Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Fall Regional Prizes Anounced

While I feel like I'm a bit late to the party, I am happy to provide a brief explanation of the reasoning behind the decision to add stipends to the Junior and Senior divisions at Regionals.

I am tasked each year with creating and maintaining a fixed budget for the TCG (and now, VG) Organized Play program. In addition, our typical goals are to increase the reach of the program (more events) and to increase the number of players participating in those events.

Total attendance is a reasonably good measure of the overall health of the existing program. Whether we’re being successful in compelling the player base to compete often, in multiple events throughout the season. Unique attendance is a far better measure of year to year growth of the program.

Each year, we announce changes to the program that we feel will be best for the overall, long term health of the Play! Pokémon program. Each year, a subset of our player community is upset by those decisions while at the same time, another subset is happy with those same decisions. Sometimes, we find that ideas that initially appeared as though they would work, don’t. When that has happened, I think we’ve been pretty good about making adjustments and moving forward.

It is very clear to us, and likely to the majority of you, that Pokémon gains new fans while they are still quite young. We see that new Pokémon fans are rarely entering the brand over the age of 11 or 12 years old, and in most cases, much younger than that.

In 2004, our National Championships in the United States was 236 players. In 2012, the Video Game National Championship was larger than that (571 total players) and as we’re all aware, the TCG portion of the event was over 1,500 total players. With 1,003 Masters division players, many of whom were Junior Division players at that 2004 event, we feel that we have made many of the right decisions along the way.

This decision is not unlike many of the other decisions we’ve made over the years. This is a concerted effort to increase participation at the Junior and Senior level. These efforts in the past are in large part why we have a 1,000 Masters National Championships. These efforts are why a good many of you can look back on your past in Pokémon Organized Play with fond memories of playing the game you loved, and winning some neat stuff that made you really happy. We believe this has a profound effect on player retention. We did not take one penny of support away from the Masters division to affect this change, and that was not easy from the standpoint of keeping the budget in line with what is required of me by the company.

If this works the way we hope, then it will most certainly continue. If it doesn’t, we’ll keep trying. Our hope is that in the coming seasons, we’re able to roll out more changes that not only affect the Junior and Senior divisions positively, but also contribute to the satisfaction of the Masters’ division as well.

Thank you,
Professor Dav
 
evil psyduck said:
No but all they want is give give give and then give some more.
Click to expand...

Please don't lump every player into a group of spoiled brats.

People are arguing because they want everyone to be treated equally, not because they want to be showered with expensive things.
 
Thank you Professor Dav, for a truly immediate response. While i still do not agree with the overall method you chose, i respect that you are trying to increase attendance in younger age groups,a nd that you took the time to address the community as a whole. I am also glad to see that Masters prize support wasnt cut in order to make this change, even if it didn't neccisarily 'benefit' us.

I would be interested in hearing Dav, or any of the higher ups, opinions on following suite with Japan in order to only two divisions as a solution to some stiff budget based complaints players have had. I don't know what all you would precieve as benefits and downsides, but i'd sure love to hear it.

And to all those people who keep on telling those with an opinion or a complaint to "be silent and deal with the changes" i think this should safely shut you up. This year started off with the worst announcement schedule as a whole, but the absolute best level of responses from the higher ups, in the TCG, the online program and the likes. Just goes to show we gotta keep our minds open and our voices raised.
 
This decision is not unlike many of the other decisions we’ve made over the years. This is a concerted effort to increase participation at the Junior and Senior level. These efforts in the past are in large part why we have a 1,000 Masters National Championships. These efforts are why a good many of you can look back on your past in Pokémon Organized Play with fond memories of playing the game you loved, and winning some neat stuff that made you really happy. We believe this has a profound effect on player retention. We did not take one penny of support away from the Masters division to affect this change, and that was not easy from the standpoint of keeping the budget in line with what is required of me by the company.

If this works the way we hope, then it will most certainly continue. If it doesn’t, we’ll keep trying. Our hope is that in the coming seasons, we’re able to roll out more changes that not only affect the Junior and Senior divisions positively, but also contribute to the satisfaction of the Masters’ division as well.
Click to expand...

I used to come on to this website and bicker, argue, and write about my views on the subject.

You get to a point where you start to realize that your opinion or view, which may even represent a majority view at times (from what you assume), are just incompatible and different from the views of another party.

It's been made pretty obvious now that the entity of pokemon is focused on younger kids instead of older ones. Disagree with it all you want. That's the way this game is, and that is a fundamental, a principle. You're either going to have to live with the fact that THERE IS FAVORITISM, and there always will be. Their philosophy, as Dave already stated, is to indoctrinate a very dedicated and long-term player base to probably guarantee life-long customers. Instead of short bursts to appease the masses, it tries to grow and create a smaller, but more consistent growth. Has it worked? All we can go by are the facts. More people attend events every year, but that may be for all types of reasons. The old saying goes- "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It's been working since they took over, and their philosophy hasn't changed. Should they change? Maybe if you come up with a better adage than "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", because otherwise it's going to be a useless thing to read or hear.

My best advice is to accept their philosophy, and try to work your way around in it as best you can. We have seen a lot of great changes thanks to the input of individuals and arguing on this website and others about policy. That is important stuff, but don't get angry or naive about this situation. It's expected and known. This is not a surprising move, so why are you all so upset about it? Argue about bringing fairness to the rules or playing of the game itself, because arguing for fairness outside of it is just naive and futile. It is against the truth your opponent holds, and it is an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. Nothing will change.

That's the way she goes. Sometimes she goes, sometimes it doesn't. It didn't go. That's the way she goes.
 
SMP88 said:
I've heard the younger kids spend the most on cards (that their parents buy) ; argument a few times now. Where exactly did that info come from? Also, do you happen to keep old tournament attendance numbers somewhere or is it just the current ones that are on your page?
Click to expand...

It comes from this viewpoint: Pokémon appeals to kids way more than it appeal to young adults and adults. At some point around age 15, I suspect most adolescents think Pokémon is for young kids and give it up for cooler stuff, and never come back to it when they are more mature. And twenty-somethings have many other things competing for their attention, thus never pick up the game in the first place. (As Dave reveals above, the cutoff for new fans is actually age 11 or 12.)

So when you think about all of the hundreds (?) of thousands of Pokémon cards that are printed which each set, way more than is possible to be purchased by all of the competitive players combined, who is buying all of these at every Target, Wal-Mart, and Toys R Us across the country? Kids.


To answer your second question, I just made a change to my tournaments page to show the attendance at previous events. Here they are for the Fall and Spring Regionals.
 
If this is the first step in treating Masters differently from Juniors/Seniors, I would be fine with that. So long as they introduce a $5-10 entry fee for Masters and use that money exclusively for Master rewards.

However, I think the chance of that happening is somewhere around 0%. So, yeah, bad move Pokemon, bad move.
 
Shino Bug Master said:
Thank you Professor Dav, for a truly immediate response. While i still do not agree with the overall method you chose, i respect that you are trying to increase attendance in younger age groups,a nd that you took the time to address the community as a whole. I am also glad to see that Masters prize support wasnt cut in order to make this change, even if it didn't neccisarily 'benefit' us.

I would be interested in hearing Dav, or any of the higher ups, opinions on following suite with Japan in order to only two divisions as a solution to some stiff budget based complaints players have had. I don't know what all you would precieve as benefits and downsides, but i'd sure love to hear it.

And to all those people who keep on telling those with an opinion or a complaint to "be silent and deal with the changes" i think this should safely shut you up. This year started off with the worst announcement schedule as a whole, but the absolute best level of responses from the higher ups, in the TCG, the online program and the likes. Just goes to show we gotta keep our minds open and our voices raised.
Click to expand...


First to address your last paragraph. No one wants you to be silent, and in all honesty, a series of polite requests for additional info or an official statement would've led me to reply, potentially more quickly than I did. Having to filter through some of the downright insulting comments really slows things down, and honestly, makes us question whether or not we should post here at all. I encourage you all to review what Dan dealt with by trying to help out as best he could in the BR thread.

Now to continue, Shino Bug Master, thank you for your continued dedication to civility and moderation of tone in your posts. And, thanks to the many others who have done the same in this, and other threads, despite their strong disagreement with this and other announced information.

As to the age division question, there have been uncountable discussions about age group reorganization here over the entire time that we've been running OP. We've thought about cuts, restructures, other restructures, expansions, etc. At the end of the day, there are always a few things that would be better with one idea or another, but overall the bottom line is this:

"Putting prizes in younger players' hands is a positive experience that is most likely to foster continued, long term interest in the game."

What does this mean? Our age division research has clearly shown that the oldest players in each age division (we'll discuss masters in a minute) win the most. So, your 9-10 year old Juniors are winning a vast majority of events, as are 13-14 year old Seniors. Switching Juniors to a 12 & U division would mean that we miss an opportunity to have 9 & 10 year olds being, and feeling like, winners. That is a missed opportunity to put real prizes and positive experiences in the hands of our youngest players, and that's a bad opportunity to miss.

As for Masters: yes, the majority of wins there are by players in the 17-24 range, not the oldest players in the say, 30+ range. That said, we still look at this as a negative if we suddenly throw in 13 year olds to that group. In addition, as we get older, we become far better at coping with the realities of the world. Some people win, some lose, sometimes I’ll be disappointed, etc.

I will not comment on TPC Japan's decisions regarding their OP program. They've done some things I think are pure genius, and others that I think are head scratchers (sound familiar?), but I do know that their heart is in the right place and that they're trying to create the best program for their players that they can given whatever goals and limitations are placed upon them.

Again, I felt it appropriate to answer your follow up question given the tone and nature of your reply. I will not likely be able to come in here and address future questions, or requests for additional information.

I hope that you'll all try to understand that we value each one of our players more than you can possibly know. We have this program because of you. Because you are 80,000 strong and growing, globally. Because you are passionate, and because you care. We will never be able to make everyone happy with every decision we make, as much as we wish we could. But, I hope that you can all understand that the decisions we make are made in an effort to improve YOUR community in the long run, with more fans, players, parents, organizers, and events.

Thank you,
Professor Dav
 
When I posted this thread last night, I certainly didn't expect so many responses (mainly all negatively) from all sides of the community. After thinking it through more and reading through all the posts (especially Professor Dav's), I'd like to chime in for just a moment.

First of all, I think these types of threads are excellent when people offer constructive and insightful criticism, not useless bashing. I get it. People are sometimes upset with the decisions Pokemon makes. But it's pretty clear that bashing isn't going to get us anywhere. It's just a lot more respectful when we all calm down and think logically for a bit, so I'm going to try to do that as best as I can. (It also gets us responses from the higher ups quicker! Thanks Professor Dav!)

My name is Aaron, and I've been playing Pokemon competitively since 2007. 2008 was my first real season. (For reference, I was a Junior.) Although I originally started off playing the TCG, I was ecstatic when they introduced the VGC program in 2008 and somehow managed to qualify for Worlds that year through the NY Qualifier. I've been playing competitively every since. I've played in all three divisions, in both TCG and VGC, so I have a very good understanding and grasp of the game. In 2010, I introduced my little brother to the game, and it's one of the greatest things I could have ever done for him. He's developed a lot personally, and it has introduced him to some great people and friends. Simply said, Pokemon changed our lives.

When I heard this decision originally, I was very excited for him especially because it offers more chances for him to win money. Last year, he won 3 Regionals (TCG Fall, VGC Fall, VGC Spring), and because of that, we won enough money for him to pay for his extra ticket to Worlds. I finished in the T4 of two VGC Regionals and the remaining money I didn't spend on Nationals is now saved up for colleges. These travel allowances were some of the best prizes I've ever earned.

Let's start five years ago, when I was just a little Junior, I was obviously very drawn to the fact there were actually tournaments for these things. All my friends still have difficulty believing me that Pokemon tournaments actually exist, and I did too at first. The first thing that drew me immediately was obviously the prizes. A chance to win more cards, trophies, trips, scholarships, etc. for doing something I really enjoyed seemed incredible!

It's pretty clear that most of us, as Masters now, play the game because of the amazing people we've met through it and because, simply put, Pokemon is a very fun game. I hear a lot of people claiming they're going to "quit the game" because of the "terrible" prize support, but I hardly ever see anyone leave. Anyway, what I wanted to say is that we all stick around because we know how great of a game Pokemon is. But what about Juniors and Seniors who are starting the game? They need an incentive to attend these tournaments, and what better way than to offer even better prizes to them?

Now hear me out. I've attended 4 National Championships and 3 World Championships. I've gotten to go to 6 out of 7 of those events because Pokemon either paid for my entire trip or I had won enough money through travel allowances to convince my parents to go. Worlds and even Nationals has almost always been out of my parent's financial reach, and I'd feel pretty guilty asking them to spend their money for my purposes on the first place. I think that if my brother and I wanted to attend Nats or Worlds now without travel allowances or trips, they would be fully supportive of it because they have seen what Pokemon has done for us, but back then? No chance.

I totally understand why Pokemon made this decision now. If I wasn't drawn to these prizes so early on as a kid, I would have definitely lost interest and just stopped playing overall. But because Pokemon graciously paid for almost all my trips, I've been able to travel and play, and I'm at the point now where I'll do anything it takes to attend Worlds, even if I have to pay money for it, just because I know the experience is worth it.

The number one misconception that I am reading everywhere from both TCG and VGC players is that we have lost prize support. No, we haven't. Regional prizes have only improved from last year, with a better CP payout and travel allowances for Juniors/Seniors. I get it. It's upsetting that the division with the largest player base has the worst prizes now. It makes sense we want to complain. But I honestly did not expect this much outrage, especially considering everyone was fine with the prizes from last year and they have only improved for us via CP structure.

Now for those that don't know, we've had travel allowances in VGC at Regionals for a long time now. 1st place trip, 2nd-4th gets $300 and an additional $300 if said finalist is a minor. I really hope that the VGC prize support stays the same, but only time will tell. This would be an ideal prize structure for TCG, but also costs a lot more. I would love to see this implemented if the budget allows though.

Oh, and as for having two divisions? I would hate to see that happen. VGC originally had only two divisions, and although I did relatively well back in 2010(T4/768 Masters at Regs., 17th Nationals), my Nationals experience was pretty awful. When you're one of the few "Senior" level players who can do well in Masters, it's rewarding, but attending tournaments are so much less fun and exciting because almost everyone in your age division is older. I think there were 3 kids at Nationals in VGC that year who were younger than 18. Yeah...

Now I'm not trying to justify this decision or agree with it. Quite frankly, I still think Masters deserve just as much as Juniors and Seniors and that there are better ways to go through with this. But I also get it, especially as player who started off as a Junior or Senior. $500 can go a long way towards Nationals. $300 can too, but it's not nearly as convincing as $500, and what would be worse than to see a travel allowance go to waste? But as one of the Junior/Senior players who have stuck along with the game the entire time because of the support, I understand and I'm very grateful for it because it allowed me to experience something truly unique.

Thanks to Professor Dav for such a fast response. I'm truly appreciative to read justification behind these kinds of decisions.

ugh I ramble too much and I am not sure I got my point across, but I hope I did my best.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's me being selfish, but I just want bigger prize support to make things exciting. Heck, I have soooo many Magic playing friends who are interested to play Pokemon, but when they see the prize support, they write it off as some casual kid's game.

Not toooooo disappointed with the news, but I hope prize support gets atleast a little bigger. I can justify spending $100 on a deck and $50 a week on gas/food for tournaments a lot easier when there's a possibility to win something decent.

Love that Professor Dav is explaining things. I'd rather have small prize support with a well ran company backing it and explaining things to us than decent prize support with poor communication :v
 
Thank you very much Professor Dav. That sort of reasoning I find acceptable, especially considering prize support hasn't actually decreased for Masters any.

However, (and I know you likely won't respond again), I would be interested to know how much support the idea of a universal prize award was tossed around at planning. For instance, increasing travel stipends to $400 instead, and using the leftover money to award $400 stipends to masters (who likely would not require a parent or legal guardian to accompany them), as the math works out rather nicely to be the same budget. Of course the possibility exists to have masters under 18 win a regional, pushing the budget over the current level with the $500 stipends.

No one could possibly feel cheated/disappointed if everyone suddenly received travel awards again, and more than before. I trust that Marketing and R&D are correct in their assessment that the younger players are the most important to reward, and I also feel it's a good thing to support the parents of those players who otherwise had to pay a little out of their own pocket to support their child's trip out to Nationals (when they themselves likely have little interest in the specifics). However solutions to the issue are numerous, so I am nonetheless curious as to the ultimate reasoning behind why rewarding Juniors and Seniors alone won out.

Also, I assume this is the same for all Regionals, however technically the Regionals info on the website is not updated for winter or spring, so is there any possibility that a change in the system might be implemented in the current season? Possibly as a response to the feedback from discussions such as this one? Highly unlikely I'm sure, but so was a mid-season rotation, so stranger things have happened.

It might also be interesting to judge attendance at each event time-wise with each event rewarding slightly different prize structures (while eliminating background noise from the data since many players prioritize going to big tournaments more as the season goes on, as well as geographical variation) to determine which prize structure might work best in future years to promote the growth and maintenance of the player base best. Again, I think this sort of thing is highly unlikely, but I can't see people being more upset with the idea that "earlier Regionals awarded slightly more at the individual level than later Regionals" than "Masters don't get travel stipends for 2nd-4th."

