Magic Market Index for March 15th, 2019
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 8th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 1st, 2019
  • posted a message on Bought LP Beta, got a signed one.
    For all intends an purposes a card is ONLY mint if nothing altered the card , neither damage or anything else.

    If you ink a card , at the borders to fix some white spots of damage, or put a signature on it, its DAMAGED.
    However that does not mean its the "same" damage as actual destroyed card.

    Any alter will be classified as "damaged" , but can be worth more than the original card if someone wants that particular alter.

    So yes, a card with a signature is "damaged" , but in the end, most would simply put some form of "signature" tag to it, and rate it not as damaged for the actual quality of the card ignoring its signature ; as people still care for the quality even if its signed.

    The proper label would so be : "signed - light played" , and that would be fine.
    If you did not order a signed card, you are totally in the right to claim your money back, which any halve reasonable store would absolutely grant.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on GP attendance
    Quote from Teia Rabishu »


    This is literally, absolutely everything in a market economy, so your argument doesn't seem to have much point to it. Would you mind explaining how cards are a special case in economic theory?


    You seem to agree and claim its absolute true.

    So what exactly is your critique at all ?

    Outside of totally agreeing to it.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on GP attendance
    You BUY the packs.

    You can sell them if you choose to for exactly that value.

    If you choose to open them, they are no longer a random product and so the cost of the product is not even connected to the cards inside them.

    ----

    Simply put, you buy 15 randomized cards in a pack for say 3$.
    As long as you sell 15 randomized cards in a pack you can get 3$ for it from somebody else.

    If you open them, its no longer 15 randomized cards in a pack, its just 15 "not" random cards.

    So the value of the specific card is then defined by a 2ndary market depending on if they choose to declare its value.
    Its highly artificial as a cards value can be 1 cent or 100$ , or even much more crazy, hey they could be missprints, or you find a specific collector that pays you even much more.

    Cards "value" is not regulated at all, and the value of said cards is extremely artificial.


    What WotC sells you in booster packs is however just the promise to receive 15 randomized cards (or 14 at this point in time).
    The odds and chances for a foil are defined as is the chance to get any specific card and if challenged in court, they had to show that these numbers are correct (as lying about them would be fraud).

    We are all perfectly aware that magic cards have a value on the 2ndary market for all intends and purposes you get money for them, so nobody is having any illusion about that.
    Still, buying booster product, its your choice to open the product and transform the product by doing so.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on GP attendance
    Comparing physical vs digital has a bunch of real life hurdles that make them very different.

    The simple time and effort to buy product is one.
    If you can order any quantity of product and get it instantly, it removes a period of time to cancel your order, a grace period to realize your mistake so to speak.
    Ordering physical product also has a set limit in what you can possible store in your home to begin with.
    Spending 1000$ on magic cards gives you physical a lot of stuff, if you continue to do that, the hurdles to visible SEE your own addiction (and for anybody else in your family, friends, even your neighbors) is very real.

    That does not exist in digital, you are charged with money, you get the stuff immediately, and nobody in your family, friends will notice at all.
    You might even not realize what kind of money you spend.

    If you buy said product in a store, the limits of the store are also a healthy prevention mechanism, ordering massive online pretty much blurs the lines of digital and physical product quite a bit more (which is the reason people get much more addicted to digital impulsive buying, rather than doing so in the physical world).

    Stuff to notice at least.

    ----

    Physical cards have actually no value , the value is artificial by the 2ndary market (and can change, crash and explode at any point, as its not really regulated at all, especially not by the cards producers).

    There are people that buy magic cards and never play with them. They just open them, look at the arts, and collect the cards.
    The "game" is not sold with the booster packs, the "game" is build on top of the cards, as an "extra" so to speak.

    For digital lootboxes, its reversed. The "game" is build and lootboxes are on top of the game. Pretty fundamental difference, which matters a lot here (but is easy to oversee).

    ----

    If you want to draft with cards, you can re-use the cards you have as many times as you want. Cube and any other form of casual play does exactly that, they are YOUR cards, do whatever you want with them.
    You could even just print the cards with your printer and play casually with them, nobody cares for that.
    If you want to have the "real" cards, thats what you buy, the cards, they are yours then.

