Is Artifact already a dead game?

[DiceHands]

With Arena launching their new expansion this week, it is going to be increasingly difficult for Valve to get the spotlight back on their game.

Then again, if they're really telling their devs to stop discussing the game, then maybe it's worse than we think and they have accepted it's dead.

Click to shrink...

If they really give up on the game like that, I want my 20 dollars back. Not kidding.

Look, I like the game. I think it has amazing potential and does things that the other card games out there dont. Hell, I dont even mind the pay to play aspect and the marketplace for cards.

But the radio silence, the lack of updates, the player base dwindling at a rapid pace and the lack of a road map make this a hard sell to anyone who is interested in digital card games.

 

[Metallix87]

If they really give up on the game like that, I want my 20 dollars back. Not kidding.

Look, I like the game. I think it has amazing potential and does things that the other card games out there dont. Hell, I dont even mind the pay to play aspect and the marketplace for cards.

But the radio silence, the lack of updates, the player base dwindling at a rapid pace and the lack of a road map make this a hard sell to anyone who is interested in digital card games.

Click to shrink...

It's just looking pretty grim overall. People are making comparisons to CSGO, but the numbers don't line up. Valve's actions don't line up.

 

[Bunkles]

This is not a CSGO situation by any stretch. There are very few roads to recovery here... it's gonna take some genius pivots to garner interest again, IMO. The only question now is when and how does Valve ultimately pull support.

 

[Htown]

It seems that way.

Valve's Artifact hits new player low, loses 97% players in under 2 months.

Click to shrink...

Damn.

 

[Metallix87]

This is not a CSGO situation by any stretch. There are very few roads to recovery here... it's gonna take some genius pivots to garner interest again, IMO. The only question now is when and how does Valve ultimately pull support.

Click to shrink...

Well, they're telling people to stop discussing the game, so maybe that'sstep one?

 

[Deleted member 43077]

was it ever alive?

That thing released (at least in the circles im in) and just died.

 

[RepairmanJack]

Well, they're telling people to stop discussing the game, so maybe that'sstep one?

Click to shrink...

I mean, this was literally speculation. By me. It just seemed like the couple people that would say the occasional thing about the game just suddenly weren't talking about it.

It could be them wanting people to not talk about it for multiple reasons or it could just be those people not having anything to say. They weren't key people or anything anyways.

Them not wanting the team to talk about it could be something like they don't want miscommunication out there until they have a clear cut plan set forth to move forward. They can set up expectations which could in turn cause disappointment. I'm guessing it's the same reason they got rid of the circulation date in the game. Because people were instantly looking at it as an update date. Getting rid of it doesn't mean it will never get an update, it just doesn't set up expectations when they aren't wanting to unnecessarily.

The silence is still bad regardless of the reasoning, I just wouldn't take it as them being told to not talk about it or that they're giving up on it. It's just silence and it's annoying. It was all just speculation.

 

[HylianSeven]

The problem with Artifact is multifaceted:

• Lack of transparency from Valve, unlike the HS team and Wizards of the Coast.
• High barrier to entry in relation to competitors.
• Released late to the market and close to a brand new Hearthstone set.
• Gameplay issues.
• No progression or free packs at launch.

I put in about 15 hours before I got bored of the base set and the games that dragged on for way too long. I found myself watching the clock, hoping for the match to end. This is coming from a 6+ year Magic player.

Click to shrink...

My matches lately go for about 20 minutes. I don't think that's too long honestly. I know when I first started playing they were 30 minutes, maybe it's just because I understood more what I was doing and knew what to do quicker, and so did my opponents, but yeah I don't think the length is as much of an issue now. I think the gameplay is fine, and honestly one of my favorite CCGs. It is a higher barrier, but once you play some games you get used to it, and slowly start learning more advanced stuff as you play. It does NOT require a Dota-level of time to learn it though.

The bolded I think are definitely all problems the game has, but I'd also add to that the issue of the game modes not being clear when trying to sell people on the game. The way it is right now, and was at launch, makes people think the only way to play matchmaking requires tickets, when that's not true at all. I don't think Valve's messaging on how that actually worked was clear and I think that was a big problem.

