• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Ferrio

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,070
The only difference between a poker championship where you pay to enter and this game is that on Poker everybody has the same odds, in Valve's game your deck might be worst than the others, which forces you to spend money on extra cardsnto have better odds...

It's gambling, but brutal.

Then don't play constructed. There's several other modes in the game that don't have this issue which plagues every other CCG. Not only will you spend less, but the other modes are better than constructed IMO.

Out of all the complaints "This game that is a CCG monetizes like a CCG, how dare they" is the worst. Like complaining that a Racing game makes you drive.
 

Toxi

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
17,550
It's not the monetization. There are full price games with microtransactions with more people playing than Artifact.

The basic gameplay is just really grindy and dull for most TCG/CCG players. You have so many small decisions that are just slight adjustments of your units, but then you have no built-in control over huge random factors like a bad opening hand or a creep spawn. So it's a very skill-intensive game, but the actual impact of your decisions rarely feels satisfying and you're constantly bombarded by annoying bits of randomness. Complain all you want about mana screw, Magic still gives you a mulligan for your starting hand.

Not to mention the core set for Artifact is just dull. If you want people to open packs, you need exciting cards, and most of the cards in Artifact are incredibly bland pluses and negatives to stats. It feels like Valve was terrified of the game's complexity scaring people off and took out most of the interesting cards, while leaving a mess of bland and redundant keywords that just give pluses and minuses to stats. So you have a game where half of the learning curve is just keeping track of different numbers that include a random element each round.

The game has an audience who enjoys that sort of gameplay, but that audience is not a large one.

Also, for a game where many of the fans claim to hate mana screw, it feels like half the game is just denying the opponent the ability to play cards entirely.
 
Last edited:

ZeroX

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,266
Speed Force
You can play Hearthstone for free but you won't be able to consistently run Arena - which is worse than Draft - and a new person starting F2P is probably doing at least 6 months of daily grinding until they have something competitive. If you don't want to slog through that you're probably dropping at It was easier if you started years ago, I had an F2P account that had enough dust and gold that it could play almost anything without spending but it took years.

If employees at Valve genuinely wanted to make this game, then I wish them luck and I hope things start looking up, as I'm sure a lot of blood, sweat, and tears went into this.

If, as I suspect, this was just Valve trying to get their hands in the Hearthstone money-making pie, then good - glad it is doing badly.
if you play the game it's very obvious it's not a cash grab and is a well designed game. And again the monetization is cheaper for the player than Hearthstone.
 

Luminish

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,508
Denver
"running out of players" implies that's it's getting hard to find matches, when it has to fall way further for that to happen. Like below 100 concurrent players probably. You don't need that many players to find matches online. Many online games survive player counts in the low hundreds.

But it is impressive how low the player count has gotten for a card game with the Dota brand made by Valve exclusive to Steam. Probably not long before Elder Scrolls Legends steam only numbers outweigh the entire artifact playerbase.

I really wanted to like Artifact, but if I'm honest with myself I'd much rather go back to any of the more traditional CCGs, like Elder Scrolls Legends. It's a lesson in being more complicated and difficult doesn't necessarily mean more fun.
 

Deleted member 28523

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 31, 2017
2,911
If employees at Valve genuinely wanted to make this game, then I wish them luck and I hope things start looking up, as I'm sure a lot of blood, sweat, and tears went into this.

If, as I suspect, this was just Valve trying to get their hands in the Hearthstone money-making pie, then good - glad it is doing badly.

I mean the story is that Richard Garfield approached various companies about an online card game with 3 boards. Valve was the only one to say yes.

And this is part of the problem with the game is that there's a lot of misinformation and crazy conspiracies about the game. Maybe they worked on a game they thought people would enjoy and just missed the mark. Valve's done it before and they'll likely do it again. A lot of companies go through similair experiences.
 

Poppy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,273
richmond, va
im sure its a great game but the little i have seen of it just leaves me asking why i would play it when im already in other card game ecosystems and have been for years
 

Dodgerfan74

Member
Dec 27, 2017
2,696
I love Titanfall 2 as well, over 600 hours played. But that's always mentioned as a game launched at a bad time with a low player base. Thought it was an interesting comparison at least.

It's not a bad comparison. It just makes me bummed Titanfall 2 wasn't a bigger success and comes up in a thread about collapsing playerbases.
 

Randdalf

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,167
I have an odd perspective on Artifact. Monetisation is neither here nor there for me, though I do feel it has gotten an unfair rep, not because it's bad but because it isn't free. The game itself is a brilliant strategy game. No other strategy game has gotten my heart pumping like Artifact. And that's the problem. It's too intense. I can play a game for half an hour and be done because I'm mentally exhausted. It's a weird thing.
 

