• 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.

Metallix87

User Requested Self-Ban
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
10,533
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.
I think the largest issue is that it's too little, too late now. Artifact had a lot of interest and hype going into the launch, but it immediately floundered, and people moved on. As I've established before, it's for several reasons, the primary being the pricing model and complexity barrier comparative to the contemporaries.
 

TheYanger

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,153
Even when HS was in beta buying a full collection was more expensive
Right now? Of course, Artifact is virtually dead. You have to look at the EV of a pack for this to have meaning, Instead it's just another metric showing how much the game is failing.

In hearthstone you have a very specific EV per pack you buy, in Artifact the EV basically tells you that if you buy a pack of cards you are flat out a moron, which means it's unsustainable unless that rises. Any product where the EV isn't at least marginally higher than the cost of the pack, is a product that is failing.

It's like me saying that The Simpsons CCG from the mid 2000s is a better buy than Magic the Gathering because you can get a playset of the game for cheaper than the latest magic set. The lack of expense related to this game as it currently stands is NOT a virtue. Not even as a consumer, because it means your cards are simply losing their value every day overall, and the odds of you even getting a gameplay experience that extends into the future is in question.
 
Last edited:

funky

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,527
Curious to see how Valve reacts to this tanking. Want to see them on the attack.
 

Dr. Ludwig

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,521
And TF2 is still in the Steam top 10 more than a decade from its release while this turned out to be a spectacular failure.

And Valve will still treat it like dirt lol
 

Cup O' Tea?

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,603
Lmao. Good.

How times have changed. I went from being a rabid Valve fanboy to actually deriving pleasure from hearing about their products failing.
 

Toxi

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
17,550
When 95% of the people who paid 20 dollars to play a multiplayer game leave after actually playing it, I don't think the problem here is the game costing money.
 

Phrozenflame500

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
2,132
i really don't understand why the game isn't f2p. isn't the whole point of this business model? i may have given it a shot if there wasn't a $25 entrance fee
 

Metallix87

User Requested Self-Ban
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
10,533
When 95% of the people who paid 20 dollars to play a multiplayer game leave after actually playing it, I don't think the problem here is the game costing money.
Actually, this is probably the best post with regards to the situation. It's not just about attracting new players or misinformation.
 

Sinder

Banned
Jul 24, 2018
7,576
"Valve is making real video games just not the ones you want them to make"

Where are those people now?
 

Deleted member 51103

User requested account closure
Banned
Dec 20, 2018
174
Portland, Oregon
I liked artifact a lot, can craft pretty much any top-tier deck after spending ~$50 bucks total.

Unfotunately, lack of progression and.. I donno. SOMETHING ELSE made me bounce off the game. It's a shame. Fun game, was very pleased with the value I was getting out of my money.

People constantly whine about the marketplace but are fine getting a bunch of shit cards from spending $50 on a Hearthstone expansion where you need 5 legendaries to build an interesting deck. HS's legendary card power creep a fucking joke, sorry if you are a fan. If you think Activision does not have a hand in the expansion design of Hearthstone.. well then you are just wrong. Playing the same budget zoolock deck unless I grind out 20 hours a month, or alternatively pay $100 per expansion ( IF YOU ARE LUCKY ) is just dumb. I want to play a control deck, not the same basic deck over and over again until I grind out the good cards.

off topic:

Why even make these posts? Basically the same as "Is artifact already a dead game" conversation we saw a few weeks ago.

It's going to be the same people who come in here and complain about Artifact anyway. Kinda sick of seeing the same faces pop up over and over again and bash Artifact for no apparent reason. A lot of people's hobby is not video games. It's whining on the internet.
 

Toxi

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
17,550
Yes, and look where they are now: Magic Arena is F2P.
I will admit my perspective's a bit skewed because I play only paper Magic. Would play arena if I wasn't using a Mac right now.

Even then though, I seriously believe Artifact could have at least moderately succeeded at its current price point if the gameplay hadn't turned off people. People are generally fine paying when they have fun.
 

Lyng

Editor at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
2,206
Right now? Of course, Artifact is virtually dead. You have to look at the EV of a pack for this to have meaning, Instead it's just another metric showing how much the game is failing.

In hearthstone you have a very specific EV per pack you buy, in Artifact the EV basically tells you that if you buy a pack of cards you are flat out a moron, which means it's unsustainable unless that rises. Any product where the EV isn't at least marginally higher than the cost of the pack, is a product that is failing.

It's like me saying that The Simpsons CCG from the mid 2000s is a better buy than Magic the Gathering because you can get a playset of the game for cheaper than the latest magic set. The lack of expense related to this game as it currently stands is NOT a virtue. Not even as a consumer, because it means your cards are simply losing their value every day overall, and the odds of you even getting a gameplay experience that extends into the future is in question.