If there's any hope of turning it around, it's going to be an extremely uphill battle at this point. Those numbers are brutal. Oddly enough though, I have no trouble finding a match still, and I played last night. My queue times have always been less than a minute, which is ironic because for some reason my queues in Dota 2 have been like 4 minutes or more lately.

I think their options are either give up or go free-to-play, and be more clear on how the game modes actually work. I really hope they choose the latter, I think they could potentially salvage this. It's a Valve game after all, even their worst games don't stay unnoticed.

 

[Lucifonz]

It seems that way.

Valve's Artifact hits new player low, loses 97% players in under 2 months.

Click to shrink...

Hey I wrote that - thanks for sharing.

It's surprising to me that Valve of all companies could misread the room so badly in multiple ways with this.

Hopefully they have some major positive changes in the pipeline. I have attempted to get in touch with them but I'd be surprised if we got a response directly.

With their resources I do still think they could turn it around with some smart changes to the gameplay itself and overall monetization approach, but it's certainly not looking great right now. It would depend whether Valve determine it's worth it or not long term.

 

[Maple]

With their resources I do still think they could turn it around with some smart changes to the gameplay itself and overall monetization approach, but it's certainly not looking great right now.

Click to shrink...

That's the question. Does Valve pump developmental resources into the game to try and revive it, or do they just consider it a lost cause at this point?

They had plans to release mobile versions later this year...I'm wondering if that is still going to happen.

 

[HylianSeven]

Hey I wrote that - thanks for sharing.

It's surprising to me that Valve of all companies could misread the room so badly in multiple ways with this.

Hopefully they have some major positive changes in the pipeline. I have attempted to get in touch with them but I'd be surprised if we got a response directly.

With their resources I do think they could turn it around with some smart changes to the gameplay itself and overall monetization approach but it's not looking good right now.

Click to shrink...

I think there's small things that need to change about the gameplay, but not much there. I think it's monetization and the messaging around the game that needs to change moreso.

As for the gameplay, I think they should highlight the advantage of cards that Get Initiative. I know I didn't really get that at first and I think that's a mechanic that not everyone immediately understands or is obvious. On the surface it looks like "Okay I get to play a second card in a row", when while that can be an advantage of it, the real advantage is "I get go first on the next lane/next round", which can be the difference between your hero living and dying, thus being able to play cards or not. With initiative you can user Assassinate on a hero and keep your opponent from playing cards in that lane for instance. I think one way to help this would be to change the pass button from the Artifact logo symbol to be the lighting icon used on Initiative cards, showing that you have Initiative and would go first on the next turn.

 

[Deleted member 9100]

I just put all my cards up on the market. Crazy to see how much prices have dropped.

If I play going forward I guess I'll just play draft.

 

[Euler]

That's the question. Does Valve pump developmental resources into the game to try and revive it, or do they just consider it a lost cause at this point?

They had plans to release mobile versions later this year...I'm wondering if that is still going to happen.

Click to shrink...

Considering Valve has that "employees work on whatever they want" thing, if a couple devs jump ship to another project it might be stuck with a skeleton crew like other valve games.

 

[Lucifonz]

I think there's small things that need to change about the gameplay, but not much there. I think it's monetization and the messaging around the game that needs to change moreso.

As for the gameplay, I think they should highlight the advantage of cards that Get Initiative. I know I didn't really get that at first and I think that's a mechanic that not everyone immediately understands or is obvious. On the surface it looks like "Okay I get to play a second card in a row", when while that can be an advantage of it, the real advantage is "I get go first on the next lane/next round", which can be the difference between your hero living and dying, thus being able to play cards or not. With initiative you can user Assassinate on a hero and keep your opponent from playing cards in that lane for instance. I think one way to help this would be to change the pass button from the Artifact logo symbol to be the lighting icon used on Initiative cards, showing that you have Initiative and would go first on the next turn.

Click to shrink...

It's difficult - I think there's numerous factors at play here that aren't just related to the game's messaging and monetization, granted those are definitely also in need of change.

The game's matches take far too long for most and don't flow nicely. Hearthstone for example has a great pick up and play appeal that encourages 'just one more go'. At the end of an Artifact match you almost feel burnt out, rather than ready for another. Also I've seen many more hardcore players which stuck with the game longer talk about fairly serious balance problems alongside numerous of the game's mechanics being heavily RNG influenced, more so than other games in the genre, leading to frustration.

 

[Metallix87]

I mean, this was literally speculation. By me. It just seemed like the couple people that would say the occasional thing about the game just suddenly weren't talking about it.

It could be them wanting people to not talk about it for multiple reasons or it could just be those people not having anything to say. They weren't key people or anything anyways.

Them not wanting the team to talk about it could be something like they don't want miscommunication out there until they have a clear cut plan set forth to move forward. They can set up expectations which could in turn cause disappointment. I'm guessing it's the same reason they got rid of the circulation date in the game. Because people were instantly looking at it as an update date. Getting rid of it doesn't mean it will never get an update, it just doesn't set up expectations when they aren't wanting to unnecessarily.

The silence is still bad regardless of the reasoning, I just wouldn't take it as them being told to not talk about it or that they're giving up on it. It's just silence and it's annoying. It was all just speculation.

Click to shrink...

It pushes a bad narrative, which is extremely problematic at this stage.

 

[Doomguy Fieri]

I bought it day one, played through the tutorial matches, and thought, "this is a board game." Not what I was looking for in my digital card game experience. I have very little motivation for sitting down and playing 30 minute matches.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

It's still telling that that almost every issue people have with the game is meta; the only complaint about the in-game experience is that games last too long (which this most recent patch addressed).

The foundation is everything that was promised. Expect them to putter around for a while adding out-of-game features before an f2p soft relaunch in 6-12 months.

 

[Orb]

To respond to the people in the other locked thread saying "no one asked for this": there are tons of great games that are hugely successful that no one "asked" for, so that's a really dumb way to look at it.

It's still telling that that almost every issue people have with the game is meta; the only complaint about the in-game experience is that games last too long (which this most recent patch addressed).

The foundation is everything that was promised. Expect them to putter around for a while adding out-of-game features before an f2p soft relaunch in 6-12 months.

Click to shrink...

I mean, personally, I just don't think the game is that interesting or engaging, or at least not what I look for from a CCG. Like Doomguy said right above you, playing it struck me as more of a "board game" feel than a "card game" feel. Not sure exactly how to make the distinction there. Maybe Artifact felt too fiddly? But even that doesn't quite explain it, because I have been playing MTGA lately and loving it, and that game has far more tiny interactions than Artifact.

 

[Blade Wolf]

Here we are people, are we gonna continue the discussion or what?

Back to my point, I am all for developers trying to make something new, except for a fucking card game. Yes, it's a biased opinion, but also yes that people very much feel the same way. Hence the Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.



Card games has been around for like what, a thousand years? Make something actually new please, something that only video game can achieve.

 

[MrNelson]

To respond to the people in the other locked thread saying "no one asked for this": there are tons of great games that are hugely successful that no one "asked" for, so that's a really dumb way to look at it.

Click to shrink...

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.

Click to shrink...

 

[collige]

Also I've seen many more hardcore players which stuck with the game longer talk about fairly serious balance problems alongside numerous of the game's mechanics being heavily RNG influenced, more so than other games in the genre, leading to frustration.

Click to shrink...

Re balance stuff, my big issues are that Mono Blue's board clear is obnoxious af to play against and Time of Triumph is extremely uinteresting as far as finisher cards go.

 

[Lunaray]

I was going to post this on the locked thread:

It's a shame. Artifact's a great game that deserves long-term support. I think it was maybe let down by the high skill floor and Valve's marketing, which seemed to basically assume that everyone who was interested in it were long-time T/CCG players and pros. They made no attempt to make the game accessible for newcomers to the genre.

 

[jon bones]

Card games has been around for like what, a thousand years? Make something actually new please, something that only video game can achieve.

Click to shrink...

No wonder you love shitposting, you have no imagination.

 

[Blade Wolf]

If Half-Life 3, Left 4 Dead 3 and Portal 3 are ''faster horses'' then a new card game would be faster legs.

Sorry but card games isn't the next step in video gaming. It can be great sure, but stop acting like it's cars.

No wonder you love shitposting, you have no imagination.

Click to shrink...

When it comes to card games.

We already have many card games like Hearthstone and Gwent. Artifact isn't some risky brave new genre from Valve...

