Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Potential for a bigger, more legitimate game? (Part 2 finally done!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crinus said:
why the living heck is their budget frozen?

Aint PUI and TPC a division of Nintendo which has billions banked already?
Click to expand...


Yeah . . . business doesn't work like that. You're being very naive.

Nintendo's profits fell 66% last year. Their cash reserves fell too.

When a business has falling profits they usually make cuts.
 
66% seems like a pretty steep fall considering the Pokemon franchise on DS and the fact they got the Wii.
 
Crinus said:
66% seems like a pretty steep fall considering the Pokemon franchise on DS and the fact they got the Wii.
Click to expand...

Yes but a lot of money comes in on the console itself, which wasn't selling as hotly last year. Next year may be worse depending on the success of the Wii U and 3DS, but that's another topic altogether.
 
Keep in mind, while their profits did fall, it's not like they lost money. They still made a profit.
 
I posted a response to a lot of comments on SixPrizes, and I figured I might as well share what I threw into that discussion here. I'm pretty busy with finals week and don't have the time to participate as much in the conversation as I'd like to, so here's a summary of my thoughts after reading lots of posts across the internet:

I don't have the time to reply to every single person here, but I thought I'd leave a response to some of the points I'm seeing brought up:

*A reminder: like I say in the video, I never believe that this is needed for the game. The title of the two part series is "a bigger game", not "a better game". Bigger in the sense of greater prestige in the gaming community. As many of you have pointed out, you don't want this and don't think Pokemon is designed for it, and I respect that.

-Some of the problems I bring up (better communication, more funding from Pokemon), cannot be solved any other way than simply begging TPCi to improve. As a longtime fan, this strategy doesn't seem to be working. It's really frustrating getting consistently late updates on news. Pokemon has a fixed budget on the game that hasn't moved for years (you could even argue that it has decreased with the Regional Scholarship cuts and the loss of trophies). The best prize support the game ever had was back in 2006, five years ago. Pokemon has no reason to increase prize support because people will keep playing , so they slowly cut things away and still get the same returns. On the side of a business model, things are perfect for them. They aren't going to reinvest in the game any more than the bare minimum that they have to.

-Pokemon is expensive. Really expensive. A competitive deck usually ranges around 200$, and that's just within one rotation. It's not like we can control the market, but if you're just playing this game strictly for fun, it can be an extremely expensive hobby. You can get the 500 card starter set of Dominion for 25-30$ and it'll last you years with friends because the metagame keeps changing every game. You can get a year's subscription to World of Warcraft for 130$. There's nothing wrong with being willing to spend your extra money to play in Pokemon as a hobby, but I feel like if the game didn't have such a competitive nature, it wouldn't be so darn expensive.

-" If you want to play Magic, play Magic". I don't want to play Magic. I have more fun playing Pokemon because of its simple and interesting mechanics, its artwork featuring an expanded universe I am familiar with, and the friends I've made playing along the way. Am I envious of the multiple structures that Magic has? Sure I am! Magic still has piles of casual players that gather at leagues and small tournaments and never bother with the big Magic events. You guys are acting like the two simply cannot coexist, but I don't see why they couldn't. If anything, adding more competitive events could drive the competitive players out of your smaller events, giving the smaller events a more friendly and approachable atmosphere.

-One thing that I think people are misunderstanding is that they think that this is something I am trying to push for myself. If Pokemon ran higher level events across the year, there's no way I could balance my lifestyle to actually go to most of them. My own seasons of hitting every premiere event of the year are extremely limited. I'm going to have a full-time career soon, and by then I'll probably become the "casual player" that most of you guys are defending yourselves. I just think that having a centralized group of competitive tournaments outside of TPCi could give players the dedicated communication, respect, and prizes they deserve for the time and money they invest into the game.

That's about all I've got on the topic. I'm not angry whatsoever, but I feel like I might as well clarify my points while I can. The point of the episode is to promote conversation, and I'm glad to see that it's doing just that. If you can think of another system to improve the game's attention from TPCi to improve either funding or communication, I would love to hear it!

For those of you guys who just couldn't stand the episode, don't worry! We'll be back to "regular" Prof-It! next week ;)

-Josh
 
I guess we should all go buy a 3DS and some Zelda games if we want scholarships in pokemon again...

