This game is admirable in the way that it managed to piss everyone off. For the casual player, the game's card trading and ticket system probably seemed insane in a world of free to play card games like Hearthstone. I personally didn't really mind it too much, having already gotten used to the concept playing Magic the Gathering Online (which is undoubtedly where Artifact's devs got the idea from). This was mostly a gaming equivalent of Stockholm syndrome, I think that monetizing a digital game this way is deranged and exploitative. Regardless, at the time I was willing to accept it. Valve was probably trying to target a more "core" digital TCG crowd with this anyways, the sorts of people who wouldn't mind it.
For this "core" audience, the game had to justify its existence to really gain anyone's lasting attention. At first glance, it seemed like this was the case. The game was filled with unique mechanics, most notably the fact that you manage three boards at once. I know that starting out playing it I was excited to learn how to grapple with the game's systems and learn what strategies were viable. It wasn't immediately obvious to me how fundamentally flawed it was.
I had some friends that also adopted the game early, and as we all played it we gradually all came to the same conclusion: it got worse the more we played. At a surface level it was fun to try and manage resources between three lanes, and it felt fresh to play because of how different it was from other TCGs. As you get better at the game though, you start to realize something awful.
Almost none of your choices seem to matter because so much of the game is random. Basic unit placements, attack patterns, what shows up in the shop, etc. It felt incredibly frustrating to try and strategize effectively when an unlucky roll of the dice could turn a great turn into a game losing mistake. All games like this have an inherent level of randomness, and that's what makes them so engaging and replayable. There's a fine balance between variance keeping things fresh and feeling unfair, and this game falls heavily into the second category.
I think that with a free to play model the game could've found a niche even with it's problems. I've (personally) never liked Hearthstone on a mechanical level but it found an audience since it's accessible. Artifact was based on an existing IP in the same way, but any kind of casual crossover from DOTA fans was destroyed the moment they decided on the monetization system.
This system has worked for Magic, MTGO is still online and has a seemingly pretty dedicated player base despite the existence of MTG Arena as a F2P alternative. However Magic was already proven as a game. Artifact fell apart even after just a few hours of examination.
So who was this game for? Was it for the established audience of the Dota franchise that didn't want to pay to try out something outside their typical interests? Was it for the TCG fans that would quickly discover the game's lack of depth? It's hard to tell who this was even targeting exactly, because it didn't really do a good job catering to anyone. With enough momentum it could've stuck around for long enough to refine mechanics and come out with more cards, maybe. I know they tried to overhaul the game for a while after its failure but at that point the damage was done. I think it was doomed from the start.
For this "core" audience, the game had to justify its existence to really gain anyone's lasting attention. At first glance, it seemed like this was the case. The game was filled with unique mechanics, most notably the fact that you manage three boards at once. I know that starting out playing it I was excited to learn how to grapple with the game's systems and learn what strategies were viable. It wasn't immediately obvious to me how fundamentally flawed it was.
I had some friends that also adopted the game early, and as we all played it we gradually all came to the same conclusion: it got worse the more we played. At a surface level it was fun to try and manage resources between three lanes, and it felt fresh to play because of how different it was from other TCGs. As you get better at the game though, you start to realize something awful.
Almost none of your choices seem to matter because so much of the game is random. Basic unit placements, attack patterns, what shows up in the shop, etc. It felt incredibly frustrating to try and strategize effectively when an unlucky roll of the dice could turn a great turn into a game losing mistake. All games like this have an inherent level of randomness, and that's what makes them so engaging and replayable. There's a fine balance between variance keeping things fresh and feeling unfair, and this game falls heavily into the second category.
I think that with a free to play model the game could've found a niche even with it's problems. I've (personally) never liked Hearthstone on a mechanical level but it found an audience since it's accessible. Artifact was based on an existing IP in the same way, but any kind of casual crossover from DOTA fans was destroyed the moment they decided on the monetization system.
This system has worked for Magic, MTGO is still online and has a seemingly pretty dedicated player base despite the existence of MTG Arena as a F2P alternative. However Magic was already proven as a game. Artifact fell apart even after just a few hours of examination.
So who was this game for? Was it for the established audience of the Dota franchise that didn't want to pay to try out something outside their typical interests? Was it for the TCG fans that would quickly discover the game's lack of depth? It's hard to tell who this was even targeting exactly, because it didn't really do a good job catering to anyone. With enough momentum it could've stuck around for long enough to refine mechanics and come out with more cards, maybe. I know they tried to overhaul the game for a while after its failure but at that point the damage was done. I think it was doomed from the start.