 

[HylianSeven]

Here we are people, are we gonna continue the discussion or what?

Back to my point, I am all for developers trying to make something new, except for a fucking card game. Yes, it's a biased opinion, but also yes that people very much feel the same way. Hence the Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.



Card games has been around for like what, a thousand years? Make something actually new please, something that only video game can achieve.

Click to shrink...

We've been over this 1000 times...the fact that it's a card game isn't the issue here. It is something new, a Dota card game with three boards. That video of the reaction to the announcement of Artifact has been posted a million times. If you really want to gauge everything off TI crowd reaction, then you should also consider this:

https://youtu.be/PlIPyTyhO2M?t=50

Obviously this wasn't indicative of how the game would go on to do, but I don't think the mass "Awwwwww" from TI7 has much of anything to do with the state of Artifact right now.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Hey I wrote that - thanks for sharing.

It's surprising to me that Valve of all companies could misread the room so badly in multiple ways with this.

Hopefully they have some major positive changes in the pipeline. I have attempted to get in touch with them but I'd be surprised if we got a response directly.

With their resources I do still think they could turn it around with some smart changes to the gameplay itself and overall monetization approach, but it's certainly not looking great right now. It would depend whether Valve determine it's worth it or not long term.

Click to shrink...

You realize the headline is clickbaity and misleading to a lay person, right? Usage varies according to the day and time of day. On Jan 12, for example, DOTA2's peak usage was around 775k and their trough usage was 310k. And I could honestly write a headline saying "DOTA2 loses 60% of its audience overnight" if I were really hungry for clicks, but it wouldn't make the headline any less misleading. And comparing trough usage at 3 AM on a weekday to peak all-time numbers on a weekend evening is just as misleading.

Like, you really don't need to massage the numbers to get a sufficiently interesting take on the matter - the numbers are quite bleak as they are. Steam charts says the 30-day change is at -55%, or something similar. I'm not disputing that the game is bleeding players. But the numbers are dire enough on their own that this kind of exaggeration is wholly unnecessary.

 

[Deleted member 11214]

We've been over this 1000 times...the fact that it's a card game isn't the issue here. It is something new, a Dota card game with three boards. That video of the reaction to the announcement of Artifact has been posted a million times. If you really want to gauge everything off TI crowd reaction, then you should also consider this:

https://youtu.be/PlIPyTyhO2M?t=50

Obviously this wasn't indicative of how the game would go on to do, but I don't think the mass "Awwwwww" from TI7 has much of anything to do with the state of Artifact right now.

Click to shrink...

Doesn't it, though? As I said in the other thread, I really like the game and want it to succeed, but the issue is that it's a game nobody asked for.

 

[Digital Dinosaur]

The irony is that Artifact is becoming my favorite competitive card game in terms of mechanics and underlying concept.

However, the style of the game makes it think it really, really wants to be a competitive tabletop game with a full and fixed set of cards. That then receives expansions to add new cards and mechanics layered on top. The whole "rarity equals power" thing from the collectible card game world feels especially ill-fitting here.

 

[Ferrio]

To respond to the people in the other locked thread saying "no one asked for this": there are tons of great games that are hugely successful that no one "asked" for, so that's a really dumb way to look at it.

Click to shrink...

I don't think the problem is they made a game "no one asked for", but they made a game for no target user in mind. Who were they going after here?

-Dota Players?
-MTG/Hearthstone Players?
-Physical Card game players?
-Valve Fans?
-Board Game Fans?
-Richard Garfield Fans?

You had to be a very particular person to even be remotely interested in the game. If the answer was "all" well then we know why it fucked up. Looks like a shotgun approach and every pellet missed their mark.

 

[collige]

Doesn't it, though? As I said in the other thread, I really like the game and want it to succeed, but the issue is that it's a game nobody asked for.

Click to shrink...

If that was the issue, people wouldn't have bought it at all. Both this thread and the one that got locked are predicated around the userbase falling since launch, which would indicate that people were on board for the concept of the game but not the execution. A cursory glance at the Steam reviews backs this up too.

 

[HylianSeven]

Doesn't it, though? As I said in the other thread, I really like the game and want it to succeed, but the issue is that it's a game nobody asked for.