Deleted member 1698

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,254
"running out of players" implies that's it's getting hard to find matches, when it has to fall way further for that to happen. Like below 100 concurrent players probably. You don't need that many players to find matches online. Many online games survive player counts in the low hundreds.

But it is impressive how low the player count has gotten for a card game with the Dota brand made by Valve exclusive to Steam. Probably not long before Elder Scrolls Legends steam only numbers outweigh the entire artifact playerbase.

I really wanted to like Artifact, but if I'm honest with myself I'd much rather go back to any of the more traditional CCGs, like Elder Scrolls Legends. It's a lesson in being more complicated and difficult doesn't necessarily mean more fun.

Depends where you live. If you have to ask if a game is worth buying in your timezone, you probably shouldn't buy that game.
 

Ferrio

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,070
I have an odd perspective on Artifact. Monetisation is neither here nor there for me, though I do feel it has gotten an unfair rep, not because it's bad but because it isn't free. The game itself is a brilliant strategy game. No other strategy game has gotten my heart pumping like Artifact. And that's the problem. It's too intense. I can play a game for half an hour and be done because I'm mentally exhausted. It's a weird thing.

This unfortunately is becoming more common which frightens me. F2P games have skewed people's views too much, so even $20 is too pricey and not spending a single cent on a game you've played 100s of hours of is considered an accomplishment and not you know..kinda dickish.
 

Deleted member 1849

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,986
It seems like I'm in the minority, but I think the Artifact monetization model is better than the HS model in a number of ways. Free unlimited draft and preconstructed more than overcomes the drawbacks of the entry fee, and a competitive deck for constructed is cheap and can be had in minutes without relying on loot box luck.

I also still honestly believe that the core gameplay is fantastic. It could still be improved in a few ways but I still think it's a shame that it's doing as badly as it is.
 

Ionic

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,734
I don't know if more card packs will be able to save the population. Games have gotten shorter as people have figured out the rules, but it's still kind of daunting to start playing. Saving this will probably take a huge shot in the arm to do. Like, making literally every card free and selling cosmetics exclusively alongside a big update with new cards. I'm not immediately seeing other ways to make the game big.

Don't let Artifacts catastrophic failure distract from the fact that the CSGO team spent 1.5 years making the worst battle royale mode of all time.

CSGO's BR mode is dope.
 

Almeister

Member
Oct 25, 2017
962
I love Artifact, think it's an incredibly fun game to play and have 115 hours in it, but it's such a barebones experience that I can't really be surprised how quickly most people bounced off it. No leaderboards, ranking, customization, stats, spectating, buy-in to continue paying for cards... If Valve had released it as an Early Access experience and built it from there, I'm convinced they would have been able to build from here. As it stands, I really hope they can pull it back, but it will be a hard climb.
 

noyram23

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,372
I feel like Valve is just spread too thin recently and they might just drop this, for now, especially with Epic's store problem and other fronts.
 

Deleted member 4367

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,226
They can absolutely turn it around but not without going f2p.

You will never get a lot of people trying this game for $20 after this launch. You need to make the cost of entry as low as possible to get ineterest going.

A great first expansion along with going f2p could easily turn the ship around.
 

Deleted member 1041

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,725
Eh, maybe, but IMO that has it's own set of issues. Making the game full F2P at this stage would likely topple the the marketplace-based economy, as there would be an influx of people hopping in for 10 minutes and then dumping whatever cards they get. Most of them would end up being just a cent or two. At that point you may as well give every player every card because it would probably cost less than a few bucks for a complete set; buying card packs would be a fools errand because it would be way more expensive then buying cards on the market. Then you've burned your early adopters too, some of whom may have dumped tens to even hundreds of dollars into the game for complete collections, so they would likely want to offer them some sort of concession too. It would be a very delicate dance to pull off, and I can't really wrap my head around how they would transition into that model and still actually make some semblance of money off the game, but maybe some big brains at Valve have it in their pocket. Idk.


Aha! I learned about this recently, Valve can't do that without opening themselves to being sued.

Promissory Estoppel. Basically since Valve said that it wouldn't be f2p, and that you could/would have to buy cards, there is a perceived value of the cards that are on the market and their rarity. If for any reason Valve gave out all the cards for free, or made it f2p, then they open themselves to lawsuit, where people who spent a certain amount of money on certain cards that lost value because of Valve saying they would never give out the cards of value, can sue Valve over this loss of rarity/value. They can sue for the difference of value, not the actual possible amount.

MTG has a similar reason why they will never reprint say, Black Lotus for modern for example.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/contract-from-below-promissory-estoppel-and-the-reserved-list
 

Luminish

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,508
Denver
And this confusion plays a big part. In reality getting a full collection in Artifact is significantly cheaper than HS and MtGA.
Yes, but people don't really aim for complete collections in those games. Complete collections in those games are expensive because every card of the same rarity cost the same no matter how good or bad it is. In artifact good cards cost a lot more than bad cards, which makes the price floor to get a pro-level deck much higher than those games.
 

