What's wrong with Artifact?

It is no secret that Valve's new game, Artifact, is struggling; down from a peak player count of 60k at launch to just a bit over 5k a month later (a 90% drop).  The question is why? What's wrong with the game? 

Prior to the launch of the game the big areas of contention were around the business model; you have to buy the game, you have to buy tickets to play in prize modes, and there is a market to buy/sell cards.  The leading argument is that in a free-2-play world no one wants to pay up and thus Artifact is struggling. However, I would like to posit that maybe there is a different reason.  Maybe Artifact isn't any fun.

I defended Valve's approach to Artifact with a pay-up-front and pay-to-play model.  I still defend it.  I dropped $50 into Steam to spend on Artifact and early on I paid in happily for cards I wanted and tickets/packs I needed for game modes.  This was on top of paying $20 for the game to begin with!  As there are free modes for folks to play in the "buy an event ticket to enter" modes were just another option.  An option, in my opinion, that brought serious competition as no one was buying in without something on the line.  Combine that with the skill-heavy game that Artifact is and you have a recipe for a desirable competitive experience.

However, what I hadn't calculated in my early splurge of spending is that Artifact is, at it's core, not much fun to play. 

Cards represent actions and units within the game, but much of the rest is set up through the magic of a computer.  A paper version of this game would never exist. The sheer amount of random elements would bog a physical iteration of the game down to the point it would be unplayable and I have a hunch that any card game I wouldn't want to play in the real world is a card game I wouldn't want to play digitally.

A game of Artifact starts by a random placement of key cards on the battlefield.  Your three starting heroes are placed, at random, in a starting lane.  They are joined by randomly assigned creeps.  Your opponents heroes and creeps join the battlefield in the same random manner.  Then each hero and creep has a chance to randomly decide the direction of their attack if they are not opposite an opponents creep or hero.  Following this you are dealt a random hand of cards and a toss up on who goes first. 

The first act a player takes in a game is triage which I've found to put me immediately on edge. I had little say in getting to this stage outside of showing up with a deck.  There is no mulligan for the cards I drew and more importantly to me there is no mulligan to redo initial hero placement.  In most card games there are no cards that start on the board and the most random element is your starting hand which in most games allow for a mulligan to get a chance at a more favorable start.  Artifact is basically starting the players on turn six of any other card game with no chance of influencing how the game state was derived.

The game is only possible via the magic of a computer.  A paper version of this game would never exist. The sheer amount of random elements JUST TO START THE GAME would bog a physical iteration of the game down to the point it would be unplayable.  If this was a physical game it is very likely the game starts with a blank board state and the players drive each step of set up.  There is no reason not to take this approach in a digital game.  I cannot emphasize how NOT FUN it is to watch a game play itself before turning it back over to you as the player.

This would be recoverable if the game beyond the random set up offered some excitement, but the turns beyond that initial set up are equally sprinkled with randomness.  But at least in subsequent turns the player gets to decide the lane placement for heroes joining the fight!  Well excpet its still a random placement within the actual lane.  It may be a game winning drop into an open spot or it may be a flop into a death trap. 

The crazy thing is the random elements really don't feel game breaking or game deciding.  There is a ton of opportunity for player skill and it delivers a neat puzzle each turn which fires the thinking side of the brain. 

Unfortunately the options for solutions to those puzzles are not that interesting.  Item card (assuming you get past the random shop options); little impact when played and have to activate it later.  Modify a hero with a couple stat points?  That's anti-climatic.  Play a creep to fill a spot and watch it randomly decide a direction to attack (hope it was the one you wanted).  That creep may be useful.  Activate an ability on a hero that likely does nothing. 

About the only cards of substance are spells and only in the few cases where they actually have impact.  The majority are of little impact to play (like literally just change the direction of an attacker... which was randomly assigned in the first place).  The ones that are fun to play are pretty much no fun for your opponent and thus are what some may call "overpowered".  Take Annihilation for example; wipes an entire lane of all heroes and creeps,  That's fun!  Because once its not your turn you have no counter-play opportunity.  You just sit back and take whatever your opponent plays and if Annihilation was the play THEN THAT'S WHAT YOU GET.

No, I don't want to argue for "counter spell" in Artifact, but I do want to argue that there should be just as many fun and interesting options to react to the "overpowered" spells as there is in casting them in the first place.  Artifact is an asynchronous game with players passing turns back and forth with no interaction whatsoever with your opponents turn.  That is fine, but if the most boring of items, hero, or creature abilities are going to require two turns to realize and thus allow for maneuvers to get out of the way then the game-ending spells should also allow for some creative game play rather than just taking it up the butt each turn against mono-Blue decks.

Ultimately what I am trying to drive towards here is that Artifact is NOT fun because it never feels like you are in control of playing the game.  You are at best watching a series of events unfold and pulling some levers to control each scene.  Playing a card on a hope and dream it does what it is supposed to isn't much fun.  Sure; getting counter-spelled in other card games isn't any fun but at least I know what my cards will do if they make the table. 

Also most other digital card games represent things as cards.  Artifact can't even do that.  Cards turn into little flying discs if they are improvements and cards that are hero items disappear into little boxes on the hero cards they are played on.  Is it too much too ask to show cards as cards?

I hate that I don't find any fun in Artifact.  I've struggled this entire post not to mention another digital card game I am having a blast with even though it suffers from serious drawbacks in a digital best-of-1 game format.  I hate to compare the two but the game I am referring to delivers a very complex and synchronous gameplay experience in a clean digital package while Artifact totally avoids players interrupting each other's turns.  Throw in what feels like an eternity for a timer for your opponent to make a decision and I'd just as easily fall asleep as I would finish a game of Artifact at this point.

I am very worried that Valve will try the free 2 play route which won't address any of the less fun parts of the game which will do nothing more than speed the death of the game.   Valve; I never expected Artifact to be boring and no fun to play.  Please fix.

Initial Thoughts: Artifact

Valve's new digital collectible game, Artifact, launched this past week.  I've had the chance to play a few games, craft a couple decks, and give the market a whirl.  Below are my initial thoughts on what I've experienced and where I would like to see the game improve.

When I first opened Artifact the game dropped me into a tutorial game against a bot.  The tutorial game advanced quickly and taught the basics.  Another tutorial game followed teaching more nuanced mechanics.  The tutorial did a good job of making me feel ready to play against other players.

After the tutorial I was dropped into a menu screen that was a bit confusing.  Having come from playing a good bit of MtG Arena lately it was a little bit of a shock to see so many options.  On top of collection/deck building options there was solo play (against bots), casual play (free modes), tournaments, social play, and a special event called "Call to Arms". 

I opted to jump into the casual constructed best of one queue.  I selected one of the pre-constructed decks given to new players who bought the game and a game was found within seconds.  The game started and after a couple turns it was obvious I was NOT ready to play against other players.  Effects were triggering, cards were being played, and I had no idea what was going on.  After following Artifact for the better part of a year, having watched endless streams, this came as a shock.

Artifact is a beautiful video game.  I emphasize video because Artifact has a lot going on visually.  This is not just a card game in a digital medium.  The board is an actual environment.  There are two animated imps that fly around carrying you and your opponent's deck and prompting you to take actions (or cringing/cheering at the action you just took). 

However, in this visual feast what is happening in the game is easily lost.  That card your opponent just played?  It disappeared and maybe you saw the animation on what it targeted.  It may not even have been a card; it could have been an activated ability or an item effect.  Add onto this confusion with a board that is really three boards (called lanes) and the fact that some actions occur in other lanes than the one you are focused on the player can lose track of what is going on.

This was the major wake up moment for me that Artifact was not just another card game.  As I continued to play and learn how to interpret actions that were occurring the more my thought on the game shifted from card game to strategy game.  After several rounds my mind was settled: Artifact is a strategy game that decided to use cards as a representation of units and actions in the game.

One could argue that Artifact is a card game taking full advantage of running on a digital medium.  There are a lot of random aspects; from random creep cards that spawn each turn with random directions they may attack to many cards with a percentage chance to do something.  These random actions happen seamlessly thanks to the power of a computer.  In a physical game this many random play elements would not work.

My contention will be that Artifact could have represented all components of the game via 3D models.  The game board could have been a top down battlefield map without a "board game" feel.  Units could have been 3D models.  And the game would likely feel exactly the same!  Why it was made as a card game I don't know and I'm not sure if it helps or hurts in the long run.  Thus far I am not convinced that Artifact should be treated as a digital card game or compared to games like MtG Arena.  It is much more comparable to it's source, DOTA2, than MtG Arena.

One thing I can say though is I'd love to see some key UI concepts lifted for MtG Arena and applied to Artifact.  MtG Arena does a masterful job of distilling a complex rules set from paper MtG into an understandable user experience that doesn't require years of MtG experience to understand.  One of the best features when playing MtG Arena is that every card or effect that is triggered does two things very well. 

1) It stays open for long enough for the opposing player to register and allows for the player to acknowledge the action (or respond if applicable)

2) The game displays arrows that show what card/effect targets what.  If there are multiple targets/sources then there are multiple arrows.

While the arrows and stack of actions can grow large and complex it helps newer players navigate a very complex game with little trouble.  In fact; I'd say it makes MtG look like a very simple game.  Over time as a player grows comfortable with MtG Arena they can skip through most of the actions.  Plus there is the option to flip into a full control mode whereby every small action is taken manually which allows for advanced players to execute some of MtG's more complex plays.

Artifact really needs some sort of equivalent.  When a card or effect is played the game should pause, show the player what initiated the action, draw arrows between targets and initiators, and then let players click to allow the game to proceed.  While there is no ability for an opposing player to "interrupt" an action as there is in MtG there is still the need to allow the opposing player to process what just occurred.  Especially as a digital game where the player can't point or indicate what they are doing.  The player is completely reliant on the UI and the current state of Artifact's UI is mixed.

On top of needing to improve the UI to show interactions better the games iconography could use some polish.  As mentioned above; Artifact is very much a video game.  The eye popping visuals, voice acting (every card's lore snippet can be voiced out loud), and 3D board are very well done.  But many times that comes at the expense of being able to quickly ascertain what is what.

The biggest "huh?" of this category are the Improvements cards.  These cards, once played, establish a permanent effect for a single lane on the board.  However, instead of representing the played improvement as a card it is instead converted into a TINY (relative to the rest of the game elements) floating disc with very hard to distinguish symbol.  The disc then fires out, visually, it's effect (if applicable).  As many of these effects happen at the start of the turn in the lane right after the sweeping camera pans over the board they can be easily missed.  And good luck new player if you don't have initiative and your opponent drops a card or triggers an effect right away; you will have a heck of a time trying to figure out that improvement. 

Improvements should be represented as cards in a second row next to the tower in the lane.  Period.  Get rid of the floating discs.

Also of concern is the icons on cards that indicate what card type they are.  With the almost full-art approach of the cards (art takes up majority of what you see of a card) the icon can quickly get lost in the background.  Especially item cards where you are trying to determine what slot they go onto heroes (fortunately the game warns you if you are about to accidentally play one item over another slotted item).  I'll also briefly mention the color of the rarity symbols on some COMMON cards make them look exactly like the RARE color.

Artifact needs to improve the user experience.  Not only for the players playing, but for streaming (which is now a key piece for games of this nature).  As I mentioned I watched a lot of streamers play before the game released.  I am shocked (baffled even) how many core concepts I missed because they simply don't come across on a stream.  Having played now there is so much more that I understand about streams but still have a hard time actually tracking either in game or in a stream.

Underneath the UI is a decent game.  I've enjoyed the matches I have played thus far and Artifact is the first "card game" where I've felt I am not directly reliant on the draw of cards.  The game offers so many other decisions to make that whether you drew the right card to play or not is not as impactful.  This is helped by each lane of the board having its own resource pool (mana) which eliminates the need to draw basic "land" cards. 

One area I was nervous about going into the game was the random elements, but after playing matches the random elements don't sway the game very much.  For cards with percentage base effects I never felt like they were priced (in regards to in game resources) in a manner where they felt broken.  Yes, there are times where Cheating Death (arguably the most disputed "random effect" card) is going to result in a "really!?" moment, but if you look at the cost to play and the set up required to benefit there is no other way I see the card existing.  If the card was changed to a more specific effect it would either be completely useless or so expensive to play that it becomes a fringe card.

The other major random components are the creeps that spawn in the lanes each round and how placement occurs for those creeps as well as heroes.  Players select what lane a hero enters but not what specific spot they enter in.  They could be placed against the opposing players best hero, placed against a creep, or land in an open slot with a free shot at the opposing tower.  This can result in some frustrating moments where a player's hero is put in a no-win situation, but more often than not the placement just changes the way the player will approach their turn.  It really becomes a strategic component for better players to adapt to the environment. 

Also randomly assigned is the direction a creep or hero attacks.  It may be straight ahead or to the left or right.  This means a player could play a strong creep into an open lane only to have it randomly attack left and miss an opportunity to hit the opponent's tower for damage.  Frustrating when it happens, yes, but it is also part of the strategy in each lane and rewards strategies designed to go wide and push out creeps/heroes so they have no other option than a straightforward attack (the random attack direction doesn't apply if there is no other target).

Randomness is part of Artifact and it's neatly woven into the strategy and tactics of the game.  It will bite a player every once and a while, but if player's focus on the right decisions rather than banking on random results they will win out in the long run.

The game being split into three lanes also opens the door for creative planning.  Players have to win two lanes by destroying the tower in each or win a single lane twice by first destroying a tower and then beating a stronger tower (called an ancient).  I have now played in enough games to know there is legitimate opportunity to build decks and play in ways that either prioritize the first lanes or focus on the last lane in some regards. 

Just last night I had a game where I gave up on the last lane knowing that if I could win the first two lanes I could beat win before my opponent won twice in the last lane. That was not my strategy going into the game but my switch to a focus on the first two lanes paid off as I ended up with just enough damage to finish the middle lane and win.  The key moment was on hero re-deployment my opponent chose to double down on the last lane to finish the game while I opted to not defend and risk being able to take the first two lanes.

That game made me feel good.  It made me feel like I outplayed my opponent.  At no point was I waiting to draw the right card.  My opponent made a choice and played towards it.  I took a risk and played towards it.  Looking back at the game I realize what felt like a risk at the time was actually the right play.  With what I had I had a good chance of winning the first two lanes.  My opponent had a guarantee to win the game in the third lane and likely had plans to deal with any defense I threw in.  That win still feels good a day later.

And that is the magic I've found with Artifact at this point.  That game was with a deck I constructed myself from cards I got from packs and a few I bought off the market because I thought they'd be fun to try out.  Playing the game and realizing my choices during the game matter as much as my deck construction is a good place for a game to be at.  I can get past the poor UI experience if the underlying gameplay is rewarding.  Throw in the other game modes I've not tried yet and I think Valve has a solid game on their hands.  It won't be for everyone, but for those that enjoy tense gameplay with rewarding decision making then this is the game.

I feel remiss if I don't mention the monetization model for the game.  The game costs $20 to get in the door and then the competitive modes cost tickets ($1 each) to play in.  The keeper draft modes cost tickets plus the purchase price of packs.  Players can also buy and sell cards on the market (top end cards are going for $20+).  There are free versions of all modes to get players comfortable before committing to spending event tickets.  None of the free versions reward cards or resources and are just for practice purposes.  There is also a special event (and assumed to be more) where players can play with decks they don't own. 

Ultimately the core gamers that stick with Artifact will end up paying to play and I think most will feel validated with the experience they have in the game.  There will be a subset of card game players who don't adapt well to Artifact's more-strategy-game-than-card-game approach and thus will feel jilted by having to pay to play in some modes, but those folks wouldn't likely stick around in a free-2-play model either.  Either you will like Artifact or you won't.  If you do you can play the free modes or you can pay to play wherever you want to be at.  The market will give those that want to the ability to buy the deck they want to play. The market will also give players ways to pull value (in the form of Steam wallet cash) if they are winning more than losing (event ticket modes pay the winners in packs which can result in excess copies of cards to sell on the market).

I need more time in Artifact to determine where it fits in the long-term (I'm still really, really liking MtG Arena), but right now I've found myself enjoying the game and feeling good paying up for some cards I wanted.

Things I want to try next:
1. Draft (casual phantom first; then keeper)
2. Competitive constructed
3. Play more Call to Arms to see how different deck types play out (without having to source the cards)

Something Something Artifact Something Something Valve

"I've never gone from 100% hype to totally deflated so fast" Uh oh!  Something is afoot in Valve-land with their now-in-public-beta Artifact digital card game.  The NDAs are lifted and people are speaking their mind.  Not about the game play or that some totally broken card/combo, but about Valve's audacity to actually charge players to play the game.  A tough pill to swallow in a universe of "free 2 play" competitors.

As the veil of the NDA came down and Valve released an updated FAQ concerns started to flood in about the "Artifact paywall".  Essentially; everyone is upset that Valve plans to charge players to buy tickets to get into common events.  Specifically is the requirement to buy "tickets" along with the packs to participate in draft modes. 

For those unfamiliar with drafts within card games; players buy a a set number of card packs and then spend turns picking cards (drafting) from those packs to play a game.  In real life paper card games; this means you get to keep the cards you draft (because once the packs are open there is no putting the cards back).  Draft modes where players keep cards are often called "keeper drafts". With digital games there is the ability to have phantom drafts where players do not keep the cards.  Often times these phantom draft modes allow "free 2 play" games to give their "free" players a way to enjoy draft.  Alternately, some games like Magic the Gathering Arena, allow "free" players to acquire free credits that can be redeemed for a draft.

Valve has decided to eschew the "free entry" model for their game modes and are instead charging players a number of tickets to participate in the game modes.  This includes keeper draft modes; players have to pay for tickets and packs.  Valve's reasoning for the tickets is due to the events rewarding tickets and packs (the better you do the more you get).  Also for phantom draft modes the requirement to pay for a ticket (or use one you earned) also helps solve the issues of 100% free drafts where players quit after a poor draft (i.e. they didn't get good cards).

There is no way to play Artifact for free.  Players have to buy the game ($20) and have to buy tickets to play in modes that reward new cards.  There is no method where players can grind for free cards just by playing the game.  Caveat; if you are a really good player you can go "infinite" whereby you always win the events and thus receive more rewards than needed to join another event (and thus after your first purchase you never have to buy into an event again).

This is a distinct difference from the other major players in the digital CCG market.  Specifically both Hearthstone and MtG Arena offer completely free methods to enter their draft modes.  Combined with the feedback from the Artifact beta testers that draft is the best way to experience Artifact it sets the stage for the hype to die.  Essentially lots of folks assumed Artifact was just going to be a free 2 play game.

On one hand I can see where players would assume the game would be free becaus Artifact is based on DOTA2 and DOTA2 is 100% free 2 play.  On the other hand I can point to the fact that Valve has always stated that they intended Artifact to replicate a real life card game where players can buy, trade, and sell cards just like they were real cards.  Thus it should be no surprise that Valve was going to charge an entry fee for events since the rewards (cards) have tangible real world value.

Another concern was that the hero cards in starter decks were also in packs which means they are dead cards with no value (everyone gets the starter decks and thus would never need to trade/buy a copy).  Also Valve clarified they will be taking a 15% cut of market sales which many felt was a high take.

All of this has cascaded in a torrent of "Artifact is doomed" and "Artifact's paywall is stupid" type posts across the Internet. Those sort of posts are my area of expertise as I am usually the pundit screaming the loudest about this sort of thing.  I love me a good doom and gloom post! 

However, all I can do is sit back and wonder what the heck these folks expected.  More importantly I struggle with not giving Valve the benefit of the doubt.  There were many people, myself included, who doubted that a 100% free 2 play DOTA2 would ever work or that a bunch of silly community-created content could drive a robust economy in Team Fortress 2 or that players would drop hundreds of dollars on barely recognizable skins in Counter Strike GO.  Valve has made all of these "different" models work in their major games and for the most part executed them in the face of "that'll never work" punditry. 

The bottom line is that Valve has never looked at the market and said "we're going to do what everyone else is doing".  They have always forged their own path.  Some things have worked; some have not.  Valve has taken a calculation with Artifact that there is an audience out there that wants a close-to-paper recreation of a card game in digital form. 

Personally I am one of those players.  I want to be able to buy, sell, and trade my cards.  I want to know that other players have bought into the game.  I am done putting credit cards into slot machines hoping the magical number overlords deem me worthy of the specific card I need.  I am done with dusting and wildcards.  If there is some stupid low power common card I want; let me buy it for a few pennies.  If there is a high power rare for a top tier deck, let me make the decision to keep hitting the slot machine for it or just take that money and buy it out right from the community (or better yet, let me trade up to it without having to expunge the cards from the community pool). 

All of this to say; KEEP GOING VALVE; I'M WITH YOU!  Contrary to the "I'm canceling my pre-order"; I am taking this opportunity to pre-order Artifact.

Also shortly after all this hub-bub; Valve mic-dropped a beta update invalidating many of the concerns.  In summary; excess cards can be recycled into event tickets.  This means there will be a minimum value for all cards (i.e. at some point it is better to recycle than to sell on the market).  It is a simple and brilliant solution and while it brings in a form of "dusting" it is acceptable for the problem it is solving  (worthless cards and a race to the bottom for card prices in the market).  In addition to the recycling of cards they are prioritizing a couple game modes to help bring more options for draft modes.  Oh and most of these changes are going into the live beta right now vs some dubious "future" release (take that as a lesson MtG Arena devs!).

Why Artifact has me interested

Artifact is an upcoming digital card game from Valve.  My initial reaction was that Valve was cashing in on the Hearthstone trend (the same reaction as the audience booing the game during it's original reveal at The International 2017).  While there are similarities it is becoming clearer that Valve is looking to differentiate Artifact from the Hearthstone-a-like crowd.  A quick look at the differentiators:

• It is NOT free to play; players buy the game and buy the cards and packs
• Focus on playing with friends and social gameplay; not on "grind" modes
• Steam Marketplace integration for trading, buying, and selling individual cards
• Lane-based gameplay (i.e. there are three game boards active at one time)
• Any number of creatures in play
• Any number of cards in hand

I want to tackle the "it's not free to play" first because it sets a tone for the rest of the items.  Valve could have made Artifact free 2 play and integrated numerous methods for players to "grind" away at gaining cards all while dangling a cash shop with loot boxes booster packs.  But Valve didn't and its evident that the other differentiators result from that decision.


Integrating with the Steam Marketplace enables the capability to trade and sell individual cards which brings Artifact closer to cardboard TRADING card games (TCGs) that made it's designer, Richard Garfield, famous.  Yes, there is a word in all caps there.  I am firm believer that the trading and collecting of single cards is a key component in the enjoyment of these games; physical or not.


Trading cards is just the first part of a return to more social-oriented gaming that Valve has planned for Artifact.  They are also very talkative about their social gaming approach.  They want to focus on players playing with their friends and not beholden to "game modes" in which players feel forced into the most efficient method to "grind" for cards.  This is why the ability to trade/sell/buy individual cards is key.  If players are going to play with their friends then they need to know they aren't losing out on progress that could be made towards something else.


The last three items on the list do not wrap themselves into the free to play or social aspects, but none the less are important to peaking my interest level in Artifact.

Lane-based gameplay is not new.  In fact; upon seeing Artifact's lanes it immediately made me think of another digital card game Richard Garfield was involved with; SolForge.  SolForge was played across five lanes and enjoyed moderate success after it's Kickstarter campaign (and is still going in an unofficial capacity). 

Artifacts approach to lanes is a step above SolForge's approach.  Where SolForge only offered a single card per lane; Artifact is offering an entirely new gameboard within each lane where any number of cards can be played to "win" in that lane.  This appears to create three games within one which means every match of Artifact will feel like three separate games.  This will really up the strategic level; especially as more cards are released with mechanics that influence other lanes.

Lastly I just wanted to touch base on the idea that "any number of cards/creatures" bullet points.  YES!  Finally; a digital card game that takes advantage of the ability for a computer to manage any number of cards for the player while still keeping the game organized.  In physical card games sprawl can be a real issue (as anyone having played a Magic the Gathering squirrel token deck can attest to).  In the digital space sprawl can be managed via a clean user interface and good mechanics that keep players moving along each turn.

Artifact is shaping up to be a Valve classic and like DOTA2 before it; Valve is taking a tried and true genre and giving it the Valve polish and common sense we've all come to expect.

Viewed: Free 2 Play

Long time, no post.  Yes, this is my first post of 2014.

Free to Play, Valve's documentary trailing the stories of various competitors from DOTA2's first global tournament dubbed "The International", is now available for viewing on Steam.  I had a chance to watch it this weekend and wanted to share some thoughts.

From outside view one might mistake this as just advertainment for DOTA2, but just a few minutes into the film it is very apparent that this is much more a human interest story about eSports and the athletes that pursue them than it is anything about DOTA2.  In fact, you would be hard pressed to find anything of interest from the actual game of DOTA2.

With the actual game out of the way we are left with a very well shot and edited  documentary that follows several of the players through the trials and tribulations of competing in the first million+ dollar tournament.  True to the name of the tournament, players from different countries are followed.

The film does an excellent job of giving watchers a glimpse not only into the lives of professional gamers, but also the culture surrounding those players in their home countries.  It is every interesting to see how the gaming culture is perceived in Asian countries vs countries in the west.  However, even with dramatically different cultural movements in regards to eSport gaming there was a consistent trend of doubting family members, specifically parents.  Yes, even in the gaming obsessed China the athletes mothers and fathers were just as disappointed in their children's investment into professional gaming at the cost of traditional education as the parents from the USA.

The core message of the film seems to be sacrifice.  The sacrifices are well documented throughout the film and whether its a lost girlfriend, a missed semester of school, or hard thoughts of a father no longer with a son they all hit home with the viewer.  These are real people pursuing a dream and I think most people can identify with that rare opportunity so few of use get to take that we can't help but cheer on those being followed in the film.

Of course it all comes crashing down for most of the competitors.  Most teams left The International with nothing more than expensive bills for plane tickets, hotels, and meals.  Unlike traditional sports there is no salary being earned by most eSport athletes.  If the team doesn't win, they don't get paid.  This adds up to interesting and heartwarming realizations from the participants after the tournament has come and gone.  There is in fact more to life than just games.

I can't recommend this documentary enough to gamers and nongamers alike.

Embedded copy below:

SteamOS

Valve stole executed on my idea. In November 2007 I had a healthy conversation with Jeff Freeman (may he rest in peace) about an operating system (OS) completely dedicated to gaming.  At the time Fedora Core 8 was launching with it's derivative "re-spin" idea with the goal to allow anyone to use the core Linux technology to build their own OS geared for their needs.  A lot of people agreed that it was a good idea but that is sort of where the idea fizzled out as far as the core gaming scene is concerned.  Since then the Linux gaming scene has progressed slowly until today where it has now taken a step over the edge when Valve announced their Linux-derived SteamOS.

SteamOS is the first foray for Valve into the operating system realm, but it should come as no surprise considering the leaps that their flagship digital distribution platform, Steam, has taken over the years.  Steam has grown to a dominant place in the market and has continued to evolve.  Everything from community hub pages to an active marketplace is included in Steam.  It was growing into far more than a simple software platform and it now only seems logical that an operating system was the next step.

And here we are.  SteamOS is real.  Core gaming via Linux is here (and has been here to a degree for a couple years now).  This is an exciting time for the PC gaming market.  It marks the first shot fired in a war for not only the foundation of PC gaming, but for the concept of video gaming in its entirety.  Valve is gunning for the living room where a PC makes just as much sense as an Xbox One.  PC gaming is a concept more than it is a platform and it is one that the gaming market was well past due to recognize.  SteamOS will proudly carry the banner into the trenches.

About damn time: DOTA2 officially launched

DOTA 2 is now officially launched.

DOTA 2 will be Free 2 Play

Gabe Newell let slip that DOTA 2 will be free 2 play, but with a twist.

“It’s going to be free-to-play — it’ll have some twists, but that’s the easiest way for people to think about it,” he revealed.

“The issue that we’re struggling with quite a bit is something I’ve kind of talked about before, which is how do you properly value people’s contributions to a community?,” he mentioned when asked about what kind of “twist ” players can expect from the game.

“We’re trying to figure out ways so that people who are more valuable to everybody else [are] recognized and accommodated.

“We all know people where if they’re playing we want to play, and there are other people where if they’re playing we would be on the other side of the planet.

“It’s just a question of coming up with mechanisms that recognize and reward people who are doing things that are valuable to other groups of people,” he added.

He said that the free-to-play model Valve has in mind for DOTA 2 is completely unique and hasn’t been done before.

“When you start thinking about the different games that people play and you try to think about how people can create value or a service in one game and benefit somebody in a different game, you can start to see how the different games sort knit together,” Newell said.

“[You can see] how somebody who really likes Team Fortress 2 (TF2) can still be creating value for somebody who is playing DOTA 2 or Skyrim, or if somebody is a creator in one space how it can translate into another.

“In a sense, think of individual games as instance dungeons of a larger experience, if that makes sense as a concept.”

DOTA 2 isn't a game; it's an interactive experience!

Ever hate a game before even trying it, only to try it and then realize you may be in love with it? That is exactly where I am at with DOTA 2.

Since starting to get involved with League of Legends I have spent a lot of time learning about the history of DOTA and the MOBA genre. Defense of the Ancients, henceforth DOTA, was a mod to Warcraft III that featured teams of five players battling it out with NPCs and towers before destroying the opponents "Ancient". From those simple beginnings, DOTA grew to become massively popular. It's probably responsible for more Warcraft III sales (you need a copy to play the mod) than the actual RTS itself.

When I first started looking into DOTA there was a bit of misconception on my part (and most of the Internet apparently) about how popular it was. The numbers are highly disputed and even harder to nail down. Due to it being a mod, not officially supported by Blizzard (though they like to think it's their property), there is no press releases announcing its player numbers. However, through the playdota.com website, the DOTA lead developer Icefrog noted that approximately 7-10 million players have grabbed the game. And as that's not tracking China, there is speculation the real number is somewhere nearer 20 million. Originally I had come to the conclusion that there was about a million DOTA players worldwide.

So I suppose there is no time like now to admit I was wrong about DOTA's popularity considering I was invited to participate in the beta for Valve's DOTA 2. I may also need to retract my statements where I said DOTA 2 wouldn't be very popular. After playing the beta I'm absolutely floored at how smooth of an experience DOTA 2 is. It's one of the best beta tests I've ever participated in and there is so much more going on than just the game itself. The game is great, but the entire package it's wrapped in is what sells the title.

Before we get too far, let me back track. A lot of people assume my hate of DOTA 2 was coming from my long-standing support for League of Legends. I like League of Legends (LoL). LoL has taken the DOTA formula and made many improvements to it. LoL has done many, many things right and like DOTA2 it spent a lot of time on delivering the "complete package" rather than just the game play. LoL is a resounding success (to the tune of 30+ million accounts). LoL is also free 2 play, which makes it even more amazing as anyone can give it a try.

Now I could spend a lot of time detailing the differences between LoL and DOTA2, but I won't. The important thing to know is that LoL sought to create an update and refreshed version of DOTA while DOTA2 has only sought to recreate DOTA in a new graphics engine (Source) and tie it to a unified platform (Steam). When I had first heard this, I was very disappointed.

DOTA has many frustrating mechanics imposed on it due to the fact it was restricted by the Warcraft III engine. And as DOTA2 is a clone of DOTA being put into a new graphics engine, all of these mechanics were going to be copied over. As DOTA2 has progressed in development it has been very clear that DOTA and DOTA2 are aimed at being the same game. In fact, Valve hired on the lead DOTA developer, Icefrog.

