-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tinefol
. When prices skyrocket, that simply means there are barely enough cards in supply for given demand, so you're hitting that threshold of players not getting in the format due to the availability regardless.
Well, this is just flat out wrong, and has been gone over before (in this thread even).
Once the price on cards gets high enough some people will want to cash out and sell their cards. There will always be at least a few cards being sold of any type. If demand gets so high that the cards are too popular to stay up on Ebay, the price will just go up until there will be a surplus on the market. It's quite simple really.
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Hey guys:
A lot of good points and counterpoints made here, and most of the topics brought up on the last couple of pages on this thread will be addressed in my free-side article next Thursday. Of the posts made, I'd say that my leanings are most towards this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinefol
Thibg is, there is limited amount of staples already (simply because they're out of print, and weren't printed in high amounts). When prices skyrocket, that simply means there are barely enough cards in supply for given demand, so you're hitting that threshold of players not getting in the format due to the availability regardless.
I would be surprised if GP: Barcelona gets under 2000 players, and if GP: Columbus gets under 1500. Tournament attendance across the board is skyrocketing from where it was three, two, even one year ago - and not just at the Grand Prix level, but at the local tournament level, on multiple continents. The huge surge in EDH interest (casual arena) has also helped raise the price of cards.
It is undeniable that Magic, as a whole, is more popular than it's been in a long time, and possibly ever. Every data point suggests this - sales, traffic on websites dedicated to Magic, forums post counts on forums dedicated to Magic, tournament attendance, ancillary products related to Magic that succeed (Duels of the Planeswalkers), Magic Online business.
If you buy the conceit that Magic as a game is going through a boom period, and that there are likely 2-3x more players who play Magic than two years ago, is it at all shocking that card prices are surging through the roof? There are 2-3x as many players looking to get older staples, and zero extra older staples being printed to meet the demand on the market.
Don't think that Legacy is alone in this price surge - Extended and Standard are getting hit by the new economics of Magic as well, right now.
- Ben
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BenBleiweiss
Don't think that Legacy is alone in this price surge - Extended and Standard are getting hit by the new economics of Magic as well, right now.
- Ben
Legacy may not be alone in price surges, but I'm pretty sure that it's the only format that suffers from hoarding and ridiculous price markups. We had a player in this very thread (or maybe it was the other price thread from last week, I forget) admit that he bought up every Sea Drake on the internet to jack the price up to forty bucks. I'm pretty sure that Walletslayer Angel costs fifty bucks because of the out of control demand from the vast pool of standard players. While maybe some people bought a couple extra Baneslayers in case the price went up, it's not a fifty dollar rare because one guy bought every Baneslayer on the market and then put them back on ebay at fifty for the hell of it. I know Portal 2 didn't exactly have a gigantic print run, but by someone's own admission, they doubled the price on Sea Drake just because they could. Nobody even plays Faerie Stompy, I don't think I've ever run across someone playing it in person, so I'd be really skeptical about some giant influx of players fighting to the death for every last Sea Drake on the market, causing a boom in its price. I don't think it's just "more demand" sculpting these legacy prices, there's also the factor of people knowing that they can jack the prices up as high as they want and there's not much we can do about it. It's not like we can go out and buy packs of Tempest in order to get the cards we need, to balance out the market if they're sold for too much as singles.
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Hi everyone,
I've tried to stay out of this discussion as it obviously isn't going to end well, and because I don't want to dilute my enjoyment of the game by reducing it to a case study in economics and ethics. I just wanted to throw some of my thoughts out there.
I don't think that Ben (and other dealers by extrapolation) has done anything unethical or is intentionally hurting the game. Yes, dealers do have a vested interest in the continued sustainability of their markets, and the health of the game's premier (in terms of popularity and perceived accessibility) eternal format is strongly correlated to that as longer periods of time will result in the majority of cards in the magic cardpool being part of the Legacy format as compared to Extended or Standard. The same way weapons manufacturers would like an ideal scenario in which wars break out everywhere, as long as all the bullets miss their intended targets. However, the first and foremost concern of dealers is to look after their bottom lines. It sounds crass, but it's true. Ben & Jerry's wouldn't be able to give so much back to society if it made as much as the old guy selling ice cream at a corner kiosk. As long as there is an adequately large proportion of the player base willing to pay inflated amount X for card Y, I cannot fault dealers for pricing card Y at amount X. From the number of magic players who try to make a quick buck out of arbitrage, and a look over on motl will confirm this, it must be put across that as long as someone is willing to pay inflated amount X, someone is going to supply the necessary amount, while offering to pay an amount below X for each card Y. It's exactly the same as a wage spiral, and is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't have a problem with dealers, who in actuality provide a service to the magic community (mostly through liquidity and risk minimisation), profitting from pricing abnormalities.
