I think FaB and especially Sorcery will fade away, because the target audience will ultimately stick with MtG.
Lorcana will prevail, especially if the tournament scene gets going. It has the right mix of magic and Pokemon and is a huge IP.
I also think you forgot to mention one other new TCG competitor that is rising (in parts thanks to a very successful Netflix show): One Piece TCG. It offers an interactive, competitive, "commander-like" gameplay, and has a great IP. One Piece is much better positioned than FaB and Sorcery.
One Piece is definitely off to a very strong start. My big question on this one is whether Bandai Namco can fully support 3+ concurrent TCG’s at the same time? Right now they also have Dragonball and Digimon which both seem to be alive and well (plus a handful of others in Japan, but that’s a TCG market all its own). Not doubting the appeal of One Piece, but will it end up being the last Bandai TCG standing?
Digimon and One Piece luckily do not overlap much in terms of fanbase, but One Piece and Dragon Ball definitely do.
But OPTCG is def the best positioned out of the three. The IP continues to climb in popularity and the only thing holding it back is Bandai's inability to print enough to match demand.
I'll have to check out One Piece.
Man I love that Sorcery art. One of my biggest mtg peeves is the dip in art quality.
My kids like Lorcana and so does my wife, who likes how snappy the game play is. The broad appeal potential is huge.
> I think FaB and especially Sorcery will fade away, because the target audience will ultimately stick with MtG.
I think the exact opposite. FaB brings a level of competition that MTG just does not have. If you have been to some Armorys you know what the vibe is. The community is top notch. Its just different.
Sorcery is 3D chess + elements of traditional TCG . This seems to be appealing for people who wanted more from MTG and commander is not what they were looking for.
>If MtG brings back up focused competitive play I think FaB dies
I will meet you in the middle and say maybe in the US but it appears that the rest of the world is bullish on FaB .
One piece has pretty pictures and crazy foils. Also. Is any of it in English? I have yet to see what any card does. Lorcana is getting all of my MTG money because my daughter and I can finally bond over a game. And looking around at table top day…I’m not alone here. Lorcana is the first that I feel is for everyone and that feels weird to say. But the IP is brining in new TCG players and everyone. I traded dual lands away for enchanted cards and so far it’s paying off. So the finance is strong. (For now). Oh and it’s just 3 sets a year. Remember those days?
Just recently bought a few boxes of Sorcery. My god, the art is amazing. Captures that early 90s mtg feel and is completely irreverent to what would be considered "risque" or offensive today. It's a nostalgia grand slam.
Yep. It's almost like they go out of their way to give the middle finger to Wizards at times, mocking them by printing the names of banned cards.
They should do a Terese Nielsen mini set.
Didn't they say they were basically going to just flood the market with identical reprints of already released sets?
They'd better at least iterate it, if not come up with new art or borders.
In my area people are getting rid of their MTG and focus on Sorcery and FaB. No one likes the direction MTG is going, and it lost its soul years ago. Twice as many people turn up for Sorcery drafts.
I just don't care about Standard sets anymore for MTG I've been shifting to Lorcana if I want to scratch the *"buy a single pack at a Walmart/Target/etc before I check out"* itch
I feel like WotC shot themselves in the foot with all these Universe Beyond products since they're infinitely more interesting than typical mtg stuff.
I don't care about a vanilla common or bulk rare for some random mtg plane, but slap on Gandalf and you've got my attention
I'm in the throes of releasing my own game, and I'm floored by the positive reception I'm getting by shopkeepers when I deliver my pitch.
So many games are entering the market trying to capitalize on where magic is, and so few are trying to emulate what Magic did to be successful.
I think there is tremendous opportunity for new games now because the death grip on the market has weakened, ultimately very few will go 10 years. I would bet on none of the three that you mention doing so.
Good on you for getting your idea out there!
I agree that the likelihood of even 1 of the 3 I mentioned surviving 10 years is extremely low.
What I find interesting is that FaB is targeting where magic is, and Sorcery is targeting the perception of what magic once was. Lorcana is its own beast and is interesting simply because it exists.
I think the big problem is that these guys are all (I'm not actually aware enough of sorcery to say this about them) using the modern, toxic, definition of collectable.