    For digital a massive issue is that you dont buy the cards or items, you buy into a SERVICE. You have no rights to resell cards or items, outside of the game these items have no value at all and they are bound to the account and service.
    So by nature, in a digital game you pay for a service , not an actual product, and it can be changed at any point, removed from your account, your account be terminated etc.

    So for the physical game, you buy a booster pack and you always get the same number of randomized product.
    You never lose money by buying a booster pack, you always get the cards ; which happen to have a value on the 2ndary market, but that is not the concern of the producer of the cards (as long as they are clearly not connected to said 2ndary market, which is why this is so important that WotC is not interfering with the 2ndary market in any way, shape or form ; they must be clearly identified as the producer of the product ; even if we are all well aware that this is extremely blurry at best anyway).


    Lootboxes are pretty much not different from a slot-machine in a casino at all. It does exactly the same.
    You pay money, see a little light show, bling, bling, sounds and your money is wasted.
    You can waste a lot more money this way in lootboxes than you can lose in a slot-machine at a casino.
    And the casino slot-machines are pretty highly regulated by laws ; so should be digital lootboxes.
    Casino slot-machines are not allowed to advertise to children.
    Lootboxes are very actively advertised to children (especially as the games themselves are advertised to children in the 1st place).

    Implemented social pressure in a game, time pressure (buy it now or get left out), and trying to hide what the product actually costs (especially by using "premium" currency to hide the $ values) , all of that is highly problematic.

    All of that does not happen in the physical world, or to a massively reduced proportion ; like shops might run a sell, like every shop does, so thats arguably fine, as long as the sell is not rigged.

    To some degree you could say social pressure is produced if especially kids are "lured" into a shop to spend time, get friends there and for whatever reason they buy a lot of booster packs (not that this is realistic at all, but you get the idea).

    ----

    By the definition of "gambling" that is like :
    Gambling is defined as “the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods.”


    Lootboxes and physical trading card games are most of the time not gambling, its just an obfuscated randomized product you receive.

    If they would be clearly identified as gambling, both of them would be equally regulated from the start. Well, they are not.
    Magic had the issue with "ante" cards at the beginning, which pretty much falls under the gambling problem, so that had to be removed fairly quickly.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on GP attendance
    "Physical" loot-boxes in the form of booster packs are pretty much proven over time to not be a problem.

    In the end, people get value from it, and the people that go on a rampage to buy booster packs are extremely rare.
    The people that are "addicted" to physical packs are quite small, vast majority of people will ignore them at some point and simply buy the cards they specifically want (with a secondary market in the real world).
    Any "collectable" game will have some form of addictive nature, if the people want to have all the stuff, they will hunt the cards.
    Booster packs are not really aggressively promoted and the game itself does not really mention booster packs at all (the inserted "advertisement" cards in the packs might be an issue regarding that to some degree, and i would love to see them gone, as inserting this kind of advertisement is a disgrace and a giant waste anyway).

    Digital loot-boxes however prove to be a much bigger problem, as losing control over buying something digital is much easier than doing so with a physical product you receive (as you "see" if you go too extreme as you are flooded with product in your home).
    Some people buy digital product and completely lose the overview of what they spend and what they actually get from buying that stuff.
    And in the most aggressive form of lootboxes sold in mostly free to play games, its a fundamental part to actively force an addictive nature on a game as an added element on a market that "traditionally" did not do that (videogames like 10-15 years ago, currently almost every game will push micro transaction ingame shops and lootboxes to bite and pick pieces of money everywhere and do so in a more and more aggressive manner).

    There is much to gain to prevent an excess of digital lootboxes and regulating ingame shops.
    There are already many laws and changes implemented for digital games to fix these problems.
    For example they have to make visible what the "odds" are to get something and show everything you can get from a product (so no hiding).

    ----

    This will be a big topic for the industry and its important to find good regulative solutions to balance the needs of the industry to make money and the aggressive nature of promoting an addictive behavior, especially targeting kids.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Different card text formatting
    I just recently noticed that the text wording on the german hydroid krasis has a very different formatting:

    German card

    Its the "X/2" wording, instead of "half X"
    Wenn du diesen Zauberspruch wirkst, erhältst du X/2 Lebenspunkte dazu und ziehst X/2 Karten. Runde jeweils ab.


    They dont seem to do that in any other language and it strikes me as very odd (i even like it, as its shorter than the worded version and even clearer to what it means as this does not suffer from line breaks to mess up the meaning).

    ----

    How do you like that wording ?

    And do you know other cards that have an entirely different text formatting in any other language ?

    Could even see me collecting this odd cards, as they are so special.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Magic Sets and Keyword (ability)
    Mechanics like "suspend" did something pretty different than what we are used to.

    But it was also much more complicated than what the casual new player is used to, as they had to understand what the upkeep is (most newbies dont, as almost nothing happens in the upkeep anymore), they had to manage counters ticking down, then the creature is "cast" in the upkeep and gets haste.
    You could also do a lot of tricks with it, removing or adding time counters and the set even had Split Second, which was also somewhat difficult to understand for a newbie player, as they had no idea how it really worked (as a newbie does not really understand the concept of "priority" and what abilities work and which dont, as you can use Morph even with Split Second spells on the stack and so on).

    Lots and lots of mechanics that did pretty special stuff, but too complicated for lots of players.
    Established players LOVED Time Spiral and its mechanics and people that got used to the mechanics also enjoy the mechanics (as suspend is also a pretty "strong" mechanic as it greatly reduces the cost of spells).


    At this point in time, WotC will re-use mechanics and also re-use the concepts of mechanics to dumb the game down, so casuals can understand and play with the mechanics without really understanding the rules to fully grasp the mechanics ; in the eyes of an established player, thats a bad thing, but thats also a much smaller group than the casual crowd.


    Limited doesnt need to be balanced at all, as it is self-balancing.
    If a color is stronger than the others, it will be over-drafted and that weakens the cards the players are able to get, so the person thats drafting the weaker colors gets to choose from more of them.
    However, its "easier" to balance a set when every color gets more or less the same stuff in slight variations, its more of a spread-sheet design process as you can easily fill the slots and check the boxes, instead of really tinkering with the set in other ways.

    They really badly do that, especially visible are the "uncommon" multicolor cycles in sets that work as sign posts to "in your face" tell everyone what the color combination is supposed to look like in a given set.

    So its not a BAD thing perse, but if its done over and over and over again, the spread-sheet design approach becomes way too predictable and that stretches the border of when it becomes boring and just lazy.

    ----

    Even with the spread-sheet kind of design process sprinkling more "unique" card designs into a set might help it, cards that produce a build-around me effect without being just a filler (they do that, mostly in the form of an obscure rare or even mythic at this point, could do that more on the uncommon level).

    In Ravnica for example the "guild gate" mechanics kind of produce a secret 11th guild that combines colors.
    So thats a nice thing to have, breaking out of the otherwise 2-color cycle of the guild mechanics and pushing a 4-5 color approach.
    They could do that more often, to break out of the spread-sheet design and put some cool mechanics in the set that are not just keyword mechanics (as the guild-gate mechanics do not have a keyword).
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on The bad card debate
    Quote from Flamebuster »
    Cards are on;ly janky until something comes along and makes them relevant. Dark Depths was a prime example until Vampire Hexmage was introduced. As SavannahLion mentioned, LED was considered bad until it was errata'd (I believe) and found a home in Dredge decks.

    Granted there are some awful cards that don't deserve the cardboard and ink they were made of but I guess it's all relative in the game of endless possibilities.

    'buster


    Cards that do powerful things are potentially always broken, if their "drawback" is turned into an advantage and/or easy to work with.

    LED was much harder to abuse without Storm as a mechanic and without mechanics like flashback and the like.
    It was almost impossible to really get something out of it.
    Discarding your hand can easily be an advantage as its exactly what you want (aka Dredge, even works with madness, but dredge is simply better).

