Maybe this question has been answered and discussed a dozen of times already, but what are your thoughts about the longevity of this game on the long term ?

I've already shared my worries in other threads throughout the forums here, but I wanted to directly ask it here. I think we have a pretty solid game but that doesn't mean anything. FFG has launched pretty solid-looking games that crashed in the following few years after having see the Light for the first time. And even on the long run, games like Netrunner and its 8 cycles + 4-5 big expansions did cross the green mile all of a sudden.

I'm impressed with the pace of production here. The core set was not even released that packs were already in productions and pre-order very quickly. I hadn't realised that the game did only launch in October-November 2019 ! Thought it was older.

So, why are they rushing ? Do they have a very limited licence for this one or is it just a normal pace of production in order to install the game in the minds so it can survive on its both feet and be able to pass the first year of life without being already doomed ?

Thanks for your future answers

I mean, I think the answer to that question, is that they can! This is there first Marvel game, and they've had a ton of positive feed back. It's super popular. And easy to understand for the most part. I've played with a lot of people in my friend groups, and admittedly, a significant percentage of them are indeed marvel and/or board game nerds. But I've played with a significant amount of boring people, and most of them find the game a little hard to understand at first, but easily learn on the go, and enjoy themselves! Super popular, super simple but engaging mechanics, and super fun and creative. That's all the criterion they need apparently. I don't know the exact number, nor where I've heard it, but someone in ffg estimated that about 80% of all the customers that have bought Marvel Champions, have bought every single expansion! That's crazy! I know they can't get an exact estimate at all, because of all the third buyer parties, but I wouldn't doubt that number. I know I fall into that category.

Plus, by not adding Captain America into the core set, a huge percentage will buy expansions. Making it not one of those games where you just buy the original thing, and be fine. The expansions are cheap, and they are just getting more fun and creative each month. With Marvel being huge in pop culture, everyone wants to be considered a "nerd" now. This is definitely a good way to "stand out" from the rest of the "nerds", and not commit like the "not cool nerds" who've been reading Marvel comics for forty plus years now.

As long as they keep making expansions, I will keep on buying.

Netrunner was an odd case because it wasn't lack of popularity that killed it. From what I understand, it was actually experiencing a resurgence in interest and FFG had some big plans for it, but WotC pulled the license so they couldn't continue the game. I'm actually hoping they decide to make a co-op Android LCG to kind of bring it back. Netrunner wasn't a co-op game, but I think it would be fun to be able to play a cyberpunk LCG solo or team up as a group of runners or as a group of corpos. If they can figure out how to build a co-op cyberpunk LCG where you can approach a mission from different angles depending on what side you decide to play, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

But to get back to Marvel, I'm happy they're pushing the production of it. I want to see a big list of heroes and scenarios to keep things fresh. Plus, they've got a pretty big catalog of stuff to work with since everything Marvel produces is on the table, and there are a lot of favorite heroes and villains people want to see.

7 hours ago, Elrad said:

So, why are they rushing ? Do they have a very limited licence for this one or is it just a normal pace of production in order to install the game in the minds so it can survive on its both feet and be able to pass the first year of life without being already doomed ?

Releasing one product every month is their model, so this is no more rushed than any other LCG.

In fact, some people were crying doom and gloom toward the beginning of the game because releases got pushed back a bit!

October-July is 9 months. One product a month = 9 products. There have only been 8 released products because of COVID, so this is actually slower than was initially planned and is normal for the LCG model.

Thank you for answering, you three.

I now remember, @2morrow , that they had a delay in fall/winter 2019 and then had to "rush" the production and release of packs. Yes now I remember it clearly. that said I'm happy with all that content and have hopes (not high, I'll say) that the campaign mode does bring some fresh air to the game. I already love the Kang Scenario model, it looks really fun. Even the Wrecking Crew was a really good foursome to fight against. They do huge damage, put a lot of status. I think that as long as they put originally designed scenarios like that the game can also live as a game (not only a Marvel game).

There’s tons of content to pull from for this game (I think it’s probably easier to pull in big names that people would have heard of than for Lord of the Rings) and 1 product a month is the standard pace for this kind of game. Not so much as to be overwhelming, but not so little as to let people get bored.

In terms of how long the game will run for, it’s difficult to say. I expect sales are very reasonable as the IP is one of the most popular in the world right now arguably. So it probably depends on how long they have a licence for, how expensive that licence is to renew, how well they can keep thinking if product ideas, etc. I’d predict a good few years of content for it yet though...

The devs specifically said in one stream that they've got about 20 of the next products lined up that they're working on, right now. Considering the difficulty of obtaining some expansions due to print quantities (and distribution issues), it seems like it's safe to say the game is selling well enough to keep producing. And 20 products will last them almost two years. I think we're looking at a similar lifespan to the LotR LCG, here.

2 hours ago, SpiderMana said:

The devs specifically said in one stream that they've got about 20 of the next products lined up that they're working on, right now. Considering the difficulty of obtaining some expansions due to print quantities (and distribution issues), it seems like it's safe to say the game is selling well enough to keep producing. And 20 products will last them almost two years. I think we're looking at a similar lifespan to the LotR LCG, here.