To illustrate, if some players are willing to pay $100 for each Tarmogoy right now while the lagging price is say $80, there will be players who buy Tarmogoyfs at $80 to sell at $100, making the $20 in riskless arbitrage profit. As the demand for $80 increases to fulfil the demand for those willing to pay for $100 Tarmos, the price goes upwards above $80, and continues to increase until it hits $100 or thereabouts. After that, all it takes is another group of players who are willing to pay $120, and the cycle starts anew. That is why hyperbole and sky-falling predictions can be harmful in my opinion.
As for whether this is harmful with regards to the Legacy scene, everyone has already spoken out with regards to the pros and cons of a price increase with relation to newer formats, but that essentially pushes Legacy towards being Vintage 2.0, which in the long-run is likely what the game is going to tend towards. Circumventing that for the sake of avoiding argument, I think that Wizards basically have two real options to solve the issue. The first would involve strategic reprintings. Cards like Grim Tutor and Imperial Recruiter, which basially exist in a bubble of sorts because they were from small-print sets that were initially non-legal. The second is a bit more controversial, and involves power creep. Printing cards that essentially power up borderline strategies or create new ones could reduce the necessity of certain staples and cause price increases to be a lot more uniform by creating a larger number of staples, especially as newly printed cards will be available in large quantities. I don't think either is a perfect solution, and that it'll probably take a combination of both, but I think Wizards has a pretty thankless task right now. If they do certain reprints, there WILL be repercussions from the secondary market, and if they don't, prices will follow a general trend of increase based on speculation and a form of herd mentality (I mean this in the nicest way possible). If they use power creep to create or empower archetypes, they face similar complaints, mostly from Salvation. It really is a thankless task.
As far as keeping the secondary market happy goes, I think players (and collectors) need to accept a certain tradeoff for the health of the game. I think that certain staples like the duals and power should not be reprinted, but am glad to see that Wizards is likely reprinting BSA despite thought that it would not happen after BSAs exploded in value. We're lucky that the hobby that we're invested in has a high resell value, but anyone in the game simply to make a buck or two probably doesn't deserve sympathy in the event that the sky does fall on certain cards. You live by the sword and so on. I'm probably quite lucky in that I've quite a few of the staples that I spotted and bought early, and that a lot of the valuable stuff in my collection aren't concerned with reprints, but I would accept reprints at the cost of some monetary value, no questions asked. That Legacy has a higher buy-in than newer formats is inevitable, but hopefully that impact is lessened with Wizards taking the correct action. That prices have exploded due to increased Legacy coverage isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Prices were always going to increase with a larger number of sanctioned tournaments. Saying that the increased coverage has retrospectively harmed Legacy is like saying that we Legacy players are content to be sitting at the bottom of a well -- better to shoulder the fallout now and place trust in Wizards and common sense to take care of the rest. If all else fails, sanctioning official proxies could be a quick and dirty way to curb artificial inflation.
All in all, the magic market can never be fully efficient without a short-selling mechanism, but that brings its own issues. I'm not overly concerned with rising prices, and am glad that the general concensus here isn't one of panic or finger-pointing at Wizards.
*Group hug*
Edit: Oh, I also wanted to note that this isn't similar to the subprime crisis in an important way. The issue with magic is that people have been driving up prices by speculation or by having more spare cash than others while being able to pay. The issue with the subprime crisis was that people were literally betting their homes on the assumption that floating interest rates wouldn't increase and that home prices would not consequently fall, while speculating in other investments based on home mortgages. The homeowners made bets based on something they didn't own. Magic players are just overreacting to exaggerated market movements.
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
You would have to buy a crazy amount of baneslayers to impact the price. There would also be a certain top end price as it is still in print and eventually everyone would just buy m10 as it would be profitable to open boxes.
