Because
luxury goods as not considered essential. Luxury goods do not have any reason (moral, legal, etc.) to be available/affordable to everyone.
You again ignore that for the seller, there is usually (I cited to exceptions; if you can name others, feel free) incentive to create as broad a market as possible. I am not advocating that Pokémon is a necessity by any means.
However classifying Pokémon as something for the "affluent" doesn't really sound accurate, does it? I mean, TPC could certainly choose to go that route, but despite our complaints it they do appear to be trying to avoid being available only to the higher income levels of society.
We might consider the TCG to be a mass luxury good... but there goes your argument about not appealing to a larger consumer base.
Pokemon cards are effectively a natural monopoly.
No they aren't; they compete against all other trading card games. Claiming they are a monopoly ignores people's ability to buy a similar but non-identical product. If there are substitute goods, which at least would include other TCGs and arguably could include other forms of entertainment, this seems pretty far from a monopoly.
Do you know how pricing for a natural monopoly works? Natural monopolies have an incentive to produce less than a competitive market would supply and charge a higher price than would exist in a competitive market.
As stated, the Pokémon TCG is not only not a natural monopoly, but not a monopoly at all.
Don't worry, I generally don't get offended by anything people say. I don't think you've crossed any lines.
Nonetheless, I am going to try and hold myself to a higher standard than I have been, though I am pleased I have not been offending you.
My argument is the very simple reality that not everyone can afford everything.
Which is no argument at all. You can keep referring to the TCG as a "luxury good" reserved for the upper rungs of disposable income, but it does not match the reality of how the Pokémon TCG is marketed.
When you can't afford a luxury good, then you can't afford the luxury good. Too bad. I've lived through it. Millions of people in America live through it.
This seems like an emotional appeal masquerading as logic. I've already stated that Pokémon is not a luxury good, unless we use a very, very broad definition that pretty much encompasses any non-essential recreational product. You've lived through not being able to afford the game... but you have not proven that a particular threshold is "correct".
TPC determines who they are marketing to, and you have painted anyone that won't spend double digits on a piece of card board as being either "poor" or "stingy".
Pokemon doesn't have to make cards affordable for everyone who wants to play.
...and besides you, who all is saying that? You seem to understand business, so I shouldn't have to keep explaining things in minute detail. I am not telling TPCi to distribute packs below cost, and in fact have made sure that they shoot for maximum profits... but not on a per-pack basis.
If it costs me $1 per unit for the entire production and distribution of my widgets, I can set my price how I see fit. If it is too high, no one will buy. If I set it too low, I'll lose money. My goal is not to simply pick an arbitrary price between those two. Maybe people will pay $5 per widget, but demand will only be for 100 units. My market research then tells me that if I lower my price to $4 per widget, I will double the demand and sell 200 units in the same time frame I used to sell 100 units.
I had to increase production (which benefits those involved), but assuming I had the capacity to do so without heavy investment that would raise my operating and/or manufacturing costs (in other words, it is still costing $1 per widget to manufacture) while my per unit profit margin has shrunk, my overall profits are up!
How does this tie into Pokémon? Let us assume booster packs are priced for maximum profits (not per unit, but overall). If the secondary market gets too high, it can drive off the primary market; unlike my straight forward example, the primary and secondary markets are quite interrelated in a TCG. If the secondary market prices are too low, boosters feel like a rip off. If they are too high... we need to look at the demand for the particular goods.
Pokémon Catcher is a high demand card, and most decks are going to run three or four copies. While it is true this means the more decks you run, the more you can spread out this cost, that only works if you can afford the rest of what you need to make a second deck. If I don't have two viable decks, I don't get to spread out that cost.
So players who either can't or simply won't spend that much on a game that uses pieces of cardboard... don't. They don't bother buying the booster packs or similar primary market product they would have, because they know the primary market is highly unlikely to meet the minimum product needs of even the mildly competitive game.
This is just an unfortunate reality of how a capitalist market works.
Not really; you've made a lot of assumptions and assertions I disagree with, and you've given little to nothing to support them, at least credibly. You paint the TCG as a high end luxury good, like a luxury car, and then you claim a monopoly where none exists.
I know how the capitalist market works, and this is neither unfortunate nor a reality.
Pokemon shouldn't make cards more affordable (i.e., devalue the secondary market through additional releases of staples, etc.) just because some people can't afford Pokemon cards.
Again, this isn't what is being discussed, at least by me. If you are addressing others, please clarify; I'll quit wasting both our time. Most criticisms are because the inflated secondary market prices for cards essential to the most basic forms of competitive, Modified format play prohibit an otherwise willing portion of the market from participating, and the card supply is rare simply because TPC has chosen not to increase it to meet demand.
Pokemon should make most of their release decisions based on their own profit-maximizing interests and the interests of their distributors. That's how companies operate. Obviously, the current price of Pokemon cards is still driving sales, so why fix something that isn't broken?
So you never tweak your decks once it wins a little? I do not disagree with Pokémon making decisions around maximizing their profits. Saying otherwise is fraudulent or indicates we might as well stop this discussion, because you aren't understanding me at all.
Remember that interests of the distributors are not the same as Pokémon. Pokémon would find it much harder, perhaps impossible, to operate without their current distributors... but what is best for one may not be best for another.
So, just to be clear, if you're going to keep insisting Pokémon is a high end luxury good like a Ferrari, that it is a monopoly, we have little reason to continue the discussion.