    Thats the essence of Johnny cards, find the combination and break the game, no matter how seemingly useless the parts look, as long as they just produce a combo everything is fine.
    And lots and lots of cards fall into the group of potentially busted, but missing a key card to combo with.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance Mythic Edition
    Quote from DanzBorin »
    Flippers are starting to list under MSRP. People realized too late that this isn't like the first one. If you want one, keep your eyes out for deals.

    If they plan to keep doing these they need way bigger hitters.


    Yea, the product already lost all its steam right from the get go.

    It will sell even worse the next time, as all the people that got burned wont buy it again.

    They can never ever sell the numbers they did with the 1st and this product is doomed to fail hard unless they put in some serious bombs that justify the incredible high price tag.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Ravnica Allegiance Mythic Edition
    Quote from zdtsd »
    The whole problem here is walker choice.

    the "chase" walkers here are $20, while Teferi and Lili are $50.


    Not just that.

    They look really bad (people mostly like tamiyo, but the rest is incredible bad artwork for the characters).

    The walkers are either reprinted a bunch of times, not worth anything, not played in constructed formats and/or just mediocre like the new planeswalkers.

    All of the points make this a terrifically bad product as it is.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on as a female player the new art style females is getting really annoying
    Quote from Teia Rabishu »


    Have you considered that the market force of "sexual objectification doesn't play as well as it used to" might be behind Wizards' move?


    Well there "data" is terrible and making judgment of that data is just as random as it ever was.
    They are not even consistent and in the end their political agenda is pushed more and even ignoring what the "market" would ask for, even in despise of the market, the agenda is more prevalent among WotC employees.

    So yes i have.

    If there's no room for nuance in your arguments, then we aren't going to get very far. The world isn't a simple place, and if you try to remove context from everything (for instance, seeing no difference between a man about to beat a woman and a bunch of zombies knocking a man to the floor), you're going to find you're left with arguments that don't match up with reality.


    So funny enough you are aware that some form of violence is justified and thats always depends on the viewpoint and can be completely different from person to person.

    To be consistent, violence in fantasy art is just as valid no matter "who" is doing it against who ever.
    If you swap Garruk and Liliana in place, it doesnt suddenly become acceptable, its either BAD or not, and if either is fine and the other is not, than its not consistent and made up crap that has no place.

    You also didn't address the fact that your willful blindness to something that members of minority groups see as being completely obvious is more indicative of a privileged mindset than anything else. The argument essentially boils down to "I personally don't see it so it must not exist." Nor did you address the accusation that you're willfully denying that patterns exist despite there being clear statistical trends (nothing but isolated incidents, perhaps?).


    I do not like to think of groups, and especially not claim what makes a "minority" group. That kind of thinking is toxic and opinions based on that kind of grouping are purely evil as they have the gravest of effects and never truly help an individual, but just put people into boxes, and thats never ever a good thing to begin with.

    And you are talking WAY more into all of this than you can chew.
    You even go as far as claiming a moral highground and even bring up accusations out of nowhere. Your thinking is problematic, you are the problem, try to think about your intentions.

    If you want to get into what businesses are "supposed" to be doing, then it's entirely one thing: Maximizing shareholder value.


    Debatable.

    You can maximize shareholder value in short term by completely trashing your product and selling out, and even disvow your ideals and crap on everything you build.

    OR

    You can maximize shareholder value in long term, by building an honoring your values.

    Two very different things.
    WotC shifting into a political motivated agenda is among the most terrible choices they made, as its hurtful to crap on your long term fanbase.

    Artists should get the freedom to produce whatever art they claim to be good and fitting, end result is more diverse art and better results. Thats what people want and value of the "old" artworks, and what we very rarely get today.

    Your tastes do not line up with overall audience trends, so Wizards no longer caters to them. It's not political. They're just trying to make the most money they can, and they aren't going to do that by keeping the same art style as 20 years ago. That's the ultimate reason you don't see Earthbind-style art anymore, and Basandra-style art is nowhere near as prevalent as it used to be. Don't mix up the beliefs of the players with the beliefs of the company making this game, because the reasons each group holds its respective views are very, very different.


