Why do people compare Keyforge to Magic? It can’t fix Magic because it is nothing like Magic. Magic clones that fix the resource (land) issue are Final Fantasy, Original Vs System, DBZ Super, Argent Saga. Those fix Magic. Keyforge is something else, which I find to be something awful.

As for Destiny, its downfall isn’t the distribution model. For every person that hates having to buy singles on a secondary market, there is a person that loves cracking packs, speculating on card values and buying/selling. Its downfall was a lack of good organized play and bad game balance just like every other FFG game ever. They are great in the beginning because of the newness and unformed meta. After the meta forms though, all their games start to crumble due to unbalanced card design. Happened in Destiny, GoT, Netrunner and on through their game library.

On 2/7/2020 at 11:58 PM, gokubb said:

Why do people compare Keyforge to Magic? It can’t fix Magic because it is nothing like Magic. Magic clones that fix the resource (land) issue are Final Fantasy, Original Vs System, DBZ Super, Argent Saga. Those fix Magic. Keyforge is something else, which I find to be something awful.

I agree. If you can compare Keyforge to Magic, then every game with cards in it is "like magic". It's a silly notion especially with Keyforge that is barely a competitive game, it is effectively two people playing solo games next to each other in what is essentially a race. Destiny had more in common with magic then Keyforge does, at least Destiny was a dueling game.

Quote

As for Destiny, its downfall isn’t the distribution model. For every person that hates having to buy singles on a secondary market, there is a person that loves cracking packs, speculating on card values and buying/selling. Its downfall was a lack of good organized play and bad game balance just like every other FFG game ever. They are great in the beginning because of the newness and unformed meta. After the meta forms though, all their games start to crumble due to unbalanced card design. Happened in Destiny, GoT, Netrunner and on through their game library.

I think this is a pretty common assumption, but it's really not the case. The CCG (Random Collectable) business model has been historically a catastrophic failure with a few exceptions to that rule. The overwhelming vast majority of random collectable games fail miserably. While in the same token, I would be hard pressed to name a "failed" LCG to date. Even games like Star Wars LCG which were actually super **** games outlasted your typical CCG, I mean **** it had a 7 year run, I can count on one hand all CCG ever released that made it past the 7 year mark.

I don't disagree with you that FFG has trouble balancing their games, its always been an issue even with their successful ones, but I think that is the point. All of their LCG's have been successful, but each time they have entered a new market its been a miserable failure. When they got into the miniatures (non-prepainted) miniatures with Runewars it was nothing short of a disaster and their first CCG was dead on arrival.

They should stick to making what they know how to make well, board games and LCG's.

6 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

I agree. If you can compare Keyforge to Magic, then every game with cards in it is "like magic". It's a silly notion especially with Keyforge that is barely a competitive game, it is effectively two people playing solo games next to each other in what is essentially a race. Destiny had more in common with magic then Keyforge does, at least Destiny was a dueling game.

I think this is a pretty common assumption, but it's really not the case. The CCG (Random Collectable) business model has been historically a catastrophic failure with a few exceptions to that rule. The overwhelming vast majority of random collectable games fail miserably. While in the same token, I would be hard pressed to name a "failed" LCG to date. Even games like Star Wars LCG which were actually super **** games outlasted your typical CCG, I mean **** it had a 7 year run, I can count on one hand all CCG ever released that made it past the 7 year mark.

I don't disagree with you that FFG has trouble balancing their games, its always been an issue even with their successful ones, but I think that is the point. All of their LCG's have been successful, but each time they have entered a new market its been a miserable failure. When they got into the miniatures (non-prepainted) miniatures with Runewars it was nothing short of a disaster and their first CCG was dead on arrival.

They should stick to making what they know how to make well, board games and LCG's.

And Star Wars Legion. They do make an awesome Star Wars Legion.

11 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

I think this is a pretty common assumption, but it's really not the case. The CCG (Random Collectable) business model has been historically a catastrophic failure with a few exceptions to that rule. The overwhelming vast majority of random collectable games fail miserably. While in the same token, I would be hard pressed to name a "failed" LCG to date. Even games like Star Wars LCG which were actually super **** games outlasted your typical CCG, I mean **** it had a 7 year run, I can count on one hand all CCG ever released that made it past the 7 year mark.

Unsuccessful LCG type games:

Star Wars LCG

Doomtown Relaunch

Warhammer 40k Conquest

Warlord 2nd Edition

Soon to be - L5R 2nd edition

CCGs that lasted five years or more:

Highlander

Middle Earth

Vs System

Magic

Star Wars CCG

Lord of the Rings TCG

L5R

Raw Deal

Pokemon

Yu-Gi-Oh

DragonBall Z

World of Warcraft

It is not the model that makes a game. There are far more successful CCGs in history than you want to admit.

Also the Final Fantasy TCG is almost 3 and a half years old. So it seems to have some legs.

1 hour ago, gokubb said:

It is not the model that makes a game. There are far more successful CCGs in history than you want to admit.

While many LCGs have ended, and some very quickly, we cannot overlook the ones that lasted quite awhile (Android: Netunner, Game of Thrones, Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer: Invasion, Summoner Wars from PHG, Vs 2PCG)_

Star Wars LCG (2012-2018) 7 Years

Doomtown Relaunch (Still going under another publisher)

Warhammer 40k Conquest (ended due to licensing issues)

While LCGs may not last as long as some TCGs (and its an interesting discussion on whether these games should even last as long as they do), they can still reach some decent levels of success. I think if other companies would really focus on making an accessible LCG with strong organized play and community building, they could last a long time. CCGs come with even more baggage than LCGs, with usually high costs of entry and often unstable secondary markets.

12 hours ago, gokubb said:

Unsuccessful LCG type games:

Star Wars LCG

Doomtown Relaunch

Warhammer 40k Conquest

Warlord 2nd Edition

Soon to be - L5R 2nd edition

CCGs that lasted five years or more:

Highlander

Middle Earth

Vs System

Magic

Star Wars CCG

Lord of the Rings TCG

L5R

Raw Deal

Pokemon

Yu-Gi-Oh

DragonBall Z

World of Warcraft

It is not the model that makes a game. There are far more successful CCGs in history than you want to admit.

I think its telling that you use Star Wars LCG as an example of a failure when it outlasted most of the games on that list you consider successes.

I hate to be the one to tell you but Highlander, Middle Earth, Vs. System, Star Wars CCG and Lord of the Rings TCG.. none of those out lasted Star Wars LCG, some of those didn't actually make it past the five year mark and almost all of them bankrupt the companies who ran the games.

Like I said, there are exceptions. Pokemon, Yo-Gi-Oh and DragonBall Z are good examples, but its worth noting that without the Asian market all of these games would have failed in their first year, they live and die on those markets.

You also list games like L5R which notably were run by companies that struggled financially their entire run.

Magic The Gathering remains one of the few true success stories in CCG's. A game run successfully for decades that didn't bankrupt the company trying to run it.

6 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

I think its telling that you use Star Wars LCG as an example of a failure when it outlasted most of the games on that list you consider successes.

I hate to be the one to tell you but Highlander, Middle Earth, Vs. System, Star Wars CCG and Lord of the Rings TCG.. none of those out lasted Star Wars LCG, some of those didn't actually make it past the five year mark and almost all of them bankrupt the companies who ran the games.

Comparing CCG and LCG by their lifetime is a bit unfair. LCGs have a lot less unique cards developed every year. SW LCG got one maybe 1,5 cycle per year, ca 270 cards. Single quarterly L5R CCG expansion had 150-160. Base set typically had 400+ cards but there were examples like Gold edtion when base set had 540+ unique cards (and then three months later first expansion of block was released and so on). One 2 - 2,5 year long edition of L5R CCG got more cards than some LCG for whole lifespan.

Wiki says Decipher SW CCG got 4600+ cards printed through 6 years.

https://cardguide.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Wars_CCG

CardgameDB says that SW LCG got ca 1800 cards also for 6 years.

http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/starwars/star-wars-card-spoilers

LCGs are just much slower and static than CCGs.

6 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

You also list games like L5R which notably were run by companies that struggled financially their entire run.

You really think that companies that "struggled financially" could develop such complicated (design, resources, lore) card game for 20 years? Also L5R was under Wizards of the Coast for 3 or 4 years and then AEG bought it back.

2 minutes ago, kempy said:

Comparing CCG and LCG by their lifetime is a bit unfair. LCGs have a lot less unique cards developed every year. SW LCG got one maybe 1,5 cycle per year, ca 270 cards. Single quarterly L5R CCG expansion had 150-160. Base set typically had 350+ cards but there were examples like Gold edtion when base set had 540+ unique cards (and then three months later first expansion of block was released and so on). One 2 - 2,5 year long edition of L5R CCG got more cards than some LCG for whole lifespan.

