3 ms·

> Artifact had in effect a perfectly reasonable economic model, but players did not see it that way. CCG player stockholm syndrome is why we can't have nice th

> Artifact had in effect a perfectly reasonable economic model, but players did not see it that way. CCG player stockholm syndrome is why we can't have nice things.

jrockway 7y ago
I don't think the economic model is why Artifact failed. The reason Artifact failed is that it's not fun.
- me_me_me 7y ago
  Well, I for one didn't want to pay $20 to get a game i might not like where I have to pay ~~$100ish to test-out a deck I might end up not liking. Seriously, when compared to Hearthstone (biggest, well establish competitor) free to try, can grind the cards, side modes, single player 'adventure' expansions etc. Valve throws Artifact as competition, unpolished product that wants your money upfront. Valve needs to unstuck their head from the rearend, cuz they are no longer beloved internet darling.
Majromax 7y ago
On the other hand, look at the article's point 7: the economic model was fundamentally flawed through oppressive transaction fees plus a conception of cards as both valuable (resale) and free (via card rewards). Players don't see a game's economic model in its ideal state, they see the economic model as implemented.
furi 7y ago
>> Artifact had in effect a perfectly reasonable economic model, but players did not see it that way. I don't think it really did though. Artifact took Magic the Gathering's payment model verbatim (pay for a starter set, pay for booster packs, pay for entrance any activities where you might win more cards) but removed the thing that makes that work for Magic the Gathering: face to face interaction with other human beings at your Local Game Store. If we compare it vs. it's more direct competition (digital CCGs) it's a worse proposition for the average non/low spending player, but even if we do the kindest thing and compare it against what it's directly copying it's still a strictly worse deal.
- jandrese 7y ago
  It's easier to pay for a physical product, especially one where you can employ the doctrine of first sale and reuse them in any way you choose. With Artifact you couldn't even sell your deck without paying Valve again. Fuck. That. Card games are already expensive, you didn't need to make it worse.
ranger207 7y ago
Yeah, I think this is one of the biggest points: they were marketing to the wrong demographic. Dota players like to laugh at League players for having to buy heros, so even if a competitive deck is only $200 which is really good compared to other CCGs, that price is super high to a video game player steeped in the philosophy that "mtx should be cosmetic only, anything else is pay to win."

> Artifact had in effect a perfectly reasonable economic model, but players did not see it that way. CCG player stockholm syndrome is why we can't have nice things.

jrockway 7y ago

I don't think the economic model is why Artifact failed. The reason Artifact failed is that it's not fun.

me_me_me 7y ago
Well, I for one didn't want to pay $20 to get a game i might not like where I have to pay ~~$100ish to test-out a deck I might end up not liking. Seriously, when compared to Hearthstone (biggest, well establish competitor) free to try, can grind the cards, side modes, single player 'adventure' expansions etc. Valve throws Artifact as competition, unpolished product that wants your money upfront. Valve needs to unstuck their head from the rearend, cuz they are no longer beloved internet darling.

Majromax 7y ago

On the other hand, look at the article's point 7: the economic model was fundamentally flawed through oppressive transaction fees plus a conception of cards as both valuable (resale) and free (via card rewards). Players don't see a game's economic model in its ideal state, they see the economic model as implemented.

furi 7y ago

>> Artifact had in effect a perfectly reasonable economic model, but players did not see it that way. I don't think it really did though. Artifact took Magic the Gathering's payment model verbatim (pay for a starter set, pay for booster packs, pay for entrance any activities where you might win more cards) but removed the thing that makes that work for Magic the Gathering: face to face interaction with other human beings at your Local Game Store. If we compare it vs. it's more direct competition (digital CCGs) it's a worse proposition for the average non/low spending player, but even if we do the kindest thing and compare it against what it's directly copying it's still a strictly worse deal.

jandrese 7y ago
It's easier to pay for a physical product, especially one where you can employ the doctrine of first sale and reuse them in any way you choose. With Artifact you couldn't even sell your deck without paying Valve again. Fuck. That. Card games are already expensive, you didn't need to make it worse.

ranger207 7y ago

Yeah, I think this is one of the biggest points: they were marketing to the wrong demographic. Dota players like to laugh at League players for having to buy heros, so even if a competitive deck is only $200 which is really good compared to other CCGs, that price is super high to a video game player steeped in the philosophy that "mtx should be cosmetic only, anything else is pay to win."