Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
A lack of marketing or "hype" was not the reason why this game failed.
No, Rimanah's absolutely right. The marketing was very clumsy. If Valve had kept the hype about Artifact a little bit smaller and had offered a very limited but playable F2P version, the whole thing would have been very different.
People can be wrong. Even in the masses. And the destruction of a computer game is still a rather harmless form of hysteria when the mob is running hot.
You say that without ever playing the game. If proof was needed for Rimanah's thesis, he would have been proved.
I don't want to attack you personally with this. A lot of people get this impression without ever having seen the game and very few of them visit this forum.
It depends on what your definition of what marketing is or what aspects fall into that category. The lack of F2P clearly was an issue and I agree with you about things being different. I tend to want to be a little more detailed about the moving pieces but if you consider things as a "bundle" of marketing then I would agree F2P falls into that.
They need to have bigger beta (everyone who owns Artifact now should be able to play new v2 Artifact before they launch it or they could repeat mistake), open beta to more players like Dota did with it's own beta back in 2011/12/13, don't talk to "pros", new version needs to be playtested by regular players who are not scared to call out bad design or something they dislike, because "pro" players don't wanna hurt their relationship with Valve they are not good beta players.
This game needs normal regular folks, players who will openly criticize and ask for improvements on forums/reddit and then Valve just needs to keep eye there and update game according to that players feedback.
That is how beta worked for Dota in 2012 (sure in 2011 when it was alpha state it was open to just some pros but later it opened gate to almost everyone), people posted their problems on reddit, Valve fixed it day after day, and it works that way even to this day, and that is one of reasons why it is amazing game.
So, the 60000 concurrent players in the beginning stopped because of marketing?
Did these players forget artifact existed and they have it on their account because there were no ads?
I think the flaws leading to the player decrease were the fact that trigger happy players could not refund & card prices were quite high in the beginning- without a system to progress cards for free. Turning away people who did not want to invest any further than 20€ and making them feel cut off of a significant part of the game.
Set 1 was quite lackluster in terms of card interaction and archetypes ( but I guess that is somewhat expected from a first set ).
There was (and still is) no good progression system, players are used to constant gratification nowadays, especially with all the f2p ccgs out there.
Why they chose high weekly rewards instead of lower daily rewards is also out of my understanding.
The RNG portion of the game was ok for me, but lots of players wanted perfect contol over the board (which seems funny in a game designed on the luck of draw);
Valve were even too lazy to implement trading cards and achievements for their own game.
Lack of a good tutorial, helping players to gradually master parts of the game.
After a bad start lack of roadmap and communication.
Etc.
The list goes on.
I wonder why people at Valve are so surprised now how it turned out. If they just spent a few days reading the forums they would have had all the reasons at hand why the game flopped.
Which is sad, because, at its core, I liked Artifact. But sadly they only released a skeleton of a game without any modern features and meaningful social interaction. Silly.
Failing to appreciate the lessons the marketplace had already dictated.
Hind sight and all, but it was the wrong choice to make. Maybe v2 will get more right, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
>it was marketing.
>it was the greed.
Except Valve themselves admitted the game has deep-rooted problems, and it'll take a long time to fix it.