Wiki says Decipher SW CCG got 4000+ cards printed through 6 years.

https://cardguide.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Wars_CCG

CardgameDB says that SW LCG got ca 1800 cards also for 6 years.

http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/starwars/star-wars-card-spoilers

LCGs are just much slower and static than CCGs.

You really thinks that companies that "struggled financially" could develop such complicated (design, resources, lore) card game for 20 years? Also L5R was under Wizards of the Coast for 3 or 4 years and then AEG bought it back.

Something though that is often overlooked and not really discussed is how many of those cards were ever actually playable? Is there really a need to make 4000+ cards when maybe only 1000 were playable or even needed to play? (that's just a random estimate) Between the overall lack of value from dead cards in CCGs and the tremendous amount of wasted cardboard (which is environmentally unfriendly), the traditional CCG model seems really old fashioned. At this point, utilizing a CCG models seems like it's just meant as a means to create a quick cash injection into a company and then can it. The LCG model could be used for more long-term projects and is definitely more appealing to the customer's wallet (and the environment).

3 minutes ago, KingOfOdonata said:

Something though that is often overlooked and not really discussed is how many of those cards were ever actually playable? Is there really a need to make 4000+ cards when maybe only 1000 were playable or even needed to play? (that's just a random estimate) Between the overall lack of value from dead cards in CCGs and the tremendous amount of wasted cardboard (which is environmentally unfriendly), the traditional CCG model seems really old fashioned. At this point, utilizing a CCG models seems like it's just meant as a means to create a quick cash injection into a company and then can it. The LCG model could be used for more long-term projects and is definitely more appealing to the customer's wallet (and the environment).

I experienced various LCG and have to say that percentage of tournament coasters is huuuuuuge in LCGs. I point tournament because kitchen table casuals can play any kind of card just for art, jank theme etc in both CCGs and LCGs.

1 minute ago, kempy said:

I experienced various LCG and have to say that percentage of tournament coasters is huuuuuuge in LCGs. I point tournament because kitchen table casuals can play any kind of card just for art, jank theme etc in both CCGs and LCGs.

This is also true (I've played almost every LCG as well). Perhaps in general then, there is just too much waste in all of these games. Curious how much time and money is spent on generating less than playable cards. The most economically viable and efficient LCG I played was probably Ashes: Rise of the Phoenixborn. But it met it's demise when Asmodee took over Plaid Hat Games.

11 minutes ago, KingOfOdonata said:

This is also true (I've played almost every LCG as well). Perhaps in general then, there is just too much waste in all of these games. Curious how much time and money is spent on generating less than playable cards. The most economically viable and efficient LCG I played was probably Ashes: Rise of the Phoenixborn. But it met it's demise when Asmodee took over Plaid Hat Games.

Also additionally LCGs also really often are artificially divided into "colors" so card pool for specific "color" is also smaller. And that limits your possibilities as splashing other "colors" is also really limited. I've got this feeling that in many CCGs there's much easier to mix "colors". It's harder to design and harder to control such things. That's why CCGs need more resources and need such random distribution game to make whole system profitable.

In CCGs common and uncommon rarity cards are sometimes also designed for limited formats (sealed or draft). They may be coasters in Constructed but shine in Draft.

10 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

I think its telling that you use Star Wars LCG as an example of a failure when it outlasted most of the games on that list you consider successes.

I hate to be the one to tell you but Highlander, Middle Earth, Vs. System, Star Wars CCG and Lord of the Rings TCG.. none of those out lasted Star Wars LCG, some of those didn't actually make it past the five year mark and almost all of them bankrupt the companies who ran the games.

Like I said, there are exceptions. Pokemon, Yo-Gi-Oh and DragonBall Z are good examples, but its worth noting that without the Asian market all of these games would have failed in their first year, they live and die on those markets.

You also list games like L5R which notably were run by companies that struggled financially their entire run.

Magic The Gathering remains one of the few true success stories in CCG's. A game run successfully for decades that didn't bankrupt the company trying to run it.

I list Star Wars LCG as a failure because it was an awful game that only got produced because it was the Star Wars license. If it were any other IP, it would have been pulled after the second year. It launched around GenCon 2012 and the plug was pulled January of 2018. That's a five and a half year run. You can call it a success, but the sales for it compared to all other Star Wars card game attempts were abysmal.

Highlander was produced from 1996 to last year off-and-on. The first edition went four years and the fully compatible second edition has been in production since 2007 with about half of that time being collectible. Decipher LotR went from 2001 - 2007. Their Star Wars from 1995 - 2001. Those three outlasted the Star Wars LCG run.

Each of the CCGs I listed had enough of a run that they were considered successes. No, they did not live on indefinitely, but neither has any LCG. Companies printed them because they made money. Some stopped because they no longer made money. Others did because of license disputes or mismanagement, the same as any LCG. Saying that the LCG model is more profitable or better than the CCG just doesn't have any facts to back that up.

3 hours ago, KingOfOdonata said:

Something though that is often overlooked and not really discussed is how many of those cards were ever actually playable? Is there really a need to make 4000+ cards when maybe only 1000 were playable or even needed to play? (that's just a random estimate) Between the overall lack of value from dead cards in CCGs and the tremendous amount of wasted cardboard (which is environmentally unfriendly), the traditional CCG model seems really old fashioned. At this point, utilizing a CCG models seems like it's just meant as a means to create a quick cash injection into a company and then can it. The LCG model could be used for more long-term projects and is definitely more appealing to the customer's wallet (and the environment).

The CCG 'wasted' card model is actually a design mechanic to promote limited/draft play. There are formulas used in card design to ensure that packs have an appropriate ratio of core mechanic cards so that draft can be a fun experience.

I have no idea why FFG LCGs have waste cards. There's really no reason a card should be undeniably flat out better or worse than another.

Quote

Each of the CCGs I listed had enough of a run that they were considered successes. No, they did not live on indefinitely, but neither has any LCG. Companies printed them because they made money. Some stopped because they no longer made money. Others did because of license disputes or mismanagement, the same as any LCG. Saying that the LCG model is more profitable or better than the CCG just doesn't have any facts to back that up.

I'm not suggesting that LCG model is more profitable, I'm saying that LCG are more stable. You consider an LCG a failure that lasted for 7 years. A **** game it may very well have been and despite that it has outlasted or lasted as long as the vast majority of the CCG games on your list you consider to be successes.

It's worth noting however all of the CCG's that failed to make it past the 1, 2 or 3 year mark that failed. Can you name any LCG that didn't last at least 5 years? I can't think of a single one.

The reason the LCG market is more stable and the games last is because there are no external factors that control the games economics. You can release a core set, identify who your player base is and how many of them their are and then release expansions according to your market. There are no 3rd party markets affecting the games sales.

Star Wars LCG may very well have been a **** game (I actually tend to agree with you), but it had an audience, there were people that loved it, collected it and played it and they did so for 7 years. As long as their was a community to support it, the game continued. It did not fail, the community simply lost interest and when they did the game was discontinued and there were no tears cried over the matter other then the trolls who never actually played the game that just love complaining about everything. The Star Wars LCG community was done with the game, there was no reason for FFG to continue with it.

Meanwhile you have games like Destiny that barely survived 3 years which is actually better than average for a CCG and I would point out that it too had the Star Wars License. You claim that Star Wars LCG survived on the basis of its franchise, why didn't Destiny? Frankly I think Destiny was objectively a much better game then Star Wars LCG ever was, yet it still failed miserably as a game. Yet there are lots of people that still want to play it and want it to continue, yet its died despite them. The reason is fairly simple, it was a CCG. CCG's can't simply be maintained for a niche community that likes the game, they need to be mass market success to be success, else they are failures. There is no middle ground with CCG's which is why so many of them are failures. Had it been an LCG, we wouldn't be having this conversation and Destiny would only be getting started as a game with many years of expansions ahead of it.

That's the reality of the CCG and LCG markets. People don't want to hear it because CCG's are usually supported by much larger communities, but these communities are frivolous and they circumvent the business model with 3rd party markets, the direct cause for a game that should really otherwise be a success. There really is no logical reason why Destiny was canceled, its a successful game with a community behind it that wants it to continue but because its a CCG and as a result requires a much bigger market to support it, it failed despite itself.

4 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

Can you name any LCG that didn't last at least 5 years? I can't think of a single one.

LCG:

Warhammer Invasion.

Warhammer 40K Conquest (broke license)

LCG-like format:

Doomtown: Reloaded (thankfully after nearly two year pause resurrected by another company)

Ashes - Rise of the Phoenixborn.

Well Warhammer Invasion lasted from 09 to 13, that is just about five years.

Doomtown Reloaded is a revitalization of a game that already had a 3 year run, now it's taking a second go at it. Which really just illustrates that even despite really poor business practices and decisions, fans keep it alive and demand its return. Even as a failure, it finds a way back to the market.

