As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[PATV] Wednesday, November 6, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 7, Ep. 9: Collectable Games (Part 1)

DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
edited November 2013 in The Penny Arcade Hub

image[PATV] Wednesday, November 6, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 7, Ep. 9: Collectable Games (Part 1)

This week, we begin a two-part series on the Collectable monetization model.
We have a new EC t-shirt from Fangamer! Buy it here!
Come discuss this topic in the forums!

Read the full story here


Unknown User on
«1

Posts

  • romagiaromagia Registered User new member
    why private :<

  • PMAversPMAvers Registered User regular
    Try refreshing, it's there now.

    persona4celestia.jpg
    COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
  • m0ng00sem0ng00se Registered User new member
    the url from the link on the front page is spelled "collectible" instead of "collectable" so it 404s


    while im at it, % goes after a number, i used to think it was like a dollar sign but it turns out its not

  • WildFire15WildFire15 Registered User regular
    A lot of this sounds like trickery to me, but I can see a few points in it. In City of Heroes, while I did buy costume sets and power sets I wanted, the ones I was less fussed about I'd usually wait until I had enough store points from subscribing to buy them, rather then pay extra for them. But then, if I saw someone with the costume set I hadn't bought (usually in an awesome combination with something else), it encouraged me more to buy it. This probably worked better in CoH because the game actively encouraged you to make alts and may not translate to other games, but I see it as a good example of 'encourage, don't force'

  • DeVadderDeVadder Registered User new member
    Oh boy, i so hope the people of Stone Blade Entertainment watch this episode. I am so annoyed by the stupid amount of untradable, unusable commons and uncommons (they are uncommons, wether they call them rares or potato) in my collection.

  • themilothemilo Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Hum I don’t know how to feel about this, I admit I’m a bit of a cheapskate when it comes to free games as I try to spend as little as possible and only on things is absolutely want, on the other hand I’m 16 so I’m not exactly financially capable so maybe when I actually have some more money to spend I might start liking collectable monetization models.

    themilo on
  • SzabuSzabu Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    All this sounds like a big ripoff to me. This is like randomly buying clothes until you find one that's your size and you actually like.

    With card games I guess it's okay since you have the option (and you are encouraged) to trade, but in the digital realm where you can't trade/resell your stuff and any time they can shut off the servers and you lose everything. Just no.

    Szabu on
  • mpurekampureka Registered User regular
    Dunno; This feels like a huge scam to me, and, truthfully, is one of the reasons I no longer play Magic: The Gathering.

    Doesn't mean it's not a successful business model, but this episode of EC was unique in that, really, it didn't tell me anything about how something makes a game better (or worse), just about how something can help a game monetize better.

    I am concerned about the course of this industry.

  • Dr. MidnightDr. Midnight Registered User new member
    For some reason, I thought they were going to talk about games like Skylanders.

  • newtslayernewtslayer Registered User new member
    This reminds me of the crafting system in TF2. Far from the same thing, but the last part about turning unwanted items into items you want/new items is what brought this to mind.

  • SpectralTimeSpectralTime Registered User new member
    edited November 2013
    ...Yeah, I'm with the general opinion here. I don't like or appreciate the random "booster" model in literally any game I've ever played that had it. Including and perhaps especially games like Magic where it is a gigantic component of the game.

    For instance, I love tabletop wargaming. I like Warmachine, and, to a lesser extent, Warhammer 40k. I don't like Heroclix. It's not a mechanical issue. I don't like how in-comic team-ups give you huge bonuses over creative mash-ups, but that's not what ruined the game for me. What ruined the game for me was the "booster" system, the random element of maybe I'll get something I like but maybe I'll just waste five dollars on something I've already got ten of.

    It turns a "input something of value, recieve something of value" system into a total crapshoot. And I play games like Magic or Heroclix because there's an element of player skill and strategy to them *beyond* simple chance. If I wanted an experience so completely dependent on luck, I wouldn't game. I'd gamble.

    Perhaps these systems *reduce* the disappointment inherent in that level of chance, but even if you can "crunch" cards you don't want, the basic idea that "rare" cards have the right to be just plain ol' more powerful than "common" cards of the same in-game mana/points cost is the most toxic thing I can imagine, and without it you don't have the incentive to roll the dice at all.