ZeroX

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,266
Speed Force
I really wanted to play it, just no time to learn a game that complicated or get good at it
It's honestly not hard to learn - it looks intimidating but the basics you'l grasp in a few games - and playing to a decent level isn't tough. One of the benefits to the game is that every deck will have a set 15 hero cards that you can check before/during the game so you don't even need to know the meta to start counter playing.

You definitely need to set aside 20 minutes per game though
 

Toxi

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
17,550
And this confusion plays a big part. In reality getting a full collection in Artifact is significantly cheaper than HS and MtGA.
Even ignoring that Artifact has only one set, the reason getting a full collection is so cheap is because the game is hemmorhaging players and supply far outnumbers demand.

If Artifact actually got popular, you'd see prices like paper Magic.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 4367

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,226
Aha! I learned about this recently, Valve can't do that without opening themselves to being sued.

Promissory Estoppel. Basically since Valve said that it wouldn't be f2p, and that you could/would have to buy cards, there is a perceived value of the cards that are on the market and their rarity. If for any reason Valve gave out all the cards for free, or made it f2p, then they open themselves to lawsuit, where people who spent a certain amount of money on certain cards that lost value because of Valve saying they would never give out the cards of value, can sue Valve over this loss of rarity/value. They can sue for the difference of value, not the actual possible amount.

MTG has a similar reason why they will never reprint say, Black Lotus for modern for example.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/contract-from-below-promissory-estoppel-and-the-reserved-list


I don't think this has ever been tested and its legal validity isn't certain.
 

Peleo

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,656
I'm personally just waiting for the first expansion to drop to see in which direction they wish to take the game. So far I've found the card design to be quite one-dimensional in regards to different abilities and effects (a lot of stat buffing and AOE) I wonder if they will explore more unorthodox cards in the future.
 

Toxi

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
17,550
I'm personally just waiting for the first expansion to drop to see in which direction they wish to take the game. So far I've found the card design to be quite one-dimensional in regards to different abilities and effects (a lot of stat buffing and AOE) I wonder if they will explore more unorthodox cards in the future.
I think another problem with the preponderance of buffs is that the shop means every deck has access to buffs every game. So you have a bunch of cards that just do the same things most of the items do and a lot of the hero powers do.
 

Mr. Fantastic

Alt-account
Banned
Apr 27, 2018
3,189
How is this failing?
Artifact seemed like a sure thing
Like it boggles the mind
Free to play maybe the way?

Literally this had "hit" all over it
Is the market place so limited for this genre?
For real, I'm at a loss
Enraged user base perhaps?

No, it must be something else
Or could it be..
Well, I guess we'll never know
 

ZeroX

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,266
Speed Force
Even ignoring that Artifact has only one set, the reason getting a full collection is so cheap is because the game is hemmorhaging players and supply far outnumbers demand.

If Artifact actually got popular, you'd see prices like paper Magic.
Except even when Artifact the Artifact marketplace was at it's peak, it was still cheaper than Magic and Hearthstone and due to the nature of the marketplace it basically always be. And if Artifact was more popular, the resell value would increase, and Valve's 15% cut is still much lower than Hearthstone's 75%. Add to that Artifact does have free (but limited) packs that get added to the marketplace with each player... it basically can't get too expensive unless there's completely busted cards released.

Also people I have no idea why people keep bringing up 'full collection' like it's relevant to anything more than 1-2% of players. Nobody expects you to have a full collection in anything but a living card game because you just don't need one. The real price that matters is the cost of a competitive deck, which is like $30 for the most expensive ones now?
 

oni-link

tag reference no one gets
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,025
UK
How is this failing?
Artifact seemed like a sure thing
Like it boggles the mind
Free to play maybe the way?

Literally this had "hit" all over it
Is the market place so limited for this genre?
For real, I'm at a loss
Enraged user base perhaps?

No, it must be something else
Or could it be..
Well, I guess we'll never know

I see what you did there
 

HylianSeven

Shin Megami TC - Community Resetter
Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,059
How is this failing?
Artifact seemed like a sure thing
Like it boggles the mind
Free to play maybe the way?

Literally this had "hit" all over it
Is the market place so limited for this genre?
For real, I'm at a loss
Enraged user base perhaps?

No, it must be something else
Or could it be..
Well, I guess we'll never know
Here's why I believe it's failing.

I've seen it a few times in here already, but in almost every Artifact thread, people post that video of the crowd reacting to the announcement of Artifact in TI7 and say that's the reason it flopped. That's not the reason.

