Blizz: Hearthstone

[donjehova]

Managed to recover my battle.net account today and signed up for the beta. Any keys flying around would be appreciated tho.

The game is super hot right now, and keys are only given to stream fags... or on ebay appearently:
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/9678648590

EDIT: I am actually a little exited about this game. Every streamer I have seen so far has been: "Meh this is way to simplistic, it won't be fun. Maybe one more game...", then proceed to stream the game 18 hours a day going batshit crazy...

[Nicho Void]

Yeah, much like Starcraft 2, keys are hot as fuck right now.

Edit: Also, this game is going to be awesome. All you "lolp2w" ragers clearly only ever play constructed decks. Hearthstone has a draft mode.

[Trindermon]

Isn't every CCG pay to win?

Scrolls is getting a lot of complaints because it isn't P2W enough. There, you have to grind with time your collection of cards instead of buying your way to the top.

There is an interesting argument around these subjects - at least one ive always found interesting -

So here is the question, why is it ok for someone to be time rich, and not for someone to be cash rich?

This is kinda aimed @ Lallante who's said "Just because all CCGs are p2w doesnt make it any better as a concept".

And i am not arguing one is better than another, i just think its a interesting argument.

I think the answer is that any game where progressing plays a part its a problem of either time or currency (of some kind).

The only time you don't have a problem is when a game is a straight up system from the off with no progression that isn't in the initial bang?

Edit: Also, this game is going to be awesome. All you "lolp2w" ragers clearly only ever play constructed decks. Hearthstone has a draft mode.

And in counter and in interests of a balanced argument, that draft still comes from your own cards that you have unlocked, crafted or bought.

[Lallante]

The reason P2W CCGs are bad is that they use psychological tricks to make people spend far more than the benefit they are getting. Many of those tricks are also used by games paid for by "microtransactions".

Basically the human brain thinks of 10 payments of $1 very differently (more favourably) from how it thinks of one payment of $10, even if you receive exactly the same thing either way. Another trick involves ensuring that while you can play for free, to actual compete with others you must invest serious money. People start playing the game telling themselves it will be free and before they know it they are putting in small amounts of cash just to be able to actual play it properly. Over time this snowballs and they end up paying more than for a full price retail game. They also fuck over children who may not realise the $50 bauble they just purchased with one press actually costs real (parents) money.

CCGs and some Microtransaction games are therefore exploiting 'loopholes' in people's ability to rationally assess value in order to milk customers for more money. Its farmville on crack.

The game being "fun" doesn't somehow excuse this. If you need to spend $200 to be competative in game, and being competative is the main purpose of the game, how many people would buy the game if this $200 was the upfront cost? Far less than the number that will eventually spend $200 (often without realising it) through a series of $1-3 micropayments.

There's a reason the games industry has massively embraced microtransactions, and its not because they represent a good value proposition for consumers.

[W0lf Crendraven]

They also fuck over children who may not realise the $50 bauble they just purchased with one press actually costs real (parents) money.

That reminds of of a app in the app store, was a simple game for very small children (1-3y) that was f2p, yet has a super easy to access store that was opimized for the handling of toddlers (big pictures, the i accept button had a icon that was somehow made so that toddlers would press it while the cancel button had a spider on it or something) and where every single item cost over 50 bucks.

Parents buy it, let their offsrpings play and lose 500 bucks in half an hour.

[Trindermon]

So 2 questions,

1. I didn't see an answer to the whole time rich vrs, money rich thing specifically (unless i missed it or unless the answer is , nickle and diming kids is bad thing) - so lets assume someone who is old enough to know the difference (cause i agree nickle and diming kids is bad).

So here is the question, why is it ok for someone to be time rich, and not for someone to be cash rich?
And i am not arguing one is better than another, i just think its a interesting argument.

and

2. If the match making is good, define "competitive" in the context of needing to buy cards to be competitive (unless again we are talking about CCGs in real life where there is no match making beyond common sense).

[Pacefalm]

The reason P2W CCGs are bad is that they use psychological tricks to make people spend far more than the benefit they are getting. Many of those tricks are also used by games paid for by "microtransactions".

Basically the human brain thinks of 10 payments of $1 very differently (more favourably) from how it thinks of one payment of $10, even if you receive exactly the same thing either way. Another trick involves ensuring that while you can play for free, to actual compete with others you must invest serious money. People start playing the game telling themselves it will be free and before they know it they are putting in small amounts of cash just to be able to actual play it properly. Over time this snowballs and they end up paying more than for a full price retail game. They also fuck over children who may not realise the $50 bauble they just purchased with one press actually costs real (parents) money.

CCGs and some Microtransaction games are therefore exploiting 'loopholes' in people's ability to rationally assess value in order to milk customers for more money. Its farmville on crack.

The game being "fun" doesn't somehow excuse this. If you need to spend $200 to be competative in game, and being competative is the main purpose of the game, how many people would buy the game if this $200 was the upfront cost? Far less than the number that will eventually spend $200 (often without realising it) through a series of $1-3 micropayments.

There's a reason the games industry has massively embraced microtransactions, and its not because they represent a good value proposition for consumers.

But you don't need $200 to be competitive. Regarding draft: you need to spend all of $1.99 and then you have the exact same chances as everyone else. Additionally, if you perform well (at least 7 wins / 3 losses) you make enough in-game credit to play again, without even having to make another $1.99 investment. Every single card in the game can be won via this draft system if you consistently win a lot of games. Playing for free also earns in-game credit that can be used for the drafts. In essence you are not "pay to win" but "pay to get the same cards more quickly", and this is only true for Constructed. In draft (arena) there is exactly zero pay to win.

[Nicho Void]

The reason P2W CCGs are bad is that they use psychological tricks to make people spend far more than the benefit they are getting. Many of those tricks are also used by games paid for by "microtransactions".

Basically the human brain thinks of 10 payments of $1 very differently (more favourably) from how it thinks of one payment of $10, even if you receive exactly the same thing either way. Another trick involves ensuring that while you can play for free, to actual compete with others you must invest serious money. People start playing the game telling themselves it will be free and before they know it they are putting in small amounts of cash just to be able to actual play it properly. Over time this snowballs and they end up paying more than for a full price retail game. They also fuck over children who may not realise the $50 bauble they just purchased with one press actually costs real (parents) money.

CCGs and some Microtransaction games are therefore exploiting 'loopholes' in people's ability to rationally assess value in order to milk customers for more money. Its farmville on crack.

The game being "fun" doesn't somehow excuse this. If you need to spend $200 to be competative in game, and being competative is the main purpose of the game, how many people would buy the game if this $200 was the upfront cost? Far less than the number that will eventually spend $200 (often without realising it) through a series of $1-3 micropayments.

There's a reason the games industry has massively embraced microtransactions, and its not because they represent a good value proposition for consumers.

But you don't need $200 to be competitive. Regarding draft: you need to spend all of $1.99 and then you have the exact same chances as everyone else. Additionally, if you perform well (at least 7 wins / 3 losses) you make enough in-game credit to play again, without even having to make another $1.99 investment. Every single card in the game can be won via this draft system if you consistently win a lot of games. Playing for free also earns in-game credit that can be used for the drafts. In essence you are not "pay to win" but "pay to get the same cards more quickly", and this is only true for Constructed. In draft (arena) there is exactly zero pay to win.

Don't interrupt the circlejerk. Raging about something that hasn't been released yet is FHC's pastime.

[cullnean]

Ccccccccc

tapa4

[98% Slut]

The reason P2W CCGs are bad is that they use psychological tricks to make people spend far more than the benefit they are getting. Many of those tricks are also used by games paid for by "microtransactions".

Basically the human brain thinks of 10 payments of $1 very differently (more favourably) from how it thinks of one payment of $10, even if you receive exactly the same thing either way. Another trick involves ensuring that while you can play for free, to actual compete with others you must invest serious money. People start playing the game telling themselves it will be free and before they know it they are putting in small amounts of cash just to be able to actual play it properly. Over time this snowballs and they end up paying more than for a full price retail game. They also fuck over children who may not realise the $50 bauble they just purchased with one press actually costs real (parents) money.