The hoarding of legacy staples is somewhat exaggerated as well. It is easy to impact prices on ebay though, but that is because people are stupid. Once someone pays $200 for tabernacle it makes other people feel comfortable with doing that and then once a few people have paid $200 for tabernacle's even more people will do it until that becomes the accepted price. Personally, I don't have a problem with tabernacle being $200 as it is a staple in a number of tier 1 decks. What bothers me is moat at $140 and goyf at $60+. Back in September people were having a hard time moving goyfs at $30 and now everyone is willing to pay $60 for them. Its not like goyf was a bad card back then.
Alpha and beta duals have also skyrocketed. I remember seeing a number of alpha tundra's in nm- condition selling for $170-$230 a few months ago. Now a nm- tundra will easily break $300. Or the volcanics that are breaking $500 when they weren't even hitting $300 before. Absolutely ridiculous even for something as rare as alpha/beta duals. Why did people suddenly decide they wanted to spend twice as much on the same cards?
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Even though we're ~350 posts in, I can feel this thread heading downhill, with all that implies.
If you're going to participate in this discussion, make it relevant and be polite. Research your facts when you can, etc.
Thanks.
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Quote:
The second is a bit more controversial, and involves power creep. Printing cards that essentially power up borderline strategies or create new ones could reduce the necessity of certain staples and cause price increases to be a lot more uniform by creating a larger number of staples, especially as newly printed cards will be available in large quantities.
But I think Tarmogoyf pretty much smashes that theory to bits. Thanks Wizards for my no longer needing that hard-to-find common Wearbear. :tongue:
Quote:
However, the first and foremost concern of dealers is to look after their bottom lines. It sounds crass, but it's true.
Yes and no. This idea is a very old-fashioned, out-moded way of looking at organizations and businesses. My major is Leadership & Management and there are a lot of different perspectives one could offer on this statement you made, for example, some businesses may cut into their "bottom line" to preserve some core value that allows their business to continue. In this new century there is a rather large consensus that adaptation to change and being able to weather unknown (known as "discontinuous" in the jargon) changes is what will divide between successful businesses and those that fail. Anyway, I don't feel like getting into this too deeply (I'm tired of studying this stuff), but I just wanted to point out that statements like you made are quite tunnel-visioned and don't look at the bigger, more holistic view of organizational understanding. I guess it would greatly depend on the organization's/dealer's core values (even if unspoken) that guide his/her business. Is it "cards in stock no matter what the cost" or would it be "lowest prices anywhere", which may lead to a lot of [out of stock]? Each dealer has to forge his/her own business path.
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MMogg
But I think Tarmogoyf pretty much smashes that theory to bits. Thanks Wizards for my no longer needing that hard-to-find common Wearbear. :tongue:
Well, power creep, not power leap, to be fair. In certain intelligent increments, we could easily see a diverse field instead of a blue-dominated one, which would probably even out price increases somewhat.
Quote:
Yes and no. This idea is a very old-fashioned, out-moded way of looking at organizations and businesses. My major is Leadership & Management and there are a lot of different perspectives one could offer on this statement you made, for example, some businesses may cut into their "bottom line" to preserve some core value that allows their business to continue. In this new century there is a rather large consensus that adaptation to change and being able to weather unknown (known as "discontinuous" in the jargon) changes is what will divide between successful businesses and those that fail. Anyway, I don't feel like getting into this too deeply (I'm tired of studying this stuff), but I just wanted to point out that statements like you made are quite tunnel-visioned and don't look at the bigger, more holistic view of organizational understanding. I guess it would greatly depend on the organization's/dealer's core values (even if unspoken) that guide his/her business. Is it "cards in stock no matter what the cost" or would it be "lowest prices anywhere", which may lead to a lot of [out of stock]? Each dealer has to forge his/her own business path.
I'm not saying that the bottom line is the only thing that is looked at. Far from it. I'm saying that given a choice between looking after one's bottom line, especially if a company is public and has to create value for its shareholders, and altruism, the bottom line has to take precedence because (and I say this as someone who has done consulting work with SMEs as well as having spoken to quite a few members of the local VC community) a healthy bottom line is exactly what enables a company to be altruistic. Which is why McDs sponsors the Olympics and Joe Diners does not. And yes, the way a business operates is often based around the vision and personal values of its founder, like say Virgin basically lives and breathes Richard Branson. However, without going into the necessities of differentiation and USPs (which essentially cover the core values which you speak of) which are probably going to be muddled into the discussion, a business still needs to be sustainable, and that involves paying attention to the bottom line IF there is a choice between sustainability or CSR. Ideally, both, of course. That's not even taking into account other issues which push magic stores into being profit-seeking. For instance, debt covenants, venture capital pressure and so on. It doesn't paint a holistic picture to say that businesses look only at bottom lines existentially, but it isn't wrong by any stretch of the imagination to say that a firm's bottom line takes precedence over all else. For instance, studies have shown that companies adopting CSR guidelines, and companies having better corporate governance, outperform those that do poorly in those areas, but the cynic/realist in plenty of people see those as decisions made with at least an eye on bottom lines as well, or at least conscious decisions to inprove public perception of a firm, not necessarily out of the goodness of one's heart.
