Interview of Richard Garfield and footage of Valve by Ars Technica. Original Video Here: th-cam.com/video/n6B7QhZdXIo/w-d-xo.html Website: arstechnica.com/
You used the wrong Magic: The Gathering card back. Also, do you think that if valve released another game alongside artifact that it wouldn't have been dead on arrival?
And Steam has finally admitted the inevitable. It is funny how you are able to put out these videos months even a year before it finally goes offline. (P.S. Waiting for a series on Planetside, I guess 2 is still up but Arena and Classic is gone. However there is a PS Forever Emulator that has games on Sunday.)
Sorry to be offtopic but does any of you know a way to log back into an instagram account?? I was dumb lost the account password. I would love any tricks you can give me
"It's a terrible, clunky mess that lacks a lot of what was promised and is overwhelming. 9.5/10, it has a little bit of something for everyone." Basically how every rating from 'big critics' is.
Man after hearing from ppl who actually play card games They said Artifact was a breath of fresh air polished and really good But player base was very little and valve just gave up on artifact coz it wasn't giving them the same figures as Tf2 or Dota 2 So Artifact was a good game But wasnt for your avg valve fan
The biggest problem: the IP. You need either a big established franchise or hit a home run with a new fresh franchise to get a TCG off the ground. Blizzard got a free pass because of all the auto-buy fans who love to live in the delusion bubble that is Blizzard's "eSports", ever since their last actual eSport, Starcraft, always chasing for a new Starcraft because they either missed out or weren't good enough. And just the size of the IP isn't enough. It probably has to not already be a good game either in video games or otherwise. (Warhammer 40,000 TCG failed, for example) And if it really has to be a game it has to be a richer world than some flipping moba. Unless you're Blizzard pre-political-suicide.
@@LoftySkinner I'd disagree in part, but I haven't really done any research on Artifact to back up my position entirely, because it's not worth my time, or anyone's time for that matter, I hate the game that I've never played and never will play, but the thing I hate the most is that it was the point where Valve stopped setting trends, and started following them.
The reason for disappointment is that Valve had been making great games for many years then suddenly when everyone wants a new installment to one of their older games they announce a card game.
@@chadnoneo9769 Thats not why the crowd at The International was disappointed. They were expecting some sort of Dota related announcement like a new hero, instead they got a card game that nobody asked for. Dota fans don't go to The International because they love Valve, they do it because they love Dota.
I was at TI when they announced Artifact. The groan of disappointment was so loud that it immediately turned to laughter. I knew immediately the game would flop.
@@razagan1343 DOTA 2 ti. TI= the intenational (esports grand tournament for dota 2, with prize pools over 30 million. the biggest prizew pool in gaming)
I remember Brian Kibler of MTG Hall of Fame... fame saying that some of the designers he knew were quietly happy that Artifact died. To hear him tell it: “it basically flies in the face of every game design principal that we teach.” Very complicated style of play, multiple boards, a poor advancement system because buying all the cards in the game for ~30 bucks doesn’t create attachment and not being free to play while having that kind of economy, “we just don’t make games like that for a reason.” “Had Artifact been successful, we basically would have had to ‘rewrite every textbook’ on how to make an engaging game.”
Those are some great points. Thanks for sharing what some of the designers were saying; it kind of attests to the fact the fans were right to downvote it as hard as they did on Metacritic.
I feel like you might have missed why the initial announcement was so disappointing It was far less about concerns over demonetization, and more about the fact that this was valve's first game after years of nothing, a game that felt like it was only made to chase industry trends.
The game is also just confusing to watch. I tried to watch a few streams when the game was new and could not understand what was going on, and I play yugioh which is unwatchable to most people.
not wrong as someone that loved artifact that was a big problem for the game. I didn't play pre beta but at launch and first couple months maybe that long the game had so much life. it felt like the player base left over night to be honest. The game wasn't a bad game imho ,but the player base was very very mad.
@@nyimets It was purely the RNG. The first few matches felt great. I felt like I immediatly got into the game and it was always close af. Then I got suspicious in always having close AF games. With time I realized that the games were close AF no matter how or what I played. It was purely RNG deciding who won and who lost. There was one time were a singular hit on the tower of an abandoned lane would've won me the round. I've had a super strong character on this lane that would no problem take the tower out with the next hit. 4 Rounds in a row, that guy had some RNG happening resulting in an enemy minion setting itself directly before my character or similar.
I play a lot of other TCGs and tried watching some artifact early on. Even after watching a decent amount of time I STILL have no idea what's going on in this game. That makes me completely uninterested in ever playing. Money is a completely separate problem. I wouldn't have played this even if it were free to start with.
It wasn't really. It had a few hundred thousand people who bought it immediatly. The problem was actually keeping the players after these players realized how bad the gameplay is.
"I think I made a great game, which is why I would rather go off and start something new, while all those lesser employees can sit around and clean up all the broken pieces of my totally great game." What an obnoxious ass.
The thing is that is exactly what happened with Magic the Gathering. He developed the initial concept for the game, but it was refined with the help of Richard Adkison's team from Wizards of the Coast. The problem is that here, he was responsible for far more. Richard Garfield is good for developing the initial game, but you definitely want someone who has experience with gameplay mechanics of card games to refine his ideas and to "check" his work. Even Keyforge had this problem for a while with the Four Horsemen being able to cheat the house mechanic.
@@ohnosmoarlulcatz Yup. If you look at MTG for a moment, richard garfield was brought back to do a MTG set recently set in dominaria. Some of the card designs he came up with were so damn wacky they had to be put in unstable which is a set of joke cards that dont even work in the rules (like a knight that makes you do the hokey-pokey). The guy's a good designer but he comes at it with the toughtfullness and subtelty of a nail-filled shotgun shot point blank at a bottle of grain alcohol.
@@ohnosmoarlulcatz "The problem is that here, he was responsible for far more", source to this please? To me it seems that he has had way less responsibility than stated by people who can't back it up. Valve employees themselves played the game, had zero knowledge on tabletop game design and followed some boomer designers card game fantasy.
@@DrprophetiusIn the development of MTG, Richard Garfield had less responsibility because there were numerous people who were overseeing the development of the game and eventually refined it to what it was today. There were actual people to oversee his work and adjust things. Essentially, he just came up with the basic concept and others built on his work. Nowadays, the Play Design Team of MTG is supposed to do this though they frequently get ignored. By comparison, Richard Garfield doesn't seem to have a team like this overseeing his work in Artifact. th-cam.com/video/_If41SYSg3c/w-d-xo.html He essentially says that he had heavy input in all aspects of the game early on. But, the hands off director/producer essentially gave him free reign and without a Play Design team or something like it to check his work, he essentially became the de facto director/producer of the game. Just like you said, the Valve employees didn't have much knowledge of table top so these problems become prevalent.
@@ohnosmoarlulcatz But in your video he states that he was there once a week, only more at the beginning of the game... And "lead developer" sounds cool but it's Valve, they have this weird ass no bosses structure. In your logic, the game was worked on only once a week, so once a week he came in and ruined the game? This video is also from the important beta times... Richard made the basic game structure, and Valve fucked up the game.
True. Though in some cases a developer with a vision has a better idea of what a game should be than the community mostly made up of laymen - especially when the most badly informed voices become the loudest. It's possible to listen to the community too much, and respond to the worst feedback about what a game needs - and a lot of competitive games have died because of over-responding to player feedback. (Artifact was not one of those cases though, definitely not lol.)
^ Vintage decks are more valuable than most players cars. I checked recent tourny lists. Yu Gi Oh (4-8) is a little cheaper than Modern(4-1K), more than Standard.(1-4) Legacy (3K+) and Vintage(30K+) just get out of control.
Fans: "Please give me Half-Life 3, L4D 3, an update to TF2's Man vs. Machine game mode, or anything that's actually worth my time." Valve: "Ok here's a Dota themed card game that nobody asked for! Please be excited!" Fans: "................."
Why does everyone keep saying that stupid shit over and over again? It's like objectively false. Few people booing on a fucking event doesn't mean jack shit when hundreds of thousands of players bought the game on the first day! "nobody asked for" is a circlejerk which means nothing to be honest. People wanted that shit, the fact that they bought it, is the proof of it. The game sucked balls, had shitty features and ridiculous mechanics, not to mention pay to play shittiness. Stop misinforming people and use your own brain.
@@sirrismendozasunlessrealms5775 The original argument is, "Nobody wanted a dota card game". Which is a false statement. Nobody wanted a dota card game which sucks balls. People would want a good dota card game.