14 minutes ago, BigKahuna said:

Well Warhammer Invasion lasted from 09 to 13, that is just about five years.

It depend how you count. For me its 4 year long run.

2009-2010 first year

2010-2011 second year

2011-2012 third year

2012-2013 fourth year

"The Final Reinforcements

The release of the Hidden Kingdoms deluxe expansion marks the end of FFG’s development of new content for Warhammer: Invasion The Card Game . Its new legends and units lead the game to an exciting balance between ten playable races, and they will be the game’s final reinforcements.

Over the past four years of publication , Warhammer: Invasion has grown from the Core Set to include five deluxe expansions , thirty-six Battle Packs, and dynamic rules for multiplayer Cataclysm games. This wealth of content provides a great, robust experience for new and veteran players alike, and it allows the game to stand on its own as a complete collection that players can explore and enjoy.

10 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

Meanwhile you have games like Destiny that barely survived 3 years which is actually better than average for a CCG and I would point out that it too had the Star Wars License. You claim that Star Wars LCG survived on the basis of its franchise, why didn't Destiny? Frankly I think Destiny was objectively a much better game then Star Wars LCG ever was, yet it still failed miserably as a game. Yet there are lots of people that still want to play it and want it to continue, yet its died despite them. The reason is fairly simple, it was a CCG. CCG's can't simply be maintained for a niche community that likes the game, they need to be mass market success to be success, else they are failures. There is no middle ground with CCG's which is why so many of them are failures. Had it been an LCG, we wouldn't be having this conversation and Destiny would only be getting started as a game with many years of expansions ahead of it.

While I don't know for sure, I'm more willing to believe it had to do with having to manufacture the dice than the release model. They could never hit a production deadline even three years into the game.

14 hours ago, gokubb said:

While I don't know for sure, I'm more willing to believe it had to do with having to manufacture the dice than the release model. They could never hit a production deadline even three years into the game.

Things are rarely black and white, I'm sure production cost of the dice played its part, but production issues are almost always the result of incorrect forecasting. If you know how many people are going to buy a product, it doesn't matter what you are making there are always solutions to production issues. I think the issue for them was more likely that they couldn't accurately predict who and how often people would buy their game and this is one of the most common problems and reasons why CCG's fail.

Prospecting is one of the key issues all collectable games face because you are selling "random" to people and there is no telling how much of that "random" they are going to buy. There is no way to predict how important the 3rd party market becomes, how the costs of the 3rd party market will affect your direct sales, how much faith your brick and mortar stores will have in the product. There are all sorts of challenges to trying to get a CCG off the ground and it's why the model was abandoned by FFG in the first place and they switched to making LCG's.

This is the weird thing with Destiny. Everything that transpired is exactly why they started making LCG, I don't understand why, having already learned those lessons the hard way, they would risk their business on it given that they have a model (LCG's) that have a proven track record. The vast majority of their LCG have been very successful, why they would suddenly try to get into the CCG market where they have always had problems in the past is beyond me.

But they made such same mistakes in pvp LCGs. Look at number of overpriced expansions for L5R around the globe. Overproduced.

Its just too hard to predict good numbers for CCGs and LCGs.

3 hours ago, kempy said:

But they made such same mistakes in pvp LCGs. Look at number of overpriced expansions for L5R around the globe. Overproduced.

Its just too hard to predict good numbers for CCGs and LCGs.

Certainly, it's not a perfect science, but with LCG's you know with 100% certainty that you are not going to sell more Expansion X, then you sold core sets. You have some basis on which to do the math.

I do think there are problems in the LCG model as well. One of them is that they make too much stuff too fast.

For example I'm a huge fan of Lord of the Rings, but frankly the rate at which the games expansions were released was so fast that it became like a second mortgage payment to keep up. I think one of the mistakes FFG keeps making with their LCG's is that they are pushing expansions at too fast a rate and its particularly bad with L5R where they didnt even stagger the cycles, releasing them all at once. I got the sense I fell behind almost immediately and stopped collecting all together because I was facing a few hundred bucks overhead to get caught up and it just pissed me off.

FFG's version of the LCG model needs some work. I always felt it would be better if they stopped with the "cycle" nonsense and just did box set expansions at a staggered enough rate so that you could keep up easier.

Card games have also become waaay to expensive and its caused a saturation in the market. You can't expect people to drop 100 bucks every couple of months to keep up with a card game. They might do it for the first couple of months, but eventually the hype and novelty wears off and people stop buying.