Even when Artifact was at its most expensive it was cheaper than hearthstone in the beginning.
But even people who bought the game bounced of it.
It is a very niche game and will never have the casual appeal of HS and MTG. Either Valve accept that and go hard after that market or they loose all players.
 
Oct 27, 2017
11,512
Bandung Indonesia
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.

Lol, see the first letters of each sentence, dude.
 

Filipus

Prophet of Regret
Avenger
Dec 7, 2017
5,132
How low did CS:GO drop at launch? I remember the game was crap and then had steady updates that finally made it what it is today. I know it's probably not very comparable the drop of this game and CS:GO but what are the chances of continuous support of this game by valve?
 

spootime

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
3,431
How low did CS:GO drop at launch? I remember the game was crap and then had steady updates that finally made it what it is today. I know it's probably not very comparable the drop of this game and CS:GO but what are the chances of continuous support of this game by valve?

The main difference is that CS's core gameplay is so good that even valve couldn't fuck it up permanently. All they had to do was finish porting it over from the xbox. It seems like theres a lot of gameplay issues with artifact?
 

Bubukill

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,810
Panama
Meanwhile, Gwent has resurrected a bit after the last patch. I think Gwent now has the chance to recover some essential players and streamers.

The main problem with Artifact is how difficult is to understand and how boring it looks while streaming, there is no appeal on watching a stream of Artifact Gameplay, which leads to having few newcomers.
 

Toxi

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
17,550
Meanwhile, Gwent has resurrected a bit after the last patch. I think Gwent now has the chance to recover some essential players and streamers.

The main problem with Artifact is how difficult is to understand and how boring it looks while streaming, there is no appeal on watching a stream of Artifact Gameplay, which leads to having few newcomers.
While having few newcomers is a problem, the player retention is also pretty terrible.
 
Last edited:

fuzzyset

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,556
How low did CS:GO drop at launch? I remember the game was crap and then had steady updates that finally made it what it is today. I know it's probably not very comparable the drop of this game and CS:GO but what are the chances of continuous support of this game by valve?

Looks like the lowest it went was tens of thousands in the months after launch. 1500 is pretty...not great...

https://steamcharts.com/app/730
 

Big-E

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,169
As a DOTA2 player I should be the games target. The problem with Artifact is that games take too long and it is probably too deep in terms of a game. I already play DOTA. I am not going to give that up to play this as I can not devote time to both games. So what is the market for this game?
 

DSP

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,120
not even 2 months man. they definitely did something very wrong with the game. Price isn't the biggest one because people that bought into it don't want to play it.

It has a lot going against it. Most people that just play casually, they have plenty of options for free and the game isn't for them anyway. Those who wanted a more complex game, they got magic now being the most accessible it has ever been, it also attracted all the pro card players. I think there is just no audience for it, who's the game for now? Dota2 player that wants to play a card game? I don't know about that...
 

Filipus

Prophet of Regret
Avenger
Dec 7, 2017
5,132
Looks like the lowest it went was tens of thousands in the months after launch. 1500 is pretty...not great...

https://steamcharts.com/app/730

Yea, I was comparing the steam charts and Artifact went from 10k in mid-December to 2k in mid-January.
The lowest CS:GO went was from 50k in July to 20k in September (and from then on straight increase).
I think we can thus conclude... artifact is doomed.
 

Metallix87

User Requested Self-Ban
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
10,533
Yea, I was comparing the steam charts and Artifact went from 10k in mid-December to 2k in mid-January.
The lowest CS:GO went was from 50k in July to 20k in September (and from then on straight increase).
I think we can thus conclude... artifact is doomed.
I mean, if things continue at a similar pace, the game will be at sub-1k by the end of the month.
 

NaDannMaGoGo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,966
The sheer numbers in this decline are astonishing.

Being a failure overall is one thing but a newly released Valve multiplayer title dropping this insanely hard is something else.
 

Luminish

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,508
Denver
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.
The lack of interesting cards is probably the worst thing for me personally. And on top of that they gave pros months of early access to make the meta pretty stale well before release. At least a new set is all that's needed to fix that, but the starting set was a complete non-starter for deck builder types.

I know deck builders aren't exactly the most popular of player types of computer CCGs, but it is yet another category in the large list of player types that this game did a poor job of attracting and holding.
 

Jarate

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,614
Hex had literally the same problem with its game economy and it's that no one wants to deal with an MTGO economy anymore.
 

fertygo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,567
Even when Artifact was at its most expensive it was cheaper than hearthstone in the beginning.
But even people who bought the game bounced of it.
It is a very niche game and will never have the casual appeal of HS and MTG. Either Valve accept that and go hard after that market or they loose all players.
If what you said is true, then where the fuck e-sport circuit sponsored by valve that they promised?

I defend the game a LOT, I think I'm counted as the "hardcore" audience or whatever you called but I'm run out of patience after this recent silence that ignoring people that still hopeful of the future of the game especially on competitive side.

I think Valve already thinking about burying this game