To me that didn't make sense (and even now doesn't make much sense). Why free this game from the shackles of the WC3 engine only to keep the ball and chain? LoL was a smashing success because it dared to be different enough from DOTA while maintaining the classic game play everyone loved. Valve seems to have no interest in improving the experience of the DOTA game play. To them, why fix what isn't broke? While I'd argue that it may not be "technically" broke, some things are just kind of stupid from a design perspective.

But don't let me get off on tangents here. I was hating on DOTA2 because of Valve's seemingly unwillingness to improve on the DOTA experience which I had classified as the game itself. I was being ignorant to the fact that the game play of DOTA was only half the package. The exterior features were just as important and OH MY GOD did Valve hit a home run here.

The first time I logged into DOTA2 I was blown away at how slick the interface was. To my left showed me active users broken down by geographical area. A news feed scrolled the center. And most amazingly, live games that I could log into and spectate were on the right. A click later and I was watching a scrimmage match between some of the best known DOTA2 players in the world along with 200 watchers.

While there are live streams from top players for League of Legends and DOTA, there is nothing that compares to what Valve has put together. The spectator in DOTA 2 is actually in the game, clicking around, directing the camera, pulling up the scoreboard when they want to see it, and they are having a wonderful interactive experience.  The difference is that of watching TV (streams) vs playing a video game (DOTA 2 observer mode).  I've never enjoyed being a spectator of a video game until I spectated a match of DOTA2.

And in reality that is the point I'm trying to get at: DOTA 2 isn't a game, it's an interactive experience. It's true digital content for the digital consumer.  League of Legends is to a degree the same, but it's not built-in (yet!) the way DOTA2 is.  If and when LoL is able to build in some of the "digital consumer" features that DOTA2 features it will be equally as stunning (and IMHO LoL is an easier game to understand and spectate than the sometimes overly complex DOTA2).

DOTA 2 isn't perfect.  It still has a long way to go to get all of the DOTA heroes added and kinks worked out (and by kinks I mean high skill level type stuff that 99% of the playerbase doesn't notice). The underlying tech is there and the game is solid as it is for the general populace.  Yes, some annoying mechanics are going to exist in DOTA2 and that may or may not change with Valve at the helm (as I doubt 2 is going to diverge from the original anytime soon).  The only real questions for DOTA2: when is it releasing and will it be free 2 play?

Working DOTA 2 Beta Survey Link

If you recieved an email from Valve in regards to the DOTA 2 beta and that you needed to take a survey and the provided link did not work, it is because they didn't wrap it in proper HTML tags in the email.

Here is a working link: Dota 2 Survey

*Make sure you have Steam running first and that you have updated to the most recent client version.

The email from Valve would have been something like:

You recently indicated you want to play Dota2. Before we send the first batch of invites we need to collect a little more information from you about your level of gaming experience and your gaming rig.

To begin the survey go to the machine on which you intend to play Dota2, start Steam and click this link: steam://takesurvey/1/ (if you haven't restarted your Steam client for a few days, you might need to do that before clicking that link).

To install Steam go to http://www.steampowered.com/about

Thank you
The Dota2 Team

Hypocritical on Battlefield 3, Origin, digital distribution

I have drawn a line in the sand. I am a Steam user and I want my fucking games on Steam. Publishers should come to me, the consumer. I, the consumer, should not have to go to them. I have serious problems with Origin (and Battle.net and Steam for that matter). I DO NOT want exclusive digital distribution platforms. However, I am an avid PC gamer; a very hypocritical and easily fooled by “oh shiny” gamer at that.
This brings me to my current dilemma. I’ve all but said that I refuse to accept Origin and EA locking their flagship games into the platform. Especially because I own a half dozen of their other games on Steam and I really like Steam as my digital distribution platform. I’m disappointed that Valve and EA can’t work out their differences.

The EA vs Valve spat was not terribly unexpected. This has been playing out in the movie/TV streaming market for years already. The content providers are unwilling to sell the rights to their prime content to players such as Netflix or Amazon. Netflix and Amazon then get stuck with the re-runs and B rate stuff. The content providers meanwhile are wising up to the fact they can just as easily distribute their own digital content and just like hardcore game fans, the content fans will come to them.

The content I’m interested in is Battlefield 3. I’ve played and paid for all but two PC Battlefield titles to date. I loved the last two iterations: Heroes and Bad Company 2. I’ve always picked the Battlefield series over the likes of Call of Duty or Counterstrike. Battlefield games have always given me, the very unskilled twitch player, an excellent chance to thrive in the not-focused-just-on-shooting aspects. I played one hell of a medic in Battlefield 2.

I’ve been sitting around today watching videos such as the one at the end of this post and I’m absolutely drooling at the footage. Battlefield 3 is exactly the type of game I want. It’s an upgrade of Bad Company 2 and flat-out impressive. And I’m missing out on it because of some silly line I drew in the sand.

The problem is: can I really by the hypocrite? Again? My mind says no, but my heart (ha!) says “who gives a fuck?”. So this is me signing off, unsure what I’m going to do. In the mean time, I need to stop watching videos.



Du du, du, dun duh. Du du, du, dun duh.

Steve Jobs and the League of Legends

I'll make no bones about it: I didn't like Steve Jobs.  There has been and are far more influential people in the tech industry that will never receive the amount of attention that Steve Jobs has garnered.  However, most of all I dislike Steve Jobs because he's a lot like me (give our take a billion or so dollars) and I know I'd dislike me if I wasn't me.

