[aranelsurion]

For me, their business model was the biggest turn-off, I didn't even give it a try because of that.

Hearthstone is already strong in this market, they have $0 entry fee and only charge for the cards. It's a pay2win game, some like/accept it, and some don't. I don't. Because I'm not willing to pay some unknown amount of money for a game just to stay competitive everytime the meta changes. I play games for fun, and being destroyed in a game because of IRL money is no fun.

Now what I would consider as a strong alternative to Hearthstone, would be a game asking for a triple-A entry fee, and then charging nothing extra. In this game everyone would have the same chances, and nobody would have to feel bad just because they didn't invest enough money in a gambling scheme.

What Valve offered is a triple-A entry fee, and then charging for anything they can. Now how is this can ever be a good offer? I don't know. I simply ignored the game and moved on.

[me_me_me]

>Hearthstone is already strong in this market, they have $0 entry fee and only charge for the cards. It's a pay2win game, some like/accept it, and some don't. I don't. Because I'm not willing to pay some unknown amount of money for a game just to stay competitive everytime the meta changes. I play games for fun, and being destroyed in a game because of IRL money is no fun.

HS has actually pretty good system, I played it for first few years and spend almost no money on it (I got the adventure packs/tickets).

There are also a series on yt/twitch where players start from 0 and climb the ladder.

Given what HS could be I have to give it to Blizzard for balancing the free rewards to not be a grind-fest design to funnel ppl into buying packs.