innovating, they took directions their fans are not content with. Also they can be too proud and sometimes they stick to awful schedules and decisions. That I can attest.
But I don't understand why some people hate card games so much. Is it a taboo brought forth by Heartstone?
Its not card games, its shitty microtransaction based card games that piss people off, especially when valve hasnt done anything since d2/cs:go but comes back to push a game that allows them to tripple dip in the market. Valve charges 20$ up front to play, 2.50 per pack to expand your deck, then gets a tax cut for market purposes. Its extremely greedy and a slap in the face for everyone but hearthstone/mtg fans.
I'd argue that Half Life is much more significantly different and innovative for the time than any of the comparisons I made.
It's not that it isn't a good game, it's the fact that there are no ways other than to give Valve more money to get more cards. The game isn't free, yet other just as complex and competent card games exist that allow you to earn packs by playing, and they are free to play.
This game is nothing more than a blatant cash grab and it's really black and white about it. There's no other way to explain the monetization method.
Also IIRC they're going to fucking expire cards so certain cards that you paid for just can't be used anymore when they decide that card shouldn't be playable.
Fuck this game. CCGs are already one of the most godawful examples of microtransactions and this takes the fucking cake.
Obviously the pricing model is drumming up a lot of controversy everywhere as they are being compared to f2p.
CCG that hands out free packs massively devalue cards: Either grind every day for months, or buy the more-expensive packs.. Say, if it is possible to own the entire/most base collection under $60 (after the market is flooded a few months post-launch), it is a huge win compared to a typical f2p model. I understand that there ARE better card game business models out there, but this does have a very interesting game under the hood. Would it help to be able to get a free pack every week? Heck yes. The reason why I don't think this is a literally cash milking cow because the acquisition SEEMS fair for what is a premium game compared to its competitors. If its rates are as awful, I would be part of the uproar.
At worst, buy the $20 game and play user-tournament draft forever. But that would be inexcusable, Valve need to change their game plan if the economy gets too expensive.
That detail was news to me. Seriously, what the fuck. Anyone who actually pays for this shit is a sucker.
Here's a better idea: don't fucking associate playing the base game with microtransactions.
Holy shit! What a thought!
You means cards that eventually get rotated bi-annually for format purposes? Every card game player knows that it is compulsory for the health of competition.
Health of Valve's wallet*
Every card game player is actively feeding one of the most fucking absurd business models for games so I don't care that their stockholm syndrome means they prefer it the way it is.
The alternate proposal is "pay-once, get everything" premium. Which is admittedly the best solution (with the social trading part taken away, but a fair compromise).
Look, it is obvious that you abhor anything is isn't in a singular, complete package. There isn't much to discuss here. Some see it fair to be charged per component, some don't.
Lootboxes, predatory, exploitable and unpredictable, it isn't ethical and deserves all the spite it can get. In situations where it is possible to evaluate value per item purchase, it isn't evil. Don't like packs? Buy singles. If you believe that all service and product should only come in one inflexible pricing, so be it. But leave those who can afford the service it promises.
This is potentially true, but there's also a risk of the base cards being too weak to use competitively (the base heroes are quite shit...) and the actual good ones require you to purchase them from the marketplace for high prices. Many of the higher tier cards in MtG cost +30$ per card and some decks will require them in order to work with maximum efficiency.
I'm not gonna say the game is gonna be shit on launch, but I really do feel Valve doesn't give the slightest shit about the average player when it comes to Artifact: they just want to maximize the amount of money they'll make, no matter the cost. MtG had the excuse of being available only as a physical TCG in its conception, but Artifact doesn't have this limitation. There's absolutely no reason for the current system, other than forcing players to spend more money.
Funny thing is, Dota 2 is completely free to play, it gives you all the heroes immediately and you have access to all the gamemodes. This seems like such a 180 degree turn in monetization philosophy that it's very shocking to me.
If by "expiring" you mean rotating them out, it's not quite as bad of a situation as you say it is. The rotated out cards will just not be usable in the "standard" modes, but there are always modes where you can use pretty much any and all cards you have (Wild mode in Hearthstone), the cards that will be too overpowered will either be nerfed or if they will be completely banned from use, they'll turn into collectors' items which means people who own them can sell them for more money most likely.
You don't "feed" a broken system just by playing the game, you only feed it if you pay for the packs. You can play MtG:A, Hearthstone and Gwent in a fully free-to-play fashion (though HS is fucking dreadful in this regard) and end up having a lot of fun without paying a single cent.
All they have to do is make cards able to be turned into a currency to used to buy new ones ala hearthstone and they would be competitive in the market.
As it stands they are financially worse than both their competitors in a way that makes it almost offensive to consider playing, why would I pay to play a game when I know MTG:A is straight up free and has a pretty similar level of complexity?
I feel like hearthstone has nailed the TCG video game aspect with the way they handle seasons. Core set of cards that is always available with the special sets rotating in and out, that way you never feel like ALL of your stuff is now worthless and what is can just be turned into newer cards via dust.
If they implement that into Artifact it would be perfectly ok imo.
CS:GO plays completely differently then CoD. CoD is more of a twitch based arena shooter then a strategic "hold/push" game.
DOTA 2 came from WC3's DOTA map, which was before LoL. DOTA 2 also offers every character for free and doesn't gate people behind Mastery pages / how many Champions you have.
I'm all for critiquing Valve, but these two statements are flat out wrong. It's like saying TF2 followed OW's trend.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.