Another important issue here is that, paraphrasing my earlier post, magic essentially functions as a market in close to perfect competition a lot of the time. Look around motl for instance, where the majority of the time a seller gets slated for having prices above the motl average, save for those who have accrued a good reputation. The point is that as long as people are willing to pay price X, it doesn't matter if dealers sell at price Y, where Y is lower than X, because backpack dealers will just buy at Y and sell at X as long as demand at X exists and X is bigger than Y. That is primarily why I don't feel that dealers are morally bankrupt in any way. There's a lot of monkey see monkey do with regards to paying certain prices for cards.
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Occam
I'm not saying that the bottom line is the only thing that is looked at. Far from it. I'm saying that given a choice between looking after one's bottom line, especially if a company is public and has to create value for its shareholders, and altruism, the bottom line has to take precedence because (and I say this as someone who has done consulting work with SMEs as well as having spoken to quite a few members of the local VC community) a healthy bottom line is exactly what enables a company to be altruistic. Which is why McDs sponsors the Olympics and Joe Diners does not. And yes, the way a business operates is often based around the vision and personal values of its founder, like say Virgin basically lives and breathes Richard Branson. However, without going into the necessities of differentiation and USPs (which essentially cover the core values which you speak of) which are probably going to be muddled into the discussion, a business still needs to be sustainable, and that involves paying attention to the bottom line IF there is a choice between sustainability or CSR. Ideally, both, of course. That's not even taking into account other issues which push magic stores into being profit-seeking. For instance, debt covenants, venture capital pressure and so on. It doesn't paint a holistic picture to say that businesses look only at bottom lines existentially, but it isn't wrong by any stretch of the imagination to say that a firm's bottom line takes precedence over all else. For instance, studies have shown that companies adopting CSR guidelines, and companies having better corporate governance, outperform those that do poorly in those areas, but the cynic/realist in plenty of people see those as decisions made with at least an eye on bottom lines as well, or at least conscious decisions to inprove public perception of a firm, not necessarily out of the goodness of one's heart.
Another important issue here is that, paraphrasing my earlier post, magic essentially functions as a market in close to perfect competition a lot of the time. Look around motl for instance, where the majority of the time a seller gets slated for having prices above the motl average, save for those who have accrued a good reputation. The point is that as long as people are willing to pay price X, it doesn't matter if dealers sell at price Y, where Y is lower than X, because backpack dealers will just buy at Y and sell at X as long as demand at X exists and X is bigger than Y. That is primarily why I don't feel that dealers are morally bankrupt in any way. There's a lot of monkey see monkey do with regards to paying certain prices for cards.
But, the only point I was trying to make – and it seems you agree to some extent – is that vision and core values are at the locus of a company, not the bottom line. Naturally you cannot ignore "the bottom line" as you cannot ignore so many other things, and just as human beings need air, food and water to live, a company cannot sustainably lose money. No one would argue against that. But it seems that as you mention massive corporations like Virgin, Ben & Jerry's, MacDonald's, etc., they all have very strong visions/values/cultures. Magic stores are by and large not those massive corporations, although a handful aspire to. Perhaps by paying more attention to formulating a vision and identifying core values they could grow into a more successful company.
I too am not pointing any fingers. I'm just saying that "the bottom line" (I hate that term by the way) is not always the focus and nor should it always be (to which you agreed). For example, I can think of a company losing money on a transaction to ensure customer satisfaction being one area where "the bottom line" becomes secondary to customer service interests. I dislike the term "the bottom line" because does that mean transactional bottom line, or general fiscal period bottom line, or unique incident analysis bottom line (as in placating a regular customer and losing money on one transaction will still facilitate future transactions), etc?
