I had this discussion with a number of people while in San Diego, and I wanted to air my thoughts here as well, and maybe get some opinions ( in agreement or not ) from fellow players, and maybe some of those more directly involved in the game as well.
This game is growing. For a majority of 2008 and into 2009, Pokemon was the best selling card game in America. Magic, and I want to say Yu Gi Oh? outside it in hobby shops, Yet when you incorporate retail stores such as Toys R Us and Walmart into the equation, Pokemon outside both of those games a majority of those times. If you look all the way back to 2003-2004 when PUI took over the game from Wizards of the Coast, the increase in sales and player base is ASTOUNDING. At the end of the the WotC era, the game was on dying legs here in the U.S. I had assumed it would be dead within a year or so. Many players quit after Gen Con 03.
Now look at what the game has become. Yet lets look at another startling fact: the budget for Organized Play has remained constant from 2004 to now. I cannot say an exact number as to the growth of sales from 2004 until 2009, but it has to be an incredible margin. Yet...Organized Play has not seen any sort of budget allowance increase? This is baffling to me.
Lets also look at the state of prize support in the game: In 2005 and 2006, Regionals awarded over 2k for 1st place, and played scholarships down to top 4 in all age groups. They spaced them on different weekends, allowing players to compete in multiple Regionals ( In 2005, I played in 3: The same in 2006 ) Now, they award 1500 to 1st, and only pay down to top 2. Oh, and they no longer give away Worlds trips.
They used to give out 150+ trips to Worlds each year. ( I wish I had an exact number, as Worlds shrunk DRASTICALLY in 07, and never fully recovered it's size, but I know 128, our current participant pool, elicits 7 rounds...we had 8 rounds in 05 and 06. ) Now? I know the U.S. gets 4 paid trips. Four. Down from over 100.
Scholarship at Worlds and Nationals have stayed the same. In 2006, when Martin won Nationals, a huge entertainment system was also thrown in with the prizes. In 2007? Prize cut!
I guess my confusion stems from a combination of the above information. The game grows an unprecedented amount, the player base grows, and the prize support gets cut back an equally unprecedented amount. Yet the budget? It was the same. Not only should A.) the budget have been increased to compensate for the growing player base, but B.) where is the rest of the money that paid for all of the scholarships, airfare, hotel rooms, etc GOING?
I'll give a moment for all of the people who want to spew off comments about how I "have sour grapes", "am bitter", "am greedy", "go against the Spirit of the Game", "hate puppies", etc calm down.
I've played TCGs since I was in the 3rd grade, and have just finished college. I've played an embarrassing number of different games, but none close to as often and as long as I have the Pokemon TCG. I cannot even imagine my life without this game in it. Most of my best friends were made as a result of it. I've seen Magic grow into the behemoth it is today. I've seen the unfortunate demise of the once promising VS System, and the abortion of the Spoils despite having arguably the best set of mechanics any TCG has ever had. What can we learn from the support of those games? Well, Magic is the most successful, and has a pretty good model for how to approach growing a game's Organized Play. They have always increased the support and depth of tournament play incrementally and as the scene grew. Pokemon has let it stagnate at best, or regress. ( In defense, I do really approve the use of the rating system, and other innovations used, but still, the structure may change, but the scope of organized play has remained much the same. )
The VS System came out of the gates swinging with huge amounts of prize support, and the game was moderately successful. Yet the game could not support it's own organized play weight. So what did they do? They cut back prize support. And this sent the game into panic mode. The players saw this as a bad sign for the state of the game. This perceived "distress call" sent negative ripples through that games entire player base and it led it into the downward spiral that helped to kill the game. A lack of growth, or a cut back DOES incriminate a game. It is difficult to quantify to what degree, but it is difficult to argue against it. It may be minimal, but it may be substantial as well. The Spoils ran into the same issue with prize support.
