Jump to content



Photo

Something I don't get about LCGs....


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 05:05 PM

I guess that makes sense theoretically. My experience has been that tournament (read: serious) players are generally more willing to pay the completionist cost without whining than friends, who play more casually but nevertheless feel they need a playset of everything. Simply put, strangers > friends. YMMV

#22 borithan

borithan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,247 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 10:04 AM

 

 

All that is "wasted" in SW LCG is the neutral one of sets, affiliation cards, force cards.

Though for reasons that still puzzle me the only set they give you multiple copies of are the neutral cards which are limited to 1 per deck... so even in a single core set you have an unnecessary one, and then you end up with 3 unnecessary copies if you get two...

 

Ok, I guess technically it lets you have 4 starter decks at once from one core set, but as it is a two player game, and doesn't have enough tokens for two different games at once really, this seemed a bit unnecessary.

 

 

It was so you and a friend could each build the starter decks and actually play a game out of one box of SW:LCG. Gawd, could you imagine the outcry if you couldn't even play a game after buying that giant box? LOL!

 

Erm... you could do that with 1 copy, as you would each be playing different sides, who had different card pools. If you then wanted to switch sides you just swap decks. It wasn't like Warhammer Invasion where both players are sharing the same pool of neutral cards.

 

All it theoretically did was save a little bit of time as I guess you could have all the starter decks built up at once and then fish them out ready to go if you wanted to play it, rather than sort out the neutral cards from the existing deck (say Sith) and transfer them over to the other (the Imperial Navy). Not sure this was really worth the use of another 12 cards in the box, rather than print another unique objective set.



#23 omegalife2002

omegalife2002

    Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 02:11 PM

Not trying to defend the practice per se (it annoys me sometimes too) but I can say that with the case of Netrunner, the specific reason that they didn't give triplicate of everything was that they wanted people to be able to grab a "color" of runner and corp, slap in all of the neutral or "colorless" cards and immediately play a game. So that case, it makes sense to me from an ease of entry standpoint. 



#24 Darth Hideous

Darth Hideous

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 30 August 2014 - 02:12 AM

I support you EmraldArcher. They (FFG) should make an "expation" containing all the "missing" cards from the core set! Or do it like SW-lcg where you only had very little useless cards from the 2nd starter.     

I know that FFG wont make this (people have been asking about this with Invasion for a loooong time - with no succes).


Edited by Darth Hideous, 30 August 2014 - 02:14 AM.

You, my children, are the water that will wash away all that has gone before. In your hand, you hold my light, the gleam in the eye of Set. This flame will burn away the darkness, burn you the way to paradise!

 


#25 CommissarFeesh

CommissarFeesh

    Member

  • Members
  • 637 posts

Posted 30 August 2014 - 12:27 PM

I support you EmraldArcher. They (FFG) should make an "expation" containing all the "missing" cards from the core set! Or do it like SW-lcg where you only had very little useless cards from the 2nd starter.     
I know that FFG wont make this (people have been asking about this with Invasion for a loooong time - with no succes).


Reasons why they won't do it:

It would cost them money to do so. Anyone suggesting otherwise is either ignorant of the manufacturing and distribution process, or deluded.
To justify this expense, the profits from these 'completion sets' would have to not only match, but EXCEED the profit they make by selling additional Core sets.
Considering that the price point for a completion set would inevitably be lower than that or a Core set (or why bother buying it over additional Cores) and that this would result in LESS Core sets being sold (many people who currently buy multiple Cores would instead buy these) they would have to sell CONSIDERABLY more completion sets that they currently sell of additional Core sets.

Now I'm not saying that's impossible; but it's unlikely there are enough customers out there to make up that shortfall. Clearly FFG don't think so either, or they'd already produce them.

Please don't think I'm trying to deride the idea of a completion set - I'd be happy if FFG could produce and distribute them at a reasonable price without losing revenue; I'd buy them too if they existed. But there are very good (from a business viewpoint) reasons that they don't. I'm just trying to help people understand those reasons.
  • Skaak and Inquisitor6 like this

#26 Gridash

Gridash

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 01:04 AM

In other words, if either FFG or the customer has to pay for the extra useless stuff that comes with additional core sets (either losing out on profit for the former or having to pay for something you don't need in case of the latter), it's the customer that has to cough up the cash.


Edited by Gridash, 01 September 2014 - 01:43 AM.


