Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About BigKahuna

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. BigKahuna

    Where's the expansion?

    It’s an amazing game, my group dubbed it game of the year after one play through and since then it has remained the most wanted for any board game night. Shockingly however it really didn’t get much hype or a particularly great reception and can be found in bargain bins pretty much everywhere pretty much since launch. I wouldn’t hold my breath on ever seeing an expansion unfortunately.
  2. Not at all, I can be convinced even if it's not clear proof, but from what I have seen there isn't even an attempt being made here, more of a presumption that FFG and Asmodee have some sort of reputation for this sort 1-2-3 and toss it approach when the reality is that they have never even once done this. This was a legitimate question, aka, what is the logic or evidence being used to make the prediction because its not based on the history of FFG and Asmodee. I can understand why people might think this is a wierd move, but in the world of CCG's, this is actually quite normal, in fact, most CCG's have big sales most of the time. If you have been collecting CCG's you know it's normal that if you show just a bit of patience you can almost always get your cards at a major discount. More importantly though, FFG has had this sale every year for years for most of their games that are still very much active today. Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones for example have always been there, there still alive and healthy years after release. I do understand that in the US its kind of tradition to put things on sale that you can't sell, but in modern business you put things on sale to have a sale because it draws attention. That sort of ideology that a sale means we are having trouble selling it is kind of an old school view of how sales actually work. I don't disagree that this could be an indicator but in the case of a CCG I have my doubts about it. I agree that this is an indicator of a problem, but not the one your describing. I think the issue here is that these are popular starter sets that sell well and they sell well because it's a package with a fixed card/dice list and that is easier to sell then random boosters. It's indicative of the problems of the CCG (random) model versus the LCG (fixed) model, simply put, people prefer it and hence it sells better. It's kind of like the World of Warcraft phenomenon. So many MMORPG's try the subscription model and fail, yet World of Warcraft has been doing it successfully for years. Why? Who knows, but just because it works for one company doesn't mean it will ever work for everyone else, the market is strange that way. CCG's are the same. It works for Magic and Pokemon, but everyone else fails at it, yet people keep trying and of course they keep failing. This makes sense to me. It's a misreading of the market. Its really quite simple. People who play card games, buy card games, people that don't play card games, don't buy card games. You can't try to cater a card game to "non-gamers" and I find it odd that people keep trying. As a card player I don't want to buy a starter box that I know is incomplete. This starter box while cheap provides you with 2 incomplete decks. I will take it for free, but I don't want to pay for it. If I'm going to buy a card game, I want a complete game. So I'm not surprised to see this set having trouble selling at all. To me, this is worth way more then any other kind of speculation. First hand accounts, if repeated by other people in the community is sort of a confirmation that there is a problem. To me, this is an indicator that the game has a problem and I agree that Destiny seems to collect dust on shelves in gamestores and we have seen quite a few examples throughout the Destiny community including this forum of people offering the same account. If there are any indicators that I would consider warning signs, this sort of observation by the community is what would convince me.
  3. I find most of this discussion here to be at odds with the information we actually have. Its almost like everyone is trying to spin any news into bad news to make a point. What evidence does anyone have that would suggest a ramping down or plans to abandon the game`? I see the predictions, but no basis for making them.
  4. Ok I get the prediction here, but is there any examples you can sight, from Asmodee or FFG in which they have actually done this? Lots of very successful and popular games where on sale during the holiday season, this really is not that unusual and though I do get that Destiny is from appearances not doing as well as it should, I still don't see where the prediction people are making is based on historical evidence. What is being described here, the prediction is that they will throw games out at the first sign of trouble, yet there is no precedence in either the old owners or the new that this something that happens or will happen. There current reputation is one of support of their games in the long term and while certainly some complain about slowing of support in older games, to me this has always been a rather silly complaint, all games go through cycles of bursting on the seen and then gradually getting a reduced amount of content over time. This is just how it works in the industry for all games period. The fact is however that FFG and Asmodee both have a slow, steady and methodical process of supporting their games in the long term. This is the reputation on which predictions should be made. The simply do not have the reputation of abandoning games. That's all I'm saying, I want to be clear I'm not saying I disagree with you that there may be a problem going forward, but If this happens, if games start getting abandoned by Asmodee it will be the first time that happens because it has never happened before.
  5. I gotta be honest with you I don't fully understand where FFG gets this reputation since at no point in the last decade have they ever treated a game this way. What are you even talking about, name a game that they have ever "called it" after a year, two, three? The shortest lived game in their line up was nearly 7 years old when it was shutdown, that's half the age of the whole company. What your describing has never happened in the entire lifetime of FFG yet your acting like this is a common practice for them. Why? Give us an example.
  6. That's a pretty ridiculous statement especially given the games you have chosen. Imperial Assault continues to get very regular updates every month like clockwork since its launch, they just put out two new skirmish maps in September and October, we got the Tyrants of Lothell expansion in September and a bunch of villian and allies packs. Imperial Assault is now 4 years old so your whole 1-2-3 years and your out theory does not apply to this game in any way shape or form. Armada as well, I would point to this game if I wanted to explain to someone how you properly support a miniatures game. They have made major balances fixes this year, had an almost overwhelming amount of organized play events the entire year, to the point where you could basically play competitive Armada every weekend of the entire year. They released some amazing expansions this year not to mention the upcoming Executor. It's been a fantastic year for Armada fans. Grant it the release schedule for Armada is much slower but it has always been this way. Naturally when a game is first released, especially miniature and card games that require a good amount of mini's initially to be released or in the case of cards, a good amount of card pool to get going, so naturally their is a blast at the beginning but FFG support is amazing by industry standards.
  7. This isn't really a big surprise to me and for what it's worth I concur with the aggression of the releases, it creates this weird environment as a consumer where it is often less of a question of interest and more a question of capacity when it comes to the collectable games. I mean, there are only so many play sessions per week/month, so if I'm playing Legion, Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones, there is no room for whatever the new thing is unless I cut something. When your invested in something... you feel a kind of obligation to keep up, stay current, which sort of makes you reluctant to start something new. I think what FFG fails to realize is that the target audience is not that diverse. The same people that play X-Wing, play Armada, that play Legion, that play Destiny that play Game of Thrones etc.. These are the same communities. You can't have 10 lines going and expect that they will all find an audience or have some measure of success, but this isn't because they are bad games, quite to the contrary, I would love to play them all, but there is only so much budget and time to play them all so it's kind of a pick and choose thing. I think at the heart of the problem for FFG and in turn to the people that sell the game is this kind of saturation of the player base.
  8. I have been part of this community for over ten years, I have been involved with most of the collectible games both miniature, card and board games in some fashion or another. I would be interested for you to point out even one game in the last decade where this is even remotely true. The shortest lived game that lost support is Star Wars LCG which lasted 6 years, most do between 7-10 and in the cases where they are cut off it's because they are replaced by either a new edition or an alternative entry into the market. For example Star Wars LCG was largely replaced by Star Wars Destiny, Game of Thrones was replaced by 2nd edition, Call of Cthulhu was largely replaced by Arkham Horror. Some games obviously loose official tournament support but this happens because of a lack of interest of the community not a lack of interest by FFG. Destiny tournaments for example are really boring affairs, the game is too shallow for competitive play. I know people will argue that point, but it really is true, it just doesn't have the depth to sustain a competitive environment, its a light, simple dice/card game and should be aimed at casual play.
  9. Alphaspel.se, it's a Swedish store, they have quite a bit in stock.
  10. Again it comes down to how you value your gaming. To me the idea of playing the same deck or some variation of the same deck for a year.. frankly, I wouldn't do that for free, let alone paying for it. That has a value of zero to me. I want to have a new deck every week, its a deck building game, deck building is like 70% of the point of the game. But I do agree with you that with Destiny, to keep the cost within reason and to stay competitive, you have to pick a good deck, shell out the dough for it and then stick to it for a long time to curve the cost. I just find that incredibly boring. With the LCG's I make a new deck pretty much every time I play and because I have the whole sets to work with the options are quite considerable, in particular with games like Game of Thrones, Legends of the Five Rings oh and especially with games like Lord of the Rings. Cooperative as it may be I doubt I have ever played the same deck more than 5-10 times before I tire of it, scrap it and build a new one on a new concept.
