3 ms·

maybe this depends on the game and players. I have seen a lot of MtG folks take pleasure in having a carefully curated deck with some cards that are more rare a

by web4 4y ago

maybe this depends on the game and players. I have seen a lot of MtG folks take pleasure in having a carefully curated deck with some cards that are more rare and coveted than others, and even hold onto these cards years later when they aren't playing any more because they have some sentimental value to them. if supply were unlimited then every player would just have every card in the game. it is like WoW loot where some items are rare and others are not. if all items in the game were of equal supply and scarcity, there would be no rare or coveted items. you could trade a bronze dagger for a legendary mythril great sword or whatever. after 100 loot drops from grinding you'd have 100 different items of equal rarity rather than say 95 worthless items and 5 rare items. i guess that is a valid type of game but it seems different than most trading card games and loot based games.

piaste 4y ago
True collectors do exist who collect something purely because it's rare. In MtG the most obvious example are 'misprint' fans who enjoy collecting cards that got accidentally printed off-center, or upside-down, or in the wrong colour. The rarity is literally the only thing those cards have going for themselves, as they're usually mediocre or unplayable in the game itself. True collectors do exists, but they are outnumbered 1:1000 by ordinary players who sigh and say "oh man, I'd love to play $card, it's perfect for my deck, but I don't have the money for it, this shit sucks". Modern video games have found a satisfactory compromise by allowing everybody to enjoy the game on a level playing fields without restrictions, and then using cosmetics to bait the collectors into getting addicted, with all the dark patterns we know and loathe - artificial scarcity, FOMO, etc. If MtG took the same lesson to heart and released every year a 'play set' where you can pay like $50-$100 to get all the new cards needed in regular form, and then had separate randomized products for collectors with a chance at shiny or alternate art versions, I'd get back into the game on the spot.
- web4 4y ago
  if scarcity is not needed or desirable for MtG players why would they not just release all cards individually for the same price? why should any card be harder than another to acquire? if MtG uses this model for deck building it sounds like pay-to-win. a blockchain game can just be pay-to-own and play-to-own like most games on the App Store, except the assets assigned to the user is not attached to a single App Store account and do not involve a 30% take fee. imagine these game assets could still be held even if you switch from Apple to Google phone, because the assets are detached from your phone company’s accounts.
  - piaste 4y ago
    > if scarcity is not needed or desirable for MtG players why would they not just release all cards individually for the same price? why should any card be harder than another to acquire? Because it's desirable for the publisher? Since, you know, they make way more money that way. > if MtG uses this model for deck building it sounds like pay-to-win. It is pay-to-win, up to a point. There is an upper ceiling on how much a top-tier deck can cost to acquire (usually a few hundred dollars, in the most popular formats), and after that point money no longer confers an advantage. That's how it can be a competitive game at all, even when you bring your own deck. > a blockchain game can just be pay-to-own and play-to-own like most games on the App Store, except the assets assigned to the user is not attached to a single App Store account and do not involve a 30% take fee. imagine these game assets could still be held even if you switch from Apple to Google phone, because the assets are detached from your phone company’s accounts. Very nice - for the player. Why would the game publisher, Google, or Apple want to make an effort to recognize assets from a blockchain they do not control and do not profit from?
    - web4 4y ago
      so re: MtG, this goes back to my original point. most of the game depends on scarcity. I was recently informed about proxies where users can print their own cards, but it still sounds like the majority of players value the cards themselves rather than just a self printed version of it. apparently there is something special about "owning" MtG card rather than just a proxy > Why would the game publisher, Google, or Apple want to make an effort to recognize assets from a blockchain they do not control and do not profit from? they don't and probably will not do this, unless it starts to compete with their profits. this is what we are seeing with nfts in art world, llike Christie's and Sotheby's now selling nfts, Instagram and Meta adding nfts, and now Spotify announcing they will explore nfts. these corporations see value that they can extract, in the same way opensea is extracting 2.5% on each trade and as a result making millions in profit. if more gamers begin to use and demand decentralized marketplaces for games and assets, the major publishers will step in to those spaces as well to try and keep their foothold and avoid becoming obsolete in a new market.
orwin 4y ago
Mtgo have limited supply, and even my old splinter twin which were my favorite cards in the world 10 years ago i don't care about. Paper assets are different than digital ones I think. Especially if you only pay for it and didn't work on them.

