>> Artifact had in effect a perfectly reasonable economic model, but players did not see it that way.

I don't think it really did though. Artifact took Magic the Gathering's payment model verbatim (pay for a starter set, pay for booster packs, pay for entrance any activities where you might win more cards) but removed the thing that makes that work for Magic the Gathering: face to face interaction with other human beings at your Local Game Store. If we compare it vs. it's more direct competition (digital CCGs) it's a worse proposition for the average non/low spending player, but even if we do the kindest thing and compare it against what it's directly copying it's still a strictly worse deal.

Yeah, I think this is one of the biggest points: they were marketing to the wrong demographic. Dota players like to laugh at League players for having to buy heros, so even if a competitive deck is only $200 which is really good compared to other CCGs, that price is super high to a video game player steeped in the philosophy that "mtx should be cosmetic only, anything else is pay to win."

On the other hand, look at the article's point 7: the economic model was fundamentally flawed through oppressive transaction fees plus a conception of cards as both valuable (resale) and free (via card rewards).

Players don't see a game's economic model in its ideal state, they see the economic model as implemented.

I don't think the economic model is why Artifact failed. The reason Artifact failed is that it's not fun.