Now, you may think I am actually hurting my own "cause" with these facts. I think its important to point out quite a few differences. Both the VS system and The Spoils promised 50k+ prizes for 1st place finishes at multiple events. Without having an player base in place. Pokemon has a huge player base and guaranteed flow of sales. Magic started with moderate prizes to get interest, and expanded the size of their Organized Play as it began to take off. Pokemon STARTED correctly. They offered good prize support ( I DO feel 7500 for 1st place at Worlds is more than sufficient ) in relation to the player base and for expected early growth. Yet unlike Magic, once this was well received, nothing was done to capitalize. It is a standard business model. As your profits begin to grow, it is best to invest in more capital and resources and to expand, because in the end it will only increase the profits. While Organized Play isn't in and of itself a DIRECT source of profit, it DOES influence sales and overall longevity of the franchise as a trading card game and beyond.
Like it or not, Pokemon is in the same market as Magic, and Yu Gi Oh, and a slew of other games. What they do to enhance their games will impact the health and sales of Pokemon. I am sure the sales of certain games overlap with Pokemon more than others, but they are still competition. As players age, the allure of better prize support will start to draw them away. I've heard the argument that marketing to the younger players will help create life long buyers. I will have to disagree to this to an extend. If you hook a ten year old player, the odds they will play when they are 12 is far less certain. The social changes they go through often interact negatively with the social stigma attached to Pokemon still. They go through so many changes during the 9-16 age range that the stability of their hobbies is certainly in question.
The different age groups need to be marketed to independently. Right now is a great time to try and pull in more players in the 16-25 demographic. This is the age group that is most drawn to organized play, both the competition of it and the prizes. Pokemon makes a KILLING off of selling cards to kids who have parents who will buy them cards. That is currently their primary market. That does not mean it is the only market available to them. They have done a great job selling to the kids market, but I feel they have really missed the boat with the older audience. Go into a Hot Topic store and look at all of the Pokemon merchandise they sell. The high school/college crowd is very accepting of Pokemon at the moment. It has conveniently hit the stage of "retro" in the eyes of teenagers. It has the same level of acceptance now given to Ninja Turtles, Transformers, and Power Rangers. These high school and college kids no longer are ashamed to talk about how they played Pokemon as a kid, and many of them do go back and revisit the franchise. The number of them who would do so would increase if they were being marketed to better. An 8 year old kid plays the game for very different reasons than an 18 year old one does, who plays it for a very different reason than a 40 year old does. This game is composed of so many different demographics, yet it seems that the game is being sold under blanket marketing, where one simple approach is being used. Yes, it may work to increase sales amongst kids, which brings in an increase in sales, which therefore masks the lost potential profit that could be made in other age groups.
Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh and other card games are DRIVEN by the 16-25 demographic. It is a proven, tried and true goldmine for sales. Yet it seems like Pokemon doesn't even try to get in on it. Now is such a perfect time for it as well. Nintendo has been doing very well for itself despite the hard economic times. Magic is healthy, but the rest of the TCG market is getting slammed. Yu Gi Oh took a monstrous blow, and many of it's players could be stolen. You have the huge crossover level of all the anime based TCGs which have come and died that could be lured into Pokemon. VS just died within the past year or two, same with The Spoils, and I'd venture to say that Upper Deck's World of Warcraft is struggling as a TCG as well. There are a number of displaced buyers, and an even greater number who can be drawn to a much more stable, growing game like Pokemon if given the incentive.
One of the things that aggravates me about the online community of this game is the black and white divisive nature of many of the more outspoken individuals. The game doesn't have to "just be a kids game" just as it doesn't have to " just be a competitive game". The implementation of a more serious, competitive lucrative tournament structure doesn't have to also mean the lack of casual incentives to the game. The game can cater to both competitive and casual fans a like. Personally, a majority of my enjoyment of this game stems from the rush of competition. Without any sort of organized play, I really do think I would have a hard time staying nearly as involved in the game as I am. I obviously don't see myself ever being able to simply walk away, but I do suspect much of my motivation to play as much as I do would dwindle.