Happy New Year everyone, and to many more with you guys. 2020 will bring the biggest changes and most ambitious projects yet, starting off the year with this Artifact DOAG and following it up with 2 big DOAGs. We have our unannounced new series coming as well that highlights video game terminology and tries to explain both the origins and current meaning!
While I agree with your overall assessment here… There WAS a concerted effort to review-bomb this game and give it as bad rep as possible. Every new player approaching the game was bombarded with messages "dead game, dead game, don't play it" on the first week of release - even from people who didn't own or played the game. Trolling was evident in Twitch streams - where every second message was someone discouraging people from enjoying the game - it was annoying for players, watchers, and streamers as well. The effort to bomb the game culminated in a complete takeover of Artifact category on Twitch. It was lead by at least one *chan and possibly some subreddits as well. Artifact's demise was also correlated with the unexpected (and short-lived) rise of Auto-chess - which culminated with big market valuation for Autochess team at the time and their eventual buyout by Epic. Valve's response was to shift Artifact's team to rush Dota Underlords to market in time.
This video may as well be called "Start Simple: How NOT to make a TCG" Most of the good ones are very simple at their base and become complex as a result of development and player intuition.
I think this idea rings true in many facets of life extending far beyond card games, Valve titles, and the videogame media. I own a Macbook and a laptop but if you asked me to recover your computer or swap out a dead motherboard, I'd be just as confused as you. Just as many of us rely on mechanics to repair our cars, carpenters our homes, doctors our wounds, and instructors to teach our children. On the surface, many of things we do on a daily basis don't seem hard to accomplish but just because things are easy to understand on the surface doesn't mean that they easy to create or easy to master. Some while persevere a difficult situation but if you're attempt to sell to a massive audience or appeal to the uninitiated as Artifact, cars, sports, medicine, and many facets of life do, there has to be some sort of entrance into that lifestyle and adjusting commonfolk to that path. But this is pretentious as fuck so keep it simple stupid.
I was notified by Conde Nast (Ars Technica) to remove the footage I used in this video. This is the video in question (it's the clips of Richard Garfield talking with an Ars Technica writer with no sound used, just the footage) th-cam.com/video/n6B7QhZdXIo/w-d-xo.html&t= . It is obviously not our intention, simply just forgot to list the source. The content is more than fair-use however. Edit: They have doubled down following me blurring their content stating they still want it removed. I believe by law (www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/fair-use) I am more than protected under fair use, as my content is both transformative and educational in nature. The clips in question are as follows. In some cases, only just a few seconds are used (literally just to show Richard Garfields face). 5:38 5:59 6:17 17:38 18:12 18:18 19:07 20:51 21:15 22:12 22:51 23:07 23:38 26:22
As great as Richard Garfield is, it is important to remember that Magic the Gathering's success is largely attributed to Peter Adkison rather than Richard Garfield. Richard Garfield did design the basic layout of MTG, but much of the growth that it underwent was due to the model that Adkison developed with LGS (Local Game Stores). The people at Wizards of the Coast also helped develop the expansions, which were mostly successful until Adkison's departure in 2001. From that point on, MTG was a lot more volatile. You do see a few good things once in a while, but they often will have a disastrous set that they have to overcompensate for the following year. Without that same model in place, it was really hard for Artifact to grow. Ironically, Hasbro had begun to cut ties to LGSs as of 2017 along with massively raising the prices of their products across the board and many stores no longer carry the card game as a result of it. For me, Artifact suffers because of how hard it was to get into. The whole three boards thing was probably the dumbest idea design wise. It should have been one board with five columns like Yugioh. Have the left two serve as the left board, the center for the middle, and the right two serve as the right board instead of three different boards. This way you only have to manage one board at least. With three boards, it is just impossible to even tell what's going on for new players. The other issue is that there's very few "answers" to different cards. For example, Axe was almost a free win in a lane due to his 2 armor. There were very few cards that could take out a hero that had become too strong. Without answers to counter a card, the meta is established very early and you really can't do anything to stop it. Riot Games's Legends of Runeterra is suffering from the same problem right now. The Undying is a good example for that.
Another issue for Artifact is that the meta was set day 1 of the release because of the content creators who had been testing the game already found most of the best combo's before launch. The sad thing is that Artifact was pretty good in phantom draft, but not really worth doing anything else than that other than the precon deck tourney thing.
You're absolutely right. It might be hard to get into, but Artifact was quite simply just a bad game. The idea wasn't good, it was badly designed and poorly executed. And the game died because of that. If the game had been good in the first place, then it can survive a rocky over-monetized start out of the gate because you will keep a least some amount of player retention for the first few months while you solve issues. But artifact lost almost all of its players in the first 3 months. And the only explanation to that is that it simply wasn't fun. And I don't believe for a second that if it launched feature-complete (chat wheel, etc) that it would have helped. Valve simply didn't care about making a fun game as much as they cared about making a card game. And this is the result. DotA2 has also consistently been bleeding players. Every change that Valve makes to DotA2 seems to decrease its popularity. They're making their game less fun to play. And now Valve is making Alyx. A VR game for an extremely niche audience that anyone who wants to play will have to spend hundreds of dollars in order to get to the stage where they can play it. Unless they already own a VR set, which most people do not. Its a first person shooter that they are specifically limiting to VR for no reason... If they're not making a non-VR version then I'm sure modders will. Considering Valve's current track record... I don't believe their next game will be made with FUN in mind.
Expansions were mostly succesful till 2001? Are you fucking serious? They were a complete fucking disaster. If there was any competition at all MTG would never have survived to 2001.
You missed a few important things - one of the reasons why Valve was so out of touch was because of the way they handled beta. Closed beta access was only given to 1. Valve employees and 2. Professional CCG players and casters. This was a 6-9 month period where Valve relied on their feedback, everything was under NDA so crucial bits of information were not being leaked to the public, and this demographic bias led to the idea that the business model / gameplay was good enough for launch; and then they had an "open beta" which was really just a one-week headstart, far too late for actual feedback from the general player population.
Side note: Casters ARE valve employees, probably contract employees. Their job and income depends on every year getting invited to cast at every tournament. Would you risk alienating your employer by bad mouthing their newest product, when your job is to represent that company and speak good about their other product for most of your career?
I don't get this idea that companies can *ONLY* listen to the super hardcore pro demographic. Literally a single digits percent of the player base and are the equivalent to "whales" of f2p mobile games. Wait I think I just figured out the answer
@@adriannaranjo4397 Yeah thats pretty stupid. But they did this a few times. Like the steam controller. Maybe it's the greatest controller ever, but nobody cared because iT's too complicated just like Artifact. Who have thought that the average player lacks the attention span to play 3! tables at the same time. Like bro. Some of us can't even rember our previous meal. Valve as I know want to revolutionize again. As always. They actually did something unique. But not all unique things are good.
This game's "death" (how can you kill something that was stillborn?), is a combination of Valve chasing trends for a profit, and Valve publishing a game no one wanted from them.
Trouble in large numbers the game itself is nice and well done yes. Problem is, nobody wanted it, fans of Valve wanted the games they never gave them: LFD 3, TF 3, Half Life 3 and so on...
For me what killed this game (and my interest in it) is that it had this awful stench that this was not made with the idea of making a brilliant and innovative new game in mind, but a new "marketplace" type experience that would be super profitable for Valve first and a great game later. While I don't think TF2 and CSGO are bad games, seeing how Valve started to put so much emphasis in the marketplace aspect of the games it gave the impression that they were starting to get a bit too greedy for their own good, with this game being the culmination of this.
I think one of the main reasons people were so upset about the announcement of artifact was the hopes we had for it being ANYTHING else. A new single player game? A new IP? ANYTHING DIFFERENT?
Tbh, the fact that they popularized (if not outright introduced) lootboxes in the west, and have the most predatory ones shouldve already given that away. But somehow Valve, the one most deserving of scorn, almost entirely avoided it during the Lootbox backlash.
“Thankfully we don’t” uhhh what? Valve is notorious for not listening to their player base period. They have too much steam money to give a shit about anything because basically nothing effects their bottom line. The only reason Artifact was *barely* acknowledged is because to much money was sunk into making it. Not that it even matters at all because they’re going to make buckets off the overpriced half life 3/ VR thing.
i genuinly watched your entire series death of a game, skipping and avoiding watching this video, because holy god it hurts to watch, hear and feel this journey. I mean the graphics, the arts, the concept, the lore, i personally LOVED it, yet i understand and it pains me how Valve messed this up and didn't listen to the majority of the audience to keep it alive. And the music you used in the background kicks in a lot of feelings, good memories of times i enjoyed the game, but sad that it was mistreated and gone.