L5R is a good example. The game is less than 2 years old and there is already over 1,000 dollars worth of stuff to buy to get caught up. Its too much too fast, it's why they have overstock and I don't believe it's because they did the math wrong, I think they gambled on purpose. I know barely anything about the business and I could have told you that if they had 1,000 dollars worth of stuff available before the 2nd year that the game would fail miserably. It doesn't matter how good it was, NO GAME is going to sell that, not even Magic The Gathering.

55 minutes ago, BigKahuna said:

For example I'm a huge fan of Lord of the Rings, but frankly the rate at which the games expansions were released was so fast that it became like a second mortgage payment to keep up. I think one of the mistakes FFG keeps making with their LCG's is that they are pushing expansions at too fast a rate and its particularly bad with L5R where they didnt even stagger the cycles, releasing them all at once. I got the sense I fell behind almost immediately and stopped collecting all together because I was facing a few hundred bucks overhead to get caught up and it just pissed me off.

FFG's version of the LCG model needs some work. I always felt it would be better if they stopped with the "cycle" nonsense and just did box set expansions at a staggered enough rate so that you could keep up easier.

Also, they need to have a more standardized reprint schedule. I got into LotR LCG last year with my brother, and we've both had an awesome time playing it. However, we're currently unable to play any more because the next expansion pack we need is out of stock and they won't say when they're going to reprint it. So, yeah, FFG is going in the right direction, they just need to refine the process.

3 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

I do think there are problems in the LCG model as well. One of them is that they make too much stuff too fast.

For example I'm a huge fan of Lord of the Rings, but frankly the rate at which the games expansions were released was so fast that it became like a second mortgage payment to keep up. I think one of the mistakes FFG keeps making with their LCG's is that they are pushing expansions at too fast a rate and its particularly bad with L5R where they didnt even stagger the cycles, releasing them all at once. I got the sense I fell behind almost immediately and stopped collecting all together because I was facing a few hundred bucks overhead to get caught up and it just pissed me off.

L5R is a good example. The game is less than 2 years old and there is already over 1,000 dollars worth of stuff to buy to get caught up. Its too much too fast, it's why they have overstock and I don't believe it's because they did the math wrong, I think they gambled on purpose. I know barely anything about the business and I could have told you that if they had 1,000 dollars worth of stuff available before the 2nd year that the game would fail miserably. It doesn't matter how good it was, NO GAME is going to sell that, not even Magic The Gathering.

LCG's make far fewer cards within the same timeframe as a CCG. One common knock on competitive LCGs is that the meta evolves too slowly. I've bought into LotR from the first day and I would say over its life I have spent less than $10/month on content to keep it current. That's hardly too fast a rate to keep up.

And, you seem to like to round numbers to make them work for you. L5R currently has around $610 worth of retail product and it released in October of 2017. That's 28 months, costing a little over $21 per month to keep up with the game.

16 hours ago, gokubb said:

LCG's make far fewer cards within the same timeframe as a CCG. One common knock on competitive LCGs is that the meta evolves too slowly. I've bought into LotR from the first day and I would say over its life I have spent less than $10/month on content to keep it current. That's hardly too fast a rate to keep up.

And, you seem to like to round numbers to make them work for you. L5R currently has around $610 worth of retail product and it released in October of 2017. That's 28 months, costing a little over $21 per month to keep up with the game.

I think it's important to keep some things in mind here.

First, competitive play is something the minority of people do. Most people that play card games do so at their kitchen table with friends. While I understand that competitive play is an important component to success of a collectable card game (CCG, LCG or other), the reality is that this is not the format and standard by which the vast majority of players will experience the game.

The second thing is the cost . These games are not sold outside of the US for 15 bucks for a cycle pack for example. In Sweden for example to buy the entire collection it would cost you about 12,000 crowns if you buy it at the cheapest online outlet and that is a reduced priced compared to brick and mortar shops. 12,000 crowns is about 1,200 dollars, a lot in any country.

Finally I think the key issue isn't maintenance cost but getting into it cost. Today if you want to play Legend of the Five Rings, lets assume your cost of 610 dollars. How many people do you know that have 610 dollars to get into a card game? That cost goes up each month and it will be less and less likely as time goes on to get into the game.

And as pointed out, eventually you start running into availability issues as well thanks to the way the game is staggered into cycles, so even if you have 610 dollars, it's unlikely you would be able to find everything.

I get what your saying, but its really now quite that black and white and I think the devil is in the details here and its here where a lot of these games actually do run into trouble.