Hello All,
Just a note on the timing of the expansions to come after Anarchs. The
player base, as represented by those of you who post on the newsgroup and
forum, has been pretty clear on a preference of V:TES expansions coming
about every 9 months or even a year. We listened to you and adopted that
time frame between expansions (Anarchs coming almost 10 months after Cam Ed
which came about 10 months after Bloodlines).
We are however changing to a six month interval between expansions for both
Black Hand which will come in November and then for the expansion to follow
Black Hand coming in 2004. We have a couple important reasons for doing
this, including:
1. Hobby game retailers are overwhelmed by the number of game products that
are released every week of every year. When a game only comes onto their
"radar screen" once every year, then that game never achieves any sort of
prominence in their store. Retailers are more accustomed to two or three or
more releases per year from any active card game. Both retailer feedback and
specific sales data show us how V:TES drops out of retailer's vision when it
has been too many months since the last release forced them to take note of
the game and stock both new and prior expansions.
2. The expansion following Black Hand will relate to other White Wolf
products released in early 2004, so we cannot hold it back more than 6
months after Black Hand.
Knowing that this pace is faster than many of you prefer, we will aim to
keep the size of these next two expansions modest - to a size similar to
Anarchs. We understand that everyone has time and/or money constraints and
we don't intend to expand the game faster than casual play and purchase can
allow a player to remain current with the game's expansion. After these next
two expansions we expect to resume a nine month interval between expansions.
Steve Wieck
White Wolf
good to know that you guys are listening to what the players want. of
course some compromizes have to be done somtimes and I can't argue
against your arguments in this case.
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.comhttp://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
Any chance we will see a return to "booster-only" expansions
such as Bloodlines was?.
I realize that if WW produces starters and boosters and people
buy both WW makes more money, but the lack of original product
in the starters is quite discouraging. Shelling out $36 CND for two
new vampires, and two? reprinted rares per deck is kinda depressing
when you can get all other new cards in the boosters. Then to have vamps
from CE filling the starters was truely disappointing.
I'm not opposed to WW making more money (its necessary for the
continuance of the game afterall) but I would rather they make it
by me buying more boosters of new product rather than splitting my
cash for starters and boosters when the return on the boosters is
so much higher (at least for me).
Thanks,
-JTP
"Steve Wieck" <steve...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:XDMya.31680$WR1....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Any chance we will see a return to "booster-only" expansions
> such as Bloodlines was?.
Just so there's a differing opinion, I like the existence of starters
for every set being released, and I have a few reasons to back it up.
1.) White wolf makes more money doing this. WW with money means VTES
stays alive.
2.) Prerelease events are better. No more of that bloodlines crappy
prerelease (that I didn't even attend).
3.) Gives new players better ideas of what to do with these new cards.
4.) Precon leagues get more exciting.
~SV
[ quoted text not captured ]
"vermillian" <vermillian....@web2news.net> wrote in message news:3246...@web2news.com...
> 1.) White wolf makes more money doing this. WW with money means VTES
> stays alive.
I guess the happy compromise is a greater percentage of
new cards in a starter. Perhaps changing the starter to these X cards and
the rest random?
But if profit was the main motivation why didn't we see 6 new starters in
Anarchs? It can't be because of the number of new cards that would be needed
because thats only 4 cards per starter!
The starter appears to be there to get cards reprinted, and if thats the case
why not make starters of just reprints and cards that can be acquired in boosters?
New players could buy them for the cards, and older players could spend their
money on boosters which generate more revenue per card (booster price/11
compared to starter price/100).
They could even put reprinted essential cards in boosters so long as they were
commons (which the essential cards should be anyways). 30 reprinted cards
of a 200 card set (or about half the commons being reprints)
Bloodlines had 198 new cards. Anarchs had something like 130.
So instead of me buying 2 boxes of boosters and three starters
to get my complete set I would probably buy 3, maybe 4 boxes of
boosters. WW would be making more money, not less. My situation
is not universal of course but discussions with other locals tells me I'm
not alone in this line of thinking.