They say it's because "no one asked for it", that's also not the reason.

The two biggest factors were the buy-in cost and the messaging of how the game modes actually work.

1. Buy-in cost

Buying in for $20 gets you the basic cards, and 5 card packs. This is enough to easily build a deck in Constructed, but it may not be the deck you want. However the problem with this was at launch, the only way to get more cards was to either buy packs, or play one of the Prize Play modes. Lots of people thought it was kind of bullshit that you were paying to pay more money. That's not completely true, but I'll cover that in the second point.

2. Messaging on how the game modes actually work

There's a grand misconception that the only way to play matchmaking is to play Prize Play, which costs a ticket to enter every time. Tickets can be bought, and they can be earned from the newly-added progression system, and won back from Prize Play. However Prize Play is only one section of play modes. There is the Standard Play tab, which includes the following:

A Constructed matchmaking mode, just puts you in a single Constructed match
Constructed Gauntlet - A gauntlet like the others, but with a constructed desk. Try to win 5 before you lose two.
Phantom Draft Gauntlet - Same as above, except it's Phantom Draft, which is a pretty good mode. You draft for cards, and then build a deck out of the cards you draft. You also have access to the basic heroes and can have duplicates of a hero in your deck (up to 3 of a hero), but all other limitations apply (no more than 3 of a single card, with the exception of signature cards if you have duplicates of a hero).

These free modes are the best to play in my opinion. Being able to win more cards in Prize Play is nice, but I am perfectly content playing free modes.

3. It's not clear how much the cards actually cost.

Pack costs are very clear and up front, however what about getting the cards you want? People can often compare them to Hearthstone and other digital CCGs. However, in that aspect, Artifact is THE CHEAPEST. You need a specific card? You can go on market and get that card. Most of the cards cost mere cents, with some of the rares approaching $1-2. It's cheaper than Hearthstone, where you have to buy packs, and dust enough cards to make the cards you want if you weren't lucky enough to get them in packs.

I think Artifact's issues were all in it's messaging, not the gameplay. The thing about it being a complicated game is a non-issue IMO. There are plenty of complicated games out there that people have zero problem playing. LoL and Dota are both very popular games, and pretty complicated, especially Dota. Dark Souls is extremely popular and it can be complicated to play the game well. It goes just beyond rolling and shielding...but with stuff like getting the right stats, and optimizing your equipment so you can actually roll decently, dealing with the PvP aspects, etc.
 

Peleo

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,656
I think another problem with the preponderance of buffs is that the shop means every deck has access to buffs every game. So you have a bunch of cards that just do the same things most of the items do and a lot of the hero powers do.

That's also true, even though I like the concept of the shop.
 

Htown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,320
Pack costs are very clear and up front, however what about getting the cards you want? People can often compare them to Hearthstone and other digital CCGs. However, in that aspect, Artifact is THE CHEAPEST. You need a specific card? You can go on market and get that card. Most of the cards cost mere cents, with some of the rares approaching $1-2. It's cheaper than Hearthstone, where you have to buy packs, and dust enough cards to make the cards you want if you weren't lucky enough to get them in packs.
So the thing is, with both Hearthstone and Magic Arena, you don't HAVE to buy ANYTHING. Yeah, you'll pick up cards a lot slower than somebody who is paying money, but you can still get more cards just by playing the game, if you want to put the time in. Arena gives you more than enough to buy a pack of cards a day just by doing the first couple daily quests, and while Hearthstone is a bit slower to give you packs, you can still get several packs of cards each week for free.

And nothing's cheaper than free.

People got turned off by the fact that games without an upfront entry fee still gave you free cards for playing the game, and Artifact doesn't.
 

Metallix87

User Requested Self-Ban
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
10,533
Except even when Artifact the Artifact marketplace was at it's peak, it was still cheaper than Magic and Hearthstone and due to the nature of the marketplace it basically always be. And if Artifact was more popular, the resell value would increase, and Valve's 15% cut is still much lower than Hearthstone's 75%. Add to that Artifact does have free (but limited) packs that get added to the marketplace with each player... it basically can't get too expensive unless there's completely busted cards released.

Also people I have no idea why people keep bringing up 'full collection' like it's relevant to anything more than 1-2% of players. Nobody expects you to have a full collection in anything but a living card game because you just don't need one. The real price that matters is the cost of a competitive deck, which is like $30 for the most expensive ones now?
Even at it's peak, it wasn't as big as Magic.
 

Lunaray

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,731
People got turned off by the fact that games without an upfront entry fee still gave you free cards for playing the game, and Artifact doesn't.

This isn't true anymore. Artifact has a progression system now that gives you packs for reaching certain levels. It's barebones, but it's been there for a month now.