Huge Update Inbound for LOTR LCG on Steam!

[TheWiseGuy 289]

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by TheWiseGuy

[NathanH 350]

Something had to change, since they'd wandered into a system that made it hard to find anything to spend money on.

[TheWiseGuy 289]

30 minutes ago, NathanH said:

Something had to change, since they'd wandered into a system that made it hard to find anything to spend money on.

Yah I didn't find anything too pricy but I also bought in and had ample valor points. I think if you didn't buy in and just played as a free-to-play player it may have not felt very F2P at all. At least now people are making fewer purchases for more content.

[Hannibal_pjv 203]

I like these changes. The Pathfinder adventures cards game did run to serious economical problems because people were playing it without paying a dim... And the development of the game ended too early because it was not sensible to make new content to it (without getting development money back). They did try to change the economy mode later, but it was too late for that.

Now FFG at least know that they have steady income with each expansion. (If the game is popular enough) Also many country seeks and destroys games that has loot box systems... So putting on the market new game with that system would just lead to attacks by government official and lawyers. So more likely than not they would have had to change the economy mode in anyway sooner or later. So it is better to do before the real release.

In competitive environment you have to spent money, so that you don't lose to players that have all the new cards and you don't. In coop, you can easily play without ever using any money, because it does not matter if other players have better cards. You will get them sooner or later. Sometimes many year later. In competitive card game it would have been real pain, to loose all the time to opponents that does have those new cards, so there is a pressing reason to sink money to the game. And the game does not live a long if it does not make profits to the developers. You have to play salaries, earn something to the share holders and so on. Now there is change to that.

[Edheliad 145]

Can't see the game lasting. The number of complete revisions they've already gone through is frightening.

[TheWiseGuy 289]

3 minutes ago, Edheliad said:

Can't see the game lasting. The number of complete revisions they've already gone through is frightening.

I mean it's in beta... Not even out yet. It's the best time to make changes like this

[donkler 199]

I think it is a fun game, and I'm glad they are making these changes to steer it away from a freemium game with microtransactions. It will definitely make more sense this way to call it a Living Card Game similar to the physical editions. With it coming out on Switch it seems like they could easily just sell it for $30 or $40 and people would buy it based on the license alone.

[Gandalf_ 60]

Do you think that the digital game will be good for the tabletop long term? 

[Wandalf the Gizzard 370]

2 hours ago, Edheliad said:

Can't see the game lasting. The number of complete revisions they've already gone through is frightening.

Eh, it's early access. Revisions are what that period is for.

1 hour ago, Gandalf_ said:

Do you think that the digital game will be good for the tabletop long term? 

I really don't know. The digital game will probably draw attention to it, and I highly doubt it to steal players from the card game. That said, it will add confusion, and draw frustration from some.

[Hannibal_pjv 203]

8 hours ago, Gandalf_ said:

Do you think that the digital game will be good for the tabletop long term? 

Hard to say... it is so different that it is almost completely different game. If player goes from tabletop to it, he is completely lost for a while. Same with moving from digital to tabletop. Everything you learn in digital is done completely different way in the tabletop version.

there was/is huge outrage in the Steam about how bad the digital is. Expect to see huge outrage in here a Little bit later when people from digital come to here and tell why the tabletop is so awfull compared to digital

in reality these two does not impact each other. The tabletop can Outlive the digital or vice versa. Maybe we will get Lotr 2.0 that has same rules as digital version some day who knows... but all in all They Are so different that They don`t touch each other in anyway except use same graphics.

[John Constantine 967]

Steam player counts don't look optimistic.

[Edheliad 145]

13 hours ago, TheWiseGuy said:

I mean it's in beta... Not even out yet. It's the best time to make changes like this

The best time would have been the design stage. Or maybe in alpha or private beta. Not months after people have already spent a decent amount of money on the product. It's "out" in every meaningful sense.

[TheWiseGuy 289]

1 hour ago, Edheliad said:

The best time would have been the design stage. Or maybe in alpha or private beta. Not months after people have already spent a decent amount of money on the product. It's "out" in every meaningful sense.

This is a private beta haha. You can only enter of you pay. I'm just saying it would be worse if it was full release and they were making big changes.

[John Constantine 967]

2 minutes ago, TheWiseGuy said:

This is a private beta haha. You can only enter of you pay. I'm just saying it would be worse if it was full release and they were making big changes.

It's early access. Beta's, especially private ones, don't usually charge for playing but send out limited amounts of invites instead.

[Calvadur 165]

2 hours ago, Edheliad said:

The best time would have been the design stage. Or maybe in alpha or private beta. Not months after people have already spent a decent amount of money on the product. It's "out" in every meaningful sense.

Imo this is the fatal flaw in the understanding of AE. If everyone is allowed access for a (smaller or larger) fee it feels like a full release. No matter how many info boxes might pop up. And if the game doesn't live up to the expectations, improves or doesn't even have a good communication between fans and developers it is doomed (most likely).

But that's not the intention of AE. Developers want feed back (and finical security), because some stuff is best checked by many people. Stuff like the monetisation. For me their initial plan sounded perfectly fine (even though I wasn't happy with some details) and I am sure they were happy with their idea, too. However it seems it didn't work out so it had to change. More or less exactly what you want from AE. This isn't "Oh no they didn't even had that figuered out, game is dead", it's "hey they noticed something they/the community aren't happy with and try to change it for the better". The game is IN development right now. Not just for content. Technical issues and yes even fundamental design decisions are tested and subject to change. 
How should the monetisation have been tested "in alpha" or "private beta". Most likely the shop wasn't even working at this point. No way you could have tested if thousands of people would invest enough money with the planned system, so you needed a public test. With real people, having the option to spend their money.

This got a little longer than expected and maybe reads like a rage, but for all the disappointments that happend with AE, I hate to read that decisions like this one are a bad thing during AE, shouldn't happen or that AE is a meaningful release (a I said: for me the greatest misconception the gaming-community can't get rid of) as FFG, in my oppinion, are doing a great job with the AE (giving weekly updates, streaming, patching). This is independant from the success of the game. The core idea is set and they try to optimise it. If the game fails (low sales, no players etc.) so be it. Many "great games" never were a success or even got studios closed. So just because your game may fail, doesn't mean the development process failed too. 

[Wandalf the Gizzard 370]

1 hour ago, TheWiseGuy said:

I'm just saying it would be worse if it was full release and they were making big changes.

Haha, that would be a nightmare. At that point most companies would release a second edition.

[Edheliad 145]

2 hours ago, TheWiseGuy said:

This is a private beta haha. You can only enter of you pay. I'm just saying it would be worse if it was full release and they were making big changes.

The private betas I'm involved in are invite-only and involve signing NDAs. This is a public beta period. Anyone with a credit card can participate.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Edheliad

[ColinEdwards 48]

Getting rid of the gambling aspects (the palantir) makes sense; not only does it not feel like an LCG, it would open them up to a lot of potential regulation. 

[Yepesnopes 636]

On 10/19/2018 at 1:59 AM, Wandalf the Gizzard said:

I really don't know. The digital game will probably draw attention to it, and I highly doubt it to steal players from the card game. 

Players I don’t know, but the forum space it does steal...

[BigKahuna 737]

This is a great move in my opinion, 50% of the reason that I haven't got involved in this digital version of the game was because it had the micro-transaction / loot crate stank on it and I just can't be bothered with business models like that.  Besides, the vast majority of games with that model fail miserably so I'm not really sure why the industry continues to try this.  It works.. sometimes... that is not a great track record to base your game on.  I'm not suprised they are changing it and I definitely support the change.   That said I think it will backfire on them horribly.  

The issue here is that the LCG community, aka, the people who play Lord of the Rings the Living Card game are the target audience here and they have already largely rejected this Lord of the Rings the Hearthstone clone game concept and on steam the only people who are going to try playing it are the ones who can do it for free.  You stick a 30 dollar price tag on this thing and the general gaming community won't give it a second look.

That said the other 50% of the reason I haven't tried this game and probably never will is that I don't understand the point of creating a card game based on a successful card game, but then changing the gameplay to be something completely different related only by the art work used.  Look, I'm a fan of Lord of the Rings the Living Card game... its the game I want to play, if your going to make a digital version of the game and you want me to buy it,.. do that.. make a digital version of THAT game... don't make a "Lord of the Rings The Living Card Hearthstone".  If I want to play Hearthstone... I will play Hearthstone.

I just don't get it, who is doing marketing research over there?  This is a somber, happy community that loves Lord of the Rings the Living Card game... just bloody make it for us and I will mail you my credit card, but ... whatever this game is.. its not Lord of the Rings the LCG on a computer... so hard pass until that is addressed.

  

[Gandalf_ 60]

Yeah it's a rushed and poorly implemented idea. The UI looks bad (reminds me of HearthStone a lot) and the gameplay doesn't interest me knowing that there is a more complex and strategic version of that game. It would be cool if they just made a 1:1 client where you can upload your physical cards via some barcode in the product to also have the online multiplayer experience but what they are currently doing is a no no from me.. 

[Edheliad 145]

1 hour ago, BigKahuna said:

This is a great move in my opinion, 50% of the reason that I haven't got involved in this digital version of the game was because it had the micro-transaction / loot crate stank on it and I just can't be bothered with business models like that.  Besides, the vast majority of games with that model fail miserably so I'm not really sure why the industry continues to try this.  It works.. sometimes... that is not a great track record to base your game on.  I'm not suprised they are changing it and I definitely support the change.   That said I think it will backfire on them horribly.  

The issue here is that the LCG community, aka, the people who play Lord of the Rings the Living Card game are the target audience here and they have already largely rejected this Lord of the Rings the Hearthstone clone game concept and on steam the only people who are going to try playing it are the ones who can do it for free.  You stick a 30 dollar price tag on this thing and the general gaming community won't give it a second look.

That said the other 50% of the reason I haven't tried this game and probably never will is that I don't understand the point of creating a card game based on a successful card game, but then changing the gameplay to be something completely different related only by the art work used.  Look, I'm a fan of Lord of the Rings the Living Card game... its the game I want to play, if your going to make a digital version of the game and you want me to buy it,.. do that.. make a digital version of THAT game... don't make a "Lord of the Rings The Living Card Hearthstone".  If I want to play Hearthstone... I will play Hearthstone.

I just don't get it, who is doing marketing research over there?  This is a somber, happy community that loves Lord of the Rings the Living Card game... just bloody make it for us and I will mail you my credit card, but ... whatever this game is.. its not Lord of the Rings the LCG on a computer... so hard pass until that is addressed.

  

It's an improved 2.0 version of the game.

The game is going to be more microtransaction-based than before, now that valor won't be used to buy most new content. They're just dropping the soft loot crate mechanic where you earned free crates constantly (and couldn't buy them with real money).

[Buhallin 4,563]

The two views here are not mutually exclusive.

You can applaud their willingness to change based on feedback while still faulting them for the initial lack of vision.  The original design was painfully unoriginal - from the visual design to the gameplay changes to the monetization model, it was little more than copying a bunch of other games.  Recognition of the limitations of that is good, but it doesn't make the original design decisions any less bad.

Personally, the changes have me willing to buy into the game.  Lump purchases with a set amount of gameplay is a lot more appealing to me than having to grind the same scenarios every day to fill my collection.  My only concern at this point is whether there will be enough content to justify the cost.  Designs like they started with cover for a lack of content by giving you a monetary motivation to play it repeatedly.  Take that away, is there enough to make it worth the purchase cost?  Remains to be seen, IMHO, but I'm at least interested now.

[Buhallin 4,563]

On 10/23/2018 at 3:35 AM, Edheliad said:

It's an improved 2.0 version of the game.

You mean compared to the physical game?  Uhm... no, no it's not.  At all.  At best it's an entirely different game.

[BigKahuna 737]

11 hours ago, Buhallin said:

You mean compared to the physical game?  Uhm... no, no it's not.  At all.  At best it's an entirely different game.

I assumed he meant 2.0 of the online version.  The online version improves absolutely nothing in any way shape the paper version.  It's  hallowed out,  empty shell of a game right now.  There is some potential for improvement here but I think it would require an overhaul the developer/publisher will not want to invest it so I don't think this game has much of a future.  It's clear that they have realized this at this point and are probably just hoping to cut it's losses.  After all, if it was successful, they wouldn't be making alterations like this.  I just don't think what they are doing right now is going to be enough to shift the opinion of this community nor enough to capture the PC gamers on steam.  Card games in general don't do particularly well on Steam, you can count on one hand the amount of successful ones that didn't insta die over the last decade and there have been a metric ton of them.