  11. I suppose it depends on how you place value on money, because I don't think they are the same at all. To me, to spend 300 dollars on 1 specific deck of a deck building game is a total rip off. Your saving money because the total is less, but your getting next to nothing for it. Its about the equivalent of going to the fair and spending 5 bucks on a single ticket for a single ride, when for 20 bucks you can get a band and ride any ride as much as you want. Also because of the how CCG models work, a new set comes out and your not just going to be able to "update" your 1 deck, by design new sets are created very specifically to destroy the current meta so its more likely that the majority of your deck will be rendered useless in competitive play and you will be back to buying singles again, again just a fair, you buy 1 ticket for 5 bucks, go on a ride and realize you want to go on another one and spend another 5 bucks. By the time the day is out you have spent way more money anyway you have just spread it out over time and got a lot less for it. I don't know, I'm not a competitive player, I'm just a gamer, so I can only see it from the angle of "what am I getting for my money". To me, it's always about value. Given a choice between spending 300 bucks for 1 deck or spending 750 to get the entire collection of a card game, it's no contest where the better deal is. I don't consider it a saving to spend less money on something that has very little value, when spending a little bit more gets me everything.
  12. I have done the math on this and as politely as I can muster, your simply wrong. To collect a complete collection of Destiny today you need about 3,000 dollars, maybe a bit less if your clever about it. You can pick up the entire set of Game of Thrones for under 1,000 dollars and that's if you play retail, realistically its more like 500 bucks. The same is true with all of FFG's other games, the only issue is availability. LCG's are waaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper.
  13. It's an interesting thought, but the idea of starter sets is to introduce the players to the game, not part of the game. In the early years of Magic they had stuff like the Portal Set that also had "smaller decks" to give you a taste and it was a very ineffective entry point to the game. Ultimately it kind of comes down to "am I getting my money's worth" and I think when it comes to games and gamers, the idea that something be "cheap" is really not a concept that resonates with the community because in large part, we aren't new to gaming, we are just new to this game. It's really not a thing for a total non-gamer to walk into a store, pick up an CCG starter pack and say "I will give this a go", I mean, I know that's probably what the marketing team is going for, especially with Star Wars on the cover, but this just isn't a thing. The most common customer of a CCG or LCG for that matter is a person who is already a gamer that is looking for something new, in fact I would venture to guess that from a ratio stand point it's like 98% of the people that play Destiny for example, played some other CCG prior to that. I have literally never in the 30+ years I have been gaming met someone who just randomly picked up a CCG with no prior coaching by someone who is already playing or more commonly simply having played something prior to that. It simply doesn't happen often enough to target such an audience. Hence starter sets are less about introducing people to gaming and more about introducing this specific game to gamers. As such gamers being gamers we don't want "part of a game", so things like half built decks and "intro games", just aren't of any interest to anyone. We buy them of course, but only because we want the cards that are in them, which is why starter sets sell so well. Which kind of brings us to the other point interestingly enough, that Starter Sets are the only time when we buy into a CCG like Destiny where we know what we are getting for our money, so it's no surprise to me at all that they are the most popular and sought after sets. Which again just drives the point home that what people want is LCG's not CCG's, they want the guarantee. When you consider that all CCG's have big third party markets where players try to complete their collections, in the end they are actively pursuing the LCG concept by doing it this way, but rather than by set, they do it by individual card doing little to distinguish the difference between an LCG and a CCG with the exception of course being that you buy individual cards rather than sets and you pay a crap ton more for that privilege. This idea that there is a difference between CCG's and LCG's in terms of card pools, options or even as a model is silly. All CCG's do for card games is make them more expensive for everyone than LCG's and create unfair competitive tournaments where those that can afford it, have a distinct advantage. LCG's of course are still expensive but at least everyone is on equal footing in terms of cost so you know that ok this will cost me X dollars as it does everyone else. There aren't people who "just get lucky" in LCG's with their purchases. Go to any LCG tournament and the game isn't about what cards you managed to get a hold of but what deck you built from the available card pool. With CCG's there is always someone who simply spent more money and doing so gives him a clear advantage. It's not too unlike free to play, pay to win digital games.
  14. Bought a total of 14 expansions bringing me 90% there to completing my collection
  15. I usually give companies the benefit of the doubt because they work with information that I don't have, market research etc. Perhaps there is a market outside of this community that the digital LotR's is trying to capture that is larger and more attractive then their existing community. On Steam for example the game has been largely positively received, so I assume they know what they are doing. Only time will tell.