5 ms·

>The problem, of course, is that Epic isn't developing original content And Valve is?

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
Well, they were at one point. But I agree, Valve is no better here.
meruru 7y ago
Didn't they just release a card game with Richard Garfield? I'm not into games myself, but Valve has done tremendous work for gaming on Linux. That alone is enough reason for me to support them.
- thejosh 7y ago
  And this graph should give you an indication of how well this went: https://steamcharts.com/app/583950#6m https://steamcharts.com/app/583950#6m
  - meruru 7y ago
    Why is that? Did it turn out to be a bad game? As a fan of Magic: The Gathering I was quite interested in it and the concept looked interesting too.
    - cloakandswagger 7y ago
      Valve has never been good at building progression systems, and that's exactly what killed Artifact. You get no rewards for playing the game. If you want new cards, you have to spend money on packs or spend money to enter drafts. This old fashioned "just play the game because it's fun" mentality is dogma to Valve, but nowadays users want and require the Pavlovian reward systems.
      - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        > This old fashioned "just play the game because it's fun" mentality is dogma to Valve, but nowadays users want and require the Pavlovian reward systems. Speaking to the choir I suspect, but god do I hate progression systems. Haven't played Artifact, but I'm really not convinced by the narrative that Valve is removed from this stuff. TF2 and Counter Strike all have loot and inventory systems of their own. They're basically required in any free to play game.
      - meruru 7y ago
        Did Hearthstone handle progression better? I believe it's a fairly popular game.
    - 666lumberjack 7y ago
      It had an upfront cost (where all the competing card games are F2P) and a cost to play as well as to acquire cards, which put a lot of people off. It is also a more complex game than say Hearthstone, but I think the success of MOBAs proves that complexity is not an inherent barrier to popularity.
    - JauntTrooper 7y ago
      As someone in their exact target demographic - I play Magic Arena and Hearthstone regularly - I think they messed up the business model. I don’t mind paying $50 for a game or $20 for an expansion, but I hate getting nickeled and dimed and I was put off by the fact that if I ended up really enjoying the game there wasn’t a path to continue playing without continuing to pay every time. Felt like gambling not relaxing.
yskchu 7y ago
Valve do still develop games, they just focus on maintaining their current games now. Dota 2, CSGO, Team Fortress 2 still gets frequent updates and big enhancements. There's also SteamVR

Well, they were at one point. But I agree, Valve is no better here.

Didn't they just release a card game with Richard Garfield? I'm not into games myself, but Valve has done tremendous work for gaming on Linux. That alone is enough reason for me to support them.

thejosh 7y ago
And this graph should give you an indication of how well this went: https://steamcharts.com/app/583950#6m https://steamcharts.com/app/583950#6m
- meruru 7y ago
  Why is that? Did it turn out to be a bad game? As a fan of Magic: The Gathering I was quite interested in it and the concept looked interesting too.
  - cloakandswagger 7y ago
    Valve has never been good at building progression systems, and that's exactly what killed Artifact. You get no rewards for playing the game. If you want new cards, you have to spend money on packs or spend money to enter drafts. This old fashioned "just play the game because it's fun" mentality is dogma to Valve, but nowadays users want and require the Pavlovian reward systems.
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      > This old fashioned "just play the game because it's fun" mentality is dogma to Valve, but nowadays users want and require the Pavlovian reward systems. Speaking to the choir I suspect, but god do I hate progression systems. Haven't played Artifact, but I'm really not convinced by the narrative that Valve is removed from this stuff. TF2 and Counter Strike all have loot and inventory systems of their own. They're basically required in any free to play game.
    - meruru 7y ago
      Did Hearthstone handle progression better? I believe it's a fairly popular game.
  - 666lumberjack 7y ago
    It had an upfront cost (where all the competing card games are F2P) and a cost to play as well as to acquire cards, which put a lot of people off. It is also a more complex game than say Hearthstone, but I think the success of MOBAs proves that complexity is not an inherent barrier to popularity.
  - JauntTrooper 7y ago
    As someone in their exact target demographic - I play Magic Arena and Hearthstone regularly - I think they messed up the business model. I don’t mind paying $50 for a game or $20 for an expansion, but I hate getting nickeled and dimed and I was put off by the fact that if I ended up really enjoying the game there wasn’t a path to continue playing without continuing to pay every time. Felt like gambling not relaxing.

yskchu 7y ago

Valve do still develop games, they just focus on maintaining their current games now. Dota 2, CSGO, Team Fortress 2 still gets frequent updates and big enhancements. There's also SteamVR