    WotC would have fired and shun Terese Nielsen , but fans wanted her to make magic cards, and the artwork sticks out very visible.
    Thats one of the kind of artwork people WANT to have, as it brings a form of diversity in artwork.
    That does NOT mean that every artwork on every magic card has to be a Terese Nielsen art.

    Magic has plenty of artists, granting them more freedom would be greatly appreciated.

    Wizards never betrayed you, because they never owed you anything to begin with. The only people who matter to a corporation are the shareholders, and unless you own enough shares for Hasbro to take notice of you, then you can either accept the shift in presentation or quit the game. That horse isn't going back into its stable.


    Oh they did. As a customer a company owes you the promise of making a good product, and if you stop doing that, you earn the fruits of your bad job.
    Betrayal of your customers is among the worst decisions a company can make, and plenty of companies learn that the hard way, as getting a customer BACK is much more costly then keeping them happy.

    If the group "some people" is undefined, then the argument carries no weight because there's absolutely no guarantee that those people even exist and aren't just made up for the sake of argument.


    Thats the essence of a thought example, you might not be familiar with.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on as a female player the new art style females is getting really annoying
    Quote from Teia Rabishu »


    There are people who are statistically at greater risk than others. Hence why it's exceedingly tasteless to show Garruk about to punch Liliana after restraining her. Refusing to acknowledge social groups is a privilege afforded to people who don't have to think about the subject on a regular basis. Put another way, the fact that you're willing to reject the idea that groups matter is evidence that you've never been pigeonholed or disadvantaged based on gender or any other facet of identity.

    Society and its norms are the sum of its actors. So when a company like Wizards produces art that's uncomfortably close to real-life gender-based violence (or they objectify women, or whatever else), they're contributing to an overarching trend. When they don't do that, they're not contributing to an overarching trend. But at the end of the day, it's always intellectually disingenuous to say "there are no such things as patterns, only a great many isolated incidents."


    Its a companies job to produce a product, not make political arguments and especially not, push something specific for a subset of people.
    Its exactly what people critique, rightfully, and they hate WotC doing this, as it has no logical reason, its just political agenda.

    If VIOLENCE is bad, then ALL Violence is bad, not just a subset of violence someone claims upsets them personally.
    The moment you cherry pick something and ignore the rest, you are doing nobody a favor, you just claim to be more important or above others, and thats just toxic and evil in nature.

    Its a fantasy world after all, and if there is violence, then thats it.

    I for once want to see boobs and cleavage in my female art. At least some, not all of them.
    Why? I find it aesthetically. Basandra, Battle Seraph
    And theres absolutely nothing wrong with boobs, but for whatever reason WotC clearly thinks boobs are inherently evil and female have to be flat.
    If an artist paints a picture and the female happens to have boobs as they feel it looks great on that art, that should be fine, instead of not accepting that art and shrinking the boobs to make it acceptable ; which is just silly and somewhat discrimination against females that happen to have bigger boobs as that would be a crime or valued less in a made up social hierarchy of body objectivity (which is a thing for female characters and much less for male characters).

    In the end they can do whatever they want, its a fantasy world, but doing so with a set intention and an agenda just makes it instrumental.
    And its a very bad feeling if a COMPANY is trying to influence its customers and tries to influence the customer into portraying a specific "ideal" they want to display of a world they claim to follow in a real life connection.

    Its a form of betrayal thats really hurting.
    It kills the innocence of a fantasy world and FORCES a connection to the real world, that otherwise wouldnt exist, or just remotely.

    The fact that WotC thinks that "representation" is a important deal in cards just produces a checklist of characteristics that have to be on cards, rather than producing good artwork, its following and pushing an agenda, and thats what "some people" really do not like at all.

    It really comes down to companies should not meddle with real life politics, and stick to making the best possible product, instead of wiggling to the loudest cry baby that comes around, thats simply pathetic and produces an inferior product.

    If you don't want to label groups, then why label a group as "some people"?