Raen- good point, they did still make money, and they still have enough money to buy/print those huge retractable pokemon banners that they lined the far aisle of Regionals with and hang from the rafters at Nationals.

Also, we aren't having more tournaments this year (as far as regionals go) we're having the same number just spread out.

I think they should cut those banners and put that money into prizes. And maybe it's not banners that are costing so much money, but whatever it is, as long as it is not affecting the tournaments themselves, then freaking cut it. And the argument that "oh those banners and the pretty inflatable pikachus at nationals (or whatever decorative item may be) are for the juniors, this is their game," is completely bogus because the number of master always almost doubles that of juniors at cities, and it was about 15x higher than juniors at the last regionals I went to. We want prizes, not pizazz. :/ We, the masters, are your demographic P!P, not the juniors! We shape the ideas of the game, put the most money into the game, and turn out in numbers that put the other age divisions to shame at all of your tournaments....
 
tinox6 said:
I guess we should all go buy a 3DS and some Zelda games if we want scholarships in pokemon again...

Raen- good point, they did still make money, and they still have enough money to buy/print those huge retractable pokemon banners that they lined the far aisle of Regionals with and hang from the rafters at Nationals.

Also, we aren't having more tournaments this year (as far as regionals go) we're having the same number just spread out.

I think they should cut those banners and put that money into prizes. And maybe it's not banners that are costing so much money, but whatever it is, as long as it is not affecting the tournaments themselves, then freaking cut it. And the argument that "oh those banners and the pretty inflatable pikachus at nationals (or whatever decorative item may be) are for the juniors, this is their game," is completely bogus because the number of master always almost doubles that of juniors at cities, and it was about 15x higher than juniors at the last regionals I went to. We want prizes, not pizazz. :/ We, the masters, are your demographic P!P, not the juniors! We shape the ideas of the game, put the most money into the game, and turn out in numbers that put the other age divisions to shame at all of your tournaments....
Click to expand...

While the number of events has not increased all of Regionals have gone from 1 day events to 2, which means more money goes to rent, supplies etc. and then there's the cost of transporting the stuff for the VGC events (if they use the big boxes, which they might not so feel free to correct me) and managing those as well, as well as their prizes.

Also I for one like the 'bogus inflatable Pikachu,' it's to make the environment unalienable and friendly, and it's one of the specialties that comes with Pokemon. Further the Masters are not the only age group we deserve no extra attention than Seniors or Juniors. Finally you may want prize support, but not everyone (including Masters) care. I know plenty of people who go to events, like Worlds, knowing they have a slim chance of making top cut, but go for the atmosphere, and other players. Also Pokemon is and has been a kid's game since the very beginning
 
Pokemon is and has been a kid's game since the very beginning
Click to expand...

So has yugioh and its promoted its game toward older audiences, although while they are immature, still older audiences.
 
Crinus said:
So has yugioh and its promoted its game toward older audiences, although while they are immature, still older audiences.
Click to expand...
Interesting fact; in Japan, Yu-Gi-Oh! is not at all a children's show. It was simply branded that way in the US.
 
TheRolesWePlay said:
While the number of events has not increased all of Regionals have gone from 1 day events to 2, which means more money goes to rent, supplies etc. and then there's the cost of transporting the stuff for the VGC events (if they use the big boxes, which they might not so feel free to correct me) and managing those as well, as well as their prizes.

Also I for one like the 'bogus inflatable Pikachu,' it's to make the environment unalienable and friendly, and it's one of the specialties that comes with Pokemon. Further the Masters are not the only age group we deserve no extra attention than Seniors or Juniors. Finally you may want prize support, but not everyone (including Masters) care. I know plenty of people who go to events, like Worlds, knowing they have a slim chance of making top cut, but go for the atmosphere, and other players. Also Pokemon is and has been a kid's game since the very beginning
Click to expand...

NOTE: This is a long train of thought, but follow it and you will end up somewhere :thumb:

I definitely agree that pokemon has been a kids game from the beginning. But I think it's important to notice that the evolution of the game, based on mere numbers from tournaments, has shifted towards an older audience. It's kind of like the comic book industry. Sure, comics were designed for younger audiences back in the early 19-whatevers, but now (as a Batman fan) the comics have evolved to a more mature audience to ensure their fan base is satisfied.

I'm not asking pokemon to forget about the juniors, not at all, they should give them scholarship money at regionals too (I'm sure it would motivate parents to drive to more tournaments). But I am saying that they need to think about who their largest demographic is. I understand that a lot of kids just randomly get their parents to buy packs in the checkout line at retailers, and these kids never play competitively, but I just don't see that figure stacking up to the number of competitive players who either A. spend 80-90 dollars on a box when a new set come out, B. spend 25-40 dollars (depending on side events) at a pre-release for every new set, or C. Buy packs from their local gaming store so they can get the cards they need from the new set. Pretending that pokemon is marketing to little kids who will never set foot in a tournament would be reuniclus...er...ridiculous (on that note, why not put the URL for the tournament and league locator on those pack codes and draw in EVERY person who opens a pack??). The majority of the market is the player.

I say all that because that would mean that the largest consumer pool for the pokemon trading card game would be the players, not random kids who don't play. And if the largest number of people who buy your product are players, and the largest number of players (BY FAR) are masters, then that demographic should be listened to concerning whether or not money in a fixed budget should be used to make a tournament atmosphere feel nice for (mainly) the juniors using a ton of inflatables/banners/etc, or equally reward ALL age divisions with some form of a scholarship. It doesn't have to be as much as it was, but it would be nice if it were something.

In recap: 1. The game has evolved to an older audience. 2. That audience is the main consumer of the industry's goods. 3. That consumer pool should be listened to regarding scholarships, and budget should be adjusted to reward all age divisions equally, even if it means cutting some banners/inflatables/etc.

Final note: We have at least three full threads concerning this issue on the Gym....that says a lot...

**Edit** after realizing that oddly enough, the non-player buys more product than the player, the "masters are your largest consumer" argument doesn't work. I would imagine they are the largest consumer among players, but who knows...
 
Last edited:
tinox6 said:
NOTE: This is a long train of thought, but follow it and you will end up somewhere :thumb:

I definitely agree that pokemon has been a kids game from the beginning. But I think it's important to notice that the evolution of the game, based on mere numbers from tournaments, has shifted towards an older audience. It's kind of like the comic book industry. Sure, comics were designed for younger audiences back in the early 19-whatevers, but now (as a Batman fan) the comics have evolved to a more mature audience to ensure their fan base is satisfied.

I'm not asking pokemon to forget about the juniors, not at all, they should give them scholarship money at regionals too (I'm sure it would motivate parents to drive to more tournaments). But I am saying that they need to think about who their largest demographic is. I understand that a lot of kids just randomly get their parents to buy packs in the checkout line at retailers, and these kids never play competitively, but I just don't see that figure stacking up to the number of competitive players who either A. spend 80-90 dollars on a box when a new set come out, B. spend 25-40 dollars (depending on side events) at a pre-release for every new set, or C. Buy packs from their local gaming store so they can get the cards they need from the new set. Pretending that pokemon is marketing to little kids who will never set foot in a tournament would be reuniclus...er...ridiculous (on that note, why not put the URL for the tournament and league locator on those pack codes and draw in EVERY person who opens a pack??). The majority of the market is the player.

I say all that because that would mean that the largest consumer pool for the pokemon trading card game would be the players, not random kids who don't play. And if the largest number of people who buy your product are players, and the largest number of players (BY FAR) are masters, then that demographic should be listened to concerning whether or not money in a fixed budget should be used to make a tournament atmosphere feel nice for (mainly) the juniors using a ton of inflatables/banners/etc, or equally reward ALL age divisions with some form of a scholarship. It doesn't have to be as much as it was, but it would be nice if it were something.

In recap: 1. The game has evolved to an older audience. 2. That audience is the main consumer of the industry's goods. 3. That consumer pool should be listened to regarding scholarships, and budget should be adjusted to reward all age divisions equally, even if it means cutting some banners/inflatables/etc.

Final note: We have at least three full threads concerning this issue on the Gym....that says a lot...
Click to expand...

Wow...uh...way to miss the point...and get certain facts wrong.