    I've never heard of "Rise of Bahamut" before, but you described it as a "Skinner box." I reckon that, all things being equal, it's probably possible to make that Skinner box more accomodating for the player, but that random element, that "booster pack" gamble is always going to *be* a Skinner box if, as in these "card" games, there's nothing else beyond the gameplay to engage the player.

    SpectralTime on
  • Titanium DragonTitanium Dragon Registered User regular
    I will note that there is actually a major flaw in your logic. Or rather, there is a problem with it.

    "100% of your players are customers for 100% of your content." This is not at all true. Players are exactly as interested in exactly as much of your content as they were previously. What you are doing, rather, is forcing players to purchase things that they may not want in order to get what they DO want. Magic: The Gathering is actually very well aware of this phenomenon, and as the game that was the father of all modern collectable games, it is worth bearing this in mind. The truth is that 100% of your players aren't actually interested in 100% of your content, and that is actually something of a problem - while it is good because players feel good when they get what they want, it is bad because players can feel quite agitated when they open that pack, and the rare they get is something they're completely uninterested in. They feel a bit ripped off. And if you feel too ripped-off too often, you quit. Thus it is always a careful balancing act. You need to keep in mind that you are not ACTUALLY fixing this problem - what you are actually doing is cranking up the cost of playing the game.

    The truth is that this model is incredibly bad for the consumer. It is, in the end, a form of gambling, which is why it is a successful model - it hits all those skinner box centers that gambling does.

    Incidentally, regarding rarity:

    It is frequently a (very huge) mistake I see for rares to be better than commons. I can tell you that, in Magic at least, that is a horrifying, horrifying mistake. Commons need to be powerful, and indeed, if you lack powerful commons (and uncommons), not only do you massively drive up the cost of the game, but you create a huge barrier of entry for beginners. You need to have "bad" rares and good commons. It has to work that way, otherwise players get frustrated, and new players are screwed. Moreover, the more you make your game cost, the less likely anyone is to play it - Magic is stupid expensive to play these days. I quit back in Lorwyn, both due to the set not being up to snuff, and due to, quite simply, the fact that a standard deck was horrifically expensive. Sure, I played a few times after that point, but at this point, I haven't played in several years.

    And I didn't quit because the game wasn't fun! Indeed, there have been fun ideas since then. I quit because the game wasn't worth the amount of money it cost. And once you've broken from one such game, it is really the end of them for you - it is just too obvious how bad they are. And mythic rares only made me want to ever touch the game again even less.

    And, given that your game is not going to be as well-designed as Magic... well, you never are going to get a player like me back.

    I will also note that uncommons frequently ARE valued cards. Commons are super cheap, but uncommons are frequently very important cards, and yet are not so common that you are assured of having piles of all the ones you want.

    And regarding "this feels like a huge ripoff": It is, inherently. Collectible games are always a huge ripoff. They are inherently bad for the consumer. It is why you simply shouldn't play them.

  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    @Spectral Time it's more that Bahamut is literally nothing BUT a skinner box. There's virtually no game there. You just click the enemy over and over and rewards come flying out.

  • gonzofishgonzofish Registered User new member
    Oh wow... I did not think I would see preventing consumers from knowing what they're buying and making people purchase things they don't want want being presented the non-exploitative route.

    This is a sad turn for Extra Credits. Apparently they think gamers are there to be taken advantage of as much as big publishers.

  • FireREGSFireREGS Registered User new member
    Gotta love how everyone becomes mad by discovering the truth, you guys just cant handle the truth.

    The reason the crew at Extra creditz view things both in the artistic way as the way to get money out of you, its because, with the ever growing production cost of videogames, it is needed to find new ways gain profit from videogames, or companys just will decide to stop producing them.

    The average AAA videogame is already equally (or even more) expensive to produce than your summer blockbuster, thats why DLC got born. The 60$ for a new game are not enough anymore, the very same reason there is so much effort spend on trying to destroy the used games industry trough DRM, and the very same reason there is a huge lot of poeple trying to find out new ways to get make you spend money without you feeling directly scammed, even if they did scam you (cof cof Capcom, EA & Activision cof cof).