#27 CommissarFeesh

CommissarFeesh

    Member

  • Members
  • 637 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 01:24 AM

In other words, if either FFG or the customer has to pay for the extra useless stuff stuff that comes with additional core sets (either losing out on profit for the former or having to pay for something you don't need in case of the latter), it's the customer that has to cough up the cash.


When the customer has repeatedly proven willing to do so in past games, yes, it makes sense for the business to do this. They exist to make as much profit as possible.

FFG are a business, don't be surprised that their bottom line is a primary concern for them.
  • KennedyHawk likes this

#28 Gridash

Gridash

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 01:54 AM

Well, the practice still seems questionable to me. That said, I don't think I can complain when I compare it to what Games Workshop has been doing.

 

This is still a much cheaper hobby.


Edited by Gridash, 01 September 2014 - 02:27 AM.


#29 Boris_the_Dwarf

Boris_the_Dwarf

    Member

  • Members
  • 215 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:36 PM

People always use the Games Workshop analogy to make themselves feel better about the fact that FFG games are the mid-range cost-games but what they tend to overlook in these discussions is that if a person decides to get out of the game with GW or one of the CCG/CMG games they usually at least get their money back on what they spent. This is what I call "recycled gaming funds." I've opted out of several games over the years and sold enough stuff to pay for what I purchased. Plus I still have quite a bit left of several of those games, enough that I could still throw down semi-competitively if I the opportunity arose.

 

The same cannot be said with FFG's games. They have amazing customer service and great game balance in their designs but there's a set cost for product whether it is entirely useful or not and there's nothing in it that is just high-dollar return of investment. Hate on that all you want but it is a fact. LCGs are a routine drain with no method of recouping the money spent on it. In the financial world that is called "diminishing returns."



#30 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,645 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 09:46 PM

All true. It's just that it's simply another way of saying that there is no secondary market - which isn't surprising for games that are not designed to be collectible.

 

Now, if they had done what they had originally said they would do when introducing the LCG model and let cycles go out of print....



#31 Gridash

Gridash

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 01:18 AM

Assuming you want to sell your cards eventually, I know I don't. Collector gene I guess, when it comes to Warhammer40k. :)


Edited by Gridash, 02 September 2014 - 01:29 AM.


#32 cgrater

cgrater

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 06:56 AM

 

a routine drain with no method of recouping the money spent on it. In the financial world that is called "diminishing returns."

 

 

... actually, no it isn't.  Diminishing returns are something different financially.

 

Diminishing returns example: Invest $100, your investment is worth $100.  Invest $200, your investment is worth $150.  Invest $300, your investment is worth $175.  Each dollar invested increases the value of your investment by a smaller amount than the previous dollar invested.

 

The LCG model does have a form of diminishing returns in the core box.  The first core box you purchase contains 100% useful cards.  The second core box contains some useless (duplicate) cards.  The third core box contains more unusable (more than a full playset) cards than the second did.  The fourth core box purchased would be entirely composed of excess cards.  Each successive core box provides "less" than the one before it.

 

The LCG model does not necessarily display diminishing returns in a financial sense.  You may not be able to recoup your investment, but this is not a DR function.

 

What you are referring to is "unrecoverable expense".

 

I also fail to see how this is different from any other non-collectible board or card game.  I could not resell my Sentinels of the Multiverse set for even half much as I paid for it (about 45% of new cost on the secondary market).  My Summoner Wars collection will fetch 35-40% of its "new" price on the secondary market on a good day.  Talisman + expansions is maybe worth 75% of its "new" price (minis help a board game hold a little more secondary market value).

 

LCGs are more of a "board game with lots of expansions" than they are an "investment".  They share a secondary market with other board games, and expecting them to perform differently than the rest of the market would be financially inadvisable.  (Out of Print board games are a different secondary market.  Space Hulk is pretty $$$ now.  If an LCG ever goes out of print - Warhammer:Invasion is the likely first candidate - full playset collections will eventually probably be worth more than the initial cost.)



#33 kiwidru

kiwidru

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 07:30 AM

Yeah, most minis will fetch you significantly less than what you paid* for them... unless they happen to go OOP, as stated. 

Magic is hardly a solid investment, in that even the most expensive card will lose its value when the set rotates out of print, and only a handful of cards in each set will retain or gain value over time (mostly due to modern/EDH becoming more popular). 