Nonetheless, TPCi has the data, and has done the analysis, and in the end it's their decision and we as the playerbase can only be thankful that the opportunity to receive ANYTHING is present, just for doing what we love!

Also @Shino from earlier

Even if you have top 4'd multiple times in the past, I wouldn't say the probability of any individual top 4'ing is good enough that you can logically justify travel expenses on the presupposition that you would earn them back. It is foolish to say that "I wouldn't go to this event if it weren't for the fact that I could win money for my trip to Nationals." The reason the best players go out of their way to attend events like Regionals is to chase a worlds invite (CP), and the Spirit of the Game (fun). Otherwise they would save up their money instead of travelling to Regional events, and just use it to go to Nationals or Worlds instead.
 
Mystery Thing said:
For the Regionals prizes, Masters are getting hosed because of their age; something that is out of their control. And for tournaments, players here are getting hosed because of where they live; something that is also out of their control.
Click to expand...

It's a lot easier to hop on a plane than to perfect time travel.

I really enjoy this game, the community, and the excuses it has given me to travel. Anyone who knows me in real life knows that I make a good living, buy a ton of cards, and though I have won prizes in the past, have never really needed them to go where I wanted to go.

The decision to treat winners differently based on age will be the end for me. It would have affected me in the same way had they left out Juniors or Seniors. Before Pokemom or Evil Psyduck chime in with 'you feel entitled' or 'all you want is take take take', please know that I don't care about money (even though prizes are good for attracting players to a game).

I'll definitely stay in touch with the people I've met, and down the road if this foolishness is over, I might come back. Until then, thanks to those of you that made this a great experience for me, and I wish you all the best.

-Reed M.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to present one final post, and then I'll stop. The decision has been made, and nothing I say in this thread can change that decision. I merely want you all to understand my point of view. As I said before, I have been playing this game for upwards about 8 years. In that time, I have seen many changes, positive or negative. Not once, though, have I felt so much disrespect coming from TPCi in my general direction. Not once have I seen such explicit preference toward one category over another. There are implicit preferences (we've always kinda known that J/S are more important than M), but TPCi has never come out and said "we find the juniors and seniors to be far more important than masters, so we will reward their accomplishments as such" (paraphrased obviously). I do not regret any time or money I've spent on Pokemon in all 8 years that I've been playing the game. This game gave me a ton: good friends, enjoyment, and important life lessons. Even so, now that TPCi is showing explicit preference to one group based on age, I can no longer support that company with my time and money. I am not in the game for the prizes nor have I ever been. I love competition, and that is still very much in the game. Even so, when TPCi shows direct favoritism towards a group based on age, I cannot show TPCi support.

Like Vegitalian, I do not care about the money. Even if T4 masters got a banana while T4 Juniors and Seniors got an apple and a banana (pretty insignificant prizes), I'd still take issue. I've had a great experience playing Pokemon, but I think I'm absolutely done for now. Thanks for everything, everyone!

~Zachary "z-man" M.
 
Last edited:
Guys, I think it's a little silly to say TPCI thinks one group is "better" than the others.

However, one group represents a few more dollar signs the the other. It'd be a struggle to say Masters spend more money that goes directly to TPCI then the parents of the Juniors and Seniors.

If we compared, I think it'd be pretty clear that they're getting more money from the parent of Juniors and even younger Seniors that spend money hoping to pull that one card from the amount of booster packs their parents buy them, rather than the (smarter) master who simply buys his cards off eBay, a profit TPCI never sees a bit of.

Now, while it's true the argument can be made that the Juniors and Seniors that Top 4 don't need the award (They don't in 95% of cases), don't you think it'd look good to the parents of little Johnny seeing that their son can win money toward a trip from not only winning, but T4'ing? Little Johnny may never have a chance of getting Top 4, but it's valid marketing. (Scholarships would be sooo much better though)

As Prof. Dav posted, TPCI's goal is to create lifelong players. (aka customers in a business sense) Honestly, is the Masters division, which is already huge as is, and DOES have a good number of players that depart the game every year, or the Junior/Seniors divisions that are going to lead to more lifelong players? Clearly the Juniors and Seniors over the (Mostly eBay savvy college students) Masters.

I'm in no way defending the decision. I'm just showing why it really isn't truly a case of "favoritism" between the age divisions, and more a case of "Where can we get the biggest bang for our buck?"* (They are a business trying to grow their product after all)


*Clearly I don't actually know this, but it makes sense, does it not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top