This brings me back to the current state of prize support for Organized Play. The amount of players has improved. The amount of VERY GOOD players has improved. In order to be successful, it requires so much more effort than it used to, even 3 years ago. The game has become harder from a mechanics stand point, and from a quality of opposition standpoint. The number of players who show up to an event has skyrocketed as well. Yet the reward? Decreased.
I think it would be difficult to argue against the fact that players should be capable of profiting from competitive play. I'm not saying making a job out of it, but it shouldn't be unreasonable to make money off of it. Yet that is near impossible to do with the current structure. If you do not top 8 Nats or Worlds, the odds of you breaking even on a given season is so small. Between needing to purchase product to play, and the cost of travel ( gas, airfare, and more importantly, hotels ) most players, even very good ones, operate at a loss throughout the season.
I said earlier that I really, really like the rating system as a means of bringing players to Worlds. I say this because it is by far better than any alternative. The Gym Challenge system was a disaster, and extremely luck based. This doesn't mean there are not flaws in the rating system. It still favors regions with a great number of bad players as you still get your own little micro-ratings hub where a bad player gets a high rating because he consistantly beats worse players who beat worse players etc and therefore any GOOD player there still makes a killing off rating, Compare that to say Florida where you have a huge number of great players always competing for those points, and it is a bit inaccurate, but those issues aren't answered by the GC system either. So overall, the Rating System's emphasis on consistent play is wonderful.
The problem is, in order to maintain that rating, you need to attend a lot of events. Assuming you opt to take the game seriously, you'll want to hit up a number of Battle Roads, but more importantly, cities. Sure, you can qualify simply by doing well at States, Regionals and Nationals, but I know I wouldn't be able to sit on such a gamble. It is too easy to have a bad run at an event. and wiff. Now, your going to be spending quite a bit traveling to these events. Quite a bit on cards.
Now flash forward. Nationals passes, and your in 15th place in Rankings. YOUR GOING TO WORLDS! Now, ship out 300 dollars on airfare, and a good 500+ on hotels, shuttles, rental car, etc, and of course food for the weekend. I know, " stop being so greedy". Except the fact that the game, with the same budget, supported sending FAR MORE than a top 25 to Worlds for years. Did I mention that the sales of the game has gone UP? There is no reason to have to cut back.
But wait! WE HAVE BATTLE ROADS! With 8 packs for first place. And a Victory Medal which fetches 10 dollars if your lucky. So hey, if you take 1st, you break even on gas, well done. I do think that there is something wrong when the judges of an event take home 2.5x the number of packs as the person who wins the tournament. Battle Roads are at best a glorified league. Especially the second phase of them, where outside of people who are trying to squeeze 10 points or so into their rating heading into Nats, you get almost no traveling, and pretty much just snag the league crowd anyways. The first series benefits greatly from it being the first tournaments of the new season and people are just excited to play.
If the justification of no Worlds trips, a butchering of Regionals support, and a lack of growth for organized play is "Battle Roads" I am going to be thoroughly disappointed. Plus I'm going to have a very hard time seeing how the box of product given out at each Battle Road ( 8 for first, 4 for second, 3 age groups ) can possibly cost what the cuts were worth.
I understand that the core issue from what I am told is that PUI is having issues getting their budget increased for Organized Play. I agree 100% that this NEEDS to happen, and it should. They have done a great job salvaging a dying game. Not many of you on this board have experienced this game from the beginning and can really appreciate its rebirth the way it has been handled. Yet even with the same budget I really do question how it is being allocated. I mentioned in my other thread how much I enjoyed the drum squad at the closing ceremony at Worlds, but if that drum squad could equal a couple of trips for players, I can drum on my lap. That 15,000 dollar Dialga inflatable is pretty snazzy, but not as snazzy as 15 trips being payed for.
I don't view this as the same issue where VS cut prize support because they were getting hammer financially. The prize support we had before we very appropriate for the success of the game, and the size of the player base. It was not excessive. And it looks even less excessive now that the game has continued to grow. I just want to know where all of the support went. It seems so counter-intuitive to me.
Cue "sour grapes"/"spoiled" replies.
This game is growing. For a majority of 2008 and into 2009, Pokemon was the best selling card game in America. Magic, and I want to say Yu Gi Oh? outside it in hobby shops, Yet when you incorporate retail stores such as Toys R Us and Walmart into the equation, Pokemon outside both of those games a majority of those times. If you look all the way back to 2003-2004 when PUI took over the game from Wizards of the Coast, the increase in sales and player base is ASTOUNDING. At the end of the the WotC era, the game was on dying legs here in the U.S. I had assumed it would be dead within a year or so. Many players quit after Gen Con 03.
Now look at what the game has become. Yet lets look at another startling fact: the budget for Organized Play has remained constant from 2004 to now. I cannot say an exact number as to the growth of sales from 2004 until 2009, but it has to be an incredible margin. Yet...Organized Play has not seen any sort of budget allowance increase? This is baffling to me.
Lets also look at the state of prize support in the game: In 2005 and 2006, Regionals awarded over 2k for 1st place, and played scholarships down to top 4 in all age groups. They spaced them on different weekends, allowing players to compete in multiple Regionals ( In 2005, I played in 3: The same in 2006 ) Now, they award 1500 to 1st, and only pay down to top 2. Oh, and they no longer give away Worlds trips.
They used to give out 150+ trips to Worlds each year. ( I wish I had an exact number, as Worlds shrunk DRASTICALLY in 07, and never fully recovered it's size, but I know 128, our current participant pool, elicits 7 rounds...we had 8 rounds in 05 and 06. ) Now? I know the U.S. gets 4 paid trips. Four. Down from over 100.
Scholarship at Worlds and Nationals have stayed the same. In 2006, when Martin won Nationals, a huge entertainment system was also thrown in with the prizes. In 2007? Prize cut!
I guess my confusion stems from a combination of the above information. The game grows an unprecedented amount, the player base grows, and the prize support gets cut back an equally unprecedented amount. Yet the budget? It was the same. Not only should A.) the budget have been increased to compensate for the growing player base, but B.) where is the rest of the money that paid for all of the scholarships, airfare, hotel rooms, etc GOING?
I'll give a moment for all of the people who want to spew off comments about how I "have sour grapes", "am bitter", "am greedy", "go against the Spirit of the Game", "hate puppies", etc calm down.
I've played TCGs since I was in the 3rd grade, and have just finished college. I've played an embarrassing number of different games, but none close to as often and as long as I have the Pokemon TCG. I cannot even imagine my life without this game in it. Most of my best friends were made as a result of it. I've seen Magic grow into the behemoth it is today. I've seen the unfortunate demise of the once promising VS System, and the abortion of the Spoils despite having arguably the best set of mechanics any TCG has ever had. What can we learn from the support of those games? Well, Magic is the most successful, and has a pretty good model for how to approach growing a game's Organized Play. They have always increased the support and depth of tournament play incrementally and as the scene grew. Pokemon has let it stagnate at best, or regress. ( In defense, I do really approve the use of the rating system, and other innovations used, but still, the structure may change, but the scope of organized play has remained much the same. )
The VS System came out of the gates swinging with huge amounts of prize support, and the game was moderately successful. Yet the game could not support it's own organized play weight. So what did they do? They cut back prize support. And this sent the game into panic mode. The players saw this as a bad sign for the state of the game. This perceived "distress call" sent negative ripples through that games entire player base and it led it into the downward spiral that helped to kill the game. A lack of growth, or a cut back DOES incriminate a game. It is difficult to quantify to what degree, but it is difficult to argue against it. It may be minimal, but it may be substantial as well. The Spoils ran into the same issue with prize support.
Now, you may think I am actually hurting my own "cause" with these facts. I think its important to point out quite a few differences. Both the VS system and The Spoils promised 50k+ prizes for 1st place finishes at multiple events. Without having an player base in place. Pokemon has a huge player base and guaranteed flow of sales. Magic started with moderate prizes to get interest, and expanded the size of their Organized Play as it began to take off. Pokemon STARTED correctly. They offered good prize support ( I DO feel 7500 for 1st place at Worlds is more than sufficient ) in relation to the player base and for expected early growth. Yet unlike Magic, once this was well received, nothing was done to capitalize. It is a standard business model. As your profits begin to grow, it is best to invest in more capital and resources and to expand, because in the end it will only increase the profits. While Organized Play isn't in and of itself a DIRECT source of profit, it DOES influence sales and overall longevity of the franchise as a trading card game and beyond.
Like it or not, Pokemon is in the same market as Magic, and Yu Gi Oh, and a slew of other games. What they do to enhance their games will impact the health and sales of Pokemon. I am sure the sales of certain games overlap with Pokemon more than others, but they are still competition. As players age, the allure of better prize support will start to draw them away. I've heard the argument that marketing to the younger players will help create life long buyers. I will have to disagree to this to an extend. If you hook a ten year old player, the odds they will play when they are 12 is far less certain. The social changes they go through often interact negatively with the social stigma attached to Pokemon still. They go through so many changes during the 9-16 age range that the stability of their hobbies is certainly in question.
The different age groups need to be marketed to independently. Right now is a great time to try and pull in more players in the 16-25 demographic. This is the age group that is most drawn to organized play, both the competition of it and the prizes. Pokemon makes a KILLING off of selling cards to kids who have parents who will buy them cards. That is currently their primary market. That does not mean it is the only market available to them. They have done a great job selling to the kids market, but I feel they have really missed the boat with the older audience. Go into a Hot Topic store and look at all of the Pokemon merchandise they sell. The high school/college crowd is very accepting of Pokemon at the moment. It has conveniently hit the stage of "retro" in the eyes of teenagers. It has the same level of acceptance now given to Ninja Turtles, Transformers, and Power Rangers. These high school and college kids no longer are ashamed to talk about how they played Pokemon as a kid, and many of them do go back and revisit the franchise. The number of them who would do so would increase if they were being marketed to better. An 8 year old kid plays the game for very different reasons than an 18 year old one does, who plays it for a very different reason than a 40 year old does. This game is composed of so many different demographics, yet it seems that the game is being sold under blanket marketing, where one simple approach is being used. Yes, it may work to increase sales amongst kids, which brings in an increase in sales, which therefore masks the lost potential profit that could be made in other age groups.
Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh and other card games are DRIVEN by the 16-25 demographic. It is a proven, tried and true goldmine for sales. Yet it seems like Pokemon doesn't even try to get in on it. Now is such a perfect time for it as well. Nintendo has been doing very well for itself despite the hard economic times. Magic is healthy, but the rest of the TCG market is getting slammed. Yu Gi Oh took a monstrous blow, and many of it's players could be stolen. You have the huge crossover level of all the anime based TCGs which have come and died that could be lured into Pokemon. VS just died within the past year or two, same with The Spoils, and I'd venture to say that Upper Deck's World of Warcraft is struggling as a TCG as well. There are a number of displaced buyers, and an even greater number who can be drawn to a much more stable, growing game like Pokemon if given the incentive.
One of the things that aggravates me about the online community of this game is the black and white divisive nature of many of the more outspoken individuals. The game doesn't have to "just be a kids game" just as it doesn't have to " just be a competitive game". The implementation of a more serious, competitive lucrative tournament structure doesn't have to also mean the lack of casual incentives to the game. The game can cater to both competitive and casual fans a like. Personally, a majority of my enjoyment of this game stems from the rush of competition. Without any sort of organized play, I really do think I would have a hard time staying nearly as involved in the game as I am. I obviously don't see myself ever being able to simply walk away, but I do suspect much of my motivation to play as much as I do would dwindle.
This brings me back to the current state of prize support for Organized Play. The amount of players has improved. The amount of VERY GOOD players has improved. In order to be successful, it requires so much more effort than it used to, even 3 years ago. The game has become harder from a mechanics stand point, and from a quality of opposition standpoint. The number of players who show up to an event has skyrocketed as well. Yet the reward? Decreased.
I think it would be difficult to argue against the fact that players should be capable of profiting from competitive play. I'm not saying making a job out of it, but it shouldn't be unreasonable to make money off of it. Yet that is near impossible to do with the current structure. If you do not top 8 Nats or Worlds, the odds of you breaking even on a given season is so small. Between needing to purchase product to play, and the cost of travel ( gas, airfare, and more importantly, hotels ) most players, even very good ones, operate at a loss throughout the season.
I said earlier that I really, really like the rating system as a means of bringing players to Worlds. I say this because it is by far better than any alternative. The Gym Challenge system was a disaster, and extremely luck based. This doesn't mean there are not flaws in the rating system. It still favors regions with a great number of bad players as you still get your own little micro-ratings hub where a bad player gets a high rating because he consistantly beats worse players who beat worse players etc and therefore any GOOD player there still makes a killing off rating, Compare that to say Florida where you have a huge number of great players always competing for those points, and it is a bit inaccurate, but those issues aren't answered by the GC system either. So overall, the Rating System's emphasis on consistent play is wonderful.
The problem is, in order to maintain that rating, you need to attend a lot of events. Assuming you opt to take the game seriously, you'll want to hit up a number of Battle Roads, but more importantly, cities. Sure, you can qualify simply by doing well at States, Regionals and Nationals, but I know I wouldn't be able to sit on such a gamble. It is too easy to have a bad run at an event. and wiff. Now, your going to be spending quite a bit traveling to these events. Quite a bit on cards.
Now flash forward. Nationals passes, and your in 15th place in Rankings. YOUR GOING TO WORLDS! Now, ship out 300 dollars on airfare, and a good 500+ on hotels, shuttles, rental car, etc, and of course food for the weekend. I know, " stop being so greedy". Except the fact that the game, with the same budget, supported sending FAR MORE than a top 25 to Worlds for years. Did I mention that the sales of the game has gone UP? There is no reason to have to cut back.
But wait! WE HAVE BATTLE ROADS! With 8 packs for first place. And a Victory Medal which fetches 10 dollars if your lucky. So hey, if you take 1st, you break even on gas, well done. I do think that there is something wrong when the judges of an event take home 2.5x the number of packs as the person who wins the tournament. Battle Roads are at best a glorified league. Especially the second phase of them, where outside of people who are trying to squeeze 10 points or so into their rating heading into Nats, you get almost no traveling, and pretty much just snag the league crowd anyways. The first series benefits greatly from it being the first tournaments of the new season and people are just excited to play.
If the justification of no Worlds trips, a butchering of Regionals support, and a lack of growth for organized play is "Battle Roads" I am going to be thoroughly disappointed. Plus I'm going to have a very hard time seeing how the box of product given out at each Battle Road ( 8 for first, 4 for second, 3 age groups ) can possibly cost what the cuts were worth.
I understand that the core issue from what I am told is that PUI is having issues getting their budget increased for Organized Play. I agree 100% that this NEEDS to happen, and it should. They have done a great job salvaging a dying game. Not many of you on this board have experienced this game from the beginning and can really appreciate its rebirth the way it has been handled. Yet even with the same budget I really do question how it is being allocated. I mentioned in my other thread how much I enjoyed the drum squad at the closing ceremony at Worlds, but if that drum squad could equal a couple of trips for players, I can drum on my lap. That 15,000 dollar Dialga inflatable is pretty snazzy, but not as snazzy as 15 trips being payed for.
I don't view this as the same issue where VS cut prize support because they were getting hammer financially. The prize support we had before we very appropriate for the success of the game, and the size of the player base. It was not excessive. And it looks even less excessive now that the game has continued to grow. I just want to know where all of the support went. It seems so counter-intuitive to me.
Cue "sour grapes"/"spoiled" replies.