 

That being said, I found an online retailer that is popping off the conquest core box for 25$ a piece with free shipping over $100, and i splurged on 4 boxes! :\

In my mind retail 2 boxes would be $80, so i can get three (a full playset of all the rares) from that place for slightly less. Then it was a matter of paying $15 bucks shipping (bringing my order to $90), or jsut get another box and have free shipping.

Im planning on giving out some decks consisting of the massive common card overlap to my friends to pique their interest, and keeping the surpluss NIB jsut in case...
 


Edited by kiwidru, 02 September 2014 - 07:30 AM.

  • cgrater likes this

#34 Boris_the_Dwarf

Boris_the_Dwarf

    Member

  • Members
  • 215 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 02:16 PM

I also fail to see how this is different from any other non-collectible board or card game.  I could not resell my Sentinels of the Multiverse set for even half much as I paid for it (about 45% of new cost on the secondary market).  My Summoner Wars collection will fetch 35-40% of its "new" price on the secondary market on a good day.  Talisman + expansions is maybe worth 75% of its "new" price (minis help a board game hold a little more secondary market value).

 

LCGs are more of a "board game with lots of expansions" than they are an "investment".  They share a secondary market with other board games, and expecting them to perform differently than the rest of the market would be financially inadvisable.  (Out of Print board games are a different secondary market.  Space Hulk is pretty $$$ now.  If an LCG ever goes out of print - Warhammer:Invasion is the likely first candidate - full playset collections will eventually probably be worth more than the initial cost.)

 

 

You actually answered your own question regarding how the two are different. When you buy a board game, you are done. You have all that you need to play. A "living" game requires just as much purchase attention as buying a collectible game, and there's no singles market. While that's great news for the uber-competitive player who doesn't want to buy $60-80 cards on the secondary market, it means there's also no $5 common deck that is playable from now to the end of time no matter what else gets made. Every LCG purchase is $10-15 unless you are buying a massive lot from a quitter on ebay for a reduced price.

 

When you get into the miniatures side of it, it's even more expensive. You need the cards to play (yes you can copy them if you lack scruples), but you have to buy the ships to get them - even if you don't need the ships. Again, the bidding starts at $10 and only goes up from there.

 

I LOVE Lord of the Rings and X-Wing, and I am really excited about this game but I know the score - I won't be able to recycle funds spent on gaming with these products. Like it or not, it is a fact of the model.



#35 Robin Graves

Robin Graves

    Member

  • Members
  • 945 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 05:02 PM

 

 

 

You actually answered your own question regarding how the two are different. When you buy a board game, you are done. You have all that you need to play. A "living" game requires just as much purchase attention as buying a collectible game, and there's no singles market. While that's great news for the uber-competitive player who doesn't want to buy $60-80 cards on the secondary market, it means there's also no $5 common deck that is playable from now to the end of time no matter what else gets made. Every LCG purchase is $10-15 unless you are buying a massive lot from a quitter on ebay for a reduced price.

 

 

I haven't tried it, but isn't there a LCG equivalent to a $5 dollar deck? like lets say made from just the starter and 1 deluxe expansion? - now i gotta give this a try with Netrunner (jinteki) and Warhammer Invasion (empire)

 

Also when you buy a board game you are done. That's true on the other hand, FF seems to churn out a ton of boardgame expansions. Take Talisman or Mansiosn of madness for example...



#36 KennedyHawk

KennedyHawk

    Member

  • Members
  • 251 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 05:38 PM

play with friends, not with people who whine they have to buy 3 starters to play at tournaments?

 

Or get friends who whine less?

 

 


I LOVE Lord of the Rings and X-Wing, and I am really excited about this game but I know the score - I won't be able to recycle funds spent on gaming with these products. Like it or not, it is a fact of the model.

 

This varies from game to game.

 

Right now I have spent ~120 dollars on three conquest core sets.

 

At gencon I recieved 2 Blood Angel promos and sold one for 119 dollars on ebay.

 

In this regard I have spent 1 dollar on this game.

 

Should I choose to sell the other card I will now have a return on my investment for warhammer conquest. If I keep playing at these high level events I expect this to continue, even with just the participation prizes.


Edited by KennedyHawk, 02 September 2014 - 05:45 PM.

  • Boris_the_Dwarf, Zebadiah and Inquisitor6 like this




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS