So what the heck am I talking about? Well we all know that booster packs for LCG had the maximum duplicates of cards you can splash which was 3 or 6 for consumer grade, sometimes even more (source cards, 1 per deck). But the starter set wasn't that case. It had many cards that had 2 or even 1. So buying 3 core sets gave you a full splash of all cards. It was okay you had plenty of cards to make multiple decks and it wasn't the most powerful cards that was 1 per core. So what if they did the same to booster packs?

Hear me out, right now each booster pack has a maximum of 1 per player. The only reason you would buy more than one is for another player or if you want to make multiple decks with Howard Jackson without having to switch and re-sleeve cards (which could lead to accidentally illegal decks). So you could adapt the same model with LCG booster packs. The cards that you think are going to be used the most make them the most common ( 3 pips ) and the cards that you think are going to be more niche or even have a limit of 1 per deck make those rare (1 pip) . Now you have increased the potential sales of 3 per player. But what about the paying advantage? Well the best cards should be common so buying 3 packs is like buying 3 core sets. You have diminishing returns. So those that pick up 3 of each should not have that much of an advantage over those that get 2 of each. Also since it is presorted it isn't as pay2win as MtG where you could go through 20 packs before you drop a hundred buck or so on the secondary market.

common

uncommon rare

Anyway with 3 LCGs now canceled, the format needs to be re-looked into. I know that all three were profitable but as proof with all these licensing disputes causing the end of many LCGs, if there is a way they can generate more revenue, it would be better for the community as a whole. I mean which is worse, having all LCGs canceled or having to invest more into a good LCG with a better ethical business model?

No. They already did that with the original LCGs. 3 copies of 10 cards and 1 copy of 10 cards for 40 total. They quickly changed that because it was stupid and it made players upset. They are not going back to that.

Players already complain about having to buy 3 core sets, but at least that has some justifications. People already buy some backs just for one card. Having to buy 3 of a single of a pack just for 1 card is absurd.

To be fair, he's talking about everything packed as 1x or 2x would be "Limit _ per deck".

Still don't like the idea. Variable power levels for cards are difficult to design, balance, and playtest.

I think the problem with the idea is that its trying to fix a problem we don't have. The cancellations of the 3 LCG's isn't the result of the format failing, which seems to be the basis for the reasoning here. Revenue was never really the problem, nor was there anything inherently wrong with the games or the business model it was using.

One of the primary reasons LCG's were introduced was because of the shocking amount of CCG's that were failing. It was clear at the time that there just wasn't enough room in the market place for CCG's to compete with one another. There was room for a few, but beyond that, most CCG's were dying well before their time and publishers were becoming increasingly nervous about launching such products. The assessment of CCG's however was wrong, the problem wasn't the model, the problem was the quality of the games. The vast majority were built on outdated designs, on propriety licenses or worse yet just re-skinned versions of other games. There were quite a few clones and "like magic the gathering" concepts that just bombed really badly. Neither designers nor publishers were thinking outside of the CCG box, so the games were failing because they basically sucked balls.

When the LCG concept was introduced, it was not the business model that made them successful but the quality of the games. The model was something people appreciated, but games like Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Android.. all those games would have been just as successful as CCG's because they were great games, just as Star Wars Destiny would have been just as successful as an LCG.

From a profit perspective though I don't think there is that much of a difference. With CCG's you have a 3rd party market you are competing with, no one is buying boosters praying they get the cards they need.. they by one or two "booster sets" and the rest they trade or buy from 3rd parties. With LCG's, there is no 3rd party market, each customer buys 1 expansion of each kind and they have everything they need. Its more convenient for the consumer and the publisher has more control over their sales, its far easier to predict how much will be purchased. Arguably depending on the scale of the audience, one model might make more money over the other but publishers aren't in the market to make short term gains, they are in it for the franchises and long term payouts.

So when you look at canceled games like Star Wars LCG, what you have is a game that had a profitable, successful 6 year run that you can now easily recycle into a 2nd edition and if you doubt that there will be a 2nd edition, you haven't been paying attention. Killing Star Wars LCG is just the first step to getting another 6 years out of it by refurbishing an already successful game into a new edition which to the publisher makes no difference... new expansion, new edition, its the same **** to them.

You see 3 canceled LCG's, FFG see's three new opportunities to re-release and re-sell the same game under a new edition with a guaranteed audience in the near future. Its basically printing money. Just like Game of Thrones, they will let these dogs lay until fans are screaming for it, then they will wait some more until people are outraged.. then after some more waiting they will release new editions and we will buy it up like its the only thing on this earth that matters.

FFG knows this business and they know it well, canceling those LCG's was the smartest thing they could have done, its basically like printing money.

LCGs already use a rarity system, at least in spirit. This was discussed elsewhere, either in an article or a podcast. The cards themselves aren't rare (as back in the 40card packs with 10x 1ofs and 10x 3ofs) but their power levels are. The good thing is we get strong cards without having to chase them down like CCGs; the bad thing is that FFG prints some unplayable trash along with them.

I don' like limit 1x or 2x per deck. It is somewhat of a necessity for unique locations on L5R, but they are swing in general.

Like Crown of Gold in Game of Thrones. If you luck into drawing it, you can swing things a lot.

You can' balance a card by lowering you chances of drawing it. You just make a broken card that is either based on luck, or super broken with tutors.

On 6/11/2018 at 2:12 AM, BigKahuna said:

I think the problem with the idea is that its trying to fix a problem we don't have. The cancellations of the 3 LCG's isn't the result of the format failing, which seems to be the basis for the reasoning here. Revenue was never really the problem, nor was there anything inherently wrong with the games or the business model it was using.

...

Listening to the Team Covenant's podcast competitive LCGs appear to be weak in the market.

On 6/11/2018 at 10:59 AM, Radix2309 said:

I don' like limit 1x or 2x per deck. It is somewhat of a necessity for unique locations on L5R, but they are swing in general.

Like Crown of Gold in Game of Thrones. If you luck into drawing it, you can kill Core Tywin if you can also use Dracarys, or Milk + other burn shenanigans

fixed

speaking of team covenant, they actually brought up a cool idea. keeping the distribution model the same, they suggested perhaps adding full art or foil cards in each pack, each of which would be random. so if we both buy a star wars lcg pack maybe i pull a foil art obi wan and you pull a full art path of the dark side for example. i really like this idea and think its a cool way to give the buyer a complete collection, but also cards to chase if you want certain looking cards for your collection but doesn't make it necessary.