Easily, there’s far more marvel content than is available in the Hobbit, LotR, and Silmarillion combined.

Oh I see, I didn't know that @SpiderMana

Ok so finger crossed all goes well :-)

Best way to keep this game running is to support this line. I am going try my best to buy the 1hero, scenario, and expansion kits. So far ordered and preorder everything so far. I been telling my friends and a few jumped on board. Very hopeful and optimistic for this game line.

I have also high hopes. Mostly because I'm learning a lot playing this game.

I would agree IP licensing and cost of artwork are going to be the main factors in longevity.

Ill go one farther here and even go as far as to say that I think Power Creep which I dont like is actually good for the game right now. Its super early in the life cycle of the game so the game doesnt need to find its center of power balance while the card pool is shallow,. I believe they will be able to settle that out when the pool of cards reaches a good size, just keep fiddling with the scenario difficulty and card pool until things get going and then reel it into power level consistency with situational variation.

I think the only other key is that they are going to need to eventually switch the production cycle so that we are getting more scenario content relative to hero content (ie. 4-to-1 Hero to Scenario isnt a sustainable model) . Hero Content just doesnt add enough to do in the game as quickly as scenario content. When RotRS comes out we are going to get that great feeling of scenario content again.

2 hours ago, IceHot42 said:

ie. 4-to-1 Hero to Scenario isnt a sustainable model)

Except that’s not the ratio when you account for story boxes with a 2-to-5 ratio? That makes it 6-to-6, if we get 4 hero packs and 1 scenario pack in between each story box.

On 7/13/2020 at 7:15 PM, IceHot42 said:

(ie. 4-to-1 Hero to Scenario isnt a sustainable model) .

Base set = Heroes: 05 - Scenarios: 03 - Ratio 1.6:1 (Far less than 4:1)

Wave 1 = Heroes: 06 - Scenarios: 03 - Ratio 2:1 (Less than 4:1)

End Wave 1 = Heroes: 11 - Scenarios: 06 - Ratio 1.8:1 (Far Less than 4:1)

Red Skull = Heroes: 02 - Scenarios: 05 - Ratio 0.4:1 (Closer to the inverse of 4:1)

Total after Red Skull = Heroes 13 - Scenarios 11 - Ratio 1.2:1 (Getting closer to 1:1)

Your math doesn't check out.

On 7/11/2020 at 1:11 AM, Elrad said:

I've already shared my worries in other threads throughout the forums here, but I wanted to directly ask it here. I think we have a pretty solid game but that doesn't mean anything. FFG has launched pretty solid-looking games that crashed in the following few years after having see the Light for the first time. And even on the long run, games like Netrunner and its 8 cycles + 4-5 big expansions did cross the green mile all of a sudden.

FFG certainly does have a mixed track record of getting the best out of their game lines. Many of them have died prematurely, or died a slow death due to lack of support. However, this was due to a lot of different factors and they vary from game to game.

Historically FFG spread themselves way too thin - they always had tons of products and games coming out but they couldn't really support them all. In recent years we've seen them shrink the breadth of what they do and focus on their best/most profitable games. And since being part of Asmodee they can focus on being a design studio and don't have to worry about other core business functions.

They have also took a long time to approach an adequate level of Organised Play support. Many of their competitive games still struggle on this front. They have not been able to compete with established things like Magic the Gathering and seemingly struggle to sustain excitement past the first 6-12 months of a game's release.

Obviously with Marvel Champions this is all less of an issue; being a co-op LCG, it's success is not inherently reliant on the ability to create and sustain local communities of players like they need to do with their competitive LCGs/games. Their other co-op LCGs (LOTR and Arkham) are some of their most successful games in terms of popular appeal, critical reception, sales figures, solid player bases and communities, and game lifespan. So the future is bright for Marvel, especially considering Marvel is a much bigger, popular and mainstream IP compared to the other, and one that is constantly in the public consciousness due to the MCU.

Quote

So, why are they rushing ? Do they have a very limited licence for this one or is it just a normal pace of production in order to install the game in the minds so it can survive on its both feet and be able to pass the first year of life without being already doomed ?

They are not rushing. 1 release per month is normal for LCGs. Also with Marvel they 80 years worth of content at their disposal and 100s of heroes and villains to release.

On 7/14/2020 at 3:52 AM, DarthofZA said:

Base set = Heroes: 05 - Scenarios: 03 - Ratio 1.6:1 (Far less than 4:1)

Wave 1 = Heroes: 06 - Scenarios: 02 - Ratio 3:1 (Little less than 4:1)

End Wave 1 = Heroes: 11 - Scenarios: 05 - Ratio 2.2:1 (Far Less than 4:1)

Red Skull = Heroes: 02 - Scenarios: 05 - Ratio 0.4:1 (Closer to the inverse of 4:1)

Total after Red Skull = Heroes 13 - Scenarios 10 - Ratio 1.3:1 (Getting closer to 1:1)

Your math doesn't check out.