CCGs and some Microtransaction games are therefore exploiting 'loopholes' in people's ability to rationally assess value in order to milk customers for more money. Its farmville on crack.

The game being "fun" doesn't somehow excuse this. If you need to spend $200 to be competative in game, and being competative is the main purpose of the game, how many people would buy the game if this $200 was the upfront cost? Far less than the number that will eventually spend $200 (often without realising it) through a series of $1-3 micropayments.

There's a reason the games industry has massively embraced microtransactions, and its not because they represent a good value proposition for consumers.

But you don't need $200 to be competitive. Regarding draft: you need to spend all of $1.99 and then you have the exact same chances as everyone else. Additionally, if you perform well (at least 7 wins / 3 losses) you make enough in-game credit to play again, without even having to make another $1.99 investment. Every single card in the game can be won via this draft system if you consistently win a lot of games. Playing for free also earns in-game credit that can be used for the drafts. In essence you are not "pay to win" but "pay to get the same cards more quickly", and this is only true for Constructed. In draft (arena) there is exactly zero pay to win.

You do realize that most people read, over 50% will not be consistently winning? Your argument is built upon, let me count them...2, "ifs," but then you end with the statement that there is, "exactly zero pay to win." Your entire argument supports his point. The makers of this game can't wait to get people like you to play it.

[Pacefalm]

The reason P2W CCGs are bad is that they use psychological tricks to make people spend far more than the benefit they are getting. Many of those tricks are also used by games paid for by "microtransactions".

Basically the human brain thinks of 10 payments of $1 very differently (more favourably) from how it thinks of one payment of $10, even if you receive exactly the same thing either way. Another trick involves ensuring that while you can play for free, to actual compete with others you must invest serious money. People start playing the game telling themselves it will be free and before they know it they are putting in small amounts of cash just to be able to actual play it properly. Over time this snowballs and they end up paying more than for a full price retail game. They also fuck over children who may not realise the $50 bauble they just purchased with one press actually costs real (parents) money.

CCGs and some Microtransaction games are therefore exploiting 'loopholes' in people's ability to rationally assess value in order to milk customers for more money. Its farmville on crack.

The game being "fun" doesn't somehow excuse this. If you need to spend $200 to be competative in game, and being competative is the main purpose of the game, how many people would buy the game if this $200 was the upfront cost? Far less than the number that will eventually spend $200 (often without realising it) through a series of $1-3 micropayments.

There's a reason the games industry has massively embraced microtransactions, and its not because they represent a good value proposition for consumers.

But you don't need $200 to be competitive. Regarding draft: you need to spend all of $1.99 and then you have the exact same chances as everyone else. Additionally, if you perform well (at least 7 wins / 3 losses) you make enough in-game credit to play again, without even having to make another $1.99 investment. Every single card in the game can be won via this draft system if you consistently win a lot of games. Playing for free also earns in-game credit that can be used for the drafts. In essence you are not "pay to win" but "pay to get the same cards more quickly", and this is only true for Constructed. In draft (arena) there is exactly zero pay to win.

You do realize that most people read, over 50% will not be consistently winning? Your argument is built upon, let me count them...2, "ifs," but then you end with the statement that there is, "exactly zero pay to win." Your entire argument supports his point. The makers of this game can't wait to get people like you to play it.

I think you should read my post again. I am saying that in draft mode (arena), there is zero pay to win. This is because everyone gets the exact same chances for the exact same price, by definition not pay to win.

Additionally, IF you are good and IF you win consistently, you do not even need to pay this price. As you point out, on average people cannot always do this. However, this does not make the game pay to win, it makes the game "pay to play, unless you are successful". In a way comparable to buying game time with ingame currency. And furthermore, you can play for free (constructed) to gain the same in-game credits, to obtain the same benefits.