I think we're generally on the same page and generally agree. Actually, you probably understand all this more than me if you're a consultant. =]
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MMogg
But, the only point I was trying to make – and it seems you agree to some extent – is that vision and core values are at the locus of a company, not the bottom line. Naturally you cannot ignore "the bottom line" as you cannot ignore so many other things, and just as human beings need air, food and water to live, a company cannot sustainably lose money. No one would argue against that. But it seems that as you mention massive corporations like Virgin, Ben & Jerry's, MacDonald's, etc., they all have very strong visions/values/cultures. Magic stores are by and large not those massive corporations, although a handful aspire to. Perhaps by paying more attention to formulating a vision and identifying core values they could grow into a more successful company.
I too am not pointing any fingers. I'm just saying that "the bottom line" (I hate that term by the way) is not always the focus and nor should it always be (to which you agreed). For example, I can think of a company losing money on a transaction to ensure customer satisfaction being one area where "the bottom line" becomes secondary to customer service interests. I dislike the term "the bottom line" because does that mean transactional bottom line, or general fiscal period bottom line, or unique incident analysis bottom line (as in placating a regular customer and losing money on one transaction will still facilitate future transactions), etc?
I think we're generally on the same page and generally agree. Actually, you probably understand all this more than me if you're a consultant. =]
I think a lot of our disagreement, if there was ever one, was over us essentially agreeing in roundabout fashion.
As far as the Virgins or Apples of the world go, they're often not good examples of core values taking precedence over profits, as large MNCs are by definition the exceptions rather than the norm. A startup tech company may find it a lot more difficult to balance its values with its profits as compared to IBM, for instance. It's a lot like telling a budding tennis player that he needs to have Federer's entire game, both his tennis game and his mental game. Well, it's something you aspire towards, but with the restriction that Federer is the exception in tennis, not the norm.
I recall myself giving a couple of startup pitches when I was at uni, and the one thing that was scrutinised above all else were the company's finances. The reasoning was that everything about the company, from its USPs to its vision to its market segmentation, all flow downwards into financial figures. Even the example you gave about customer compensation in the case of a dispute can be broken down into financial terms, as the lost goodwill was worth more than the compensation. I'm sure you've done plenty of case studies on Pareto principles (80/20) and all that, being a management major, and should know better than me that most companies actively "cull" its loss-generating customers where possible and where applicable.
In the end, I don't think we're actually in disagreement, and I'm pretty glad it didn't descend into an argument over what essentially is a hobby anyway. And I'm not a consultant. :)
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Occam
I think a lot of our disagreement, if there was ever one, was over us essentially agreeing in roundabout fashion.
As far as the Virgins or Apples of the world go, they're often not good examples of core values taking precedence over profits, as large MNCs are by definition the exceptions rather than the norm. A startup tech company may find it a lot more difficult to balance its values with its profits as compared to IBM, for instance. It's a lot like telling a budding tennis player that he needs to have Federer's entire game, both his tennis game and his mental game. Well, it's something you aspire towards, but with the restriction that Federer is the exception in tennis, not the norm.
Couldn't agree more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Occam
I recall myself giving a couple of startup pitches when I was at uni, and the one thing that was scrutinised above all else were the company's finances. The reasoning was that everything about the company, from its USPs to its vision to its market segmentation, all flow downwards into financial figures. Even the example you gave about customer compensation in the case of a dispute can be broken down into financial terms, as the lost goodwill was worth more than the compensation. I'm sure you've done plenty of case studies on Pareto principles (80/20) and all that, being a management major, and should know better than me that most companies actively "cull" its loss-generating customers where possible and where applicable.
Ha! I have no idea what that means. Funny isn't it? My Leadership and Management education is in the field of education. Even courses I took like Resource Management and Human Resource Management have been more concerned with re-framing preconceived notions of what those are than applicable "how-to" knowledge. The corporate organizational literature I've read is primarily focused on the social and theoretical underpinnings of organizations rather than real-world financial operations. Basically I know how to organize, manage and lead people who know how to run the finances (and other departments) of an organization. :wink:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Occam
In the end, I don't think we're actually in disagreement, and I'm pretty glad it didn't descend into an argument over what essentially is a hobby anyway. And I'm not a consultant. :)
You see, that's management training for ya: amiable discussions that get to the core of disagreements without being disagreeable. :wink::tongue:
This is a hobby?! :wink: For some people it's their livelihood.