It's all well and good to do the real math, but I think this is besides the point. I am inclined to complain that we have a 100:1 ratio not because it's true, but because this is how it feels at the moment, regardless of the extent to which the Red Skull box+Kang sequence changes that in the future (and I do believe it will). I am getting Dr. Strange today and I am finding myself unenthused about playing Marvel Champions for the first time since the game has been released. Ugh. I find little excitement in replaying the scenarios I've already gone through over and over again. The current dearth is real.

On 7/13/2020 at 3:25 PM, SpiderMana said:

Except that’s not the ratio when you account for story boxes with a 2-to-5 ratio? That makes it 6-to-6, if we get 4 hero packs and 1 scenario pack in between each story box.

I wasnt counting the big boxes as that all comes at once although I could have. I certainly wasnt counting the core set and for some reason I skipped the wrecking crew in my head.

While I acknowledge the ratio is not fully reflective of the whole expansion process here is how I got 4:1....

@IceHot42 Might want a spoiler tag on that post, my dude.

I fully understand where you got the 4-to-1 ratio. But you didn't say you didn't like the amount of time between scenarios, you said you didn't like the ratio of heroes to scenarios. You can't just ignore the core and other big boxes when looking at the overall ratio.

More time than likely the reason we’re getting more heroes than scenarios is because the heroes are much easier to develop. Scenarios need alot more time to fine tune than heroes do. I’d much rather them take the time to test the scenarios out to make sure they play properly.

Yeah it make the draughts in villain contest more pronounced, but rushing them would likely make them worse.

22 hours ago, SpiderMana said:

@IceHot42 Might want a spoiler tag on that post, my dude.

I fully understand where you got the 4-to-1 ratio. But you didn't say you didn't like the amount of time between scenarios, you said you didn't like the ratio of heroes to scenarios. You can't just ignore the core and other big boxes when looking at the overall ratio.

The context I intended was 1) the production cycle, 2) longevity of the game, and 3) speculating how I will feel a ways down the road.. The last announced upcoming stuff is villain, followed by 4 heroes. My apologies if I wasnt clear on my recommendation. My opinion is that the monthly distribution pattern of villain, hero, hero, hero, hero will get tiresome quickly.

The current ratio isnt really relevant within the context of longevity at least the way I perceive longevity.

And even if the pattern is 4-to-1 + big box of scenarios, Im not sure a cummulative1:1 down the road is going to be enough for me. Perhaps if they do nightmare modules or any other number of things I am sure they will add...check back-in with me after I get RotRS.

I like your suggestion of nightmare modules. I always thought the best replay ability of this game was the modules. Great suggestion.

On 7/14/2020 at 9:52 AM, DarthofZA said:

Base set = Heroes: 05 - Scenarios: 03 - Ratio 1.6:1 (Far less than 4:1)

Wave 1 = Heroes: 06 - Scenarios: 03 - Ratio 2:1 (Less than 4:1)

End Wave 1 = Heroes: 11 - Scenarios: 06 - Ratio 1.8:1 (Far Less than 4:1)

Did I miss a scenario pack?
Only Green Goblin and Wrecking Crew in "Wave 1", correct?

31 minutes ago, cheapmate said:

Did I miss a scenario pack?
Only Green Goblin and Wrecking Crew in "Wave 1", correct?

Goblin has 2 scenarios in his pack, though.

2 hours ago, IceHot42 said:

My opinion is that the monthly distribution pattern of villain, hero, hero, hero, hero will get tiresome quickly.

I get that, and I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. But I do think that the more scenarios we have, the further each scenario pack will take us, if that makes sense. When Kang is released, we're only getting one new scenario, true, but we're getting three more modular encounter sets. And by that time we'll have 11 other scenarios that we can suddenly throw a T-Rex into

I guess what I'm getting at is that (IMO) Kang will spice things up enough to last us a few months much better than Wrecking Crew did with no modular play.

8 minutes ago, SpiderMana said:

When Kang is released, we're only getting one new scenario, true, but we're getting three more modular encounter sets. And by that time we'll have 11 other scenarios that we can suddenly throw a T-Rex into

I guess what I'm getting at is that (IMO) Kang will spice things up enough to last us a few months much better than Wrecking Crew did with no modular play.

I used to think like that too in the beginning, but 150ish games later, including many with custom modular sets (such as adding nemesis sets from heroes not in play, for example), I've changed my mind a fair bit. Villains dominate the encounters by a long shot, no matter the deck composition. In fact, whereas I can sometimes miss my customizations altogether because they occur as boost draws, the villain remains the staple of any game. It's the card you always see. It's the card you always face. It's the card you stop reading after a while. My thinking now is that modular sets add unpredictability more than replayability. More of them is fun like adding spice to a main course, but it's reaaaallly time for a bigger menu in the first place. 😋

1 hour ago, SpiderMana said:

But I do think that the more scenarios we have, the further each scenario pack will take us, if that makes sense.

Could be true. I am sure my opinion is biased by my entry point. I only relatively recently jumped into LotR LCG (amazing what a great game I over looked for so long because it is co-op).

Being as I am so late to the party I was able to buy a whole cycle at a time and fire through it one scenario a week. Its gotten a good bit slower through Hobbit and HoN.