Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Artifact became Valve's biggest failure

eurogamer.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: How Artifact became Valve's biggest failure

#31

Post by Reedx »

kmnc wrote: post #20

I played the game a lot, before giving up. I played only draft and was pretty good (Mostly infinite and highly ranked). I have two opinions on why the game failed. First, while it was a truly satisfying game and wonderfully complex the random elements where both anti Dota and truly fuck you rng where a flip of a coin decides most high level games. Now, the same could be said about most competitive card games but in A…

> I believe valve has no clue what their audience wants.

Maybe that's the problem - if they were trying to make something they think the audience wants. The audience itself doesn't know what it wants, let alone anyone removed from it making guesses on their behalf.

The audience didn't know they wanted DotA or Minecraft until they were made.

Re: How Artifact became Valve's biggest failure

#33

Post by johnchristopher »

Chazprime wrote: post #23

Commercial failure, perhaps. I'd suggest not delivering Half Life 3 (or even HL2: Episode 3 ) is their biggest failing. All the resources in the world, and they're happy resting on their laurels. It's such a shame.

I remember it was discussed a month ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20098638

Re: How Artifact became Valve's biggest failure

#34

Post by drngdds »

overcast wrote: post #7

I mean, this is exactly how card games work. People don't seem to have an issue buying into expensive Magic decks. You don't NEED to have the best though, no shame in drafting and pauper decks.

Lots of people have an issue buying expensive Magic decks and respond by choosing not to play competitive Magic. Drafting isn't everyone's thing and pauper is both super restrictive and harder to find events for.

Re: How Artifact became Valve's biggest failure

#35

Post by mwfunk »

Chazprime wrote: post #23

Commercial failure, perhaps. I'd suggest not delivering Half Life 3 (or even HL2: Episode 3 ) is their biggest failing. All the resources in the world, and they're happy resting on their laurels. It's such a shame.

Agreed. Basically, not being able to both run Steam and continue being one of the best game development studios in the industry, which they surely were 20 years ago.

I understand that they're going to naturally follow the money and put their resources where those resources will do the most good, it's just a shame that they couldn't keep succeeding at the thing that made them big in the first place. They've made many great games.

Re: How Artifact became Valve's biggest failure

#36

Post by EamonnMR »

drngdds wrote: post #32

Responding to complaints about RNG by saying "actually our data shows that it's fair" is totally missing the point. People don't like that the game feels too luck-based, whether or not it actually is.

It's funny because it's the exact sort of thing Elias and Garfield wrote about in their magnum opus on game design The Characteristics Of Games.

Re: How Artifact became Valve's biggest failure

#38

Post by usrusr »

anigbrowl wrote: post #15
gcatalfamo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to defend them at all, but the longer it took to plan HL3, the longer it became a sounder business decision to just not do it for risk of not living up to the hype.

You could say that about anything though.

Depends on how much you have to lose. Valve has a lot, and what they could win is a drop in the ocean next to "the steam tax". The icing on the cake is that there is value for them in competing less with those who publish on steam.

Re: How Artifact became Valve's biggest failure

#39

Post by dx87 »

DanHulton wrote: post #10

If the price was the only problem, you'd still expect to see people playing draft regularly, at least in the interim, especially since there are free drafts you can play. But there's more wrong with this game than just how they priced it. It may be that RNG is actually less of a factor in Artifact than in other similar games, but boy does it FEEL stronger. Every turn in a CCG lets you draw cards, and maybe you don't…

The worst part about the in your face RNG of Artifact is that Richard Garfield knew players don't like that type of RNG, and it was one of the main factors that killed off the Star Wars TCG he developed [1]. He decided to try it again in Artifact, and to nobody's suprise, people still don't like super visible RNG affecting the outcome.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/k...

Re: How Artifact became Valve's biggest failure

#40

Post by cm2012 »

maps wrote: post #18
michelb wrote: post #4

I'd say not capitalising on one of their greatest games is another huge failure as well..(HL3)

HL3 would have brought attention for sure but you are selling dota a bit short here. Personally I bought in day 1 to artifact based solely on how much I love dota. I have spent hundreds on dota cosmetics, battle passes, etc. Artifact failed because the game just was not fun to play at all. If the pricing scheme was the issue people still would pay money for a game they can't get enough of.

Might be because valve didn't invent dota, it was a warcraft 3 custom game that they basically ported. Game design might not be in their blood.
Post reply on HN