I won't be touching it with a 10 foot pole. The CCG element is too strong in this product for me to consider purchasing it.
I know you're very against the CCG element of this, Dave. I'm not entirely sure how strong it will be.
The information present in this thread indicates that it is a far stronger element than what I am willing to deal with.
I've noted previously, that I don't think the competetive nature of the game (and its compatability) warrant enough of a competative market that will drive up the price.
In competative games, you can not use proxies (ie, the RAW of a card or element of the game written out on paper). With D&D, I feel a lot of the RAW for the CCG elements will be readily available on these forums. Heck, just ysterday I got the RAW for a Level 7 Battlemind Discipline from these forums. That's just the nature of D&D. And honestly, unless you go to play Gamma World at huge competetive cons (like Gen Con) I doubt you'll be missing material.
Heck, some of the guys I play D&D with don't have the RAW of every power in their character sheets or cards. They just go with what's mostly accurate and unless it's something entirely broken, the DM and players just go with the flow. D&D and GW are about having fun, not following every single rule and word to the letter and if you miss out on some superduper rare card, I don't think it will impact the fun of Gamma World (unless you play on a super competetive level).
It is nice that that is your opinion. If that is your opinion you should buy the product and enjoy it. I don't share your opinion. I won't be purchasing a single Gamma World product as a result. Nor will I purchase any other RPG product that WotC releases that has this strong of a CCG element to it. Releasing key aspects of the RPG, such as character powers and items, via a randomized collectible booster pack distribution model, complete with a rarity system, AND players each building their own decks, is a great way to convince me that a product is not for me. This from a guy that owns every single 4e book published to date except for the 2 Draconomicons, the Demonomicon, the Adventurers Vault 2, and the two race books (including all the books released this month, as I have all of those on preorder), and who would have purchased all of the Gamma World products if key rules were not distributed via a CCG model of distribution.
I like gamma world but i dont like CCGs, so i plan on buying the core box and the adventures but not a single booster pack.
Thats what i suggest to anyone who wants to support the setting but doesn't like the collectable card aspect; buy the boxed sets but don't pay for the part you don't like and don't wish to support. Show that there is demand for the setting but not the boosters.
No, sorry, not quite true. I have been over this before. My message to WotC is as follows:
Yes, I realize you are not trying to market the booster packs of Gamma World as mandatory. Someone is bound to reply to this post by saying, "you can play with just the boxed set; you only need to buy new booster packs if you want to expand your collection." While technically true, that claim is disingenuous. All of us like to expand our RPG collections. If we didn't, this wouldn't be a profitable industry. Buying a game with the knowledge that you won't be able to expand your collection (because you are not willing to engage in a CCG booster pack buying experience) while other players will (because they will be willing to engage in a CCG booster pack buying experience) is exactly what turns me off of RPGs that include CCG elements in them.
And that is exactly the reality of the situation. If you are not willing to buy boosters, but your buddy is, your buddy will have that many more options in this game. His character will be that much more powerful, because he was willing to take the time and money to build a better deck. Since I am not ok with that situation, or the experience of buying CCG boosters, that means that I will not purchase Gamma World at all.
People like you (efutch), or WotC itself, can try and market this CCG element in any way it wants. It is not going to work on people like me. I won't be convinced. A CCG element can find its way into my RPG in one of two ways, without turning me off buying the product that is: 1) the element must be totally self contained, modular, and optional. That is to say, no starter decks, no rules for the CCG element in the core product, no reference to the CCG element, nothing. Like the fortune cards being created for D&D, the element should only exist if you choose to purchase the element; 2) the element must be a player aid, not a method of distributing the game's rules. For example, if we could buy a text book of all the mutations, and buy packs of randomized mutations in order to make the GMs life easier (by pre-randomizing the mutations with a card based set of booster packs), I would purchase Gamma World.
As it stands, Gamma World will not see a single cent of my coinage. If WotC wants to know why this is why. And no matter what anyone writes, no matter what WotC claims, it doesn't matter. Distributing splat that details extra player encounter powers, and item loot, in randomized and collectable booster packs with a rarity system, has ensured that I will never touch this product with a 10 foot pole. Or any other type of pole. WotC should know that I feel this way, and that I am not alone. A lot of players are going to avoid this product as a result of their marketing decisions.
I like gamma world but i dont like CCGs, so i plan on buying the core box and the adventures but not a single booster pack.
Thats what i suggest to anyone who wants to support the setting but doesn't like the collectable card aspect; buy the boxed sets but don't pay for the part you don't like and don't wish to support. Show that there is demand for the setting but not the boosters.
Only problem with that decision is that if you buy the core set, and not the booster packs, and enough other people also buy the core set, and the booster packs, WotC will get the clear message that booster packs are profitable and should be added to the game. In order to make the booster packs a poor business choice (which is the only thing that will actually sway WotC) you must show WotC that adding such a CCG element to a game will actually reduce the sales of non-randomized content as well....
I suggest that anyone who really hates CCG elements in their game a) speak up, polity, and give WotC your customer feedback, and b) don't buy any aspect of a product that includes such an major CCG element. Boycott Gamma World completely, and let them know why you are doing so.
Only problem with that decision is that if you buy the core set, and not the booster packs, and enough other people also buy the core set, and the booster packs, WotC will get the clear message that booster packs are profitable and should be added to the game. In order to make the booster packs a poor business choice (which is the only thing that will actually sway WotC) you must show WotC that adding such a CCG element to a game will actually reduce the sales of non-randomized content as well....
And the problem with that is if you boycott the core box because you don't like CCG, the exact same amount of people are still buying the boosters. When you boycott the boxes, WotC gets clear data that when they put out a setting, the ratio of boosters sold per core set of rules is high. They make less money over all, but that may very well be attributed to the Gamma World setting not being popular or that the game is tongue-in-cheek or the game only goes to level 10 or a slew of other factors that effect sales. After all, with your paradigm people aren't even buying the portion of the game that isn't randomized or collectible and ultimately the only verifiable data that your boycott would produce would be that for every 1 core box sold, maybe 10 boosters are sold, as opposed to my strategy where it could be 5 core boxes are sold for every 10 booster packs.
I suggest that anyone who really hates CCG elements in their game a) speak up, polity, and give WotC your customer feedback, and b) don't buy any aspect of a product that includes such an major CCG element. Boycott Gamma World completely, and let them know why you are doing so.
I totally agree that everyone should speak up against adding CCG elements to RPGs. I don't think boycotting Gamma World whole cloth is the way to do it because the only solid data it gives them other than the final profit, which can be effected by numerous factors, is that the booster to boxed set ratio is really, really good.
Only problem with that decision is that if you buy the core set, and not the booster packs, and enough other people also buy the core set, and the booster packs, WotC will get the clear message that booster packs are profitable and should be added to the game. In order to make the booster packs a poor business choice (which is the only thing that will actually sway WotC) you must show WotC that adding such a CCG element to a game will actually reduce the sales of non-randomized content as well....
And the problem with that is if you boycott the core box because you don't like CCG, the exact same amount of people are still buying the boosters. When you boycott the boxes, WotC gets clear data that when they put out a setting, the ratio of boosters sold per core set of rules is high. They make less money over all, but that may very well be attributed to the Gamma World setting not being popular or that the game is tongue-in-cheek or the game only goes to level 10 or a slew of other factors that effect sales. After all, with your paradigm people aren't even buying the portion of the game that isn't randomized or collectible and ultimately the only verifiable data that your boycott would produce would be that for every 1 core box sold, maybe 10 boosters are sold, as opposed to my strategy where it could be 5 core boxes are sold for every 10 booster packs.
Wrong. The ratio of booster sold to core boxes sold might become higher. However, because they are selling fewer core boxes, the loss of money on their part becomes higher as well. Their sales of boosters have to make up for lost boxes sold, or the line is not profitable. This is all that really matters. Ratios don't matter. Bottom lines do. If the ratio of boosters to core boxes sold is higher, but the overall income generated by the product line is lower, they will take notice. And WotC is not a bunch of idiots. They are a pretty smart company. If they see that the product line is selling like crap, and they see forums full of people saying, "I am not buying this product because of the CCG element in this product," they will put 2 and 2 together.
I suggest that anyone who really hates CCG elements in their game a) speak up, polity, and give WotC your customer feedback, and b) don't buy any aspect of a product that includes such an major CCG element. Boycott Gamma World completely, and let them know why you are doing so.
I totally agree that everyone should speak up against adding CCG elements to RPGs. I don't think boycotting Gamma World whole cloth is the way to do it because the only solid data it gives them other than the final profit, which can be effected by numerous factors, is that the booster to boxed set ratio is really, really good.
As I noted, that is sort of irrelevant. If the ratio of boosters to boxes sold is not great, but the boosters still generated an increase in overall income, the boosters will be considered a success. For the boosters to be considered a failure they have to result in a decrease in overall income. Hence the best thing you can do is let WotC know how you feel, and then boycott the product line entirely.
As is core material. As is so often pointed out, WotC doesn't have the budget to send jackbooted thugs to your house to force you to play a certain way.
Though, if they ever wanted to, they could just recruit from the forums.
The ratio of booster sold to core boxes sold might become higher. However, because they are selling fewer core boxes, the loss of money on their part becomes higher as well. Their sales of boosters have to make up for lost boxes sold, or the line is not profitable. This is all that really matters. Ratios don't matter. Bottom lines do.
Sending the message that a product line is not profitable says "don't do that product line again." I happen to like Gamma World, and don't want to see the line trashed for good.
If they see the line fail as a whole, they might think, "well, people stayed away because they hated booster packs." Or they might think "those who bought the game also bought booster packs, so acceptance of booster packs in an RPG is high, Gamma World is just a crap setting only a few die-hards want to play, let's try collectible cards in other RPGs!" Or, they might think "the game was too silly this time around, next time we should do the grim post-apocalypse thing." Or, they might think "Gamma World's time has just past, give the propperty a decent burial."
OTOH, if they sell lots of boxed sets, and no booster packs, they'll realized "Wow, Gamma World is still popular enough, but RPGers really don't much like booster packs." If they then bundle complete sets of cards, and those sell, that conclusion would be confirmed.
So, yeah, I think the ratio should matter. I'm not sure what base line they have to go on as far as ratios are concerned. Would they expect it to match starter/booster pack sales of MtG? I wouldn't think so. They might be happy to sell /any/ booster packs, figuring, if the game sells, and the packs only sell a little, they're still revenue (of course, anything you publish needs to meet a minimum threshold to cover sunk costs, so we can hope the booster packs /don't/).
If you want to get the message out that you hate booster packs, write a letter (and whine on-line and at game demos - it worked for the 4e haters, they're getting Essentials) - because the 'dollar vote' will be too ambiguous for them to read, whether you just go out and buy the game, or boycott the whole line.
The ratio of booster sold to core boxes sold might become higher. However, because they are selling fewer core boxes, the loss of money on their part becomes higher as well. Their sales of boosters have to make up for lost boxes sold, or the line is not profitable. This is all that really matters. Ratios don't matter. Bottom lines do.
Sending the message that a product line is not profitable says "don't do that product line again." I happen to like Gamma World, and don't want to see the line trashed for good.
This is only true if you assume that WotC is a bunch of total idiots who don't do any market research or pay attention to consumer feedback. Otherwise they are going to see the people saying, "I love Gamma World, but will not purchase this version due to the CCG element that has been introduced to it." I happen to believe that WotC knows what it is doing, and is not a bunch of total idiots.
If they see the line fail as a whole, they might think, "well, people stayed away because they hated booster packs." Or they might think "those who bought the game also bought booster packs, so acceptance of booster packs in an RPG is high, Gamma World is just a crap setting only a few die-hards want to play, let's try collectible cards in other RPGs!" Or, they might think "the game was too silly this time around, next time we should do the grim post-apocalypse thing." Or, they might think "Gamma World's time has just past, give the propperty a decent burial."
And again, only if you think WotC is a bunch of total idiots. Otherwise they will see the consumer feedback they are receiving, and form an opinion based on that. If they are receiving consumer feedback that says "I would have bought the game, but didn't because of the CCG element," the line sells very poorly as a whole, but those buying the line at all also buy the boosters, it becomes clear that only people willing to deal with a CCG element will buy the line, and had the line not included such a CCG element a lot more people would have been buying it. I have faith that WotC can put 2 and 2 together. I don't think they are a bunch of idiots.
OTOH, if they sell lots of boxed sets, and no booster packs, they'll realized "Wow, Gamma World is still popular enough, but RPGers really don't much like booster packs." If they then bundle complete sets of cards, and those sell, that conclusion would be confirmed.
Which is only true if that happens. If, on the other hand, the booster packs sell, maybe not as well as they would hope (no MtG level of success), but enough to make the product line more profitable, and no sales are lost due to the inclusion in the CCG element (meaning that the core "books," or their boxed set analog, sells as well as it would have had no element been included), the message is that adding a CCG element to the game increases the profits of the game, even if most of the games players don't like that CCG element. Since I don't want to gamble on how well the booster packs will do on their own, the smarter choice is to boycott completely.
So, yeah, I think the ratio should matter. I'm not sure what base line they have to go on as far as ratios are concerned. Would they expect it to match starter/booster pack sales of MtG? I wouldn't think so. They might be happy to sell /any/ booster packs, figuring, if the game sells, and the packs only sell a little, they're still revenue (of course, anything you publish needs to meet a minimum threshold to cover sunk costs, so we can hope the booster packs /don't/).
Except, as I have pointed out, they really don't. As you noted, if the packs add any revenue, the CCG element might be here to stay. But the CCG element ruins my fun. Which means that I want to hurt that revenue as much as possible. Which means that I won't be buying the core product either (and I suggest that anyone who really hates CCG elements in their RPGs follow suit).
If you want to get the message out that you hate booster packs, write a letter (and whine on-line and at game demos - it worked for the 4e haters, they're getting Essentials) - because the 'dollar vote' will be too ambiguous for them to read, whether you just go out and buy the game, or boycott the whole line.
I am doing all of that (though I don't call it whining, I call it consumer feedback), and boycotting. The dollar vote is the most important vote. The rest just puts that vote in context.
