Splinterlands is awful.

Prologue

Mr. Plot wrote a post today about the negatives of Splinterlands. The positives, too, but not in a responding way, more like a Black & White theme. As I was writing my response, the latter escalated more and more towards a full blown post, so I stopped and started writing what you're reading right now. Or listening to, read to you by a very confusing German/French accent-English.

Argument 1: Pay-2-Win

Heavy financial investment required for competitive play excludes casual gamers.

Depends on how high you want to compete. If you want to be Number 1, sure, you have to invest a lot. Big surprise there, but the Olympics also exclude casual athletes. If you really think you can "compete" on the highest level without investing a serious amount of time and money, well, you might just be a little bit spoiled.

I have a Silver/Gold (now cald Intermediate/Advanced I think) modern deck, and an expert Wild deck. I don't really play Wild besides tournaments, I let the bot handle that when I don't have time to play modern. In Modern, I play Diamond League. That's high. And it requires a lot of skill and tactics to compete with my deck there, and if I'm not having a good day, I lose. That's reality.

There are no trophies for participating, and there shouldn't be.

Argument 2: Declining Card Values

Older cards (Alpha, Beta) lose value due to new releases and format changes.

I wish. Yes, they declined in value from when the whole thing started. I guess, I don't have the data to back that up. But with the latest Land-Updates and what is coming, it is quite hard to get those cards at a price that makes sense economically - most of them are overvalued considering the current status quo.

I'm happy that those prices are dropping at the moment, as I'm trying to scoop up whatever I can with the money I have, as land usage is increasing and those assets will be more valuable in the future. This is not financial advice, in case you think I'm a fortune teller. It's conviction, not clairvoyance, based on what the team is working on and the impact that other updated had on card & land prices.

Argument 3: Profit-Driven Focus

Monetization prioritizes revenue over gameplay, alienating non-investor players.

I really don't see that. Maybe I don't get the argument as it's very short. But with Foundation cards, that argument as I understand it was wiped away. With 1$/5 CC packs, it was wiped away. Yes, revenue is important - it is and always will be a business. You can't run servers on good game-play. You can't pay for updates with good attitude. A crypto/NFT based game needs money.

The team has done a lot to make the game a lot friendlier to non-investor players. (And, additionally, where's the line for "investor"? $100? $1000? $10,000?) They're true to their word that they want Splinterlands to be newcomer-friendly, and no newcomer is an investor. It's dipping toes and seeing what goes, and that's what the team has been catering for the last months - while as well catering to the legacy & high stake players with many updates and events.

Argument 4: Technical Issues

Server lag, transaction errors, and mobile app bugs disrupt gameplay.

Yes. There's always something to work on. I, personally, haven't encountered any of those lags and/or errors that weren't caused by my VPN or for living where I'm living. I can agree with this argument, though, as it's very likely that an online game experiences those issues. I had them in all the games I played. All of them. Always, even or especially after updates.

Argument 5: Bot Activity

Bots in ranked battles reduce fairness and skew outcomes.

That's why they're only allowed in Survival and Wild. And guess what - it's true. Bots are hard to beat. But that's also why Wild is only bringing half the rewards that modern gets. It's perfect to let a Bot run when your real life takes too much time to play down the energy.

And honestly, I love the fact that bots are allowed there. Yes, a bot is expensive, but that's also why it's only used my players with a high level deck. A deck that you would need anyway to compete at Diamond/Champion level in Wild. And once you paid that much money for a deck like that, another 30-60$ for a Bot to take off some of the workload is not that much.

Meaning: If you're a casual player, you'll probably never encounter bots. If you're not a casual player anymore, take it as a challenge - bots can be beat. Their win-rate is not 100%. And you can learn a lot from their teams, if you pay attention, which you should playing at those levels.

Argument 6: Poor Support

Slow or unresponsive customer support frustrates players with unresolved issues.

Yes, sometimes I agree with that. My requests usually got fixed pretty quickly, only one was left to die in the chat, but it was a bit out-of-scope anyway, very specific. The chatbot is quite useless at the moment, but at least it doesn't have you run in circles like other companies, instead it brings you to a human quite quickly.

And if chat fails, there's always discord. There are many channels where you can ask your questions, and probably will get an answer by this amazing community very quickly. Or write in official channels, though not labeled support, and even then there will be an answer. Only likely, as it's not the appropriate channel, but I used it for emergencies and it worked.

And never forget HIVE. The true support is in the community. That's where you find answers quickly.

Argument 7: Steep Learning Curve

Complex mechanics overwhelm newcomers unfamiliar with blockchain or card games.

Okay, yes, blockchain is hard to get into. A little more tutorial is needed there, and a little more obvious. I had a lot of trouble getting into it, but I didn't have LLMs available, either. Now, I just type a question about the HIVE Blockchain in by Brave browser and get the answer in seconds - and usually quite correct. Or at least with links that help.

Game play - sorry, that is just not the case. The low-level game mechanics are so easy and intuitive; the drag & drop and all that is very obvious and now also taught nicely with the Campaign-Mode. And from there, you can learn by yourself. Abilities and all that is easy when you start out, there's no overload at all.

You don't have to buy or rent max level cards from the beginning. Work your way up and you'll find out step by step, level by level, what is possible in Splinterlands - and the possibilities are somewhat endless now with Conclave Arcana.

Argument 8: Reward System Change

Updates to the reward system, like Glint and soulbound NFTs, devalue tradable rewards, frustrating players.

Yes, they do, but they enhance the newcomer experience. I often encounter teams that are entirely made up with Reward-Cards, except the rented summoner. But, and this is important - it also takes skill to get up to Diamond Modern with rented summoners and reward cards.

I think Glint was a great addition to the game, as a reward that can't be monetized. Replacing vouchers without repeating the mistakes. And that is a big plus for the game as well - the team learned and learns from their mistakes, thanks to an understanding, but also direct community. But I digress. The Glint shop is a great addition, in my opinion. Casual players find a lot of great items and also inspiration here. Glint can be used for many things without having to inject extra money. You can earn Glint right from the start, even in the Campaign. It's a very amazing new-player-experience, and it does benefit legacy players, too, with Energy and Titles and such.

Extra money is the short cut. Not an obligation.

Argument 9: High Competitive Costs

Expensive card rentals or purchases create barriers for budget players.

Yes and no. I repeat myself: If you want to compete, you have to put in money first. If you want to play casually, you can do that with little money and reward cards. Nobody forces you to compete with BT, Mondroid, EMP, Lorkus and all the other big shots. And honestly - even if you'd get a max deck for free, you'd still lose. It's not all about money, strategy counts so much and even more since Conclave Arcana.

If you're a budget player, then budget for the right deck. Either renting or buying or both. That's what budgeting is about, using what you have and making the most out of it.

Seriously, do you expect to spend $100 and make $1 every day of that? If any game offers you that, run.

Argument 10: Limited Non-Crypto Appeal

Blockchain focus alienates traditional gamers not interested in NFTs.

Traditional gamers? I don't even know what's meant by that. Surely, CoD players might not be interested in cards. Nor Poker players in SPL cards. But for the niche of TCG-players - I doubt that SPL alienates anyone.

Argument 11: Volatile Earnings

DEC and SPS value fluctuations reduce play-to-earn profitability.

P2E is a gimmick, and shouldn't be the main focus. And if you really see this fun game as more than a hobby, then take it as an investment in a high-growth company - they go up and down like crazy. They all fluctuate. Splinterlands is like that, and yes, their assets will go up and down. But the fun won't. Don't quit your job to play.

Argument 12: Delayed Roadmap

Slow progress on features like Land Expansion creates uncertainty for players.

But there is progress. Land 1.75 showed that. Midnight potions, lottery tickets and wagons show that. Land is becoming a bigger print in Splinterlands step by step. Not all at once, but slowly and steadily. Which gives us all great opportunity to buy more.

And yes, road maps are delayed in companies. It's not fun. But the game is working, the team is working, and money is coming in and being invested carefully. I can't remember how many times the Cybertruck was delayed, because nobody talked about it anymore after it was released. Land 2.0 is certainly not GTA 6, but that's just another example - it will come. Eventually. And we're better off than the GTA folks, as we can already use our land now.

Conclusion

Honestly, those arguments against Splinterlands made me even more bullish on the game and its assets. If that's all critics can come up with - awesome. There's no fundamental issue from what I see, nothing critical. Some things are just perspective, some are "normal" for games, and are constantly being worked on.

I know that there are more problems than those. I converse with a mate who is highly critical of many moves a lot of times, and his insight is very valuable. And he always lets the team know, too. And from what I see, feedback is taken seriously. Ideas are taken seriously. It seems like the team is taking it personal when something is not working, or when something is going wrong. That's a good attitude, to our benefit.

Thank you very much for reading, I hope you enjoyed it at least as much as I enjoyed writing :-D If you have any comments or feedback - please let me know! And don't forget to leave your own posts for me to curate. Thank you very much!

If you don't play the game yet, you can use my referral: Click here for referral :-)