    Long story short, unless you want the industry to just stop growing or implotting, you really should be aware that there will be even more new and old ways to get money out of you, and you should invest your money on the way that feels more confortable to you, so you give an actual message with your pockets (just like Megaman fans did with Mn.9).

  • FurramaFurrama Registered User new member
    @gonzofish

    I... what?

    That's just how collectible games work. It's like gambling and you go in knowing it. Don't do the pity shame dance at EC for describing how the system works. Besides, if you like you can buy exactly what you need off of others for a higher price than a pack, or if online and good, throw commons into a blender and make your more wanted cards.

  • WarpZoneWarpZone Registered User regular
    I am really confused by this episode. Here's what it sounded like to me:

    James has spent a lot of time working on games that make you waste all your money. James LOVES working on games that make you waste all your money. But inevitably, when working on games that make you waste all your money, somebody in a suit inevitably brings up the game that's the BEST at making you waste all your money. I don't do this very often, but the game that's the best at making you waste all your money IS NOT A GOOD GAME.

    All it does is make you waste all your money. In terms of actual game design, all it does is make you waste all your time. Rather than showing us how games that make you waste all your money can make a more engaging game, all the game that's the best at making you waste all your money DOES is make you waste all your money. This would do a lot of damage to the genre of games that make you waste all your money, and the industry as a whole, just for the sake of wasting all your money.

    So today and next week, we want to talk about the games that make you waste all your money, why people waste all their money on it, and how it can be used to make people waste all their money.

    So first off: how do we define a game that makes you waste all your money? Well, for our purposes, it's any game where you spend money, not on specific things, but completely randomly, which gives you only some of the things you wanted to buy with your money, the likelyhood of which has been carefully pre-determined to make you waste all your money.

    That's a pretty formal definition, let me try that again in human-speak.

    It's any game where you spend your money on stuff you need to beat the game, but the stuff you buy is completely random. Characters and gear come from a larger pool of characters and gear, and the characters or gear you wanted to buy is less likely to appear than useless characters or gear.

    For example, things that make you waste all your money, like Magic: The Gathering.

    O-Queso, why do we care? What does making you waste all your money do for developers that making you waste less of your money doesn't? Well, first off, it solves two huge problems with games that only make you waste some of your money. The first of these is that not every player will WANT to waste all their money. Very often, as any game developer ever, you'll make a lot of content, some of which some players will never want or need to use while playing the game. This is a normal cost of doing business and has been around for as long as we've had video games with more than a trivial amount of content. You might make a BAD item, which is a waste of everyone's money, or you'll make an item that's only a waste of SOME players' money. This means that you've made a regular normal video game, exactly as people have done since the dawn of the 8-bit era, exactly as indie developers routinely do for free in 24 hour game jams.

    Unless,

    You SCREW YOUR CUSTOMERS! Wink!

    Imagine an RPG in which you're playing as a mage, and the developers come out with something you don't want or need and would never buy ever if you were in your right mind. Well, you make an informed purchasing decision and do not waste your money on the item. But in a collectible game, SURPRISE! You just wasted your money! Now, you've wasted your money. And you can't really complain, because, hey, this is a game that makes you waste all your money.

    But, hey, it is a pretty cool waste of money. Who knows, maybe you'll end up wasting your time now and getting that much deeper into the game, chasing a sunk cost because of the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

    So there's the first problem making you waste all your money solves for developers. 100% of your customers are now wasting their money on 100% of what you have to sell, even if most of it is irrelevant, bad, or just plain vendor trash.

    The second thing making you waste all your money solves, is making you waste your money on items you already bought and can only ever use one of. As a developer on a standard free-to-play game, when you create a new thing to for people to spend money on, unless it's basically the same thing as the exploitative Energy system we complained about in the episode on Mobile monetization, you'll usually only sell it the maximum number of times any sane human being would buy a non-consumable item. I mean, how many times are you gonna buy DLC that actually adds gameplay or voice content that could have shipped with the main game but didn't because they chopped it out at the last minute to sell as DLC? Once will probably do the trick.