Garfield used a famous tactic called "Whataboutism" in regard Artifact's RNG and cost, which is basically instead of adressing the criticism, he points to another individual doing the same thing and say "What about Magic/Hearthstone?! It's cost a lot too!". Whataboutism is a fallacy, it's not an answer to the criticism, because the fact someone else also does something doesn't make something immune to being criticized just because other people does it too.
Makes sense, seeing how whataboutism is the name of the game when it comes to business model in TCGs in general. Whenever I ask a TCG player why TCG games have to have booster packs bordering on pay2win, instead of just giving everyone a level playing field and access to all the cards, the answer is always "that's just how TCGs are, look at Magic". I think if they relaunch Artifact with the same business model that their other games have(i.e all gameplay elements are free for everyone, with cosmetics being locked behind microtransactions), then I can actually see Artifact being revived.
@@BlindBison I too played hearthstone from launch to about the middle of kobolds and catacombs (2014-2017). I think the only money I paid was when the 10 dollar starter deal came out, so 99% of my cards were free. As a free player, I have to absolutely disagree with monetization being a problem, at least at that time. HS was very generous with daily quests, free legendaries and all adventures being able to be bought with gold (in game currency). To start, hearthstone gives you basic cards and 9 basic decks. You get more cards by just playing the game, so you can at least make your own decks for practically no investment. Next, the dailies. It didn't even take an hour out of my day to do a quest daily, and there were 3 slots, so you could just play once every three days to get all the quest money. Then there was the dust system where you can use other cards to craft a specific card you want. To top this off, a pro player (trumpsc) did the f2p challenge almost every expansion. The challenge was to make it to legend rank using a new account and without paying. Most of the time he did. Compare all that to artifact where you pay for the game and then have to start paying for cards immediately if you want to do anything other than draft mode
@@BlindBison K&C came after Knight of the Frozen Throne, so I stopped right after that point. From what you say I have to agree, it is definitely problematic as is. But I think complaining about current HS is missing the overarching point of why Artifact failed in comparison. Hearthstone had a great first year or two. Everyone could come in to play for free and get the cards if they played enough. As you said, stuff like guardian of kings and other "trash" saw play. When the mech expansion happened it was a bit harder for people with no mechs (most of them were literal upgrades to basic cards), but there was almost always a way to play smarter and build counters (dr.7 and cheap bgh). Even in year 3 when Defile and other must-includes were introduced, you could reasonably craft them instead of relying on pack rng. Sure, you couldn't reasonably get a wallet warrior deck going, but everything else was fairly obtainable. In summary, it wasn't perfect, but you could make do. Artifact never had that period where anyone could join in and play a few games. The basic cards are laughably bad now, but they were a serviceable entry point. In contrast, Artifact had nothing for new players, you gotta put in money to get any deck going. You have to have a lot of faith in a game to pay the entry fee and then start paying for card packs/market prices just to get your feet wet with deck building. Considering the caliber of reaction it got from the reveal, they should have been smarter about how they sell their game to the people.
The big, initial boo was because we had been promised that Valve would be announcing a new game at The International - and obviously, people were expecting HL, L4D, Portal, or some entirely new project. Instead, we got a game absolutely no one was asking for. It's fact that it was *Valve* who made the announcement that's important.
Appreciate the honesty upfront that you're not familiar with trading card games, much prefer that to someone acting like a poser and getting everything wrong.
First video of yours that I've seen, I think. Good start for the TH-cam algorithm in 2020 by suggesting you to me. I even let a five minute ad play out without skipping it. Good video. Keep it up. And RIP TotalBiscuit. He's still missed.
My favorite part of this is that every image of a Magic the Gathering card back used in this video is a fake fan composite of what card backs would look like if we ever got the fabled sixth color of magic, Purple. there's only supposed to be 5 little orbs on the back of a Magic card.
The game failed, but I gotta say, the personality and animations of those red and blue gremlin things are fantastic. The way they taunt each other, and seemingly react in relation to the layout of the board looks great. In one tiny clip in this vid, I saw one player with a ton of cards on the board, and their gremlin looked chill and relaxed, like "we got this", and the other one looked scared and nervous. I find that awesome.
Honestly, I like the idea, but they seem creepy rather than endearing to me. Their mouths open waaay to wide for comfort. They look like they will do flips and giggle and then sink their teeth in your neck the moment you look away
I played artifact in beta and preordered it afterwards cause I knew the cards will be sold on the the steam marketplace. As soon as it launched I opened my booster packs, immediately sold all the card on the market and refunded the game a couple days later. Easiest ~100€ I've ever made xD
I would add that M:tG ARENA's success and actual working UI (over it's predecessor) also really worked against this title. I really enjoyed Artifact as a more complex card game, but with Arena being so good, and some odd choices in Artifact and well.... it simply couldn't compete and got more and more stymied in issues.
Artifact was dead before the launch when they announced it would cost 20$ plus ingame purchases to play. No one that wasn't a paid streamer did even bother after that.
If it weren't for my coworker who showed me videos of this game before it came out, I probably wouldn't even know about it. In fact after seeing the videos, I completely forgot about it until a Yong video popped up in my feed with a title like "Artifact already lost 97% of its players" or something like that.
I'm Brazilian, I have a hard time understanding someone speaking English, I can read in English, but watching a video, listening to a podcast is almost impossible for me, there is no brilliant channel like this, making this content rich in information in my language, I couldn't understand 100% of the video, but I really liked it, congratulations!
"Are we supposed to believe there was some grand conspiracy to buy and negatively review Artifact?" To be fair, that interview was at the time when borderlands games WERE getting review bombed. There were some idiots who bought BL2 just to give it a negative review. Obviously Artifact was not review bombed in the same way, but I could definately see someone who doesn't understand internet outrage seeing it as the same thing.
I think one of the biggest problem was that Valve was chasing a trend that was already dying. And there are other similar examples to be seen like Elders Scrolls (card game), Scrolls (Mojang) etc.
All these live services are making certain you will never run out of content. Also IGN style Pandering provides for great context to the failures of the industry.
How many live services can one industry really handle though? Don't we have enough? How can we possibly play them all and keeping playing all of them every time there is an update, when new ones come out all the time and those already established are so content rich, having well established competitive scenes and thriving communities? Artifact double dipping on a fixed price for the product yet having thousands of micro transactions was always going to implode from such clashing ideologies.
@@cattysplat it doesn't matter if the market can't handle it. Companies trying to please shareholders who don't understand anything about the industry will Thelma and Louise the industry into an early grave for the chance of a biiiiiit more money.
One criticism that I saw frequently is that it wasn't streamer friendly. The three boards, coupled with its mechanics and presentation, meant that unless you were playing the game it was difficult to quickly understand the board-state, say if you were flipping through Twitch looking for something to watch.
I feel like this whole situation was only amplified by the fact that when people see what looks like a new ip they want something new and unique (especially considering how Valve hadn't made new games in years and has been profiting off of microtransactions from their existing games) seeing that Artifact was "just another card game", fans of Valve in general became so disappointed, which along with people knowing how the game would be monetized would just end up pissing people off from the start.
Yeah, even if they had a few interesting ideas (ie letting you be able to let your friends try it if yo ubought in) but you can TELL they wanted to monetize it LIKE a TCG. After all, this *IS* Valve - and Valve IS the one who pretty much showed that the "Blind buy booster pack" would indeed sell in gaming. :/ Even if they weren't the ones who invented it? They sure as heck marketed it.
Same goes for Unserlords who never got out of Season 1. But the worst part is that it was totally unnecessary. The lack of updates made the playerbase drop, not the other way around
I don't understand it. Card games are a way to bring digital entertainment to real life. To bring it back into digital makes no sense. Especially when you don't even own any physical cards.
Some people just don't want the stress and hassle of actually owning physical (and thus valuable, fragile, and could get lost) cards, but would still like to experience the game for themselves. Also, I'm pretty sure card games existed before video games did.
As MTG player, I want to said that digital version of the game allows you to test different decks quickly. Also, sometimes you just don't wont to go to the club, but play 1-2 games before bedtime. And corona, you know
It makes playing easier and allows for more, deeper mechanics without having to memorize 1000 things. I play Legends of runeterra which uses keywords as a mechanic. U can give units shields, certain fighting abilities, etc. There’s also card creation or cards which vanish after a round. Or landmarks which transform into other cards. The game can get pretty complicated because the playstyle is really reactive. Players can respond to enemies spells instantly and then the other can react to that. Even digitally it can get pretty complicated and requires a ton of calculations and thinking. That would so annoying when done with physical cards. Digital card games enhance the experience. Plus u can play It wherever u want with people around the world.
@@hurensohn7605 Now that you mention it, I've heard that LoR has a much closer relationship to Artifact than you might expect. 1°: A lot of high profile LoR players are basically refugees from Artifact, almost all of the artifact figures in fact. 2°: LoR's gameplay is basically Artifact's gameplay with that back and foward turn base system, but without overcomplicating things like Valve did.
Also, Garfield is full of shit when he says Artifact is cheaper than MTG. You need to compare Artifact to Magic: the Gathering: Arena, since it's the main online client. And in MTGA, you can build a competitive deck for free in two weeks of just playing the game and doing your quests. Nothing crazy. It's what I and many other players do with every new block. Yeah it'll be one or two decks you can optimize every season, but that's what's you'd expect in paper formats with a 200 to 400 $ budget, anyway.
@@outsidercain3038 yeah, once word got out 4chan got involved and it kinda became a competition on what's the craziest shit that could get on there. Crazy thing was the streams would stay up for like ten minutes or so before they got banned.
Thank you very much for this series, you're making me discover a lot of games that otherwise would be totally forgotten. You deserve more attention on this platform. With love, Giadifax.
Richard Garfield is always such a weird figure to me. Sure, he's the great grandfather of all card games, and is therefore a huge part of my life. But Magic got better after he left, and he's kinda a dick.
I found out about Magic in 1995, and thought it was like a decade old at that point. It always amuses me to be reminded it was 2 years old at that point.
I was a person at the international. I am a big cardgame player, mostly shadowverse right now. I was not one that went "awww" I was actually stoked. Everyone's reaction to this game was really alienating to me. Then I played it and the random attack arrows made me lose randomly way too many times to count. After 1 week I was completely out... and I went back to playing dota.
Garfield fundamentally doesn't understand that this isn't 2005 anymore. What was acceptable and work for a physical game back then, doesn't necessarily apply anymore. Also it may be that your randomness is very limited in its impact, but how that randomness is perceived by the player is much more important than how random it actually is.
can we take a moment to acknowledge that about every game IP other than magic that richard garfield worked on pretty much self distructs within the first year?
Not entirely true, Keyforge has done super well (for reasons I dont get), and King of Tokyo was popular for a fair bit. Robo Rally has a hardcore fan base For the most part it's impossible to follow up how huge of a success MTG was, everything just looks 10x worse compared to it
Yeah that's something I had been thinking about for a while (not because of this game tho). He actually made a LOT more games than most people know of, but besides keyforge and very generously vampire tcg pretty much all of his other card games just failed spectacularly. A game store owner I know said to me once that his name on the front of a starter deck is way more profitable than his work and man he was right. I think he made some succesful board games tho
"On March 4, 2021, Valve announced that it had halted development of Artifact 2.0. In a statement on its website, Valve said that they were "reasonably satisfied we accomplished most of our game-side goals", but had not attracted enough players to justify further development. " Let's face it. Was anyone really surprised when this one bit was announced?
17:40 He seems to fundamentally misunderstand both why people are opposed to the pricing and how a game like this can make money. High entry level costs with a low ultimate gocha cost is not a benefit to anyone, Valve don't make as much money as they could and the players don't want to pay an entry fee for a game that still has microtransactions. $20 entry and $300 spending cap both discourages the skeptical buyer and doesn't leave much room to gouge the cash cows, which is a huge revenue source. Conversely Hearthstone is a win-win for everyone, no entry fee means anyone can just give it a try, as they get into it more they slowly sink more money into it. And obviously cash cows gonna cow, so Blizzard benefit from the high gocha cost. For high level play Artifact is cheaper, but if someone is invested enough in the game to reach "high level" they will invest the money. Every high level CSGO player has a $1k+ knife and that has literally zero gameplay benefit. Given he literally founded this business model with Magic it's honestly shocking how he doesn't understand this.
Interview of Richard Garfield and footage of Valve by Ars Technica.
Original Video Here: th-cam.com/video/n6B7QhZdXIo/w-d-xo.html
Website: arstechnica.com/
who else cums in their pants whenever he plays that sickass intro?
You used the wrong Magic: The Gathering card back. Also, do you think that if valve released another game alongside artifact that it wouldn't have been dead on arrival?
back when this was shown all my old guild members told me and everyone that played Hearthstone, that THIS would be the Hearthstone killer
And Steam has finally admitted the inevitable.
It is funny how you are able to put out these videos months even a year before it finally goes offline.
(P.S. Waiting for a series on Planetside, I guess 2 is still up but Arena and Classic is gone. However there is a PS Forever Emulator that has games on Sunday.)
Sorry to be offtopic but does any of you know a way to log back into an instagram account??
I was dumb lost the account password. I would love any tricks you can give me
In essence, you can say Valve... *didn't play it's cards right.*
YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
That was amazing.
Don't ever do it again.
its
Nice
bruh
shoulda covered its "revival on twitch" where people used it as a guise to stream movies/tv shows, and occasionally porn and other random stuff lol
I was there watching german stream, space dandy stream, and itadaki sekieki stream, we laughed so hard that day
It wasn't all fun. There was legit beastiality being streamed.
"other random stuff" = pr0n
@@Pwnstared yeah, lol
Other random stuff = Racist and Snuff videos FeelsWeirdMan
That massive "AAWWWWW...." from the audience was just blood-curdling. I haven't felt that genuine gesture of defeat since forever.
Some Yakuza Dad With a Beard compare it with the video were they launched Left4Dead 2.
Right up there with “don’t you guys have phones?” wahahaha
Diablo Immortal 2: Electric Boogaloo
@@TwighlightLugia This was before Diablo Immortal.
Not only did Valve make a game nobody wanted, they did so at the worst possible time, and it wasn't even that great to begin with...
"It's a terrible, clunky mess that lacks a lot of what was promised and is overwhelming. 9.5/10, it has a little bit of something for everyone."
Basically how every rating from 'big critics' is.
It's not good but it's better than nothing 9.5/10
Man after hearing from ppl who actually play card games
They said Artifact was a breath of fresh air polished and really good
But player base was very little and valve just gave up on artifact coz it wasn't giving them the same figures as Tf2 or Dota 2
So Artifact was a good game
But wasnt for your avg valve fan
I love hearing that Disappointment of the Audience.
The biggest problem: the IP. You need either a big established franchise or hit a home run with a new fresh franchise to get a TCG off the ground. Blizzard got a free pass because of all the auto-buy fans who love to live in the delusion bubble that is Blizzard's "eSports", ever since their last actual eSport, Starcraft, always chasing for a new Starcraft because they either missed out or weren't good enough. And just the size of the IP isn't enough. It probably has to not already be a good game either in video games or otherwise. (Warhammer 40,000 TCG failed, for example) And if it really has to be a game it has to be a richer world than some flipping moba. Unless you're Blizzard pre-political-suicide.
@@LoftySkinner I'd disagree in part, but I haven't really done any research on Artifact to back up my position entirely, because it's not worth my time, or anyone's time for that matter, I hate the game that I've never played and never will play, but the thing I hate the most is that it was the point where Valve stopped setting trends, and started following them.
The reason for disappointment is that Valve had been making great games for many years then suddenly when everyone wants a new installment to one of their older games they announce a card game.
@@chadnoneo9769 Thats not why the crowd at The International was disappointed. They were expecting some sort of Dota related announcement like a new hero, instead they got a card game that nobody asked for. Dota fans don't go to The International because they love Valve, they do it because they love Dota.
I would have laughed even harder if every single person in that audience stood up and left while Gabe Newell stands there looking stupid.
Oh, I thought this game never released. Thats how little I heard about it.
This game died so fast that my first experience with the gameplay was actually in this video.
I was at TI when they announced Artifact. The groan of disappointment was so loud that it immediately turned to laughter. I knew immediately the game would flop.
yikes (also question what does TI mean?)
@@razagan1343 DOTA 2 ti. TI= the intenational (esports grand tournament for dota 2, with prize pools over 30 million. the biggest prizew pool in gaming)
@@legendp2011 thank you
And now, a year later, artifact has died again. This time killed proper by valve itself.
Rip
NS is able to see the future months, even a year in advance
Bought game for 20$, cranked out all my included packs, sold all my cards for 28$, best game I was payed to play.
Stonks
@ lmao
@ You stupid? If you were selling cards on day 1 you could easily make a profit.
@ not funny, didn't laugh.
@@opgroundzero2.0 okay zoomer , i know you would laugh at someone playing a game while saying curse words that is your brain capacity
"300+ dollar game" "approachable"
gaming journalism everybody
Well its easy to see how that dissonance happens when the gaming journalist most likely gets the game with everything unlocked.
have you ever played hearthstone my man
I remember Brian Kibler of MTG Hall of Fame... fame saying that some of the designers he knew were quietly happy that Artifact died. To hear him tell it: “it basically flies in the face of every game design principal that we teach.” Very complicated style of play, multiple boards, a poor advancement system because buying all the cards in the game for ~30 bucks doesn’t create attachment and not being free to play while having that kind of economy, “we just don’t make games like that for a reason.”
“Had Artifact been successful, we basically would have had to ‘rewrite every textbook’ on how to make an engaging game.”
That's very interesting. Do you have a source for that video?
Means a lot coming from the guy who made sol forge lmao. There’s a reason killer just streams now.
@@moush with richard garfield
Those are some great points. Thanks for sharing what some of the designers were saying; it kind of attests to the fact the fans were right to downvote it as hard as they did on Metacritic.
I still miss the Artifact section on Twitch.
and the raw gachi FeelsBadMan
I love Lord of the Rings so much
I watched a good chunck of Guerren Lagann with twitch chat
Porn
@@divinityd662 wholesome
I feel like you might have missed why the initial announcement was so disappointing
It was far less about concerns over demonetization, and more about the fact that this was valve's first game after years of nothing, a game that felt like it was only made to chase industry trends.
And its planned reboot is dead now too.
What a wild ride.
The game is also just confusing to watch. I tried to watch a few streams when the game was new and could not understand what was going on, and I play yugioh which is unwatchable to most people.
The card game doesn't fit on one screen! Like, it'd be like if you had to play chess but on three separate tables--people don't WANT that.
not wrong as someone that loved artifact that was a big problem for the game. I didn't play pre beta but at launch and first couple months maybe that long the game had so much life. it felt like the player base left over night to be honest. The game wasn't a bad game imho ,but the player base was very very mad.
@@nyimets It was purely the RNG. The first few matches felt great. I felt like I immediatly got into the game and it was always close af. Then I got suspicious in always having close AF games. With time I realized that the games were close AF no matter how or what I played. It was purely RNG deciding who won and who lost. There was one time were a singular hit on the tower of an abandoned lane would've won me the round. I've had a super strong character on this lane that would no problem take the tower out with the next hit.
4 Rounds in a row, that guy had some RNG happening resulting in an enemy minion setting itself directly before my character or similar.
I play a lot of other TCGs and tried watching some artifact early on. Even after watching a decent amount of time I STILL have no idea what's going on in this game. That makes me completely uninterested in ever playing. Money is a completely separate problem. I wouldn't have played this even if it were free to start with.
cause its graphics is crap
Artifact was already dead on arrival.
The game itself was really good, but everything around the gameplay drove me away.
Stillborn of a Game
Game without real demand or audience, with a monetisation model that's out of touch with reality.
More like DO(T)A, amirite?
It wasn't really. It had a few hundred thousand people who bought it immediatly. The problem was actually keeping the players after these players realized how bad the gameplay is.
"I think I made a great game, which is why I would rather go off and start something new, while all those lesser employees can sit around and clean up all the broken pieces of my totally great game."
What an obnoxious ass.
The thing is that is exactly what happened with Magic the Gathering. He developed the initial concept for the game, but it was refined with the help of Richard Adkison's team from Wizards of the Coast. The problem is that here, he was responsible for far more. Richard Garfield is good for developing the initial game, but you definitely want someone who has experience with gameplay mechanics of card games to refine his ideas and to "check" his work. Even Keyforge had this problem for a while with the Four Horsemen being able to cheat the house mechanic.
@@ohnosmoarlulcatz Yup. If you look at MTG for a moment, richard garfield was brought back to do a MTG set recently set in dominaria. Some of the card designs he came up with were so damn wacky they had to be put in unstable which is a set of joke cards that dont even work in the rules (like a knight that makes you do the hokey-pokey). The guy's a good designer but he comes at it with the toughtfullness and subtelty of a nail-filled shotgun shot point blank at a bottle of grain alcohol.
@@ohnosmoarlulcatz "The problem is that here, he was responsible for far more", source to this please? To me it seems that he has had way less responsibility than stated by people who can't back it up. Valve employees themselves played the game, had zero knowledge on tabletop game design and followed some boomer designers card game fantasy.
@@DrprophetiusIn the development of MTG, Richard Garfield had less responsibility because there were numerous people who were overseeing the development of the game and eventually refined it to what it was today. There were actual people to oversee his work and adjust things. Essentially, he just came up with the basic concept and others built on his work. Nowadays, the Play Design Team of MTG is supposed to do this though they frequently get ignored.
By comparison, Richard Garfield doesn't seem to have a team like this overseeing his work in Artifact.
th-cam.com/video/_If41SYSg3c/w-d-xo.html
He essentially says that he had heavy input in all aspects of the game early on. But, the hands off director/producer essentially gave him free reign and without a Play Design team or something like it to check his work, he essentially became the de facto director/producer of the game. Just like you said, the Valve employees didn't have much knowledge of table top so these problems become prevalent.
@@ohnosmoarlulcatz But in your video he states that he was there once a week, only more at the beginning of the game... And "lead developer" sounds cool but it's Valve, they have this weird ass no bosses structure.
In your logic, the game was worked on only once a week, so once a week he came in and ruined the game? This video is also from the important beta times...
Richard made the basic game structure, and Valve fucked up the game.
Who could've guessed that ignoring your community usually doesn't end well?
*half life 3*
*Portal 3*
*Team fortress 3*
@@ineedaname1341
Left 4 Dead 3
Dota 3
Steam 2
Rohan Ghosh
Half Life 3
Left 4 Dead 3
Portal 3
Team Fortress 3
DotA 3
Half life 2: Episode 3
Any of them is better than Artifact.
DotA 2 has been massively overhauled twice since launch. We're basically playing DotA 4 in 2020.
True. Though in some cases a developer with a vision has a better idea of what a game should be than the community mostly made up of laymen - especially when the most badly informed voices become the loudest. It's possible to listen to the community too much, and respond to the worst feedback about what a game needs - and a lot of competitive games have died because of over-responding to player feedback. (Artifact was not one of those cases though, definitely not lol.)
"competitive decks in magic costing several hundreds of dollars"
Oh sweet summer child....
*laughs in vintage and legacy*
Yeah thats cute
* laughs in Yu-Gi-Oh *
^ Vintage decks are more valuable than most players cars. I checked recent tourny lists. Yu Gi Oh (4-8) is a little cheaper than Modern(4-1K), more than Standard.(1-4) Legacy (3K+) and Vintage(30K+) just get out of control.
But eventually in Magic Arena you can build competitive deck with minimal donations
Looks like this Garfield got a case of the Mondays.
Lol!
Goddamit I loled
Fans: "Please give me Half-Life 3, L4D 3, an update to TF2's Man vs. Machine game mode, or anything that's actually worth my time."
Valve: "Ok here's a Dota themed card game that nobody asked for! Please be excited!"
Fans: "................."
Why does everyone keep saying that stupid shit over and over again? It's like objectively false. Few people booing on a fucking event doesn't mean jack shit when hundreds of thousands of players bought the game on the first day! "nobody asked for" is a circlejerk which means nothing to be honest. People wanted that shit, the fact that they bought it, is the proof of it. The game sucked balls, had shitty features and ridiculous mechanics, not to mention pay to play shittiness. Stop misinforming people and use your own brain.
@@Sportfuck People also wanted No man´s sky, mate.
@@sirrismendozasunlessrealms5775 The original argument is, "Nobody wanted a dota card game". Which is a false statement. Nobody wanted a dota card game which sucks balls. People would want a good dota card game.
Gimme Ricochet 2 or give me death.
I wanted a good Dota card game more than half life 3 so thats bs
Happy New Year everyone, and to many more with you guys. 2020 will bring the biggest changes and most ambitious projects yet, starting off the year with this Artifact DOAG and following it up with 2 big DOAGs. We have our unannounced new series coming as well that highlights video game terminology and tries to explain both the origins and current meaning!
Happy new year, thanks for the years of insightful content that help devs and fans know whats what
First they were Wizzards, then they became "Planeswalkers"
While I agree with your overall assessment here… There WAS a concerted effort to review-bomb this game and give it as bad rep as possible. Every new player approaching the game was bombarded with messages "dead game, dead game, don't play it" on the first week of release - even from people who didn't own or played the game. Trolling was evident in Twitch streams - where every second message was someone discouraging people from enjoying the game - it was annoying for players, watchers, and streamers as well. The effort to bomb the game culminated in a complete takeover of Artifact category on Twitch. It was lead by at least one *chan and possibly some subreddits as well. Artifact's demise was also correlated with the unexpected (and short-lived) rise of Auto-chess - which culminated with big market valuation for Autochess team at the time and their eventual buyout by Epic. Valve's response was to shift Artifact's team to rush Dota Underlords to market in time.