Click to shrink...

I mean no one asked for Portal back in 2007 and that was successful. I'd argue not a whole lot of people asked for Dota 2 even, and that's been quite successful. Just because nobody asks for something doesn't mean it won't be successful. Artifact's failure was in execution and messaging, not in what it is in the first place.

 

[Orb]

I don't think the problem is they made a game "no one asked for", but they made a game for no target user in mind. Who were they going after here?

-Dota Players?
-MTG/Hearthstone Players?
-Physical Card game players?
-Valve Fans?
-Board Game Fans?
-Richard Garfield Fans?

You had to be a very particular person to even be remotely interested in the game. If the answer was "all" well then we know why it fucked up. Looks like a shotgun approach and every pellet missed their mark.

Click to shrink...

You are totally right about this part. I think they were really misguided if they wanted a juggernaut game out of this. But I also don't know if they expected this thing to be a huge breakout hit, or what their goals were. It seems Valve just does things because they feel like it. Hell, they have enough money to. For all we know it was Gabe's lifelong dream to work with Richard Garfield and this was his way to make it happen.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Doesn't it, though? As I said in the other thread, I really like the game and want it to succeed, but the issue is that it's a game nobody asked for.

Click to shrink...

I asked for it.

Seriously, I think anyone that likes card games and likes MOBAs has thought about how to make a MOBA card game. This isn't some crazy niche audience; Hearthstone and Magic have a lot of players, and there's a lot of overlap between the two fanbses (most card gamers are video gamers, even if most video gamers are not card gamers). Hell, Riot's making board games with the LoL characters, how far fetched could it be? When Valve announced Artifact my first reaction was that it was a surprise we hadn't seen someone try this sooner. I was just expecting FFG to license the one of the properties for an LCG, or Riot to add to their board game portfolio, instead of Valve doing it themselves.

Maybe Artifact's complexity and length made it a poor fit for casual players interested in the intersection of the two genres, but the audience is there.

 

[i hate cheaters]

It's still telling that that almost every issue people have with the game is meta; the only complaint about the in-game experience is that games last too long (which this most recent patch addressed).

Click to shrink...

this isn't really true

the game has a very weak and shallow draft mode
meanwhile, constructed needs way more cards before it's worth playing

if the game launched with good limited, we could maybe stay occupied with it while we waited for more cards
instead we'll just wait for more cards without actually playing the game in the meantime

 

[Ferrio]

When it comes to card games.

We already have many card games like Hearthstone and Gwent. Artifact isn't some risky brave new genre from Valve...

Click to shrink...

It kinda is, cause it's really not a classic card game. It's a board game where you play 3 different card games simultaneously. Ambitious as hell, but doesn't scratch the same itch as those other games.

For all we know it was Gabe's lifelong dream to work with Richard Garfield and this was his way to make it happen.

Click to shrink...

A pet project, I wouldn't be surprised by this at all. Wouldn't even have to be just Gabe.

 

[Hybris]

Here we are people, are we gonna continue the discussion or what?

Back to my point, I am all for developers trying to make something new, except for a fucking card game. Yes, it's a biased opinion, but also yes that people very much feel the same way. Hence the Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.



Card games has been around for like what, a thousand years? Make something actually new please, something that only video game can achieve.

Click to shrink...

This has got to be one of the shittiest takes I've seen around this whole situation. You are biased, you clearly know you are biased, yet you say "card games" are old and to try something new. Like what? Put 2 and 2 together and realize that your bias is the reason why you are thinking this way. Card games are a genre. You can't just lump them all into one basket and say they are the same. They have wildly different mechanics between them. You can innovate within the card game space just like you can in any genre, and I don't think anyone can argue that Artifact doesn't do that, especially with it's initiative system. This is like complaining valve announced they were making a turn based RPG, or FPS, or RTS, any genre. What are they supposed to do, invent a new genre? What even is this criticism.

 

[Ricelord]

It seems that way.

Valve's Artifact hits new player low, loses 97% players in under 2 months.

Click to shrink...

Game need to be fp2, but hey what do i know.

 

[squidyj]

matches are incredibly infuriatingly drainingly long. trying to emulate a moba was the worst idea.

 

[Deleted member 2840]

Game need to be fp2, but hey what do i know.