First of all you underestimate just how much money comes from kids buying random packs. Consider the following for instance. Many players don't buy boxes like you say, instead they use secondary markets (like Ebay) or trade for the cards they need. The packs many competitive players get come from prerelease and again not boxes. I rarely see people talk about how they opened up a new box unless it was for judging or something. Also those kids who buy a pack every so often start to add up.

Second I didn't even address said noncompetitive players to begin with. What I was addressing was the people who play for fun, not for prizes, who BTW are Masters.

Lastly on the inflatables, banners and what not. Let's see you play at Worlds this year with out all of that up. You may not think it matters now, but if you went and all of that stuff was gone it'd feel significantly more lifeless. These things are vital on several levels. They give life to Worlds (haven't been to Nats since it was at Origins, and even then they had a lot of other stuff scattered around), but those things then get distributed to PTOs to liven up their events, and some PTOs make their own banners. Even you don't feel it matters it makes a lot of people's days to see stuff like that at events Juniors, Seniors, and Masters alike.
 
Last edited:
TheRolesWePlay said:
Wow...uh...way to miss the point...and get certain facts wrong.

First of all you underestimate just how much money comes from kids buying random packs. Consider the following for instance. Many players don't buy boxes like you say, instead they use secondary markets (like Ebay) or trade for the cards they need. The packs many competitive players get come from prerelease and again not boxes. I rarely see people talk about how they opened up a new box unless it was for judging or something. Also those kids who buy a pack every so often start to add up.

Second I didn't even address said noncompetitive players to begin with. What I was addressing was the people who play for fun, not for prizes, who BTW are Masters.

Lastly on the inflatables, banners and what not. Let's see you play at Worlds this year with out all of that up. You may not think it matters now, but if you went and all of that stuff was gone it'd feel significantly more lifeless. These things are vital on several levels. They give life to Worlds (haven't been to Nats since it was at Origins, and even then they had a lot of other stuff scattered around), but those things then get distributed to PTOs to liven up their events, and some PTOs make their own banners. Even you don't feel it matters it makes a lot of people's days to see stuff like that at events Juniors, Seniors, and Masters alike.

Also I will point out again that prize support is split between the TCG and the VGC to the best of my knowledge.
Click to expand...
We've been specifically told by a TPCi rep (Biggie? I don't remember who specifically.) That the TCG and VGC budgets are entirely separate, and that the VGC has not effect the TCG in any way this year.
 
Raen said:
We've been specifically told by a TPCi rep (Biggie? I don't remember who specifically.) That the TCG and VGC budgets are entirely separate, and that the VGC has not effect the TCG in any way this year.
Click to expand...

Sorry I guess I missed that part, but I do wonder how the funding for Regionals is handled then.
 
The Roles - I was addressing the idea that pokemon is a kids game, so I was addressing something you brought up. I don't think that was off point, matter of fact, it was half of what your previous post was about. It was a long train of thought just to make my point, which is why I noted that.

My main point about pokemon not being a kids game anymore was that it has evolved, the majority of players are masters, and whether you play competitive or not, fact is, a tournament like Regionals is a competition; thus, it's going to draw competitive players. Playing for fun is what League is for, to be honest (and maybe Battle roads ;) ). If I'm driving 6ish hours to play in a regional championship, the fun is in the winning, not in the experience. So I guess that just puts us on 2 separate sides of the issue, and that's ok :)

**edited this paragraph out, because it dealt with the sales to non-players issue, which is apparently "certain facts" You were right, I was wrong about that one.** However, I would argue that Masters fuel the competitive scene...which I would think is right...and thus should be listened to on this issue.

Also, I would gladly play Regionals in a rec center gym with no regalia, and a 1000 dollar scholarship on the line, than in a large convention center (which we didn't use half of the space for) and a bunch of banners. You mentioned Worlds, but I don't think they've cut the scholarships for that....it's just Regionals that we're all upset about.

Are you a competitive player or do you play non-competitively? It seems like you play non-competitively from your arguments, but it sounds like you've been to worlds....so I'm a little confused :)
 
Last edited:
People from TPCi have told us on multiple occasions that non-player sales outnumber player sales by several times. I don't know their exact methods, but I have no reason to doubt them. Per capita, I'm sure players spend more (albeit indirectly in some cases when you consider singles sales and other factors), but we're a tiny part of the overall puzzle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top