So my argument is basically this: of the two game modes, only one benefits from additional cash investment. Those benefits are also obtainable if you play well in the other mode. This is pretty far from pay to win.

[cullnean]

Ccg scare and confuse me

tapa4

[98% Slut]

The reason P2W CCGs are bad is that they use psychological tricks to make people spend far more than the benefit they are getting. Many of those tricks are also used by games paid for by "microtransactions".

Basically the human brain thinks of 10 payments of $1 very differently (more favourably) from how it thinks of one payment of $10, even if you receive exactly the same thing either way. Another trick involves ensuring that while you can play for free, to actual compete with others you must invest serious money. People start playing the game telling themselves it will be free and before they know it they are putting in small amounts of cash just to be able to actual play it properly. Over time this snowballs and they end up paying more than for a full price retail game. They also fuck over children who may not realise the $50 bauble they just purchased with one press actually costs real (parents) money.

CCGs and some Microtransaction games are therefore exploiting 'loopholes' in people's ability to rationally assess value in order to milk customers for more money. Its farmville on crack.

The game being "fun" doesn't somehow excuse this. If you need to spend $200 to be competative in game, and being competative is the main purpose of the game, how many people would buy the game if this $200 was the upfront cost? Far less than the number that will eventually spend $200 (often without realising it) through a series of $1-3 micropayments.

There's a reason the games industry has massively embraced microtransactions, and its not because they represent a good value proposition for consumers.

But you don't need $200 to be competitive. Regarding draft: you need to spend all of $1.99 and then you have the exact same chances as everyone else. Additionally, if you perform well (at least 7 wins / 3 losses) you make enough in-game credit to play again, without even having to make another $1.99 investment. Every single card in the game can be won via this draft system if you consistently win a lot of games. Playing for free also earns in-game credit that can be used for the drafts. In essence you are not "pay to win" but "pay to get the same cards more quickly", and this is only true for Constructed. In draft (arena) there is exactly zero pay to win.

You do realize that most people read, over 50% will not be consistently winning? Your argument is built upon, let me count them...2, "ifs," but then you end with the statement that there is, "exactly zero pay to win." Your entire argument supports his point. The makers of this game can't wait to get people like you to play it.

I think you should read my post again. I am saying that in draft mode (arena), there is zero pay to win. This is because everyone gets the exact same chances for the exact same price, by definition not pay to win.

Additionally, IF you are good and IF you win consistently, you do not even need to pay this price. As you point out, on average people cannot always do this. However, this does not make the game pay to win, it makes the game "pay to play, unless you are successful". In a way comparable to buying game time with ingame currency. And furthermore, you can play for free (constructed) to gain the same in-game credits, to obtain the same benefits.

So my argument is basically this: of the two game modes, only one benefits from additional cash investment. Those benefits are also obtainable if you play well in the other mode. This is pretty far from pay to win.

I'm not saying the game is pay to win or isn't. I am not as familiar with the different modes of play as you are. My comment was referencing the pay model that Lallante laid out. Some people will consistently win and pay less and get more cards faster. Most won't. You say yourself you only need to pay 1.99 to play a draft game. Is it 1.99 per game? If so...how many draft games will a person play over time? It's already in the pyramid above but I feel I must highlight what Lallante was saying.

"People start playing the game telling themselves it will be free and before they know it they are putting in small amounts of cash just to be able to actual play it properly."

[donjehova]

The reason P2W CCGs are bad is that they use psychological tricks to make people spend far more than the benefit they are getting. Many of those tricks are also used by games paid for by "microtransactions".

Basically the human brain thinks of 10 payments of $1 very differently (more favourably) from how it thinks of one payment of $10, even if you receive exactly the same thing either way. Another trick involves ensuring that while you can play for free, to actual compete with others you must invest serious money. People start playing the game telling themselves it will be free and before they know it they are putting in small amounts of cash just to be able to actual play it properly. Over time this snowballs and they end up paying more than for a full price retail game. They also fuck over children who may not realise the $50 bauble they just purchased with one press actually costs real (parents) money.