    But not so with games that make you waste all your money! Anyone who plays Magic knows how much of their money they've wasted. How many receipts for wasted money they have stowed somewhere in a binder or in a closet. Many Magic players who waste a lot of their money on the game don't even look at the biggest waste of their money anymore, and yet they are wasting it. Wizards would have a hard time making you waste all your money on boosters if all those boosters contained was the content slightly more likely to randomly end up being the content you actually wanted to spend your money on, and yet for most players, functionally, they might as well.

    In games that make you waste all your money, developers can make you waste all your money over and over again, regardless of the fact that this is a waste of the players' money. This is a huge benefit in terms of making you waste all your money.

    What's more, in the digital age, we've eliminated one of the biggest problems with this part of making you waste all your money. You see, in the physical realm, with every pack of cards you opened, there was a greater chance that you'd realize you just wasted some of your money. The more cards you opened, the less cards you needed, thus more packs were increasingly likely to completely waste all of the money you spent on them, as opposed to merely wasting most of it, thus leading to disappointment. Let's just quietly not mention the fact that in the physical realm, there's at least a chance you can sell your old cards, or even just stick to buying Rares a' la carte once you've passed a certain threshold.

    And that's clearly the opposite of the engagement curve you want the player to have! As a player invests more money into the game, you want them to get MORE excited to put in more money! So today, any digital game that makes you waste all your money worth its salt, lets you crunch the things you bought with wasted money so that they can justify the fact that you can't sell your cards, trade them to other players, or otherwise recoup your costs, even if you decide to quit the game someday.

    All of a sudden? Viola! One of the main issues with games that make you waste all your money in the paper realm disappears.

    There are other ways that making you waste all your money benefits the developer too, as well as a number of ways the model can make you waste all your money. And we'll talk about those next week. See you then!

    TL;DR: How can you tell the difference between exploitative CCGs and NORMAL CCGs? They both maintain profitability by making you waste all your money. They both maintain player interest through the Sunk Cost Fallacy. All of the differences you pointed out in this episode feel like different ways of saying the same thing: CCGs force players to waste money. Worst of all, you've condemned shady business practices in other genres in the past that were way less exploitative, manipulative, and lucrative than this model. Why do CCGs get a free pass? Because only people with money to burn get hooked in the first place?

    Help me out here. If on-disk DLC is so bad, and Freemium energy systems are so bad, why the hell is a game where you have to pay and pay and pay and pay, just to get a RANDOM CHANCE to buy all the files you need to actually beat the game INHERENTLY BETTER?

  • lordlundarlordlundar Registered User regular
    This episode disappointed me, really.

    The random draw method for any F2P system is the most exploitative, anti-consumer, and laziest method of game design. There's no incentive to actually balance the game if you can just stick the most desired or most powerful content behind a random rarity wall. Exploiting that desire to say "everyone loves our game" is an approach I expect out of EA or Activision. To hear EC not only encourage, but promote this as a good business model is depressing. Focus should be made on making people feel like they got their money's worth, not tricking them into something they don't want.

  • CSDragonCSDragon Registered User regular
    There is a reason I don't play collectable games.

  • Add in CanadiaAdd in Canadia Registered User regular
    The mechanic of randomized chance to obtain something isn't inherently good or bad, it just depends on the game and it's function.

    Let's take a pretty universal game: Chess and turn it into a collectable game. There's four main ways of executing this process:

    Version 1: Everyone starts off with only having their King and all pawns. You must pay money to access other game pieces.

    Version 2: Everyone starts off with only having their King and all pawns. You gain access to other pieces through playing the game or paying money.

    Version 3: Same as version 1, but the Queen cannot be earned through playing the game; only through paying money.

    Version 4: Everyone starts off with all their pieces. Money is for only cosmetic changes: Changing the appearance of the game pieces so they're shiny or more detailed so on so forth.

    The system of randomized pieces in the end is detrimental to the gaming experience for versions 1-3, because it relies on luck to obtain a Queen piece. Not to mention the game itself becomes "Pay to Win" for versions 1-3 as well. Even version 2 can be considered "Pay to Win" because new players to the game will be at a severe disadvantage to players who have the full set of game pieces either through playing or paying.