Click to shrink...

I absolutely love the game(sadly couldn't play much since release because of work), but I do agree in some form.

There are a lot of ways for people to play game modes in Artifact without paying a cent. There's no reason those game modes shouldn't be fully F2P.
With the game having no regional pricing also fucks up any kind of 3rd world player from even trying the game.

For example:
Make Artifact F2P.
A F2P player can play Draft modes, Pre-constructed, and even constructed from cheap-ass decks they built on the Marketplace or bought packs for.
Then make a 1 time deal purchase that anyone can make that gives the starting stuff you get from Artifact now, the 10 packs, 5 tickets and 2 decks for 20 bucks.

It'd make everything INSTANTLY better for everyone, without really damaging the "core concepts" for the game.

 

[dimb]

Game need to be fp2, but hey what do i know.

Click to shrink...

Nothing because poor player retention has no correlation to accessibility. People bought the game and don't want to play it.

 

[Scuffed]

Nothing because poor player retention has no correlation to accessibility. People bought the game and don't want to play it.

Click to shrink...

It will expose more people to the game and even if it retains a small percentage it will still be more players than are playing it now. Everyone I know that bought it refunded it. If any of them want to try it out after a patch they have to buy it again. Going f2p is good for the game.

 

[Metallix87]

I asked for it.

Seriously, I think anyone that likes card games and likes MOBAs has thought about how to make a MOBA card game. This isn't some crazy niche audience; Hearthstone and Magic have a lot of players, and there's a lot of overlap between the two fanbses (most card gamers are video gamers, even if most video gamers are not card gamers). Hell, Riot's making board games with the LoL characters, how far fetched could it be? When Valve announced Artifact my first reaction was that it was a surprise we hadn't seen someone try this sooner. I was just expecting FFG to license the one of the properties for an LCG, or Riot to add to their board game portfolio, instead of Valve doing it themselves.

Maybe Artifact's complexity and length made it a poor fit for casual players interested in the intersection of the two genres, but the audience is there.

Click to shrink...

The problem is card games usually live and die by "easy to learn, hard to master", and this is relatively hard to learn, a big obstacle when the competition is getting it completely right.

 

[ZugZug123]

A bit sad seeing the current state of the game. I could not even get in line on their Pax booth last year, but hung around to watch the demos. They had DotA2 personalities, early access players etc... People at the con were pretty excited about it and Valve seemed to be putting an effort to market it. Really think the game not being F2P is hurting its chances to go bigger.

 

[Wulfric]

I don't know if there is enough incentive for Valve to work on this game in earnest.

Wizards of the Coast has two main properties: Magic and Dungeons and Dragons.

Blizzard has their cash cows in Warcraft, Overwatch, and Hearthstone.

By comparison, Valve makes hand over fist on their other projects. They have less than 500 employees, and I can't help but wonder if there's pressure to throw this one under the rug. Artifact feels like the pet project of a few Valve vets.

 

[Deleted member 16849]

Richard Garfield has not worked on a successful TCG since Magic. Everything else he has touched has been a bomb.

 

[Ferrio]

I can't see how F2P would save it. The game is $20, and it's failing, cost doesn't seem to be the issue. Also the game is set up in such a way that F2P would undermine everything they actually did right with the game.

 

[ItsTheShoes]

I mean, when the initial reaction is this:


What could you really expect?

 

[Wulfric]

Richard Garfield has not worked on a successful TCG since Magic. Everything else he has touched has been a bomb.

Click to shrink...

I don't think it's necessarily his fault in this case.

 

[cakely]

Richard Garfield has not worked on a successful TCG since Magic. Everything else he has touched has been a bomb.

Click to shrink...

That's incorrect: Keyforge is actually selling quite well.

Also ... is this true? God, I hope this isn't true. I think I've bought every Garfield CCG since MTG: Jyhad, Netrunner, Battletech, Star Wars TCG. I even bought Solforge, but never actually played it.

All the games I did play, I've enjoyed.

Ug, it's probably true about none of them being successful.

 

[Anteo]

I mean, when the initial reaction is this:


What could you really expect?

Click to shrink...

that was just a logo?
the reaction to the logo could have been applauses but the game would have still bombed