SuperData published report on CCG market research. CDPR, use this info, please!

[gem4ik]

Hello!
According to info they showed for free, Gwent in US, is less poular than TES: Legends and Yi-Gi-Oh! for the last 3 months LINK
I think its ok, since Gwent didn't got any patches and wasn't promoted, but i higly recommend you to get this report and study info they prepared.
For example, according to them, most popular platfrom to play CCG is smartphone , so you have to keep that information in mind (and, i believe, you do even without this post) that slammers version of Homecoming should have high priority. Also high priority should be UI, etc, i hope you use that information wisely, i wish Gwent only the greatest success.

 

[Orsest]

i thiunk research was the first thing what cdpr did before even start making the game, analysis and research are basis before actually do anything, or is it "hidden" site advertisement? xD

 

[gem4ik]

i thiunk research was the first thing what cdpr did before even start making the game, analysis and research are basis before actually do anything, or is it "hidden" site advertisement? xD

There are articles in the internet about how Gwent was made for Witcher 3 and how it became standalone project, i recommend you to read it.
I believe that they didn't do much research, i can see it from rookie mistakes they did, while creating Gwent's basics. But it's ok to make mistakes, you learn and get better. If CDPR's investors have faith into Gwent, they can relaunch Gwent even for the 3rd time (but it's almost impossible) in case, 2nd iteration will still be unsuccesfull in matter of gamedesign.
I still believe that they need to think about future of the game and make it possible to create new cards without getting stacked into gamedesign limits that are basis of the game. Mana-system was 100% needed for this game, but they switched that with Provisions system. If it will be succesfull, game will be ready-to-go.
Why i care? Cause it's my 4th game in a row i play, where developers are new to the genre, trying to make something worthy, but can't make it due to lack of knowledge (money have some role too in this story, but any project is always about success for the first 1-2 years of it's life):
2013-2015 Infinite Crisis
2014 - Dawngate
2016-2018 Paragon
RIP
I won't Gwent to die, maybe some chief at Gwent subdivision in CDPR will read it and change strategy that they rely on developing Gwent in the future.

P.S. Promoting "site" (SD) as report provider in gaming market is like promoting Coca-Cola as beverage manufacturer.

 

[sfruzz]

Looking at game popularity doesn't say anything about the quality of a product and does not even clarify whether it is a profitable investment or not. Yes, wordwile more liter of Coca-Cola are sold than Champagne bottles. However, both drinks have their own customers and their right to exist on the Market. You can still have a Champagne vineyard and make money out of it! Doens't need to be number 1 beverage in the US.

If you take Gwent and you water it down to some fast-food Heartstone-clone some customer might not be happy. You might even lose your share of the market.

For example, according to them, most popular platfrom to play CCG is smartphone

I think they are aware of that. Cutting one row and increasing the size of the cards is clearly a nod towards a mobile version of the game. The shortening of cardnames, a change which was opposed by the community and then reverted, could also be seen as an attempt to have the game suitable for smartphones.

Mana-system was 100% needed for this game, but they switched that with Provisions system.

Not really, the game has been played for two years by a tons of players without any need of a Mana-system. Uniqueness has been one of the strength of Gwent.

 

[gem4ik]

Looking at game popularity doesn't say anything about the quality of a product and does not even clarify whether it is a profitable investment or not. Yes, wordwile more liter of Coca-Cola are sold than Champagne bottles. However, both drinks have their own customers and their right to exist on the Market. You can still have a Champagne vineyard and make money out of it! Doens't need to be number 1 beverage in the US.

If you take Gwent and you water it down to some fast-food Heartstone-clone some customer might not be happy. You might even lose your share of the market.

Just read this, i hope, it will help you to never use such comparison ever again False Equivalence (LINK)

I think they are aware of that. Cutting one row and increasing the size of the cards is clearly a nod towards a mobile version of the game. The shortening of cardnames, a change which was opposed by the community and then reverted, could also be seen as an attempt to have the game suitable for smartphones.

I believe so too, as i said it before

... most popular platfrom to play CCG is smartphone, so you have to keep that information in mind (and, i believe, you do even without this post)

I was talking about priorities - here is matter of time. CDPR may release mobile version of Gwent in 6 months or in 18 months, it could affect game's poularity in US.

Not really, the game has been played for two years by a tons of players without any need of a Mana-system. Uniqueness has been one of the strength of Gwent.

2 years for CCG is nothing. Gwent has less than 500 cards and already started to stack with the problem of similair cards.
This is a long-term problem, when CCG developers can't create new cards due to game's gamedesign limitations. I believe, provision system was made to also solve this problem in similair way, since you can't create a lot of new cards in the future with just like 4 possible "rank" of cards: Bronze, Silver, Gold, Leader.
For example, Hearthstone have 11 ranks: 0-10 mana cost, combining with other gamedesign desicions, Blizzard will almost never run out of ideas for the new card expansions, cause they have to create not that much new cards for each rank, while CDPR have to create a lot of cards for each of 3 rank. And these cards have to match power to each other in matter of balance. This is a serious limitation for CDPR, so provision system will add some more ranks to the game's basics and it may help them for the future cards.

 

[4RM3D]

Just read this, i hope, it will help you to never use such comparison ever again False Equivalence (LINK)

No, the user's analogy was sound. Gwent can do his own thing for a select (smaller) group of people compared to Hearthstone which caters to the masses. Both games have their own raison d'être.

What the devs should not do is trying to change a game into something it was not meant to become and definitely not to just ride the hype train. (I am talking in general here, not specifically about any studio.)

 

[gem4ik]

No, the user's analogy was sound. Gwent can do his own thing for a select (smaller) group of people compared to Hearthstone which caters to the masses. Both games have their own raison d'être.

Yeah, but you completely ignore the fact that Champaign do not directly compete with carbonated drinks. You completely ignore the fact that carbonated drink and champaign production process is completely different. You completely ignore the fact that carbonated drink and champaign target audience is amost different. You completely ignore the fact that average price for bottle of carbonated drink and champaign is completely different.
etc, etc, etc. making this comparison pretty much nothing.
Also, in matter of price, Gwent is cheaper than HS, since you can get same amount of cards much cheaper and even, for free, making this comparison like a vice-versa.
He could've compare Gwent with luxury manually assembled collection car, which is like 100 units in whole world, and HS to the dust under your feet, so people who dislike HS and like Gwent without logical thinking, would like this comparison, but it would be same illogical.
100% example of False equivalence, while comparing HS to carbonated drink and Gwent to champaign, i still recommend you to read that article Very helpful

 

[4RM3D]

1. do not directly compete
2. production process is completely different
3. target audience is almost different

When the target audience is different, then they likely do not compete either. Hence points 1 and 3 are kinda the same. Whether or not this applies to Gwent and Hearthstone is a matter of perspective. In the CCG genre they might compete, but within that genre they have their own concept. This will also attract different kind of players, although there will be some overlap. The devs might have their own viewpoint on this, whether Gwent was meant to lure Hearthstone players away.

You are right about point 2, but for the sake of the analogy, I don't think it matters. Anyhow, for the point that was being made, the analogy works well enough. However, now, I can also understand your point.

 

[sfruzz]

Yeah, but you completely ignore the fact that Champaign do not directly compete with carbonated drinks. You completely ignore the fact that carbonated drink and champaign production process is completely different. You completely ignore the fact that carbonated drink and champaign target audience is amost different. You completely ignore the fact that average price for bottle of carbonated drink and champaign is completely different.

When I picked that analogy, I was thinking about a 5 minutes long aggro-game at the cellphone as opposed to a slow-paced Gwent match. Savoring a good drink as opposed to boozing, slow-food attitude vs fast-food style. Of course the analogy was meant to be a praise to Gwent!