Another financial area no one has really touched on is understanding where the optimal line/cost is of a chase rare. Wizards likes chase rares and not for the evil hand-rubbing greed, but just for the excitement. I think they like the players to open packs and feel excited when they open a Baneslayer Angel. I just wonder where the optimal line/value is between "Yay, I finally got a playset of XYZ, I'm so excited" and "Screw this shite. Let's play some ping pong." I think chase rares and excitement over a set are essential and healthy for the game. I worked in a Magic shop when Legions was released and that was demoralizing and bad for the game.
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by
majikal
And then whatever out-of-print cards are used in those decks skyrocket as well. Now what? :cry:
Obviously, the cycle will continue until someone breaks Phyrexian Portal in half.
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
I'm older than most on here and I have what I consider to be a very good job. I personally don't have a problem paying for cards. In fact I have extra playsets of duals, fetches, etc.
I've also been watching this thread closely because I'm concerned about Legacy in 2 years. This year it has an unprecedented level of interest and card prices for whatever reason are increasing drastically. What happens when all these gpers who don't have the right legacy cards get smashed by real decks. Many of the johny come latelies are probably going to assume mostly correctly they can't compete unless they drop at least a grand up front.
SCG and other online retailers should charge as much as the market will bear. If people want to hoard loyal retainers that is awesome. If you want to tie up your life savings in dual lands that's great but remember this is a game governed by a corporation, hasbro. They are also maximizing their profits and can do whatever they want with the game.
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
I'm surprised that wizard hasn't don't something like reprint dual in the from of, from the vault. I'm not saying that it would be the best thing for the game (or the worst) but, the shear amount of money they would make off it would be staggering. Everyone would be running out to get them, look at what happend with exiled... Wizard and SCG are out to make money and you can't blame them for that, it's the nature of the beast. Plus, this way it wouldn't effect the other formats.
I for one would like nice shiny land. :tongue:
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
About the whole Scroll Rack thing, I'm quite sure now that it was indeed SCG piling up on some more.
Ben wrote today in his article about how he believes Scroll Rack will be the new Natural Order, Grindstone or Undiscovered Paradise due to the printing of Treasure Hunt.
EDIT: RUN!!! SCROLL RACK TIME!!!
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
As someone who has recently started playing Magic again and choosing to play Legacy so that I can use all my old cards, I have been doing a lot of buying to pick up things I've missed and to fill out some playsets and I have definitely been seeing the prices first hand. I agree that sometimes it seems excessive, but then I remember that some of those cards are still used in formats like Standard and Extended and it just makes sense because of demand being so high (Tarmogoyf, Baneslayer Angel, etc.)
I also see a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle dislike for how SCG (and other stores too) determine their prices and I have to say that personally, I am willing to buy from them and I am even one of those people willing to pay them a little bit more because I've had nothing but fantastic dealings with them and I know that they do a lot for Magic in general, especially in VA. Being in the same state also is nice for shipping purposes too! :)
Anyway, I've been getting my friends back into the game and playing Legacy with them and one of the things I noticed and really like is that they haven't had to spend much money to make cool, good decks that have even taken out some of the "decks to beat" or "established decks" that I've put together to try out. I think that actually says a lot about this format: Even if you're building and piloting a well-known deck, it's possible that you can run across some off-the-wall deck that might have something in it that can just wreck you. Would you face them after the first round or so at a tournament? Probably not, but still it shows that sometimes cost isn't everything and that it can help increase innovation in the long run for Legacy.
I think it's hard to see that when you look at a card like Tarmogoyf that's being put into every deck that can run him and the card price going through the roof, but he's just as easily killed by a cheap card like any other creature too. :)
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SomeRandomDude
I'm surprised that wizard hasn't don't something like reprint dual in the from of, from the vault. I'm not saying that it would be the best thing for the game (or the worst) but, the shear amount of money they would make off it would be staggering. Everyone would be running out to get them, look at what happend with exiled... Wizard and SCG are out to make money and you can't blame them for that, it's the nature of the beast. Plus, this way it wouldn't effect the other formats.
I for one would like nice shiny land. :tongue:
First and foremost foil is the worst thing that ever happened to MTG, taste speaking of course (kind of subjective i know!). So, the second worst thing that could ever happen to duals, after being reprinted, is being reprinted as foil. Why? Simply because, as the most common taste is the bad one and as the only way to reprint those cards (fow, duals, mox, etc) is in a FTV box, please guess what that would mean? Nothing but pushing the prices up even more if they were reprinted (imagine US japanese foil?).
It's also stupid to think that it's that easy for Hasbro to earn money, if they ever follow your "strategy" that will only lead to the end of MTG.
About reprinting cards like Loyal retainers, imperial recruiter, ravages of war, grim tutor that's also pointless, because their price of those doesn't affect the meta that much, it's not like those are broken at all nor those are X4 in all Tier 1&2 decks . . . We just need to be patient, hoping at some point no one will buy staples for such tremendous prices, and the market will regulate itself alone.
Reprinting like crazy isn't a sustainable option to counter speculation on a long term. On the other hand, maybe a smart reprint could help : Something like a pack of cards carefully sorted white bodered and whithout foil, just like the old chronicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SomeRandomDude
I remember when Berserk cost around $80, and that wasn't that long ago. I just ebayed it and you can get a foil one for around $27. Reprints doesn't mean a price spike. If you can provide examples I would be more inclined to belive you. And how is making money going to end magic? If they don't make money they won't make cards... And why did the
make enemy fetchlands? To make money and that didn't kill the game.
I also said that it may not be the best idea, but surprised that they didn't do something like that to make money. Hasbro is know to do anything to make money.
(I also like the idea of chronicles 2 but don't see that happening)
since when berserk is a good card/a staple ?
what is the link between reprinting like crazy and creating a new card (enemy fetch) ?
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryO!
First and foremost foil is the worst thing that ever happened to MTG, taste speaking of course (kind of subjective i know!). So, the second worst thing that could ever happen to duals, after being reprinted, is being reprinted as foil. Why? Simply because, as the most common taste is the bad one and as the only way to reprint those cards (fow, duals, mox, etc) is in a FTV box, please guess what that would mean? Nothing but pushing the prices up even more if they were reprinted (imagine US japanese foil?).
It's also stupid to think that it's that easy for Hasbro to earn money, if they ever follow your "strategy" that will only lead to the end of MTG.
About reprinting cards like Loyal retainers, imperial recruiter, ravages of war, grim tutor that's also pointless, because their price of those doesn't affect the meta that much, it's not like those are broken at all nor those are X4 in all Tier 1&2 decks . . . We just need to be patient, hoping at some point no one will buy staples for such tremendous prices, and the market will regulate itself alone.
Reprinting like crazy isn't a sustainable option to counter speculation on a long term. On the other hand, maybe a smart reprint could help : Something like a pack of cards carefully sorted white bodered and whithout foil, just like the old chronicles.
I remember when Berserk cost around $80, and that wasn't that long ago. I just ebayed it and you can get a foil one for around $27. Reprints doesn't mean a price spike. If you can provide examples I would be more inclined to belive you. And how is making money going to end magic? If they don't make money they won't make cards... And why did the
make enemy fetchlands? To make money and that didn't kill the game.
I also said that it may not be the best idea, but surprised that they didn't do something like that to make money. Hasbro is know to do anything to make money.
(I also like the idea of chronicles 2 but don't see that happening)
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryO!
Reprinting like crazy isn't a sustainable option to counter speculation on a long term. On the other hand, maybe a smart reprint could help : Something like a pack of cards carefully sorted white bodered and whithout foil, just like the old chronicles.
Jesus christ.
The absolute best way to get Wizards to reject an idea is to say it will be "just like Chronicles".
-
Re: Raise, raise, raise. The price of cardboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattH
Jesus christ.
The absolute best way to get Wizards to reject an idea is to say it will be "just like Chronicles".
I think that you've missed something.
"Something like a pack of cards carefully sorted white bodered and whithout foil, just like the old chronicles."
what i meant by chronicles is WB + no foil nothing else.
Then what i meant by carefully sorted is all those cards that have increased way to much (SnT, DH, Entomb, tarmo, Scroll rack ... whatever that is the hardest & most sensitive part anyway) so legacy start to turn into vintage2.0
By doing this you allow new comers to buy old cards that have gone too high for decent prices as they won't be foil, nor really hard to find and white bordered. It won't be playable in T2 so that won't interfere with this format. finally, the orginal edition of the card will more or less keep its price.
So "theorically" (i ll give you that) it will be a win for everyone or at least no big loss (Hasbro, New comers, Collectors).