Excellent video, great flow of information. Many thanks for that. And happy 2020.
Sounds cool. This Channel is the best.
This video may as well be called "Start Simple: How NOT to make a TCG"
Most of the good ones are very simple at their base and become complex as a result of development and player intuition.
I think this idea rings true in many facets of life extending far beyond card games, Valve titles, and the videogame media.
I own a Macbook and a laptop but if you asked me to recover your computer or swap out a dead motherboard, I'd be just as confused as you.
Just as many of us rely on mechanics to repair our cars, carpenters our homes, doctors our wounds, and instructors to teach our children. On the surface, many of things we do on a daily basis don't seem hard to accomplish but just because things are easy to understand on the surface doesn't mean that they easy to create or easy to master.
Some while persevere a difficult situation but if you're attempt to sell to a massive audience or appeal to the uninitiated as Artifact, cars, sports, medicine, and many facets of life do, there has to be some sort of entrance into that lifestyle and adjusting commonfolk to that path.
But this is pretentious as fuck so keep it simple stupid.
What you mean Rag used to deal 8 to face.
All Rag does is kill that 1/1 minion when your opponent is at 8 health and a 7/8 taunt
"Die Insect"
*literally swats an insect*
I'm pretty sure his text says: "If the opponents board is fully filled and he has 8 or less health hit face"
I was notified by Conde Nast (Ars Technica) to remove the footage I used in this video. This is the video in question (it's the clips of Richard Garfield talking with an Ars Technica writer with no sound used, just the footage) th-cam.com/video/n6B7QhZdXIo/w-d-xo.html&t= . It is obviously not our intention, simply just forgot to list the source. The content is more than fair-use however.
Edit: They have doubled down following me blurring their content stating they still want it removed. I believe by law (www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/fair-use) I am more than protected under fair use, as my content is both transformative and educational in nature.
The clips in question are as follows. In some cases, only just a few seconds are used (literally just to show Richard Garfields face).
5:38
5:59
6:17
17:38
18:12
18:18
19:07
20:51
21:15
22:12
22:51
23:07
23:38
26:22
Dirt bags
I would be frustrated if someone took my work without credit, though I wonder why it couldn't have been sourced instead of blurred
Because you can't edit it post production on TH-cam only blur or delete it's annoying
Don't worry I'll unsubscribe from them to make a point, I got your back.
@@nerdSlayerstudioss A shame, annotations were cool
As great as Richard Garfield is, it is important to remember that Magic the Gathering's success is largely attributed to Peter Adkison rather than Richard Garfield. Richard Garfield did design the basic layout of MTG, but much of the growth that it underwent was due to the model that Adkison developed with LGS (Local Game Stores). The people at Wizards of the Coast also helped develop the expansions, which were mostly successful until Adkison's departure in 2001. From that point on, MTG was a lot more volatile. You do see a few good things once in a while, but they often will have a disastrous set that they have to overcompensate for the following year. Without that same model in place, it was really hard for Artifact to grow. Ironically, Hasbro had begun to cut ties to LGSs as of 2017 along with massively raising the prices of their products across the board and many stores no longer carry the card game as a result of it.
For me, Artifact suffers because of how hard it was to get into. The whole three boards thing was probably the dumbest idea design wise. It should have been one board with five columns like Yugioh. Have the left two serve as the left board, the center for the middle, and the right two serve as the right board instead of three different boards. This way you only have to manage one board at least. With three boards, it is just impossible to even tell what's going on for new players.
The other issue is that there's very few "answers" to different cards. For example, Axe was almost a free win in a lane due to his 2 armor. There were very few cards that could take out a hero that had become too strong. Without answers to counter a card, the meta is established very early and you really can't do anything to stop it.
Riot Games's Legends of Runeterra is suffering from the same problem right now. The Undying is a good example for that.
Another issue for Artifact is that the meta was set day 1 of the release because of the content creators who had been testing the game already found most of the best combo's before launch. The sad thing is that Artifact was pretty good in phantom draft, but not really worth doing anything else than that other than the precon deck tourney thing.
Execution > Idea.
You're absolutely right. It might be hard to get into, but Artifact was quite simply just a bad game. The idea wasn't good, it was badly designed and poorly executed. And the game died because of that.
If the game had been good in the first place, then it can survive a rocky over-monetized start out of the gate because you will keep a least some amount of player retention for the first few months while you solve issues. But artifact lost almost all of its players in the first 3 months. And the only explanation to that is that it simply wasn't fun. And I don't believe for a second that if it launched feature-complete (chat wheel, etc) that it would have helped.
Valve simply didn't care about making a fun game as much as they cared about making a card game. And this is the result.
DotA2 has also consistently been bleeding players. Every change that Valve makes to DotA2 seems to decrease its popularity. They're making their game less fun to play.
And now Valve is making Alyx. A VR game for an extremely niche audience that anyone who wants to play will have to spend hundreds of dollars in order to get to the stage where they can play it. Unless they already own a VR set, which most people do not. Its a first person shooter that they are specifically limiting to VR for no reason... If they're not making a non-VR version then I'm sure modders will.
Considering Valve's current track record... I don't believe their next game will be made with FUN in mind.
@@Trakesh The market was still oversaturated with competent and established digital card games. Even good game struggle in that environment.
Expansions were mostly succesful till 2001? Are you fucking serious? They were a complete fucking disaster. If there was any competition at all MTG would never have survived to 2001.
Damn, that "Source: TotalBiscuit" hit me right in the feels :(
You missed a few important things - one of the reasons why Valve was so out of touch was because of the way they handled beta. Closed beta access was only given to 1. Valve employees and 2. Professional CCG players and casters. This was a 6-9 month period where Valve relied on their feedback, everything was under NDA so crucial bits of information were not being leaked to the public, and this demographic bias led to the idea that the business model / gameplay was good enough for launch; and then they had an "open beta" which was really just a one-week headstart, far too late for actual feedback from the general player population.
Side note: Casters ARE valve employees, probably contract employees. Their job and income depends on every year getting invited to cast at every tournament. Would you risk alienating your employer by bad mouthing their newest product, when your job is to represent that company and speak good about their other product for most of your career?
I don't get this idea that companies can *ONLY* listen to the super hardcore pro demographic. Literally a single digits percent of the player base and are the equivalent to "whales" of f2p mobile games.
Wait I think I just figured out the answer
@@adriannaranjo4397 Yeah thats pretty stupid. But they did this a few times. Like the steam controller. Maybe it's the greatest controller ever, but nobody cared because iT's too complicated just like Artifact. Who have thought that the average player lacks the attention span to play 3! tables at the same time. Like bro. Some of us can't even rember our previous meal. Valve as I know want to revolutionize again. As always. They actually did something unique. But not all unique things are good.
No no no my boy look how they massacred my boy
Love you Slacks
This game's "death" (how can you kill something that was stillborn?), is a combination of Valve chasing trends for a profit, and Valve publishing a game no one wanted from them.
sounds like valve's usual motive.
@@Dr.Strangelewd exactly, the last thing any one wanted from valve was a card game
@@8Kazuja8 The game. Could not fit. On one screen.
No one wants to play chess on three tables.
@@8Kazuja8 damn, this was a well written reply.
Trouble in large numbers the game itself is nice and well done yes.
Problem is, nobody wanted it, fans of Valve wanted the games they never gave them: LFD 3, TF 3, Half Life 3 and so on...
Artifact is the perfect example to show future ccg makers on what not to do if you want to be successful.
For me what killed this game (and my interest in it) is that it had this awful stench that this was not made with the idea of making a brilliant and innovative new game in mind, but a new "marketplace" type experience that would be super profitable for Valve first and a great game later. While I don't think TF2 and CSGO are bad games, seeing how Valve started to put so much emphasis in the marketplace aspect of the games it gave the impression that they were starting to get a bit too greedy for their own good, with this game being the culmination of this.
Valve only makes games that have a marketplace now, they have no interest otherwise
@@NightRaidGaming hl alyx
in development citadel
hl: x
cough
I think one of the main reasons people were so upset about the announcement of artifact was the hopes we had for it being ANYTHING else. A new single player game? A new IP? ANYTHING DIFFERENT?
Artifact is a reminder that Valve isn't this charitable saint. They'd gladly do what EA does, if their fanbase allowed it. Thankfully we don't
Tbh, the fact that they popularized (if not outright introduced) lootboxes in the west, and have the most predatory ones shouldve already given that away. But somehow Valve, the one most deserving of scorn, almost entirely avoided it during the Lootbox backlash.
They were never the "good" guys.
Next to no company is a saint, but Valve is at least not so insistent on ignoring the community as most others.
Valve had a massive hand in the proliferation and acceptance did loot boxes. They did EA before EA.
Enjoy your 40 map skin for Dota.
“Thankfully we don’t” uhhh what? Valve is notorious for not listening to their player base period. They have too much steam money to give a shit about anything because basically nothing effects their bottom line. The only reason Artifact was *barely* acknowledged is because to much money was sunk into making it.
Not that it even matters at all because they’re going to make buckets off the overpriced half life 3/ VR thing.
i genuinly watched your entire series death of a game, skipping and avoiding watching this video, because holy god it hurts to watch, hear and feel this journey.
I mean the graphics, the arts, the concept, the lore, i personally LOVED it, yet i understand and it pains me how Valve messed this up and didn't listen to the majority of the audience to keep it alive.
And the music you used in the background kicks in a lot of feelings, good memories of times i enjoyed the game, but sad that it was mistreated and gone.
Imagine having such a large fanbase as Valve desperately begging for a new release and they just go like "Here's a card game lol"
Garfield used a famous tactic called "Whataboutism" in regard Artifact's RNG and cost, which is basically instead of adressing the criticism, he points to another individual doing the same thing and say "What about Magic/Hearthstone?! It's cost a lot too!".
Whataboutism is a fallacy, it's not an answer to the criticism, because the fact someone else also does something doesn't make something immune to being criticized just because other people does it too.
Makes sense, seeing how whataboutism is the name of the game when it comes to business model in TCGs in general. Whenever I ask a TCG player why TCG games have to have booster packs bordering on pay2win, instead of just giving everyone a level playing field and access to all the cards, the answer is always "that's just how TCGs are, look at Magic".
I think if they relaunch Artifact with the same business model that their other games have(i.e all gameplay elements are free for everyone, with cosmetics being locked behind microtransactions), then I can actually see Artifact being revived.
@@BlindBison
I too played hearthstone from launch to about the middle of kobolds and catacombs (2014-2017). I think the only money I paid was when the 10 dollar starter deal came out, so 99% of my cards were free.
As a free player, I have to absolutely disagree with monetization being a problem, at least at that time. HS was very generous with daily quests, free legendaries and all adventures being able to be bought with gold (in game currency).
To start, hearthstone gives you basic cards and 9 basic decks. You get more cards by just playing the game, so you can at least make your own decks for practically no investment.
Next, the dailies. It didn't even take an hour out of my day to do a quest daily, and there were 3 slots, so you could just play once every three days to get all the quest money.
Then there was the dust system where you can use other cards to craft a specific card you want.
To top this off, a pro player (trumpsc) did the f2p challenge almost every expansion. The challenge was to make it to legend rank using a new account and without paying. Most of the time he did.
Compare all that to artifact where you pay for the game and then have to start paying for cards immediately if you want to do anything other than draft mode
@@BlindBison
K&C came after Knight of the Frozen Throne, so I stopped right after that point. From what you say I have to agree, it is definitely problematic as is. But I think complaining about current HS is missing the overarching point of why Artifact failed in comparison.
Hearthstone had a great first year or two. Everyone could come in to play for free and get the cards if they played enough. As you said, stuff like guardian of kings and other "trash" saw play. When the mech expansion happened it was a bit harder for people with no mechs (most of them were literal upgrades to basic cards), but there was almost always a way to play smarter and build counters (dr.7 and cheap bgh). Even in year 3 when Defile and other must-includes were introduced, you could reasonably craft them instead of relying on pack rng.
Sure, you couldn't reasonably get a wallet warrior deck going, but everything else was fairly obtainable.
In summary, it wasn't perfect, but you could make do.
Artifact never had that period where anyone could join in and play a few games. The basic cards are laughably bad now, but they were a serviceable entry point. In contrast, Artifact had nothing for new players, you gotta put in money to get any deck going. You have to have a lot of faith in a game to pay the entry fee and then start paying for card packs/market prices just to get your feet wet with deck building. Considering the caliber of reaction it got from the reveal, they should have been smarter about how they sell their game to the people.
@@BlindBison you can still play most of heartstone modes without a deck. I havent played ladder for years and enjoy only playing other modes.
Mtg and hs use rng for creating a decent new player experience so he though that with artificact it could be the same
RIP Total Biscuit =(
We still miss you TB. :(
1010010111001010 no loss... it is a loss man.
Same
1010010111001010 get a load of this edgelord
What happened to Total Biscuit?
It's funny to go back to this and see the ending talking about the "success of Dota Underlords and Auto Chess" after the Underlords episode.
The big, initial boo was because we had been promised that Valve would be announcing a new game at The International - and obviously, people were expecting HL, L4D, Portal, or some entirely new project. Instead, we got a game absolutely no one was asking for. It's fact that it was *Valve* who made the announcement that's important.
I'm certain that if this game was free it wouldn't have died as quickly.
I agree with you
I would have actually tried it if it were free
Magic: The game that introduced the genre
Hearthstone: The game that streamlined it for PC
Artifact: ThReE lAnEs
Thank God, I was looking for something to watch and got your notification.
Appreciate the honesty upfront that you're not familiar with trading card games, much prefer that to someone acting like a poser and getting everything wrong.
*Sees the six color M:TG card back from an Inquest article in the mid-90s.* Waitasecond...
First video of yours that I've seen, I think. Good start for the TH-cam algorithm in 2020 by suggesting you to me. I even let a five minute ad play out without skipping it. Good video. Keep it up. And RIP TotalBiscuit. He's still missed.
"Allowed to play all CHAMPIONS"
Dota 2 players: "Oh no you didn't!"
My favorite part of this is that every image of a Magic the Gathering card back used in this video is a fake fan composite of what card backs would look like if we ever got the fabled sixth color of magic, Purple.
there's only supposed to be 5 little orbs on the back of a Magic card.
My editor doesn't play MTG and I thought it was good footage regardless
RIP Total Biscuit! Nice vid, miss the guy.
"how many time do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?"
The game failed, but I gotta say, the personality and animations of those red and blue gremlin things are fantastic. The way they taunt each other, and seemingly react in relation to the layout of the board looks great. In one tiny clip in this vid, I saw one player with a ton of cards on the board, and their gremlin looked chill and relaxed, like "we got this", and the other one looked scared and nervous. I find that awesome.
Honestly, I like the idea, but they seem creepy rather than endearing to me. Their mouths open waaay to wide for comfort.
They look like they will do flips and giggle and then sink their teeth in your neck the moment you look away
eh they look kinda forced to me, and there's just way too much shit going on
0:33 You can't fool me. There's no purple pip on the back of Magic cards. As much as I wish purple was real, it could never be.
As soon as I heard that crowd reaction I knew the game was a flop from the start
I played artifact in beta and preordered it afterwards cause I knew the cards will be sold on the the steam marketplace. As soon as it launched I opened my booster packs, immediately sold all the card on the market and refunded the game a couple days later. Easiest ~100€ I've ever made xD
I would add that M:tG ARENA's success and actual working UI (over it's predecessor) also really worked against this title. I really enjoyed Artifact as a more complex card game, but with Arena being so good, and some odd choices in Artifact and well.... it simply couldn't compete and got more and more stymied in issues.
Artifact was dead before the launch when they announced it would cost 20$ plus ingame purchases to play. No one that wasn't a paid streamer did even bother after that.
If it weren't for my coworker who showed me videos of this game before it came out, I probably wouldn't even know about it. In fact after seeing the videos, I completely forgot about it until a Yong video popped up in my feed with a title like "Artifact already lost 97% of its players" or something like that.
I'm Brazilian, I have a hard time understanding someone speaking English, I can read in English, but watching a video, listening to a podcast is almost impossible for me, there is no brilliant channel like this, making this content rich in information in my language, I couldn't understand 100% of the video, but I really liked it, congratulations!
"Are we supposed to believe there was some grand conspiracy to buy and negatively review Artifact?"
To be fair, that interview was at the time when borderlands games WERE getting review bombed. There were some idiots who bought BL2 just to give it a negative review.
Obviously Artifact was not review bombed in the same way, but I could definately see someone who doesn't understand internet outrage seeing it as the same thing.
I think one of the biggest problem was that Valve was chasing a trend that was already dying. And there are other similar examples to be seen like Elders Scrolls (card game), Scrolls (Mojang) etc.
All these live services are making certain you will never run out of content.
Also IGN style Pandering provides for great context to the failures of the industry.
How many live services can one industry really handle though? Don't we have enough? How can we possibly play them all and keeping playing all of them every time there is an update, when new ones come out all the time and those already established are so content rich, having well established competitive scenes and thriving communities? Artifact double dipping on a fixed price for the product yet having thousands of micro transactions was always going to implode from such clashing ideologies.
@@cattysplat it doesn't matter if the market can't handle it. Companies trying to please shareholders who don't understand anything about the industry will Thelma and Louise the industry into an early grave for the chance of a biiiiiit more money.
"valve never made a bad game"
theres always a first time
Artifact is not that bad as a game tho.
@@me67galaxylife It didn't fail cause it was great though
Well, there was also ricochet.
@@busyBaldurus Don't you dare talk shit about ricochet.
@@regalvas It failed because nobody wanted a card game
you didn't go over the best part, summer of 2019 artifacts twitch gets highjacked
One criticism that I saw frequently is that it wasn't streamer friendly. The three boards, coupled with its mechanics and presentation, meant that unless you were playing the game it was difficult to quickly understand the board-state, say if you were flipping through Twitch looking for something to watch.
I feel like this whole situation was only amplified by the fact that when people see what looks like a new ip they want something new and unique (especially considering how Valve hadn't made new games in years and has been profiting off of microtransactions from their existing games) seeing that Artifact was "just another card game", fans of Valve in general became so disappointed, which along with people knowing how the game would be monetized would just end up pissing people off from the start.
Richard Garfield being involved in a game is more of a red flag than anything else for me for a long time now.
Yeah, even if they had a few interesting ideas (ie letting you be able to let your friends try it if yo ubought in) but you can TELL they wanted to monetize it LIKE a TCG. After all, this *IS* Valve - and Valve IS the one who pretty much showed that the "Blind buy booster pack" would indeed sell in gaming. :/ Even if they weren't the ones who invented it? They sure as heck marketed it.
>WHEN YOU FAIL SO HARD YOU FORCE VALVE TO MAKE THEIR OWN GAMES AGAIN.
Aand Artifact 2.0 got cancelled after Anthem 2.0 got cancelled. Thought the meme was not being able to count to three, not two.
avenger end game is next
Same goes for Unserlords who never got out of Season 1. But the worst part is that it was totally unnecessary. The lack of updates made the playerbase drop, not the other way around
I don't understand it. Card games are a way to bring digital entertainment to real life. To bring it back into digital makes no sense. Especially when you don't even own any physical cards.
But you dont have to shuffle and all the other annoying stuff you have to do irl. There is clearly a place for dtcg
Some people just don't want the stress and hassle of actually owning physical (and thus valuable, fragile, and could get lost) cards, but would still like to experience the game for themselves. Also, I'm pretty sure card games existed before video games did.
As MTG player, I want to said that digital version of the game allows you to test different decks quickly. Also, sometimes you just don't wont to go to the club, but play 1-2 games before bedtime.
And corona, you know
It makes playing easier and allows for more, deeper mechanics without having to memorize 1000 things. I play Legends of runeterra which uses keywords as a mechanic. U can give units shields, certain fighting abilities, etc. There’s also card creation or cards which vanish after a round. Or landmarks which transform into other cards. The game can get pretty complicated because the playstyle is really reactive. Players can respond to enemies spells instantly and then the other can react to that. Even digitally it can get pretty complicated and requires a ton of calculations and thinking. That would so annoying when done with physical cards. Digital card games enhance the experience. Plus u can play It wherever u want with people around the world.
@@hurensohn7605 Now that you mention it, I've heard that LoR has a much closer relationship to Artifact than you might expect. 1°: A lot of high profile LoR players are basically refugees from Artifact, almost all of the artifact figures in fact. 2°: LoR's gameplay is basically Artifact's gameplay with that back and foward turn base system, but without overcomplicating things like Valve did.
Also, Garfield is full of shit when he says Artifact is cheaper than MTG. You need to compare Artifact to Magic: the Gathering: Arena, since it's the main online client. And in MTGA, you can build a competitive deck for free in two weeks of just playing the game and doing your quests. Nothing crazy. It's what I and many other players do with every new block. Yeah it'll be one or two decks you can optimize every season, but that's what's you'd expect in paper formats with a 200 to 400 $ budget, anyway.
dude i played the game for hours trying to figure out the rules. I still have no idea what was going on.
As of writing, the game's gone for good.
totalbiscuit content used in video: may he rest in piece
I just checked the player count. As of today
24 hour count- 24 playeers
48 hour high- 46 players
People were hoping a surprise announcement at a valve event would be a Half life game. Hence the giant boos.
This wasn't a death. It was a stillborn.
This game was hard as balls.. I spent 15 hour spans trying to learn all the cards.. was fun for a month or two
I just had a DOAG binge last night and I'm treated with a new one today! Happy New Year!
Why not cover that weekend where the twitch category for Artiflop was filled with fun, Avengers endgame and porn?
@@briangriffith4574 wow you serious?
@@outsidercain3038 yeah, once word got out 4chan got involved and it kinda became a competition on what's the craziest shit that could get on there. Crazy thing was the streams would stay up for like ten minutes or so before they got banned.
@@briangriffith4574 Damn... Knew about film streaming but not that stuff... Thx for the info
@@outsidercain3038 this girl covered it pretty well if you wanna know more th-cam.com/video/0DaT1G_b7aQ/w-d-xo.html
@@HenriqueRJchiki you did God's work my man!
Thank you very much for this series, you're making me discover a lot of games that otherwise would be totally forgotten. You deserve more attention on this platform.
With love,
Giadifax.
Richard Garfield is always such a weird figure to me. Sure, he's the great grandfather of all card games, and is therefore a huge part of my life. But Magic got better after he left, and he's kinda a dick.
I found out about Magic in 1995, and thought it was like a decade old at that point. It always amuses me to be reminded it was 2 years old at that point.
Its coming back!!!
You don't get many examples of Dead on Arrival but this was definitely one of them, RIP Artifact.
I can’t believe all 356 concurrent players disliked this video.
I was a person at the international. I am a big cardgame player, mostly shadowverse right now. I was not one that went "awww" I was actually stoked. Everyone's reaction to this game was really alienating to me.
Then I played it and the random attack arrows made me lose randomly way too many times to count. After 1 week I was completely out... and I went back to playing dota.
"million dollar tournament" goes up there with "half life 3"
Garfield fundamentally doesn't understand that this isn't 2005 anymore.
What was acceptable and work for a physical game back then, doesn't necessarily apply anymore.
Also it may be that your randomness is very limited in its impact, but how that randomness is perceived by the player is much more important than how random it actually is.
can we take a moment to acknowledge that about every game IP other than magic that richard garfield worked on pretty much self distructs within the first year?
Not entirely true, Keyforge has done super well (for reasons I dont get), and King of Tokyo was popular for a fair bit. Robo Rally has a hardcore fan base
For the most part it's impossible to follow up how huge of a success MTG was, everything just looks 10x worse compared to it
Yeah that's something I had been thinking about for a while (not because of this game tho). He actually made a LOT more games than most people know of, but besides keyforge and very generously vampire tcg pretty much all of his other card games just failed spectacularly. A game store owner I know said to me once that his name on the front of a starter deck is way more profitable than his work and man he was right.
I think he made some succesful board games tho
looking at the turn changes in this game is such an overwhelming clusterfuck lmao
"On March 4, 2021, Valve announced that it had halted development of Artifact 2.0. In a statement on its website, Valve said that they were "reasonably satisfied we accomplished most of our game-side goals", but had not attracted enough players to justify further development. "
Let's face it. Was anyone really surprised when this one bit was announced?
I cant believe you just called Land Mana
I'd love too see you take a look into Absolver, a game that had some hope but ultimately a shell of what it could have been.
This video series deserves at least 1M views per episode
It's TCG like these that reminds me why I'm not into them.
I love your series and loved the base idea of Artifact, being a TCG-nerd myself. Thank you for making this one!
17:40 He seems to fundamentally misunderstand both why people are opposed to the pricing and how a game like this can make money. High entry level costs with a low ultimate gocha cost is not a benefit to anyone, Valve don't make as much money as they could and the players don't want to pay an entry fee for a game that still has microtransactions. $20 entry and $300 spending cap both discourages the skeptical buyer and doesn't leave much room to gouge the cash cows, which is a huge revenue source. Conversely Hearthstone is a win-win for everyone, no entry fee means anyone can just give it a try, as they get into it more they slowly sink more money into it. And obviously cash cows gonna cow, so Blizzard benefit from the high gocha cost. For high level play Artifact is cheaper, but if someone is invested enough in the game to reach "high level" they will invest the money. Every high level CSGO player has a $1k+ knife and that has literally zero gameplay benefit. Given he literally founded this business model with Magic it's honestly shocking how he doesn't understand this.
Oh darn didn't expect to see this on your channel lmao