> 2.) Prerelease events are better. No more of that bloodlines crappy
> prerelease (that I didn't even attend).
So without going to the bloodline pre-release you know it was not as
good as the Anarch or CE pre-releases (and knew in advance apparently)?
Regardless, bloodlines was an expansion designed to complement existing
decks. There have been numerous posts to the effect that bloodline clans were not meant to be played on their own (with ease). So
comparing recent pre-releases to
bloodlines might be a pointless exercise at best.
I think with the current booster composition, a six or eight booster pre-release for
anarchs would have done just fine. The starters were all over the map anyways
it seemed. A tournament without blood dolls, wakes, and bum's rushes? Cool!
Adds new dynamics to a deck.
But YMMV
> 3.) Gives new players better ideas of what to do with these new cards.
Not worth mentioning. I've discovered (after a weekends worth of demos)
that the new player generally learns combos best from a player explaining
a combo or having a combo used on them. They then get the feel of how
to put together a combo. At that point a booster is just as likely a source
as a deck for a source of a combo.
> 4.) Precon leagues get more exciting.
As I've never been in a precon league my experience is limited. But there
are now 17 readily available starters (with the re-release of FN & SW
starters). Having an every second expansion without starters won't kill
such a league.
Regards,
-JTP
John P wrote:
> But if profit was the main motivation why didn't we see 6 new starters in
> Anarchs? It can't be because of the number of new cards that would be needed
> because thats only 4 cards per starter!
?
Of the 89 cards in the Baron deck, about 20 were new cards.
Likewise for the Gangs deck.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
>Just a note on the timing of the expansions to come after Anarchs. The
>player base, as represented by those of you who post on the newsgroup and
>forum, has been pretty clear on a preference of V:TES expansions coming
>about every 9 months or even a year. We listened to you and adopted that
>time frame between expansions (Anarchs coming almost 10 months after Cam Ed
>which came about 10 months after Bloodlines).
Even people I play with who have no money concern seem to like excessive
intervals between sets. Sigh, not that it matters, but I'd like to see
expansions every 5 months.
Could you at least not consider base sets in these calculations? That CE had
significantly less new to do has made the past 4 months painful.
Curevei <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote:
> Even people I play with who have no money concern seem to like excessive
> intervals between sets. Sigh, not that it matters, but I'd like to see
> expansions every 5 months.
Ack! 5 months? In 5 months I can still smell the fresh new ink on my cards
from the expansion just released!
Apologies for brain spasm.
I need to distinguish between new and new starter only.
My intended point was:
Each starter had 2 new vamps (starter only). The other new cards
in the starter had little meaning to me as I got good numbers of them
in boosters. My claim of 4 came from my valuation of the starter on basis of
only new starter only vamps and then reprinted cards I could use more of (Mine Enemy's Enemy and Estatic Agony in the Gangs starter)
While the starter had other new cards, of the new anarch cards none were
starter only aside from the 2 vamps.
I would either prefer more new starter only cards
or
No "starter only" cards (which would mean to collect a set I would need
only buy boosters)
-JTP
On Wed, 21 May 2003 19:12:41 +0200, "vermillian"
<vermillian....@web2news.net> wrote:
>> Any chance we will see a return to "booster-only" expansions
>> such as Bloodlines was?.>Just so there's a differing opinion, I like the existence of starters
>for every set being released, and I have a few reasons to back it up.>1.) White wolf makes more money doing this. WW with money means VTES
>stays alive.
89 cards for 9.95 + box + rulebook compared to
11 cards for 2.75 + wrapper
Starters are a money losing proposition when purchased in isolation.
At best, starters exist to "start" people with the game.
Collectible Card Game companies take the loss of a starter with the
hope that players will buy boosters. If players don't have a way to
"start", they will never progress to booster buys.
The only real profit made on the game will be on the boosters.
First vial of crack is free...
On Wed, 21 May 2003 13:20:50 -0500, "John P" <verg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"vermillian" <vermillian....@web2news.net> wrote in message news:3246...@web2news.com...>> 1.) White wolf makes more money doing this. WW with money means VTES
>> stays alive.>I guess the happy compromise is a greater percentage of
>new cards in a starter. Perhaps changing the starter to these X cards and
>the rest random?>But if profit was the main motivation why didn't we see 6 new starters in
>Anarchs?
Profit isn't the motivation for printing starters made of reprints or
new cards.
Getting people "started" is the motivation for printing starters.
Once people are "started" in the game, the company's profit comes from
players buying boosters.
It isn't in White Wolf's interest to make the starters 'valuable' to
the current players. If the starters are sold to the current players
of the game, then there is no product to grab new players. With no
new players, there is no new market. A game that is not growing, is
dying.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >But if profit was the main motivation why didn't we see 6 new starters in
> >Anarchs?
>
> Profit isn't the motivation for printing starters made of reprints or
> new cards.
> Getting people "started" is the motivation for printing starters.
> Once people are "started" in the game, the company's profit comes from
> players buying boosters.
>
> It isn't in White Wolf's interest to make the starters 'valuable' to
> the current players. If the starters are sold to the current players
> of the game, then there is no product to grab new players. With no
> new players, there is no new market. A game that is not growing, is
> dying.
That was kinda my point (convoluted and perhaps not well presented).
I was attempting to argue that profit isn't WW's (only) motive for starters with
starter-only cards or we would have seen more starters in anarchs.('cause I'm
sure WW enjoys profits) It would be simple for them to create new starters (ie
its not like staggering development costs are holding them back)
1.select more cards to be reprinted from CE, FN
2.create 2 new vamps per deck
3.add about 20 anarch cards from the booster sheets
and now everybody must buy 3 additional starters to complete their
set, disregarding trading.
New players don't care if their starter has cards that only appear in
starter decks, or has cards they can also get in boosters.
So doesn't it make sense for whitewolf to create starters
with no new starter-only cards for newbies?
1. experienced players would not buy many other than for sealed
deck - this would meant stock more likely to be on hand for new
players
2. Collectors would likely replace $ spent on starters with $ spent
on boosters. Which as we both pointed out should have higher
profit margins.
I've kinda gone in big circle here.... but I'm sure my point is somewhere
in the centre. Let me try to sum up:
1. Whitewolf makes more money off of boosters than starters ($/card and
less peripherals (rule books, double packaging))
2. Starters are neccessary for attracting new players
3. Whitewolf should prefer current players to buy boosters more than
starters from a profit perspective.
so:
A. Will we see a booster only set (since starters from different sets are
all currently available I argue we could go a set or two without more starters)
B. If we must have more starters why not make them with no "starter-only"
new cards.
Hopefully the answer to (A) is yes. I'm then a happy camper. If not then
I suspect the answer to (B) will be that to justify the cost of packaging and
selling any starter decks, new player sales are insufficient, therefor the
starters must be made attractive to existing players by inclusion of
new cards. Which leads me to my compromise position of *more*
starter only cards in the starters so that I feel I'm getting more
than 2 new vamps that I can't get in boosters and a few good reprints
I might want. (to my minds 2 or 3 per deck).
Its too bad statistics like what % of starters sold to new players are not
available to us, might make things clearer. I'ld guess around 20%.
-JTP
John P wrote:
>
> Any chance we will see a return to "booster-only" expansions
> such as Bloodlines was?.
>
> I realize that if WW produces starters and boosters and people
> buy both WW makes more money, but the lack of original product
> in the starters is quite discouraging. Shelling out $36 CND for two
> new vampires, and two? reprinted rares per deck is kinda depressing
> when you can get all other new cards in the boosters. Then to have vamps
> from CE filling the starters was truely disappointing.
The lack of original product in the starters is an *excellent* thing.
That's how newer players get older cards. You wouldn't have to shell
out money for starters if you don't want -- if not for those $#@^!
two new vampires. *That's* the problem, not the reprinted cards in
the starters. I wish they'd stop doing that because it makes no
sense. It's hard for old players to ignore new vampires in starters that
we can't get in boosters. Yet it's also hard to buy the starters when
they're so full of stuff we don't need. As a result, we wind up feeling
robbed, somewhat. (I don't know. Does this irritate any other older
players as much as it does me?)
One thing they've done in the past the mitigates the problem a little
bit is to give out copies of those two controversial vampires (they've
been doing this since Sabbat War) as tournament party favors. Even so,
it would be much better if they just dropped the practice altogether.
Fred
John P wrote:
> I would either prefer more new starter only cards
> or
> No "starter only" cards (which would mean to collect a set I would need
> only buy boosters)
In the past, the thinking on the newsgroup has been that starters were
the place to stick lots of good reprints for the newer players. That
concept works great because if you're trying to recruit new guys and
they see you playing lots of old, good cards, it helps to be able to
mention to them that they can get (at least some of) these cards by
buying this starter or that starter, just sitting right over there on
the retailer's shelf. Yet the older players don't have to get stuck
with reprints they have no need of by just not buying such starters.
Ergo, your second suggestion makes sense. The first one would tend to
gum up an otherwise good system.
Fred
> It isn't in White Wolf's interest to make the starters 'valuable' to
> the current players.
I disagree. While WW use starters to recruit new players into the
game, it certainly doesn't hurt their wallets to make the starters
desirable to regular players too. If there was no profit to be made
from "us" buying starters, WW would have no reason to print starter
only cards.
If starters were simply comprised of reprints of old cards and new
cards that could be found in boosters, no regular player would even
look at them. As it stands now, by putting in starter only cards WW
prompts "us" to shell out $XX for what basically amounts to two or so
cards. Collectors have to buy the starters to get the starter only
vamps and finish their sets. People who want to play with the starter
only vamps have to buy the starters, because trading for them is
difficult at best, particularly when the starter vamps are good
quality - Sunset is a great vamp, as is Lord Ashton. Beckett isn't too
shabby either.
> If the starters are sold to the current players
> of the game, then there is no product to grab new players. With no
> new players, there is no new market. A game that is not growing, is
> dying.
Agreed. But WW isn't ONLY trying to sell starters to new players.
They're trying to sell them to both groups, hence the inclusion of the
chaser cards.
noodleboy
noodleboy wrote:
> If starters were simply comprised of reprints of old cards and new
> cards that could be found in boosters, no regular player would even
> look at them.
That's kind of the idea, yea.
> As it stands now, by putting in starter only cards WW
> prompts "us" to shell out $XX for what basically amounts to two or so
> cards.
Right. I always get kind of curious why some of you can't see the problem
with this. I mean, if they wanted to, WW could just put out a little
booster containing two vampires not available elsewhere and charge $10
for it - which would be the same as what they're doing to older players now
with the starter decks. So do you see the problem, yet? That's kind of a
large price for people to pay to get a small - but important - bit of variety
in your collection of available vampires. In short, it's overcharging for
game advantage.
Now granted, you could probably trade for these vampires. But, in general,
since new players need them just as much as older players, there's
effectively a shortage of them. Though it's not as straightforward as
having rare cards in booster packs, White Wolf has effectively made these
particular vampires into rare cards. Maybe they're superrare cards or rarer -
no one knows because no one but WW knows how many starter decks have been
printed as compared to booster packs.
> Agreed. But WW isn't ONLY trying to sell starters to new players.
Not sure whether that's true or not, exactly. But if WW is doing this to
force older players to buy starters, it sure is a nasty way to do so.
Fred
The Lasombra wrote:
> >"vermillian" <vermillian....@web2news.net> wrote in message news:3246...@web2news.com...> It isn't in White Wolf's interest to make the starters 'valuable' to
> the current players. If the starters are sold to the current players
> of the game, then there is no product to grab new players. With no
> new players, there is no new market. A game that is not growing, is
> dying.
>
Then why starter-only vampires?
