4 ms·

For me the business model was the biggest turn-off. If I wanted some big CCG company to take my lunch money, I could always invest in an established platform a

For me the business model was the biggest turn-off. If I wanted some big CCG company to take my lunch money, I could always invest in an established platform already, like Hearthstone. What I'd consider an interesting alternative, would be a less greedy game with an initial AAA entry fee ($60), and then nothing else. Just, nothing else. It's financially viable, if a giant production like The Witcher 3 can profit this way, any card game can. If they really wanted, they could introduce maybe some cosmetic card back covers, announcers, avatars etc. in a silly gem shop I'll never visit anyway, but the game loop and the outer loop of getting new cards and deck building should be free. In fact, for such competitive games, it should offer no pay2win option at all. Let me play the game, win and get stuff after every match, feel that I'm progressing through the game without ever having to worry about my IRL wallet. If I win, I win, if I lose, I know that I lost fair and square and I must improve. There are enough venues in this world for pissing contests over money already, why would I ever want to concern myself over real money in a virtual world. For most genres of games paywalling the progression is pretty much unheard of (except for maybe (bi-)yearly expansion packs), yet for CCGs this is considered normal, and no company ever tries to flip the table. Maybe there was no demand for yet another money-grabbing CCG.

georgeecollins 7y ago
>> if a giant production like The Witcher 3 can profit this way, any card game can. In theory yes, but in practice a CCG needs to be updated a lot and for years to be viable, while a game like Witcher doesn't. Would you pay $60 for the CCG game where you can't add new cards? Charging as you go seems to fit the model of player activity and developer activity.
- larrik 7y ago
  You can charge for expansions directly, though. Just pay and get all the new cards.
- aranelsurion 7y ago
  There are many other online & well-updated games though, there's an entire genre of them: MMORPGs, yet they came up with quite sensible/much less predatory business models, at least compared to CCGs. Some have buy2play with bi-yearly expansions & cosmetic shops, some have subscription-based models, and others, mostly asian fp2 ones have a more a la carte approach, yet even those would pale in comparison to CCG greed. Those games get entire new gameplay modes, quests, worlds added via updates, yet they can manage. I see no reason why a CCG can't.

georgeecollins 7y ago

>> if a giant production like The Witcher 3 can profit this way, any card game can. In theory yes, but in practice a CCG needs to be updated a lot and for years to be viable, while a game like Witcher doesn't. Would you pay $60 for the CCG game where you can't add new cards? Charging as you go seems to fit the model of player activity and developer activity.

larrik 7y ago
You can charge for expansions directly, though. Just pay and get all the new cards.
aranelsurion 7y ago
There are many other online & well-updated games though, there's an entire genre of them: MMORPGs, yet they came up with quite sensible/much less predatory business models, at least compared to CCGs. Some have buy2play with bi-yearly expansions & cosmetic shops, some have subscription-based models, and others, mostly asian fp2 ones have a more a la carte approach, yet even those would pale in comparison to CCG greed. Those games get entire new gameplay modes, quests, worlds added via updates, yet they can manage. I see no reason why a CCG can't.