    Version 4 is basically the way any kind of collectable game should go: You have what you need to play a fair game from the very start to the very end. That the collectable part of the game has zero impact on the gameplay, or allows for more options/abilities/styles of gameplay without rendering the starting pieces useless.

  • KILLAKREEDKILLAKREED Registered User new member
    so this is the business term youd use to describe games like might and magic dual of champions

  • shlemonshlemon Registered User new member
    Im seeing a lot of hate for this episode from people in the comments. To those people, do none of you play Magic the Gathering or Yu-Gi-Oh?

  • agentsmith666agentsmith666 Registered User regular
    @WarpZone - Very well done, I enjoyed that!

  • RatherDashing89RatherDashing89 Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    WarpZone wrote: »
    snip

    Normally I'm among the first to rush to defend EC, but you're spot on with this. I have no idea where they are trying to go with this. They're not the first people I've seen "wink" about the ridiculously exploitative nature of CCGs and their ilk. For some reason, on-disc DLC, energy systems, etc, are lambasted, while the anti-consumer policies of M:TG, HeroClix, etc, are laughed about (haha, look at how much I put into this plastic crack, but you know I just love it!)

    RatherDashing89 on
  • thisbymasterthisbymaster Registered User regular
    These reasons are why I refuse to buy into online Collectible Games.
    1. When the online game shuts down, you lose everything.
    2. They always price the boosters for the virtual game the same as the real kind. Face facts, the virtual kind is worth about 1/25 of a real card. If it has any value at all.
    3. Trading is always limited, you can't show off your cards by opening a binder or flipping them out of your pocket. The online wallet of cards needs to be available for everyone to see.
    4. As it is a computer, there is always that nagging feeling that the packs are not so random as they claim. This is magnified when you open three worthless packs in a row.
    5. There needs to be public drop rates for each card shown to everyone, to make sure the publisher stays honest. The core of the fairness of the game is how much the company shows the people.

  • canoecrashercanoecrasher Registered User new member
    Will you cover the Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer card system, and how it changed over time? The Devs modified various parts of the overall system to respond to community demand. Also, the packs could also be purchased with in-game money, so you didn't have to spend any money. Not F2P, but still some neat changes they added in.

  • ffeduffedu Registered User regular
    Hey guys! I'm from Argentina and I work in a small studio called Red Point Labs. We're currently making a CCG game if you wanna give it a look. The game is called BloodRealm and you can find it on Facebook and Kongregate (coming soon to iOS and Android).

    Most of what you said today is applied on our game which is great, so I'm looking forward to the next episode to learn more on the subject and hopefully improve our game!

    Here's the link to our game in Facebook (Although you can find it in Kongregate.com as well if you don't like using Facebook for games):
    FACEBOOK: apps.facebook.com/bloodrealm

  • Ragnarok2xRagnarok2x Registered User new member
    One way that Wizards of the Coast managed to somewhat give a use to commons is limited, drafts in particular. A lot of common cards that would never see play in a any serious deck become star players in booster drafts. Granted, after the limited event is over, the commons become crap once more.

  • AurichAurich ArizonaRegistered User regular
    The mechanic of randomized chance to obtain something isn't inherently good or bad, it just depends on the game and it's function.

    Let's take a pretty universal game: Chess and turn it into a collectable game. There's four main ways of executing this process:

    Version 1: Everyone starts off with only having their King and all pawns. You must pay money to access other game pieces.

    Version 2: Everyone starts off with only having their King and all pawns. You gain access to other pieces through playing the game or paying money.

    Version 3: Same as version 1, but the Queen cannot be earned through playing the game; only through paying money.

    Version 4: Everyone starts off with all their pieces. Money is for only cosmetic changes: Changing the appearance of the game pieces so they're shiny or more detailed so on so forth.

    The system of randomized pieces in the end is detrimental to the gaming experience for versions 1-3, because it relies on luck to obtain a Queen piece. Not to mention the game itself becomes "Pay to Win" for versions 1-3 as well. Even version 2 can be considered "Pay to Win" because new players to the game will be at a severe disadvantage to players who have the full set of game pieces either through playing or paying.

    Version 4 is basically the way any kind of collectable game should go: You have what you need to play a fair game from the very start to the very end. That the collectable part of the game has zero impact on the gameplay, or allows for more options/abilities/styles of gameplay without rendering the starting pieces useless.
    That doesn't seem like a really fair or accurate analogy to me, but I'm not real upset about it. Your premise does reminds me of something I might have said when I had to convince my parents to buy me things. If you consider the idea that your customer might enjoy spending money on things they want, then things like booster packs start to seem like a win for everyone.

  • WarpZoneWarpZone Registered User regular
    Aurich: I have good news for you. If you have always enjoyed spending ridiculous amounts of money on something that you like, but those gosh darned bad capitalists just weren't charging as much as you would have paid for it, there IS a solution!

    Let's say some indie developer is asking 5 bucks for a game, but your ability to pay is $5000. You buy a copy of the game on a whim, and decide it was one of the best things you've played all year. What to do!?

    Fortunately, there is a way out. Simply buy 999 extra copies of the game! Now you've gotten to enjoy spending money the way you do AND you've supported a worthwhile cause. Apparently the game was probably going to fail without your intervention, since its business model is rooted in outdated concepts like charging what the product is actually worth and giving you the entire game at once, so it was good of you to step up.

    Seriously, who fucking thinks like this? Must be nice.

  • AurichAurich ArizonaRegistered User regular
    Am I supposed to explain how what you said is not like what I said? Should I just strawman back? Ugh. I guess I just don't think like $5 or $15 or whatever per booster pack is a lot of money.

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    But like $1000 to have a full collection of all the cards in a set is a lot of money.

    Honestly, just go and buy Dominion instead. There is nothing that Magic offers that Dominion doesn't, and Dominion is far cheaper. And your Dominion cards don't fill closets by themselves or go out of date to force you to buy more Dominion cards.

    discrider on
  • urknighterranturknighterrant Soulless Abberation Tallahassee, FLRegistered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Personally I also find this model a little disturbing. AFAIC you have to be some kind of idiot to buy something without knowing what it is but getting all pissy at EC for talking about it is dumb, too.

    I guess it's okay though. Fleecing the stupid serves an important social function. In a plutocracy stupid people with money are dangerous. Collectible games are like the lottery. They help keep even more morons from getting rich.

    urknighterrant on
  • Echo2OmegaEcho2Omega Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    I just want to go on record of saying the damage is already done.

    Developers should take a look at FFG [Fantasy Flight Games] Living Card Games. Especially Android Netrunner.

    Echo2Omega on
  • oninoyakamooninoyakamo Registered User new member
    Given the color scheme that they used to show the percent chance of getting certain objects, I'd say at least one of the show's creators plays Rise Of Mythos

  • Titanium DragonTitanium Dragon Registered User regular
    @Gonzofish: What, you're surprised? They're devs. It is their job to think this way.

    @FireREGS: Not really. Decieving the customer into paying more than they originally thought they would is the sort of thing that the Consumer Protection Agency gets upset over. Do you really want to see Congress ban "gambling" of this sort? Because quite frankly it probably is something which needs regulation.

    As for the price of AAA videogames: The problem is that they've dug themselves into a ridiculous hole. They spend too much money on them. People have commented on this time and again. Indeed, part of the reason the Wii didn't push things super hard was precisely to allow developers to save money on dev costs.

    Thing is, there's nothing about them not "growing" here; the problem is that this sort of model is bad for consumers. You can take advantage of some whales, but the problem is most players don't want this. F2P makes money, yes... but the problem is, players like me? We're very unlikely to ever give you money. And that is very bad for you. Whales are nice, but if you run out of them, then you're SOL - the larger your audience is, the less dependent you are on the purchasing habits of any one customer. F2P games don't promote broad engagement, and that's dangerous.

    You only hear about the F2P games that succeed or which take out a company that previously mattered.

    As for $60 not being enough for a video game anymore: Frankly, I'm fine with them charging more money up front. The problem is, I don't think they can actually solve the real problem.

    The real problem, in my eyes, is market saturation. The last time I think I actually paid full price for a game was freaking Portal 2, which came out how long ago now? If I can just sit around and buy year or two year old games - great games - for $5 each, what incentive have I to bust out $60 for the latest and greatest? I don't have any, unless the game is -so- awesome that paying more money to play it sooner is worthwhile (as it was with Portal 2).

    The idea that this is "the truth" is heinous. This is purely about exploitation; collectibles in this manner are purely exploitative. They aren't good for the customer, and they're about deceiving customers and using addiction to encourage them to spend more money.

    It is smart to do this until Congress gets involved and bans you from selling stuff like this at all because it is, in the end, gambling. At which point you go bankrupt because collectibles are deliberately crippling your gameplay experience.

    Honestly I'm not sure I want to see that happen, even though it really probably should, because Congress has a terrible tendency to not know what the hell it is on about. On the other hand, well, this is the sort of cancer that causes real problems.

    Also, let's face it, there's one other difference here, too: Magic cards are pretty, and some collectible miniatures are pretty cool. So at least you have that. With the digital thing, you've got nothing - and very possibly not even the ability to resell it.

    @Ragnarok: To be fair, a lot of commons in magic are top-tier cards as well. Though rare density has sadly gone up in decks over time, and the cost of rares has skyrocketed.

    @discrider: No. Dominion is a very good game. Magic is one of the greatest games of all time. Magic is... very different from dominion, though. Thinking it is the same is a bit silly, as they function quite differently, and they really don't operate on very similar premises. Yes, Dominion is a deckbuilding game... but it is really the opposite of a Magic deck.

    @urknighterrant: Thing is, people who are stupid have below-average amounts of money in the first place.

  • dewordedeworde Registered User regular
    What I find hilarious about the rage is that Wizards sell a product that is "Magic without the Randomness". They're called Pre-Constructed decks. Duel Decks, Commander Decks, Intro Decks; if you want to play a balanced game of Magic, there you go. Granted, you won't win any events, but those events only exist because of the Trading nature of the game anyway.

    But the fact that the *TRADING CARD GAME* doesn't give you everything you want up front is seen as really offensive to some people, despite the fact that at that point, the game stops being a trading card game and becomes a deck-construction game instead.

  • WarpZoneWarpZone Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Aurich: All hyperbole aside, $5-$15 *per complete video game* is typical unless you're talking about AAA new releases.

    Your sense of value deviates wildly from the norm. You spend more money on one game which doesn't even give you the game after you've spent the money than most of us spend on our entire gaming hobby. And worse, you espouse the attitude that this is THE FUTURE of gaming, that this is somehow the way it's "supposed to be."

    It's hard not to read your comments and come away with the impression that, if you had your way, all games would be as expensive as CCGs and everyone with less disposable income than you would be priced out of the market entirely.

    That's why the anger. You don't just have more than you could ever possibly need, you have so much that you don't even know what a reasonable price *is* anymore. I know people who are genuinely suffering through this recession, and nearly everyone else I know is, at best, barely managing to get by.

    I'm sure you feel like you earned your privilege, like nothing was handed to you, like you won fair and square on a level playing field. But the fact is, everyone else? We were all working hard, too. We were playing by the rules, too. And the system failed us. It chewed us up and spat us out so that folks like you could stay rich and comfortable no matter what happened out in the real world.

    That's why it's offensive to say that $15 per booster isn't a big deal to you. It's already been established that we're not talking about one $15 purchase. We're talking about an indefinite number of successive $15 purchases that, even then, *will not* leave the consumer satisfied. That is literally the stated goal of the business model. To force you to pay $15 an unlimited number of times.

    You're apparently okay with that-- with spending an unlimited amount of money when you could just play some different game that costs less. And that is deeply painful for regular people to hear when they're struggling just to make ends meet.

    Edit: Some hyperbole slipped by me. I think I managed to get it all this time. Sorry. I get hyperbolic when I get emotional.

    WarpZone on
  • Oblivion_NecroninjaOblivion_Necroninja Registered User regular
    ...You know, thinking about F2P got me thinking: you guys ought to do an episode on 'whales'.

  • Tairn79Tairn79 Registered User new member
    This may be slightly off topic but, it occurred to me that it would be neat if after you build your digital deck for a ccg you could order a physical copy of that deck. There is just something nice about having the cards in hand i guess.

Sign In or Register to comment.