Comment by piaste | Hacker News Reader

Comment by piaste | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> without this imposed scarcity all assets would have equally unlimited supply and the game would probably be pretty bland, and there would be not as much reason to trade cards and build a hand.

Completely false. The strategy game and the collection/trading 'game' are completely different activities, and it is extremely common to enjoy one but have no interest in the other.

I played MTG very competitively in my youth, and I sidestepped the scarcity issues entirely by either playing sealed/draft[0] in official tournaments, or by playing in unofficial online tournaments where cards were unlimited (I enjoyed the so-called Eternal formats where many cards had been long out of print and cost hundreds of euros at the time).

Pro players also tended to favour drafting - it had a reputation as the most strategic and interesting way to play - and while of course they also played in official tournaments with custom-built decks, quite a few of them were known for having no interest in collecting cards and simply borrowing whole decks from their friends who did have the hobby of trading and collecting (whether or not those friends played the game).

[0] A game mode where everybody starts with a small set of random cards, instead of bringing their collection.

maybe this depends on the game and players. I have seen a lot of MtG folks take pleasure in having a carefully curated deck with some cards that are more rare and coveted than others, and even hold onto these cards years later when they aren't playing any more because they have some sentimental value to them. if supply were unlimited then every player would just have every card in the game.

it is like WoW loot where some items are rare and others are not. if all items in the game were of equal supply and scarcity, there would be no rare or coveted items. you could trade a bronze dagger for a legendary mythril great sword or whatever. after 100 loot drops from grinding you'd have 100 different items of equal rarity rather than say 95 worthless items and 5 rare items.

i guess that is a valid type of game but it seems different than most trading card games and loot based games.

True collectors do exist who collect something purely because it's rare. In MtG the most obvious example are 'misprint' fans who enjoy collecting cards that got accidentally printed off-center, or upside-down, or in the wrong colour. The rarity is literally the only thing those cards have going for themselves, as they're usually mediocre or unplayable in the game itself.

True collectors do exists, but they are outnumbered 1:1000 by ordinary players who sigh and say "oh man, I'd love to play $card, it's perfect for my deck, but I don't have the money for it, this shit sucks".

Modern video games have found a satisfactory compromise by allowing everybody to enjoy the game on a level playing fields without restrictions, and then using cosmetics to bait the collectors into getting addicted, with all the dark patterns we know and loathe - artificial scarcity, FOMO, etc.

If MtG took the same lesson to heart and released every year a 'play set' where you can pay like $50-$100 to get all the new cards needed in regular form, and then had separate randomized products for collectors with a chance at shiny or alternate art versions, I'd get back into the game on the spot.

if scarcity is not needed or desirable for MtG players why would they not just release all cards individually for the same price? why should any card be harder than another to acquire?

if MtG uses this model for deck building it sounds like pay-to-win.

a blockchain game can just be pay-to-own and play-to-own like most games on the App Store, except the assets assigned to the user is not attached to a single App Store account and do not involve a 30% take fee. imagine these game assets could still be held even if you switch from Apple to Google phone, because the assets are detached from your phone company’s accounts.

> if scarcity is not needed or desirable for MtG players why would they not just release all cards individually for the same price? why should any card be harder than another to acquire?

Because it's desirable for the publisher? Since, you know, they make way more money that way.

> if MtG uses this model for deck building it sounds like pay-to-win.

It is pay-to-win, up to a point. There is an upper ceiling on how much a top-tier deck can cost to acquire (usually a few hundred dollars, in the most popular formats), and after that point money no longer confers an advantage. That's how it can be a competitive game at all, even when you bring your own deck.

> a blockchain game can just be pay-to-own and play-to-own like most games on the App Store, except the assets assigned to the user is not attached to a single App Store account and do not involve a 30% take fee. imagine these game assets could still be held even if you switch from Apple to Google phone, because the assets are detached from your phone company’s accounts.

Very nice - for the player. Why would the game publisher, Google, or Apple want to make an effort to recognize assets from a blockchain they do not control and do not profit from?

so re: MtG, this goes back to my original point. most of the game depends on scarcity. I was recently informed about proxies where users can print their own cards, but it still sounds like the majority of players value the cards themselves rather than just a self printed version of it. apparently there is something special about "owning" MtG card rather than just a proxy

> Why would the game publisher, Google, or Apple want to make an effort to recognize assets from a blockchain they do not control and do not profit from?

they don't and probably will not do this, unless it starts to compete with their profits. this is what we are seeing with nfts in art world, llike Christie's and Sotheby's now selling nfts, Instagram and Meta adding nfts, and now Spotify announcing they will explore nfts. these corporations see value that they can extract, in the same way opensea is extracting 2.5% on each trade and as a result making millions in profit.

if more gamers begin to use and demand decentralized marketplaces for games and assets, the major publishers will step in to those spaces as well to try and keep their foothold and avoid becoming obsolete in a new market.

Thankfully, so far, gamers have said a resounding "NO" to this sort of crap.

lol, players saying NO to reducing the take-rates of app stores from 30% to 0-2.5%, and saying NO to having the assets they purchase stored anywhere besides the privately owned servers of their favorite centralized megacorps

Yes because so far, they've experienced 100% of the issues (lack of moderation, wild exploitation with no way to get un-scammed, lack of consistency and clarity) and 0% of the benefits (you could tax something 100% its value and still be way below gas fees).

People don't care how little control they have over it, the shift from having retail games in your own home to owning them on platforms like Steam (and the resistance from buying from other sources) should tell you enough.

you are probably right, but I will not be so pessimistic as to resign to favouring Steam and Apple stores and take rates as a necessary evil and permanent facet of the web’s future. I am happy to see web3 at the very least attempting to challenge this, however weakly it is currently being done.

Mtgo have limited supply, and even my old splinter twin which were my favorite cards in the world 10 years ago i don't care about. Paper assets are different than digital ones I think. Especially if you only pay for it and didn't work on them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com