    Some people is not a group, its literally an undefined group of everyone and that fits perfectly well.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on as a female player the new art style females is getting really annoying
    Quote from Teia Rabishu »

    Even on an individual level, you're not going to find very many men who've been impacted by institutional sexism because institutional power favours men pretty much every time.


    Theres no such thing as "favours men", thats as toxic as it gets to even have that opinion, especially if its complete bollocks.
    It is however a very clear display of a political stands thats questionable at best and by itself sexism.

    So i wont drive down this ballpark any further as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand anyway and will with guarantee only result in flame and *****posts.

    Imagery is a thing that matters. Garruk looks like he's about to deliver the same kind of violence a great many women have been subjected to, whereas the reverse situation is... Garruk just kind of flat on his back while Liliana stands over him. Not Liliana about to deliver a punch or anything.

    Triumph of Cruelty is passable as a piece of Magic art because it's not depicting things in a manner far too close to home for people who've been subject to domestic violence (unless you want to argue that PTSD isn't a real thing). Triumph of Ferocity is not, because it does.


    Triumph of Cruelty can be interpreted as female violence using a mob (zombies) to do the violence in her name.
    Its the same display of violence Triumph of Ferocity, its just 2 different stances of how these characters would approach to fight.
    Non is less violent than the other, both are going to kill the other, and both are exceptional violent with deadly force and the worst intends possible.

    Also, every form of violence can be translated to something a person might have experienced in real life. That alone shouldnt be a reason to make displaying that fantasy art somehow problematic at all.

    Individuals have issues, they should deal with them.
    Marking a specific "group" of people as more valuable or more "worth" protecting than other "groups" is just again the display of a form of group thinking thats extremely problematic and toxic.

    If an individual has a problem with an artwork that in their mind looks somehow like "domestic violence" , then thats entirely their personal issue, and they can simply choose to not like the artwork and keep on with their lives.
    If an artwork of a person getting Incinerated Disintegrate isnt a problem at all, then its downright ridiculous to make a artwork of a simple "punch" a giant outcry, its fantasy art after all, and real world thinking has no place in this fantasy.

    If someone wants to be consistent in their logic of what art they claim to be problematic and what not, than at least say every form of violence is bad, not just specific subsets of violence against specific subset of groups of people, this kind of group thinking is a sickness.

    Please be more specific instead of just saying "some people."

    Some people fits perfectly well, as it doesnt check any boxes.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on as a female player the new art style females is getting really annoying
    Quote from Teia Rabishu »


    You're implying that men know just as much about sexism as women do, which is as baffling as saying that white people know just as much about racism as people of colour. I'd also recommend looking up the difference between systematic and individual sexism, because those are very different things.


    I believe in the individual and judge people as individuals, not as groups.
    Any human is an individual, not a group.
    Thinking of groups is the most toxic a human can do to another, as it undermines and tries to devalue everything that makes up the individual that in its core is any human being.

    Cruelty triumphing is "fine"? Cruelty is customarily considered a bad thing.

    Garruk about to bash Liliana like a domestic violence situation, however, is an even worse thing because of the imagery involved.


    Translating "domestic violence situation" into a magic card that is about 2 immensely powerful planeswalker fighting each other is utter nonsense, and is the perfect example of people trying to imply real life connections to something that has not even remotely any connection to such things.

    Some people just try to see the absolute worst in everything and try to smear anybody that is not in their crosshair of "good" and "evil" people.
    Its downright crazy as this road of thinking only leads to complete misguided hatred.

    Some people might seek the good in things, what they enjoy and love, embracing the game for what it is, bringing people together.
    Others just look for something to outrage about and the moment a person tries to set themselves above others and ignores the individual and puts people in boxes, they lost any connection to the real world.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on The bad card debate
    Cards with very special abilities are never truly BAD as they ask for special decks that can use the effects.

    There are plenty of cards that are actually just BAD in a objective view, and even they have a reason to exist, even if these are overall much more annoying to have around.

    ----

    Mythic and rare cards that do something special are simply cards for people to find how to abuse them, and often enough can be used for good in a more casual approach of commander.

    So they are really not BAD cards, just demand more attention and brewing around with a deck to make them work properly or as intended.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.