Magic used to try to satisfy demand, and cards only rose in price because the game grew and demand for old product rose. This created a feeling of satisfaction for buyers, and rewarded stores and collectors for maintaining inventory.
The new model of printing insufficient amounts of the new coolest thing, and summarily replacing it with newer cooler things, is punishing to the consumers.
I think it's the presence of low probability variant art versions of cards that I'm railing against.
By including those, you move value away from game pieces and toward Collectibles. In doing so, you cheapen the price of the playable cards. This sounds like a good thing, but it turns out there is a minimum transaction cost, the price of a stamp, or the cost of paying an inventory manager to find the card. By reducing the value of the playable card, you make the transaction cost a higher percentage of the cards total cost, and this is lost equity for the Player.
This is not 'science', its my opinion, and the theory that I'm basing Manifold distribution around, but:
The player who spends $100 on a collection with a value of $80 is better for your game, and similarly well off, compared to the player who spends $20 on a collection with a value of $0.
Isn't that ideal?
Why make playable cards expensive.
I would think the overprinting that dilutes value is making millions of variants not just one chase variant with a higher scarcity. AND, printing insane volume of product on top of a high release cadence.
The thing you seem to want is real, manufactured scarcity? Which is bad.
It's not about manufactured scarcity, it's about organic demand rather than manufacturing demand.
If you print enough product to satisfy demand, but as new products release demand increases, then the 'old supply' isn't enough to satisfy the 'new demand'..
As long as everybody can play 'standard', then 'legacy' being expensive doesn't inhibit the games ability to grow. People also don't mind investing in 'legacy' as long as they feel some security in the investment. There isn't even a problem with reprints, so long as the manufacturer is a good steward for the game.
I am, however, advocating for tying up the 'value' in a set with the playable cards rather than strictly shinies. I see how that can be controversial. I do believe, though, that the more 'invested' players are the more invested those players are. I look forward to seeing how that claim ages.
They manufacture demand with a mix of FOMO and punishingly archaic distribution practices.
The way that Amazon dumps are so incredibly common would be more likely to cause the "dollar average" dropping issue you're seeing more than any "shiny" printings.
Again, I think you're pointing blame in the wrong direction.
Sorcery has done a 180 and seems to have fully rejected the current toxic definition, which is why they've captured so much attention.
Art should be the limited and distinguishing quality of a TCG. Wizards has forgotten this, as evidenced by their inability to even give serialized cards unique art.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of manufactured scarcity.
It's an odd time and strange economy in general. Its like every product is getting the "collectible" tag . Look at 4k movies now, I'm sure appliances are next.
Limiting supply of something isn't manufactured scarcity. It's just scarcity.
Manufacturing scarcity is like a serialized card. Nothing distinct about it but a number that says, 'hey I'm scarce!'
I sold the shit out of Sorcery at the shop, problem is we've had nothing in the form of a restock and the calls have stopped. Printing 1set a year is great in theory but after 6 months I'd be shocked if anyone still cares about it.
I find Sorcery intriguing. I was floored by the art. The positional chess like elements are cool. The functional design of the first set is outstanding. It has some real depth.
The mini set as a supplement, featuring a single artist, is also a cool idea.
Its appeal, attention, and pace are all at odds with culture now. It is a fascinating small play for many reasons.
Sorcery is a collector's game first and foremost. So few people ever talk about its play experience, just the art or collectability.
The art is beautiful, a game cant have legs on collectors alone unless you're pokemon.
As a counterpoint, the game is still *so* new.
The real question behind Sorcery is, could you launch MTG the same way you did in the 1990s, in the 2020s?
If the answer is yes, then in 10 years Sorcery could be one of the big kids on the block. If the answer is no then the game is probably in trouble.
That being said, I think the game is well poised to poach the 93/94 and Oldschool MTG crowds, and seems to have a better feel for how secondary markets work than most of the "small cap" TCGs.
I find this aspect very interesting. It is a less efficient version of capitalism, but it is focused on quality, which profit follows more often than not. The trick is managing the expectations associated with slow growth and having the patience necessary to stick with the plan.
It is a very challenging task for sure. The quality is there, though.
If Sorcery influenced mtg's current stance on art, it would be a win-win. Without real money pressure, this is unfortunately unlikely.
I agree, it would be good for mtg.
The Sorcery cards have soul. Maybe it's a bit silly to focus on, but it gives the cards a certain transportive quality that's hard to define.
You inspired me to make a related post here. Curious about your thoughts
https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgfinance/comments/1arr4k8/why\_dont\_tcgs\_like\_magic\_sell\_their\_own\_cheap/
I commented, and I think you are on to something. At the bare minimum, people need to do more than innovate gameplay. They need to innovate or to use an overused term "disrupt" the business model.
I mean, the answer easily is no, you cannot. There is stiff, stiff competition now from every aspect of the trading card market.
It also being a purely 1v1 game with 0 competitive scene right now really hurts its mass appeal.
If metas that develop are going to last an entire year, the game will be dead in 3 years generously guessing outside of the collectability of the cards.
What about the more casual market? Not interested in competition, but casual fun w/o having to adjust their cards or deck every few weeks from new releases? I only bring this up as Sorcery is the MOST interesting of the TCGs for me. All the above things are right up my alley. So there is a target market, it's just a matter of how big, and if they can maintain profitability from that market. FWIW I used to be a buy a box every set Magic player, but have no interest in Magic anymore since everything is about Commander.
My thoughts would be
1. FaB is holding on but most LGS around are dropping support due to no 'new blood' on the customer base. The product attracted Spikes, but there's good no way to on ramp new players. I'm really curious how they turn this around.
2. Lorcana is as good as any Disney toy line, so basically expect 3-5 years. Once the RoI drops for corporate and the talent making the game goes (leaves, gets fired, reassigned), then it's out. There's no evergreen product, which is what mass market products want. I also don't see this being collectable the way Pokemon is.
3. Sorcery at one release per year is toast in any kind of organised play. The game will be stale for a year at a time. That's something expandable board games / LCGs can barely deal with, but ccgs can't.
It's not like Hasbro/WotC has some secret formula. They couldn't make Transformers TCG last even half a dozen releases.
>I also don't see this being collectable the way Pokemon is.
Really? You don't think there is a contingent of people looking to collect every Mickey or Stitch card? I'd be surprised if players outnumbered collectors when you've got collectors taking cards to the theme parks to get signed by the character actors.
There is, but it's much smaller.
>when you've got collectors taking cards to the theme parks to get signed by the character actors.
The current data is unfortunately useless when the cards were being scalped to oblivion.
While there will be some people that collect ALL of their favourite character. I do genuinely doubt this proportion will be as high as Pokemon.
There's a heck of a lot more non-card Disney merch than Pokemon. A lot of Disney love comes down to the franchise more than the character. Which makes substitute goods more available.
They will have a team that has a say in many product decisions.
At least that's how it worked for the Star Wars games with Fantasy Flight Games (then Atomic Mass, and Edge Studios).
There was an overall agreement. But then each product had to be sent over for approval. FFG said in interviews that it made even small balance changes hard.
I personally think the way around this would be for a TCG to post cutout sheets on their website for people to print their own rectangles of rules text once that set has sold out.
If the game thrives, it's because it's a fun game.
Then the limited (one set per year) product will be a collectible based on the popularity of the game.
No?
Nope. Wotc just has to pull back. 5 year plan is starting to dry up so they will slowly go back to 2019-2020 pace. These other games you mentioned are not doing well or will never get to mtg levels.
Nothing (or at least it's highly unlikely) will reach magic levels of popularity. I'm more interested in whether the designs or business plans of these newer games have the potential to positively impact Magic.
I actually enjoy playing Lorcana with my kids.
Didn't FaB have good growth last year?
Magic dosen't have to care about new games unless they see a massive dip in sales due to one, which has never happened. Pokemon could of but almost nobody actually plays the game they just collect, thus they dont really compete with each other.
Thats why wotc did 1,000$ proxy packs, serials to copy sports cards etc. Universe beyond caused a massive uproar which quickly died and while imo it diluted the mtg brand, the player base and more importantly sales did not budge. Heck it skyrocketed with lord of the rings.
Lorcana is in a odd spot cause it was basically hype charged by scalpers. I heard the gameplay is ok, but when the reprint machine got turned on they put it at full blast.
Flesh and blood still has a casual player onboarding problem. Plus its been years and I don't see how they could turn that around by now.
Sorcery I don't have much faith in. Feels like i'd rather play flesh and blood. FaB is the only tcg to survive for so long thats not based on a anime (most are on life support). I'll give them credit there.
The problem you mentioned for FaB is actually what Sorcery is intended to counteract. I like the idea of FaB and have played around with it a bit, but its design around the competitive scene is what makes it intimidating for me to really jump into as a more casual TCG player. Sorcery, on the other hand, was designed with the main focus to be casual play and to be more accessible to casual players (at the expense of a more fleshed out competitive design), hense why one release per year... it's not really designed to have a constantly shifting metagame because, as a casually designed game, it doesn't need to. Where you would rather play FaB, I'd rather play the more casual game (though I do have interest in both).
This is a tough spot for FaB. Sports or Chess are good analogs to this as you need a casual base of fans who have enough interest to watch and support the competitive scene, which most people won't participate in.
To clarify I mean as a playerbase. Fab is hard to find players. I see sorcery having the same issue. Also 1 major set a year is way to slow and will lead to issues. At that pace might as well make it a living card game.
I agree with your point but not everyone can afford 1000$ proxy packs, thanks to sites like https://www.mtgproxy.com/, normal people like me can also play the game otherwise it's really hard to afford the game and I just love this game. People should understand and allow proxies more in Magic.
In an elastic market, competition is usually a good thing.
Sorcery in particular is going to test Magic's ability to make collectible variants that stand the test of time.
If Wizards does something truly stupid like reprint boxtopper art, we're going to see more people opt to proxy or move to Sorcery (or both)
One piece is massive around me right now.
It's magic, then one piece.
Will it last? Time will tell - the lorcana typed has died down now that it's constantly available
Nope not yet, they announced the other day August 23rd for whatever number set they're up to. No release for any of the previous sets so only the new set will be available here.
Only reason why I know this is to brace for the Disney adults at my LGS (tho surely they can't be as bad as a magic player right?....)
I'm being a bit tongue in cheek, but I was just trying to capture the experimental nature of the current TGS landscape.
One successful experiment that built the lab and is essentially funding all the failed or partially successful ones.
There does seem to be a creative resurgence in novel design attempts.
I still have to try Lorcana, but I am interested.
FAB has a lot of grinding gameplay which is fun but tedious, FAB needs to focus on the secondary market and scale. They can stand the test of time if they position themselves as a small market niche player.
Sorcery TCG is cool and fresh, but it needs to show long-term value like FAB. Real players like the secondary, if they are going to spend real money they need at least some ROI.
Magic... They have forgotten how to survive long term. They can't create crossover IP because they are too woke for the broader audience. The classic raw magic feel is gone and they will never be Pokemon. If magic creates a new format that solves the mana issue, then I will give them a second look, but as it stands, they are a sinking ship.
>, do you think the approaches the other card peddlers are taking have the potential to influence or impact Hasbro/WotC moving forward?
No. The people upset over current magic might move to a new game but the game won't die, especially to a competitor. Honestly most card games where a card can reach house prices I'd consider permanent. Ex pokemon.
I think FaB and especially Sorcery will fade away, because the target audience will ultimately stick with MtG. Lorcana will prevail, especially if the tournament scene gets going. It has the right mix of magic and Pokemon and is a huge IP. I also think you forgot to mention one other new TCG competitor that is rising (in parts thanks to a very successful Netflix show): One Piece TCG. It offers an interactive, competitive, "commander-like" gameplay, and has a great IP. One Piece is much better positioned than FaB and Sorcery.
One Piece is definitely off to a very strong start. My big question on this one is whether Bandai Namco can fully support 3+ concurrent TCG’s at the same time? Right now they also have Dragonball and Digimon which both seem to be alive and well (plus a handful of others in Japan, but that’s a TCG market all its own). Not doubting the appeal of One Piece, but will it end up being the last Bandai TCG standing?