by web4 4y ago

piaste 4y ago

True collectors do exist who collect something purely because it's rare. In MtG the most obvious example are 'misprint' fans who enjoy collecting cards that got accidentally printed off-center, or upside-down, or in the wrong colour. The rarity is literally the only thing those cards have going for themselves, as they're usually mediocre or unplayable in the game itself. True collectors do exists, but they are outnumbered 1:1000 by ordinary players who sigh and say "oh man, I'd love to play $card, it's perfect for my deck, but I don't have the money for it, this shit sucks". Modern video games have found a satisfactory compromise by allowing everybody to enjoy the game on a level playing fields without restrictions, and then using cosmetics to bait the collectors into getting addicted, with all the dark patterns we know and loathe - artificial scarcity, FOMO, etc. If MtG took the same lesson to heart and released every year a 'play set' where you can pay like $50-$100 to get all the new cards needed in regular form, and then had separate randomized products for collectors with a chance at shiny or alternate art versions, I'd get back into the game on the spot.

web4 4y ago
if scarcity is not needed or desirable for MtG players why would they not just release all cards individually for the same price? why should any card be harder than another to acquire? if MtG uses this model for deck building it sounds like pay-to-win. a blockchain game can just be pay-to-own and play-to-own like most games on the App Store, except the assets assigned to the user is not attached to a single App Store account and do not involve a 30% take fee. imagine these game assets could still be held even if you switch from Apple to Google phone, because the assets are detached from your phone company’s accounts.
- piaste 4y ago
  > if scarcity is not needed or desirable for MtG players why would they not just release all cards individually for the same price? why should any card be harder than another to acquire? Because it's desirable for the publisher? Since, you know, they make way more money that way. > if MtG uses this model for deck building it sounds like pay-to-win. It is pay-to-win, up to a point. There is an upper ceiling on how much a top-tier deck can cost to acquire (usually a few hundred dollars, in the most popular formats), and after that point money no longer confers an advantage. That's how it can be a competitive game at all, even when you bring your own deck. > a blockchain game can just be pay-to-own and play-to-own like most games on the App Store, except the assets assigned to the user is not attached to a single App Store account and do not involve a 30% take fee. imagine these game assets could still be held even if you switch from Apple to Google phone, because the assets are detached from your phone company’s accounts. Very nice - for the player. Why would the game publisher, Google, or Apple want to make an effort to recognize assets from a blockchain they do not control and do not profit from?
  - web4 4y ago
    so re: MtG, this goes back to my original point. most of the game depends on scarcity. I was recently informed about proxies where users can print their own cards, but it still sounds like the majority of players value the cards themselves rather than just a self printed version of it. apparently there is something special about "owning" MtG card rather than just a proxy > Why would the game publisher, Google, or Apple want to make an effort to recognize assets from a blockchain they do not control and do not profit from? they don't and probably will not do this, unless it starts to compete with their profits. this is what we are seeing with nfts in art world, llike Christie's and Sotheby's now selling nfts, Instagram and Meta adding nfts, and now Spotify announcing they will explore nfts. these corporations see value that they can extract, in the same way opensea is extracting 2.5% on each trade and as a result making millions in profit. if more gamers begin to use and demand decentralized marketplaces for games and assets, the major publishers will step in to those spaces as well to try and keep their foothold and avoid becoming obsolete in a new market.

orwin 4y ago

Mtgo have limited supply, and even my old splinter twin which were my favorite cards in the world 10 years ago i don't care about. Paper assets are different than digital ones I think. Especially if you only pay for it and didn't work on them.