Comments on: CCG crunch continues with a vengeance

By: Allan Sugarbaker

Allan Sugarbaker — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:17:42 +0000

As if CCGs weren’t taking enough of a hit lately, Score has had major layoffs as well.

By: Kalan Vazquez

Kalan Vazquez — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:53:24 +0000

I am so glad I came upon this post and all of the replies. This is probably some of the most valuable info for game desingers on the web. I think it should definitely be posted somewhere where aspiring CCG designers can view it.

I am one of the CCG designers I was talking about, but with the state the industry is in right now I have shelved my major project, and I am even thinking of making it customizable and not collectible (it also keeps me away from WotC’s evil patents). My current project falls well within the realms of the criteria mentioned above, with an added twist. I am not going to steal the spotlight with a description though.

I hope the industry recovers soon. If anything, I think the little companies should band together and help each other with cross promotion and licensing of unique characters. I am already working with a few other small companies and the liasons I have been in touch with have become like family (in a business sense of course). One of my play testers even mentioned having cards that would work in other games. Can you tell we all cater to the casual player?

Lee, I found your site and I am going to email you right after I post this… or at least the info email address. I have a few industry related questions.

By: Lee Valentine

Lee Valentine — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:42:32 +0000

I’m pretty positive that they age out cards because it’s easier to playtest that way, not because players are happy with their older cards become unplayable. Players are happier with a more balanced tournament environment. New players are happier to compete against older players without older players having access to cards newer players could never hope to buy. By aging out cards they can make cards that are neat, but would interact terribly with previously printed cards from early sets and relegate that action to Type I tournaments. Aging out cards keeps people buying new cards all the time — that’s good for WotC and terrible for players. I’m just saying, Mike, that without big prize money and a tournament focus, most people wouldn’t put up with that from smaller companies.

Yu Gi Oh also sells well. Magic is not the only viable CCG. It may be the only really strong adult-targeted CCG, though.

I think more people would be ticked about aging cards out in Magic except, that if local trends are like national trends, people play a helluva lot of draft for Magic, and in draft none of the cards in your collection at home are legal anyway, so there’s no friction if you can’t use cards from a specific set.

I actually think that the prize money, plus a well-developed draft format, plus the position of being the granddaddy of CCGs is what keeps Magic strong.

I think if Magic had no draft format and no prize money, it would probably start collapsing under its own weight like many other CCGs. When Upper Deck announced it was going to pull big prize money from the Vs. System Pro Tour, tournament attendance started dwindling in our part of the country.

By: misuba

misuba — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:22:42 +0000

On the other hand, Magic is the only CCG that has aged out cards regularly for ten years, and it’s pretty much the only CCG that’s currently viable. Correlation is not causation, of course, but… worth considering.

But yeah… chase cards in Magic. This does not smell good.

By: Lee Valentine

Lee Valentine — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:01:54 +0000

Ugh. Only WotC can manage to have super rare cards plus age out huge blocks of cards players own from some of the common tournament formats. With most other companies, aging out significant blocks of cards would enrage fans. I’ve seen other companies do that when there’s a new rules edition or a major game revamp, but not with the frequency WotC does it.

I don’t suspect that Magic will see high attrition due to this move you are telling us about, John, unless those cards are more powerful or are otherwise critical. Depending on which cards they pick, they could just allow for some strange deck archetypes. Who knows?

By: John H

John H — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:09:57 +0000

Meanwhile, with kind of spooky timing, WotC has announced it will introduce super-rare cards (”mythic rares”) into Magic: The Gathering (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/20080602). By my reckoning, tournament players will end up buying 30% more product in order to get a the number of mythic rares. I’m guessing a whole lot of people are going to bail out of Magic as a result. I’ll leave you to speculate on why WotC has decided to do this.

By: Ron P.

Ron P. — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 05:10:54 +0000

Thank you very much for that information, Lee. I had broad ideas on the reasonings and I’m glad someone took the time to explain in it depth. That post really should be posted somewhere more “available” so that people can understand the broad depth of CCG distribution and costs. And don’t worry about Long Winded posts, they are always the most informative.

I say it again, it sucks that CCGs actually take so much in order to just exist. My favorite “gaming genre” is just too much for companies anymore.

Thanks again, Lee.

By: Foe3

Foe3 — Sat, 31 May 2008 15:51:06 +0000

Lee: excellent analysis and information - thanks!!

By: Lee Valentine

Lee Valentine — Fri, 30 May 2008 00:05:39 +0000

Sorry guys. That should have been $50,000 to $150,000 “per THREE years”. Spaced out when I was reviewing my costing notes to write that post and put “put year”. $50K to $150K per 3 years as a guarantee for a big license.

By: Lee Valentine

Lee Valentine — Thu, 29 May 2008 20:21:30 +0000

Oops — there were multiple “Finally” paragraphs in that post. A sign that it was too long winded Anyway, I hope it answered your questions.