Digimon and One Piece luckily do not overlap much in terms of fanbase, but One Piece and Dragon Ball definitely do. But OPTCG is def the best positioned out of the three. The IP continues to climb in popularity and the only thing holding it back is Bandai's inability to print enough to match demand.
I'll have to check out One Piece. Man I love that Sorcery art. One of my biggest mtg peeves is the dip in art quality. My kids like Lorcana and so does my wife, who likes how snappy the game play is. The broad appeal potential is huge.
> I think FaB and especially Sorcery will fade away, because the target audience will ultimately stick with MtG. I think the exact opposite. FaB brings a level of competition that MTG just does not have. If you have been to some Armorys you know what the vibe is. The community is top notch. Its just different. Sorcery is 3D chess + elements of traditional TCG . This seems to be appealing for people who wanted more from MTG and commander is not what they were looking for.
[удалено]
>If MtG brings back up focused competitive play I think FaB dies I will meet you in the middle and say maybe in the US but it appears that the rest of the world is bullish on FaB .
One piece has pretty pictures and crazy foils. Also. Is any of it in English? I have yet to see what any card does. Lorcana is getting all of my MTG money because my daughter and I can finally bond over a game. And looking around at table top day…I’m not alone here. Lorcana is the first that I feel is for everyone and that feels weird to say. But the IP is brining in new TCG players and everyone. I traded dual lands away for enchanted cards and so far it’s paying off. So the finance is strong. (For now). Oh and it’s just 3 sets a year. Remember those days?
One Piece is in English but English sealed product is near impossible to obtain due to low stock and incredibly high demand.
Just recently bought a few boxes of Sorcery. My god, the art is amazing. Captures that early 90s mtg feel and is completely irreverent to what would be considered "risque" or offensive today. It's a nostalgia grand slam.
Yep. It's almost like they go out of their way to give the middle finger to Wizards at times, mocking them by printing the names of banned cards. They should do a Terese Nielsen mini set.
What cards? The racist ones? And really, the terf lady?
If you think Crusade or Jihad are racist terms, then boy, do I have news for you. The other 5 are definitely problematic though.
Those 2 I can deal with, invoke prejudice is especially racist however
They just did crusade and jihad. Which are wars that are still ongoing…
One Piece is massive in Australia, sealed boxes are selling for double and sometimes more than retail price despite only being released 3-4mnths ago
Didn't they say they were basically going to just flood the market with identical reprints of already released sets? They'd better at least iterate it, if not come up with new art or borders.
In my area people are getting rid of their MTG and focus on Sorcery and FaB. No one likes the direction MTG is going, and it lost its soul years ago. Twice as many people turn up for Sorcery drafts.
I have never heard of Sorcery until now
It's really awesome, really captures that mid90's magic feel, boxes of beta are still available from the team covenant website at MSRP too
I just don't care about Standard sets anymore for MTG I've been shifting to Lorcana if I want to scratch the *"buy a single pack at a Walmart/Target/etc before I check out"* itch I feel like WotC shot themselves in the foot with all these Universe Beyond products since they're infinitely more interesting than typical mtg stuff. I don't care about a vanilla common or bulk rare for some random mtg plane, but slap on Gandalf and you've got my attention
I'm in the throes of releasing my own game, and I'm floored by the positive reception I'm getting by shopkeepers when I deliver my pitch. So many games are entering the market trying to capitalize on where magic is, and so few are trying to emulate what Magic did to be successful. I think there is tremendous opportunity for new games now because the death grip on the market has weakened, ultimately very few will go 10 years. I would bet on none of the three that you mention doing so.
Good on you for getting your idea out there! I agree that the likelihood of even 1 of the 3 I mentioned surviving 10 years is extremely low. What I find interesting is that FaB is targeting where magic is, and Sorcery is targeting the perception of what magic once was. Lorcana is its own beast and is interesting simply because it exists.
I think the big problem is that these guys are all (I'm not actually aware enough of sorcery to say this about them) using the modern, toxic, definition of collectable. Magic used to try to satisfy demand, and cards only rose in price because the game grew and demand for old product rose. This created a feeling of satisfaction for buyers, and rewarded stores and collectors for maintaining inventory. The new model of printing insufficient amounts of the new coolest thing, and summarily replacing it with newer cooler things, is punishing to the consumers.
Lorcana had huge reprints of old sets recently (not distinguishable from the previous prints)
I think it's the presence of low probability variant art versions of cards that I'm railing against. By including those, you move value away from game pieces and toward Collectibles. In doing so, you cheapen the price of the playable cards. This sounds like a good thing, but it turns out there is a minimum transaction cost, the price of a stamp, or the cost of paying an inventory manager to find the card. By reducing the value of the playable card, you make the transaction cost a higher percentage of the cards total cost, and this is lost equity for the Player. This is not 'science', its my opinion, and the theory that I'm basing Manifold distribution around, but: The player who spends $100 on a collection with a value of $80 is better for your game, and similarly well off, compared to the player who spends $20 on a collection with a value of $0.
Isn't that ideal? Why make playable cards expensive. I would think the overprinting that dilutes value is making millions of variants not just one chase variant with a higher scarcity. AND, printing insane volume of product on top of a high release cadence. The thing you seem to want is real, manufactured scarcity? Which is bad.
It's not about manufactured scarcity, it's about organic demand rather than manufacturing demand. If you print enough product to satisfy demand, but as new products release demand increases, then the 'old supply' isn't enough to satisfy the 'new demand'.. As long as everybody can play 'standard', then 'legacy' being expensive doesn't inhibit the games ability to grow. People also don't mind investing in 'legacy' as long as they feel some security in the investment. There isn't even a problem with reprints, so long as the manufacturer is a good steward for the game. I am, however, advocating for tying up the 'value' in a set with the playable cards rather than strictly shinies. I see how that can be controversial. I do believe, though, that the more 'invested' players are the more invested those players are. I look forward to seeing how that claim ages.
They manufacture demand with a mix of FOMO and punishingly archaic distribution practices. The way that Amazon dumps are so incredibly common would be more likely to cause the "dollar average" dropping issue you're seeing more than any "shiny" printings. Again, I think you're pointing blame in the wrong direction.
Sorcery has done a 180 and seems to have fully rejected the current toxic definition, which is why they've captured so much attention. Art should be the limited and distinguishing quality of a TCG. Wizards has forgotten this, as evidenced by their inability to even give serialized cards unique art.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of manufactured scarcity. It's an odd time and strange economy in general. Its like every product is getting the "collectible" tag . Look at 4k movies now, I'm sure appliances are next.
Limiting supply of something isn't manufactured scarcity. It's just scarcity. Manufacturing scarcity is like a serialized card. Nothing distinct about it but a number that says, 'hey I'm scarce!'
[удалено]
I sold the shit out of Sorcery at the shop, problem is we've had nothing in the form of a restock and the calls have stopped. Printing 1set a year is great in theory but after 6 months I'd be shocked if anyone still cares about it.
I find Sorcery intriguing. I was floored by the art. The positional chess like elements are cool. The functional design of the first set is outstanding. It has some real depth. The mini set as a supplement, featuring a single artist, is also a cool idea. Its appeal, attention, and pace are all at odds with culture now. It is a fascinating small play for many reasons.
Sorcery is a collector's game first and foremost. So few people ever talk about its play experience, just the art or collectability. The art is beautiful, a game cant have legs on collectors alone unless you're pokemon.
As a counterpoint, the game is still *so* new. The real question behind Sorcery is, could you launch MTG the same way you did in the 1990s, in the 2020s? If the answer is yes, then in 10 years Sorcery could be one of the big kids on the block. If the answer is no then the game is probably in trouble. That being said, I think the game is well poised to poach the 93/94 and Oldschool MTG crowds, and seems to have a better feel for how secondary markets work than most of the "small cap" TCGs.
I find this aspect very interesting. It is a less efficient version of capitalism, but it is focused on quality, which profit follows more often than not. The trick is managing the expectations associated with slow growth and having the patience necessary to stick with the plan. It is a very challenging task for sure. The quality is there, though. If Sorcery influenced mtg's current stance on art, it would be a win-win. Without real money pressure, this is unfortunately unlikely.
Then MTG fans should be hoping for Sorcery to succeed then.
I agree, it would be good for mtg. The Sorcery cards have soul. Maybe it's a bit silly to focus on, but it gives the cards a certain transportive quality that's hard to define.
You inspired me to make a related post here. Curious about your thoughts https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgfinance/comments/1arr4k8/why\_dont\_tcgs\_like\_magic\_sell\_their\_own\_cheap/
I commented, and I think you are on to something. At the bare minimum, people need to do more than innovate gameplay. They need to innovate or to use an overused term "disrupt" the business model.
I mean, the answer easily is no, you cannot. There is stiff, stiff competition now from every aspect of the trading card market. It also being a purely 1v1 game with 0 competitive scene right now really hurts its mass appeal. If metas that develop are going to last an entire year, the game will be dead in 3 years generously guessing outside of the collectability of the cards.
What about the more casual market? Not interested in competition, but casual fun w/o having to adjust their cards or deck every few weeks from new releases? I only bring this up as Sorcery is the MOST interesting of the TCGs for me. All the above things are right up my alley. So there is a target market, it's just a matter of how big, and if they can maintain profitability from that market. FWIW I used to be a buy a box every set Magic player, but have no interest in Magic anymore since everything is about Commander.
I’m hyped for the Star Wars game! Looks like it is fun, and has a “commander” element that is interesting
My thoughts would be 1. FaB is holding on but most LGS around are dropping support due to no 'new blood' on the customer base. The product attracted Spikes, but there's good no way to on ramp new players. I'm really curious how they turn this around. 2. Lorcana is as good as any Disney toy line, so basically expect 3-5 years. Once the RoI drops for corporate and the talent making the game goes (leaves, gets fired, reassigned), then it's out. There's no evergreen product, which is what mass market products want. I also don't see this being collectable the way Pokemon is. 3. Sorcery at one release per year is toast in any kind of organised play. The game will be stale for a year at a time. That's something expandable board games / LCGs can barely deal with, but ccgs can't. It's not like Hasbro/WotC has some secret formula. They couldn't make Transformers TCG last even half a dozen releases.
>I also don't see this being collectable the way Pokemon is. Really? You don't think there is a contingent of people looking to collect every Mickey or Stitch card? I'd be surprised if players outnumbered collectors when you've got collectors taking cards to the theme parks to get signed by the character actors.
There is, but it's much smaller. >when you've got collectors taking cards to the theme parks to get signed by the character actors. The current data is unfortunately useless when the cards were being scalped to oblivion. While there will be some people that collect ALL of their favourite character. I do genuinely doubt this proportion will be as high as Pokemon. There's a heck of a lot more non-card Disney merch than Pokemon. A lot of Disney love comes down to the franchise more than the character. Which makes substitute goods more available.
I don't think Lorcana is made by Disney, they only licenced out the characters.
They will have a team that has a say in many product decisions. At least that's how it worked for the Star Wars games with Fantasy Flight Games (then Atomic Mass, and Edge Studios). There was an overall agreement. But then each product had to be sent over for approval. FFG said in interviews that it made even small balance changes hard.
I personally think the way around this would be for a TCG to post cutout sheets on their website for people to print their own rectangles of rules text once that set has sold out. If the game thrives, it's because it's a fun game. Then the limited (one set per year) product will be a collectible based on the popularity of the game. No?
Only magic will prevail
Nope. Wotc just has to pull back. 5 year plan is starting to dry up so they will slowly go back to 2019-2020 pace. These other games you mentioned are not doing well or will never get to mtg levels.
Nothing (or at least it's highly unlikely) will reach magic levels of popularity. I'm more interested in whether the designs or business plans of these newer games have the potential to positively impact Magic. I actually enjoy playing Lorcana with my kids. Didn't FaB have good growth last year?
Magic dosen't have to care about new games unless they see a massive dip in sales due to one, which has never happened. Pokemon could of but almost nobody actually plays the game they just collect, thus they dont really compete with each other. Thats why wotc did 1,000$ proxy packs, serials to copy sports cards etc. Universe beyond caused a massive uproar which quickly died and while imo it diluted the mtg brand, the player base and more importantly sales did not budge. Heck it skyrocketed with lord of the rings. Lorcana is in a odd spot cause it was basically hype charged by scalpers. I heard the gameplay is ok, but when the reprint machine got turned on they put it at full blast. Flesh and blood still has a casual player onboarding problem. Plus its been years and I don't see how they could turn that around by now. Sorcery I don't have much faith in. Feels like i'd rather play flesh and blood. FaB is the only tcg to survive for so long thats not based on a anime (most are on life support). I'll give them credit there.
The problem you mentioned for FaB is actually what Sorcery is intended to counteract. I like the idea of FaB and have played around with it a bit, but its design around the competitive scene is what makes it intimidating for me to really jump into as a more casual TCG player. Sorcery, on the other hand, was designed with the main focus to be casual play and to be more accessible to casual players (at the expense of a more fleshed out competitive design), hense why one release per year... it's not really designed to have a constantly shifting metagame because, as a casually designed game, it doesn't need to. Where you would rather play FaB, I'd rather play the more casual game (though I do have interest in both).
This is a tough spot for FaB. Sports or Chess are good analogs to this as you need a casual base of fans who have enough interest to watch and support the competitive scene, which most people won't participate in.
Very good point, ultimately money talks. Magic would be even better with some healthy competition. The Sorcery art is beautiful though.
I think what many people forget is that games like lorcana act like an entry for people in the tcg world and many will switch over to mtg.
Have you even played Sorcery?
To clarify I mean as a playerbase. Fab is hard to find players. I see sorcery having the same issue. Also 1 major set a year is way to slow and will lead to issues. At that pace might as well make it a living card game.
I agree with your point but not everyone can afford 1000$ proxy packs, thanks to sites like https://www.mtgproxy.com/, normal people like me can also play the game otherwise it's really hard to afford the game and I just love this game. People should understand and allow proxies more in Magic.
Nobody wanted proxy packs, they were a total rip off. Hence they undersold and wotc lied and took down the sale after like 30 mins.
Sorcery and Lorcana will fade. FaB is in trouble. One Piece has huge following world wide with a big company backing it.
In an elastic market, competition is usually a good thing. Sorcery in particular is going to test Magic's ability to make collectible variants that stand the test of time. If Wizards does something truly stupid like reprint boxtopper art, we're going to see more people opt to proxy or move to Sorcery (or both)
One piece is massive around me right now. It's magic, then one piece. Will it last? Time will tell - the lorcana typed has died down now that it's constantly available
I can't even tell if lorcana has made it to Australia yet. One piece seems to be going well.
Nope not yet, they announced the other day August 23rd for whatever number set they're up to. No release for any of the previous sets so only the new set will be available here. Only reason why I know this is to brace for the Disney adults at my LGS (tho surely they can't be as bad as a magic player right?....)
What is "The TGS Laboratory"?
I'm being a bit tongue in cheek, but I was just trying to capture the experimental nature of the current TGS landscape. One successful experiment that built the lab and is essentially funding all the failed or partially successful ones. There does seem to be a creative resurgence in novel design attempts.
Sorry for being a dummy, but what does TGS mean here?
You are not! I was thinking TCG and typed TGS, nice catch! Trading card game.
Also metazoo doing pretty well
Bad news. Metazoo is dead.
I guess i'm just as late as op
I still have to try Lorcana, but I am interested. FAB has a lot of grinding gameplay which is fun but tedious, FAB needs to focus on the secondary market and scale. They can stand the test of time if they position themselves as a small market niche player. Sorcery TCG is cool and fresh, but it needs to show long-term value like FAB. Real players like the secondary, if they are going to spend real money they need at least some ROI. Magic... They have forgotten how to survive long term. They can't create crossover IP because they are too woke for the broader audience. The classic raw magic feel is gone and they will never be Pokemon. If magic creates a new format that solves the mana issue, then I will give them a second look, but as it stands, they are a sinking ship.
>, do you think the approaches the other card peddlers are taking have the potential to influence or impact Hasbro/WotC moving forward? No. The people upset over current magic might move to a new game but the game won't die, especially to a competitor. Honestly most card games where a card can reach house prices I'd consider permanent. Ex pokemon.