CCGs and some Microtransaction games are therefore exploiting 'loopholes' in people's ability to rationally assess value in order to milk customers for more money. Its farmville on crack.

The game being "fun" doesn't somehow excuse this. If you need to spend $200 to be competative in game, and being competative is the main purpose of the game, how many people would buy the game if this $200 was the upfront cost? Far less than the number that will eventually spend $200 (often without realising it) through a series of $1-3 micropayments.

There's a reason the games industry has massively embraced microtransactions, and its not because they represent a good value proposition for consumers.

But you don't need $200 to be competitive. Regarding draft: you need to spend all of $1.99 and then you have the exact same chances as everyone else. Additionally, if you perform well (at least 7 wins / 3 losses) you make enough in-game credit to play again, without even having to make another $1.99 investment. Every single card in the game can be won via this draft system if you consistently win a lot of games. Playing for free also earns in-game credit that can be used for the drafts. In essence you are not "pay to win" but "pay to get the same cards more quickly", and this is only true for Constructed. In draft (arena) there is exactly zero pay to win.

You do realize that most people read, over 50% will not be consistently winning? Your argument is built upon, let me count them...2, "ifs," but then you end with the statement that there is, "exactly zero pay to win." Your entire argument supports his point. The makers of this game can't wait to get people like you to play it.

I think you should read my post again. I am saying that in draft mode (arena), there is zero pay to win. This is because everyone gets the exact same chances for the exact same price, by definition not pay to win.

Additionally, IF you are good and IF you win consistently, you do not even need to pay this price. As you point out, on average people cannot always do this. However, this does not make the game pay to win, it makes the game "pay to play, unless you are successful". In a way comparable to buying game time with ingame currency. And furthermore, you can play for free (constructed) to gain the same in-game credits, to obtain the same benefits.

So my argument is basically this: of the two game modes, only one benefits from additional cash investment. Those benefits are also obtainable if you play well in the other mode. This is pretty far from pay to win.

I'm not saying the game is pay to win or isn't. I am not as familiar with the different modes of play as you are. My comment was referencing the pay model that Lallante laid out. Some people will consistently win and pay less and get more cards faster. Most won't. You say yourself you only need to pay 1.99 to play a draft game. Is it 1.99 per game? If so...how many draft games will a person play over time? It's already in the pyramid above but I feel I must highlight what Lallante was saying.

"People start playing the game telling themselves it will be free and before they know it they are putting in small amounts of cash just to be able to actual play it properly."

From what I have seen on streams:
The draft cost 1.99 or 150 gold. That will give you a "draft" session of creating a deck, then playing the deck until you have lost 3 times or won 9 times. The more you win, the better the reward. However, there is as far as I know already a guaranteed reward of 1 pack (100 gold when bought 1 at the time). So worst case scenario, you pay 50 extra gold for a pack, and get to draft. Around 6-7 wins, you get enough gold to do another draft plus the pack plus some other ingame currency for crafting cards.

The format seems to heavily trying to get people to play drafts, rather than just buying packs, which I think is a very good idea.

Nobody in their right mind should ever come to ccg and expect it to be free. For me, this is a lot cheaper than mtg and that is appealing.

[Trindermon]

Success!
You’ve successfully activated Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft.
Use your Battle.net account to log into and play the game. If you need to download the Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft client, click the download link below.

WOOT, If i get more keys ill shout here first Will post thoughts tomorrow, cause ive a day off

[Redclaws]

Booo! So jealous!

[Nicho Void]

Booo! So jealous!

[Kalorn]

Been playing this since the start of the US Beta. Good times.

[Alistair]

So sad over how much hype and instalove this (lame IMO) game is getting. Guess Blizzard lame WoWsmack has a little left in it afterall.

Oh look, a CCG but it's like, got Malfurion! Whoah.

[Nicho Void]

So sad over how much hype and instalove this (lame IMO) game is getting. Guess Blizzard lame WoWsmack has a little left in it afterall.

Oh look, a CCG but it's like, got Malfurion! Whoah.

2/10