Or, for that matter, why so many power starter (and starter only)
reprints in CE?
Both cause existing players to buy more starters than they would
otherwise.
Thomas
> The lack of original product in the starters is an *excellent* thing.
> That's how newer players get older cards. You wouldn't have to shell
> out money for starters if you don't want -- if not for those $#@^!
> two new vampires. *That's* the problem, not the reprinted cards in
> the starters. I wish they'd stop doing that because it makes no
> sense. It's hard for old players to ignore new vampires in starters that
> we can't get in boosters. Yet it's also hard to buy the starters when
> they're so full of stuff we don't need. As a result, we wind up feeling
> robbed, somewhat. (I don't know. Does this irritate any other older
> players as much as it does me?)
Oh yes, you have no idea!
> One thing they've done in the past the mitigates the problem a little
> bit is to give out copies of those two controversial vampires (they've
> been doing this since Sabbat War) as tournament party favors. Even so,
> it would be much better if they just dropped the practice altogether.
Indeed!
/Lasse
Player since 1994
In message <3ECC1A3F...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
>Yet the older players don't have to get stuck
>with reprints they have no need of by just not buying such starters.
Q: If the only people buying starters are new players, and once you have
the starters, no new players will get them, how do you convince a store
to carry them in the first place?
A: By making them attractive for at least a copy or two for some of the
established players.
Providing some fixed new cards does that. They don't get "stuck" with
reprints - they can trade them away to the new players - but you get a
greater throughput of starters. If the oldbies don't want them in the
first place, the store won't order (many of? any of?) them and the new
players won't see them to buy them.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
In message <3ECC1919...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
>It's hard for old players to ignore new vampires in starters that
>we can't get in boosters. Yet it's also hard to buy the starters when
>they're so full of stuff we don't need.
Those who want to can buy them - they also get some nice reprints, which
might include some Freak Drive, Dreams of the Sphinx, Direct
Intervention etc. The reprints *can* be attractive for old players too.
When you start factoring that in - well, it's two new vampires, a few
uncommons you've been looking for and so on. In singles, those alone
might cost you, what, $3-5?
Those who don't want to - they already have enough of the nice reprints,
and don't want to buy just the vampires - can trade them - either off
the old players buying them, or the new players starting with them.
That you are also getting a few of the booster available cards too is
quite nice, if not killer.
Additionally, not all established players are pre-Sabbat War (esp.
AH/DS) oldbies. The reprints of vampires is doing rather neatly there -
you get all these vampires you don't have.
Taking the Anarchs Gangrel deck:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tqajcvo952dvi54bf7e43ismmkbg8p4ftn
%404ax.com>
The obvious "useful" reprints include:
1 x Fame
1 x Gangrel Revel
1 x Rotschreck
2 x Blood Doll
2 x Force of Will
2 x Dawn Operation
1 x Kiss of Ra
1 x Flesh of Marble
3 x Form of Mist
1 x Dog Pack
plus any sundry cards that might be useful to you. e.g. Cats' Guidance
How much would that lot cost you in singles?
And if you don't want to go and buy a few dozen boosters to try and get
some of the new, more common Form of Mist/Flesh of Marble etc., you just
go and buy a starter. Bingo.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Collectible Card Game companies take the loss of a starter with the
> hope that players will buy boosters.
loss!?!?!?!
I would be very surprized if the production+distrubution+etc. exceeds
the retail prize of the starter! so 'less profit' sounds more reasonable
to me anyway.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <3ECC1A3F...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
> <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
> >Yet the older players don't have to get stuck
> >with reprints they have no need of by just not buying such starters.
>
> Q: If the only people buying starters are new players, and once you have
> the starters, no new players will get them, how do you convince a store
> to carry them in the first place?
>
> A: By making them attractive for at least a copy or two for some of the
> established players.
I don't agree, "one you have the starters, no new players will get them".
I'm not sure where you that.
In any case, the *trouble* is that you create the "worst" possible problem
for older players: putting cards they can't get elsewhere in these $10
packages but only a very small number of them. As I said elsewhere, it's
hard to buy them and hard to ignore them. We're being put in a bind and
feeling jacked around, here.
(OK, "worst" in quotes because I'd admit there are worse problems in life.
Itchy, scaly, skin diseases on our private parts would be worse, for
instance. You get the picture. I'm in the middle of a good rant. So for
now, this is the "worst" thing in the world.)
> Providing some fixed new cards does that. They don't get "stuck" with
> reprints - they can trade them away to the new players
Assuming the 1) there are new players to trade with; and 2) I want anything
they've got that they're willing to trade - keeping in mind that new players
need the new vampires as much as the old. As I said elsewhere, ultimately,
this practice leads to "rare" vampires, except we don't know how rare they
are.
Fred
>> Collectible Card Game companies take the loss of a starter with the
>> hope that players will buy boosters.>
>loss!?!?!?!
>I would be very surprized if the production+distrubution+etc. exceeds
>the retail prize of the starter! so 'less profit' sounds more reasonable
>to me anyway.
Different company told me with their last CCG that they intentionally made the
starters as undesirable as possible because they lost money on every one.
Couldn't raise the price as that would look bad in comparison to other CCGs.
Rulebook, larger packaging, any props - can result in starters being money
losing products. Still, have to get rulebooks to people without computers or
energy somehow.
> It's hard for old players to ignore new vampires in starters that
> we can't get in boosters. Yet it's also hard to buy the starters when
> they're so full of stuff we don't need. As a result, we wind up feeling
> robbed, somewhat. (I don't know. Does this irritate any other older
> players as much as it does me?)
Yes, it irritates the hell out of me.
I just found out about the 4 point gangrel in the Gangs starter with
PRO fort which I'd really like to get, and i've already shelled out
$40 for 2 gangrel starters so i'd have two copies of Lord Ashton.
Trading for the starter only vamps is a difficult proposition. While
possible, it's usually VERY difficult to convince an old player to
part with their starter vamps. And while you might be able to rob a
newb of his starter only cards because he doesn't know what they're
worth, it's a shitty thing to do to someone just starting in his
Eternal Struggle.
Starter only cards are a sucker punch. I take it on the jaw [and in
the wallet], shell out my $20 for Beckett and Lord Ashton, but I feel
pretty damn sore afterwards.
noodleboy
"noodleboy" <nood...@iprimus.net.au> wrote in message
news:e72ec49.03052...@posting.google.com...
> I just found out about the 4 point gangrel in the Gangs starter with
> PRO fort which I'd really like to get, and i've already shelled out
> $40 for 2 gangrel starters so i'd have two copies of Lord Ashton.
>
> Trading for the starter only vamps is a difficult proposition. While
> possible, it's usually VERY difficult to convince an old player to
> part with their starter vamps. And while you might be able to rob a
> newb of his starter only cards because he doesn't know what they're
> worth, it's a shitty thing to do to someone just starting in his
> Eternal Struggle.
>
> Starter only cards are a sucker punch. I take it on the jaw [and in
> the wallet], shell out my $20 for Beckett and Lord Ashton, but I feel
> pretty damn sore afterwards.
The flip side of this is (if previous examples are anything to go by) in 3
to 6 month's time WW will start distributing excess starter-only vampires as
promo card prize support for VEKN events. A lot of players actually now have
more SW and FN precon vamps than they need, and the same may eventually be
true for Anarchs too.. :)
Regards,
Mike
On Fri, 23 May 2003 12:48:01 +0100, "Mike Nudd" <mi...@vekn.org.uk>
scrawled:
>
>The flip side of this is (if previous examples are anything to go by) in 3
>to 6 month's time WW will start distributing excess starter-only vampires as
>promo card prize support for VEKN events. A lot of players actually now have
>more SW and FN precon vamps than they need, and the same may eventually be
>true for Anarchs too.. :)
Khalil Ravana seems to be an exception to this, which is a shame
because he seems more useful than most of the others...
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm