PaulKemp

But we really wanted to focus on players being able to play with their group of friends and with their communities. And for those communities to build other mode types, where they play classic mode where it’s only the first set, or we want to play with just the common cards, or they build cubes that you draft from.

The people at Valve have been playing the same set of cards since the beginning and they still want to play them. If new cards come out, that’ll be exciting, but there’s a lot of play value there. So you want to release cards in such a way that you don’t confuse the fact that you’ve really got this evergreen game, but at the same time provide ongoing interesting strategic shifts.

RG: With the expansion pacing, it’s a balancing act, because people want to see new things. But on the other hand, you can play the original cards essentially indefinitely. That sounds kind of surprising for a trading card game, most people think you need new blood going in, but you don’t.

So you get the kitchen table Magic play analogue, where people can play with their own sets of rules and their own level of seriousness. And the analogue of cube drafts, or Commander Magic, or something like that, where a lot of play in Magic is driven by the players, because they’ve got the cards. We want to give people the capability of doing that with Artifact as well.

Haters gonna hate, but this game sounds like is the bomb! In a good way, like a giant bomb. They are doing some really interesting stuff here.

Source: IGN | The full Artifact interview – the future of Valve’s card game

I just dont get the f2p bias that I see around. Personally I'd much rather pay a highter initial cost, and have inherently less grinding in the game. F2p games has to have an higher, or rather, a more agressive way to get their development cost back. Somethign that, at least on paper, a game with an initial cost does not. We seem to forget that Valve actually figured out the f2p+cosmetics model with TF2. Now we can argue what is good vs what is bad.

Additional things that comes with an initial cost of a game, is that cards retain their value. If unlimited people can grind unlimited time, all cards would eventually be worth very little. GabeN makes this point in the initial Artifact video from April below. Another benefit of the "pay to participate" model is that the player has invested something in the game, and then tends to play that game more, since the money investment already has been made. I for example, have tried and stopped playing Faeria (free) - but continued playing Slay the Spire (15$). Maybe because I felt I had to give it a more thurough try, since I've already paid for it.

Also there is the argument of played vs money spent. I have 600 hours of Overwatch, and has spent around 100$ on that game including boxes. Do that math, this is cheap fun. Still, I feel that I owe Blizzard something. I am the winning part of that bargain. I feel I have gotten more than I paid for.

Paid games from Valve, tends to be cheap. Look at Portal, HL, Left 4 dead etc.
Free games tends to be agressive on the cosmetics and extras; CSGO, Dota.

This actually makes me happy that Artifact costs 20$

Aslo: This thread f**king rocks! Keep it up good people! Civil and good discussions. GB community best community.

Great write up! Nicely formatted and with pictures and everything, good work. While I personaly dont agree to every point, its interesting to hear your thoughts and points on this.

I am under the general impression that when a game costs moeny, the monetization model is by default less agressive than that of a free game. Worst case is of course; the game costs money AND has an agressive payment model. Best case is: money up front, and get more of the game. In many f2p games on phone and PC, I have though; "Why didnt this game just cost 15$?" I have a friend who still plays HS competitively, and he uses around 60-70$ per expansion. That is 240$ anually. People argue that HS is free to play, but if you like to play ranked, you better get som packs. And I know there are budget decks that reach high rankings, but that are from pro players who play a lot.

Artifact will have cosmetics, like Dota. This is not talked about yet, but foild cards, card backs, announcers, art etc is guaranteed to come down the line.

Fully tradable cards, with a global marketplace, like Artifact will have down the line, will lead to cheap cards and I belive it is a good idea. This is something that is fundamently lacking in Hearthstone with only dust and gold grinding. Just the idea of being able to trade cards with the whole steam marketplace is appealing to me. I've maybe invested around 50$ in Hearthstone, a couple of years ago, and are now not able to do anything with those cards or funds. At least on the table with Artifact, I might get some of that money back by selling cards on the marketplace.

I dont know, I am postive. For 20$ you get a complex card game, with 2 pre made decks and you can play with your friends. You get around 228 of 280 cards of the base set (81% o ftotal cards) and access to a marketplace where you can buy the rest of neede cards from pack opening whales.

I agree with you on the chat! Fingers crossed this will be sorted out in the beta!

They did come back to it on this weeks bombcast. Ben had checked it out.

In regards to the aestethic, I agree that Hearthstone is very well designed from an art perspective. It is very cutesey and has that typical Blizzard finish. They are world leading in this department imo. However, game art can grow on you, like Slay they Spire. I didnt like the art in the start, but after some dozen hours it looks good and right.

I did look at some of the Hearthstone EU qualifyers on twitch this weekend, and in 3-4 matches, Sintolol needed a specific card in turn 'X' to win, he was lucky and got it. Heartstone game is very meta and combo and RNG dependent. I am under the impression that Artifact is not in the same degree. It does seem complex, but that is just more to dig into.

Howdy bombers. Considering Brad Muir works at Valve with Artifact and both Ben and Brad are (or was) avid Dota2 players, AND the impressive Artifact presence at PAX West. I am disapointed that there was no Aritfact coverage from the GB crew. Did I miss something, like a panel or discussion, or is there just no Artifact interest from the GB crew?

@chokomofo: same issue here. So not an you issue.

iPad video is chppy and skips numerous times during any video. Happens on both chrome and safari. I rather watch GB videos on YouTube, where it does not happen. However that is not possible with premium videos.

@zevvion: No of course, but you are looting and shooting with your friends. So its scratching a coop looting itch.

What is the main drive for playing Destiny? Whats the funnest part? Is it your skill progression as a player, or a character? Is it your rewards? Is it the fun of it?

I've never played the first Destiny, but are intrigued. Luckily on PC, so anyway i'll have to wait some weeks, while I watch twitch and read impressions before I can even buy it.

That said, I have been looking for a Borderlands fix lately. Several players together, random loot and skill / level progression.

So; Does Destiny scratch that Borderlands itch?

Great showing all in all. I live that they are full out on games finally. The team at ma is doing their best, but for me personally it's too little too late. Great with the backwards compability though, and games streaming subscription etc.

It comes down to the games at this point. Would love to see more variation and diversion in the line up. A pc is good, but I do feel we lack the epic single player games like Horizon, Bloodborne etc.

Having issues on both apple tv and chromecast, coming for either ipad pro or andorid phone since the video player update a few months ago. Chrome mobile, running on those devices.

This is very annoying, since videos from GB has been working fine since 2011 over airplay. And, now, in 2017 a ununderstandbale change is done to the back end, that results in audio beeing choppy when casted.

As I am on mobile, i have not tried changing procressive / html5 settings. When playing videos on my pc, in browser, everything is fine.