I also chose that example to avoid repeating myself. This is an old topic and in previous discussion we compared different Multiplayer Online Battle Arena games and how the playerbase can be different. Dota 2 occupies a segment of the market, LoL occupies another. They can both thrive. The fact that they have different customers, interested in different aspects of the game is what makes the coexistence possible. For that reason, I think Gwent should not try to mimic Hearthstone, as the audience is different: hard-core players for the polish franchise, casuals for Blizzard games. The developers should not focus on a share of the market which is already “taken”. For example, LoL and HotS compete for the same customers, and this hinders the growth of the latter.

So going back to cardgames, there is a group of players who are interested in a game like Gwent and would not necessary be interested in a simplified smartphone-version. Gwent can coexist with other big names, as long as it retains its identity. What I'm trying to say is that there is market, and hence profit, for complex, high quality games. You don't have to be the number one game on Twitch to succeed!

For example, Hearthstone have 11 ranks: 0-10 mana cost, combining with other gamedesign desicions, Blizzard will almost never run out of ideas for the new card expansions, cause they have to create not that much new cards for each rank, while CDPR have to create a lot of cards for each of 3 rank.

They run out of ideas nevertheless. See attachment.

 

[gem4ik]

You are right about point 2, but for the sake of the analogy, I don't think it matters. Anyhow, for the point that was being made, the analogy works well enough. However, now, I can also understand your point.

Sure, you/me/devs can have their own view on this point, but we all face reality - Gwent and HS are direct competitors, unlike champaign and cola. Moreover - online games usually, compete with each other, outside genres, but not that hard like within CCG genre. But it doesn't mean that CDPR have to copy HS, it means, that they should take into account what CCG player needs to feel satisfied with the product. There are multiple ways to meet the needs of such players, not the only 1 right Blizzard's way. I just wish that CDPR will not take interest in achieving their own goals instead of customer's needs and close Gwent in couple of months after release. Anyone can tell that Gwent is peculiar game, but it can't survive on this market just by "some kind of a different from CCG-genre" players or Witcher fans. Look at Gwent - this game costs (including promotion) tens of millions $ withing multiple years of development. This kind of a game can't survive with small playerbase made of random people who are not even ready to invest money and time into this game.
So, can small vineyard survive selling 100 bottle of champaign per month? Sure.
Can Gwent, high-quality and high-cost game survive, getting money from small amount of players? Not a chance, investor's money and faith are not infinite.

Post automatically merged: Aug 6, 2018

When I picked that analogy, I was thinking about a 5 minutes long aggro-game at the cellphone as opposed to a slow-paced Gwent match. Savoring a good drink as opposed to boozing, slow-food attitude vs fast-food style. Of course the analogy was meant to be a praise to Gwent!

I also chose that example to avoid repeating myself. This is an old topic and in previous discussion we compared different Multiplayer Online Battle Arena games and how the playerbase can be different. Dota 2 occupies a segment of the market, LoL occupies another. They can both thrive. The fact that they have different customers, interested in different aspects of the game is what makes the coexistence possible. For that reason, I think Gwent should not try to mimic Hearthstone, as the audience is different: hard-core players for the polish franchise, casuals for Blizzard games. The developers should not focus on a share of the market which is already “taken”. For example, LoL and HotS compete for the same customers, and this hinders the growth of the latter.

So going back to cardgames, there is a group of players who are interested in a game like Gwent and would not necessary be interested in a simplified smartphone-version. Gwent can coexist with other big names, as long as it retains its identity. What I'm trying to say is that there is market, and hence profit, for complex, high quality games. You don't have to be the number one game on Twitch to succeed!



They run out of ideas nevertheless. See attachment.

This is not the best comparison, since it's not even same ability.
I like this more, the only difference is opponent's targeting.

 

[sfruzz]

This is not the best comparison, since it's not even same ability.
I like this more, the only difference is opponent's targeting.

Matter of tastes. In your case one is a spell, the other has a 3/2 body.

 

[4RM3D]

They run out of ideas nevertheless.

I like this more, the only difference is opponent's targeting.

That's not the worst of it, though. That honor goes to Power Creep, e.g.: