-
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.
Valve releases details about Artifact (MtG creator, PC & mobile, not F2P)
- Thread starter Randomly Generated
- Start date
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the game will end up being popular. It is Valve after all. I just don't think Garfield's name will have much to do with that.
From the IGN arcicle:
So it looks like just some simple tutorial AI, and then PvP play.
Sadly, apparently there's no single player campaign planned for release. Hope they add some later on.
The fact that this has Steam market trading is very interesting to me. I know in the interview they said they'll keep an eye on cards to make sure nothing gets too expensive etc., but if this is even slightly as successful at MTG I can't imagine the best rares will be cheap.
I much prefer trading and being able to buy exactly what I want, when I want without having to jump through hoops of buying packs and disenchanting them etc, but it's very interesting that Valve is doubling down on the CCG aspect while even WotC is moving away from it in Arena.
I much prefer trading and being able to buy exactly what I want, when I want without having to jump through hoops of buying packs and disenchanting them etc, but it's very interesting that Valve is doubling down on the CCG aspect while even WotC is moving away from it in Arena.
As someone who's stopped playing Dota 2 but still interested in the game, the idea of a TCG version excites me. The confusion surrounding the monetization dampens things a bit though. If I'm paying upfront, then the expectation is that it won't be P2W.
If it's a card game with rarity, it will 100% be a pay-to-win game. I don't really see any way around it.
This is already Infinitely better than most other TCGs because I can directly purchase cards, Being forced to spend $60 to have the chance of getting the card I need to finish my deck is the most insane thing i've ever seen.
There's no inherent reason for powerful or high utility cards to be the rarest cards.
I'm hoping like in Hearthstone there will be reasonable ways to craft cards or win packs just by playing.
There's no gameplay reason (unless there's a limited game type, I guess), but there certainly is a financial reason for Valve.
It's certainly possible, but I wonder if they expect dumping your extra cards on the Steam market to be the replacement for that kind of system.
I guess the problem with that is while I can always get a somewhat fair price for my commons in Hearthstone, it's almost impossible to sell/trade the vast majority of commons in MTG.
I mean... maybe, maybe not - its difficult to speculate.
A super desirable card that everybody wants and sells quickly on the marketplace is going to see a lot of sales of that card, and as Valve take a flat percentage of every transaction, there will be benefits to high volume trades versus a higher percentage of fewer trades.
Its the difference between taking a penny off every transaction for something that gets traded a million times, versus taking $10 from something that gets traded 100 times
If there's anything paper CCG have proven it's that a ton of people are dumb enough to spend $300 on booster packs for the chance of opening a $50 card. Obviously, there's no way to say what will happen for sure, but I imagine whatever value they lose from a slightly lower volume of trade, they'll more than make up in people dumping tons of money on the equivalent of scratch-offs.
OP
OP
Yeah, I think Valve's money goal here is less getting whales buying hugely expensive packs and more taking cents off card purchases on the marketplace. I forget where I read it, but apparently Steam cards earn a surprisingly large amount of money for them.
If they make rare cards strong, they get the advantage of both.
Game Informer's write up is up and includes videos.
http://www.gameinformer.com/games/a...-you-play-it-and-how-will-you-pay-for-it.aspx
http://www.gameinformer.com/games/a...-you-play-it-and-how-will-you-pay-for-it.aspx
I imagine they will use the Dota model.
Use the casuals to pay for the Pro and upkeep
But so would just making the very rare cards fancy ass versions of regular cards with swirling ghosts and fire particles dripping off them and shit to say "look at my MASSIVE EPEEN" to anyone who owns them.
Given valve have pretty much been at the forefront of experimenting with additional monetisation schemes, I just don't see them handicapping their own product from the get go with a pay to win cash grab.
they're not stupid, and they're not egregiously greedy.
The 3 lane setup reminds me a lot of the Star Wars card game that Wizards put out in the early 2000s, which Richard Garfield also designed. Makes sense to reuse since Dota lends itself to that so much.
Debatable.
I really don't see how you can come to the conclusion that making rare cards more powerful would "handicap" their product when it's a proven model for success for tons of card games. You're right in that there will probably be some kind of very rare, purely cosmetic "premium" version of cards, but I think you're being overly optimistic and more than a little naive if you think Valve is going to ignore the distribution scheme that has made other companies, including their biggest competitors, tons of money.
Like, MTG already makes WotC a buttload of money just from selling packs and other sealed product from people chasing rare cards. There's also a vibrant secondary market of millions of people trading and selling cards, either in person at a store or on sites like Card Kingdom, that WotC doesn't see a cent from. This entire system is built on a foundation of a demand for rare, powerful cards.
The Steam market means WotC gets all the advantages of selling the packs AND they get to charge an overhead on every single trade any player makes in their game either. They're not going to torpedo this monetization system by untying rarity from power level and hope that people will just trade foils. It makes no sense at all.
Last edited:
Precisely. If they really wanted to do this they would have just made a digital LCG, but that's a lot less financially lucrative than the TCG model.
What happens in some games is that no card is much more powerful than any other card, but the true power is gained with the correct combo of cards. For that, of course, you need to buy/trade a lot of cards to obtain all the cards of a combo, having 4 of 5 won't cut it. So in the end there is a incentive to buy stuff.
OP
OP
But not really?
CS:GO didn't charge for mappacks when that was the hotness in its rivals.
DOTA2 doesnt charge for heroes when thats the hotness in its rivals.
TF2 straight up went F2P even though it had no real reason to do so and was still selling.
Like I said; look at the products they already have, and how they are monetised.
They are forerunners for a lot of monetisation
strategies and theres no real indication that they have any interest whatsoever in a short term cash grab.
1. Those are entirely different genres of games so there's no real point of comparison there.
2. MTG is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. The traditional TCG model most certainly isn't a "short term cash grab"
At the end of the day this sort of discussion is pointless because there's no evidence supporting either of our arguments. They could decide to make the first ever TCG that people with a deck filled with penny commons can compete in the upper echelons with, or they could not. Just don't get your hopes up.
OP
OP
Another tidbit:
The hero banter is one of the more amusing parts of Dota (and TF2) so this sounds good.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/artifact/artifact-lore-heroes
The hero banter is one of the more amusing parts of Dota (and TF2) so this sounds good.
Genre is irrelevant though - the counterpoint to "Why would they give things away free that competitors can and do charge money for" being "they already do that" is a pretty strong one.
And not just in consumer facing areas like their games; they literally give away a ton of services on the developer backend that they could easily charge for but don't, because it promotes their services as being good.
Hyper-aggressive monetisation - such as Pay To Win - is some straight up golden goose killing tactics. Valve have literally shown no indication of ever being that stupid or greedy, and they have no shareholders that would push that.
Completely forgot this is existed. Then I remembered the reveal.
Is Valve not a bit late entering the digital card game scene?
Is Valve not a bit late entering the digital card game scene?
I would argue that SolForge is his best game, but also kinda dead, yet still on life support from the community over at solforgeladder.com -- I still play it.
Netrunner kind of is too. But the point still stands MTG was his one huge hit and everything after that kind of flopped quickly.
You give all the Hearthstone Pro players and Gwent players with early Beta keys.
Instant Twitch audience
Then you make a One Million dollar tournament.
Instant headline news
Card games are card games.
If you are good at math/bluffing/RNG you will be good at Hearthstone, Gwent, Pokemon, Magic
The difference between SolForge/Netrunner and Artifact is Valve. They have unlimited cash to make it work. I will remain optimistic.
Of those I am infuriatingly bad at Hearthstone, and its not in a "man, I made a bad call" way.
Its a "RNG is absolute fucking bullshit" kind of way.
Gwent barely has any presence these days, they lost a ton of momentum. I would be surprised if anybody outside of a handful of them get keys.
Yeah, but every time he comes back to MtG he makes a killer set. Odyssey and Return to Ravnica are amazing sets.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018...hands-on-with-artifact-digital-trading-cards/ - this reiterates some points from other press at the event, obviously, but if you're hungry for more info and insight on it, plus conversations w/ other Valve staffers about game economies, knock yourself out.
Not even kidding, that's the best article written about it yet.
The presentation images in this article also confirm limited modes (draft and sealed deck), which is something I didn't catch anywhere else yet (although I didn't read every other article).
But since the game isn't free to play and there are no way to earn packs for free (are there? this is the one thing I didn't see clarified anywhere) does that mean you'll essentially have to pay real money for every draft you want to play. Because that sounds very disappointing for someone like me who prefers limited modes in card games (and while free to play games usually suck when it comes to building a competitive collection, some of them (like Eternal) are actually really generous when it comes to letting you draft without spending real money. Even Hearthstone is pretty good here).
Extremely pumped for this game. Glad information is finally coming out about it.
Non F2P is interesting. I wonder how they will handle it.
Non F2P is interesting. I wonder how they will handle it.
Is Garfield a designer on the project, or the designer? Like, how much of this is coming from him as the chief vision behind it?
Draft mode definitely should be free. I can't imagine spending money every single time I want to play it.