Steve Jobs' greatest achievement was giving people what they needed instead of what they wanted.  He literally had no technical breakthroughs with any of the things he was involved with.  He simply ignored everything customers and critics ever leveled against him and forged ahead with his vision.  For him it worked because he controlled the vision; viciously.

The Steve Jobs approach.  The giving communities of people what they need instead of what they want.  This.  This is still a very valid and increasingly needed approach to all products.  Actually, its an excellent barometer to use when comparing forces in other markets.

The more I become involved in the multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) community, through playing League of Legends, the more I like to look at what has happened in the (MOBA) market and what is coming up.  What I see reminds me a lot of the Steve Jobs Apple.

The three big players in the MOBA mareket are: DOTA (the original Warcraft III mod), League of Legends (from Riot games), and Heroes of Newerth (from S2).  The 500 lb gorilla in the room, currently in beta testing, is DOTA 2 (from Valve). 

The current king, by all measurements, is League of Legends (LoL) which boasts 15+ million accounts on its Free 2 Play model.  Heroes of Newerth (HoN) in comparison had approximately 400,000 accounts when it was a standalone boxed game, but it recently moved to Free 2 Play model and new player numbers are not available yet (regardless, its still well below LoL's numbers).  There is no reliable way to count the number of DOTA players due to the fact it is still a mod, but estimates are over a million players for the original DOTA (again well shy of LoL).  Valve's DOTA2 did attract over 500,000 beta requests and goes into full scale testing soon.

LoL is considered a simpler version of DOTA and it's developers, Riot Games, actively support this notion as they designed the game to be easier to learn and have produced a non-DOTA game mode.  HoN is a near clone of the original DOTA.  DOTA2 is the literal clone of DOTA and is exactly the same game, but with Valve's Source Engine and a focus on more community features.

Even with DOTA2 spinning up and Blizzard threatening with their own official DOTA flavor on the Starcraft 2 engine, LoL is dominating the market.  And to me LoL is the Steve Jobs of the MOBA genre.  LoL by no means does what it's players want.  It does what the players need, whether they know it yet or not.

If you ask LoL players what they want you will inevitably come to the conclusion that LoL players want:

1. Replays
2. Spectator Mode
3. A better game client/launcher

Riot Games has been slow to develop any of these.  Not to say they haven't worked on any of these areas, but if you spoke to the LoL faithful you would quickly think that Riot hates their core community.  It's practically a crime at this point that LoL doesn't have replays, or spectator mode and that players are still forced in to the Adobe Air game client (FROM HELL!).

Funny thing is, all of these items are things players WANT (seriously, they won't shut up about them), but in no way is it what a MOBA game NEEDS.  MOBA games, especially those inspired by DOTA, have a reputation problem.  The original DOTA community sucks.  It's intolerant of new or bad players.  While DOTA offers an incredibly deep and competitive experience, the community continually keeps the vast majority of new players away.  Replays, spectator modes, and game clients can not fox that problem.  A MOBA game can not be successful on the DOTA model without dealing with the community.

As LoL players screamed for the listed items above, Riot Games focused on other endeavors, one of which is an absolute key to their success: The Tribunal.  The Tribunal is a community polcing tool.  If a player acts the fool in a game of LoL, players can easily report them for various infractions (most often, verbal abuse).  These reports are then later reviewed by players who get to say yay or nay to whether the conduct reported was detrimental to the community. The recommendation of the players is then forwarded to Riot Games who makes a final call on the punishment.  More times than not if a random selection of players votes that someone was being a jerk, Riot agrees and warns (or bans) the account.

LoL and Riot Games have taken this to the bank, millions of times over while their competitors (mainly HoN) tried to simply redeliver the DOTA game.  To no one's surprise, the bad community vibe followed right along to HoN.  Now that HoN is Free 2 Play, its easy to compare the two communities.  HoN is terrible.  LoL is no picnic all of the time either, but there is satisfaction to be had knowing that fellow players will be judging the retards who can't keep their fingers off the /all chat key.  Overall, LoL has far fewer problems because of the Tribunal.

Problem is, LoL players feel cheated because development efforts went into the Tribunal, which most players felt was just a waste of time (after all, we should all just accept terrible communities because there are mute buttons  AMIRITE!?!).  Players WANTED replays. They wanted LoL, the then second generation of DOTA, to fill in features that DOTA had, but could not capitalize on due to being tied to the Warcraft III engine.  Riot put their head in the sand and said NO.  They pushed on what they knew was going to make their game a success.  They made LoL accessible and policed the 12 year olds (in 30 something old bodies).

This is not a blanket "Riot did everything right statement."  Riot has made it's share of mistakes.  Riot was right though and delivered to the needs of their players.  Players were the DOTA-like game's worst enemy and they essentially fixed it while making LoL accessible.  Had they made the game accessible and not fixed the community, the game wouldn't have survived.

Moving forward, DOTA2 is coming down the pipe line.  We don't know if it will be Free 2 Play.  We don't know what Valve is doing to tackle the community problem.  However, we know DOTA2 will have replays.  DOTA2 will have spectating.  DOTA2 will have a lot of what the players WANT. My concern is that DOTA2 and Valve may not be focusing on what players need.  However, Valve has a stubborn history themselves.  All one needs to do is look at the history of Steam itself to know Valve knows what players need well before we even know we need it.  Let's hope Valve is ahead of the curve with DOTA2.

New Counter Strike Game from #Valve

I'm not feeling very creative lately.  So, another image to sum up my thoughts on the new Counter Strike game.