TPCi Philosophy

[FunnyBear]

I see that many members of this community continue to be surprised by many of the actions of TPCi and P!P with regards to OP and product marketing. I wonder if this is due to a disconnect between player expectations and company philosophy. A few of my observations and conclusions:

1. TPCi wants a slowly changing format
I believe this is a big part of the reason for the re-org of sets relative to their Japanese counterparts is due to the desire to have the biggest format changes occur after Worlds and much less throughout the season with perhaps the biggest changes after Cities. A slowly changing format results in decks that are built being playable and competitive throughout the season. When new players build decks, they spend a significant amount of money and this is perhaps their first investment in the game (or their parent's). If the deck becomes worthless after two months, it will tend to sour new players on the game. I feel this is often the reason that many format changing cards are held up in mid-season releases- Its good for the game.

2. TPCi wants to maintain a significant element of luck in the game
Many tournament players want to minimize this, but the luck is good for the game. It means that newer players will be able to take an occasional game off of an experienced player. This encourages the new players to stick around. In chess, a new player will lose continuously until they reach a meaningful level of skill. TPCi doesn't want Pokemon to become chess. Again, good for the game.

3. Quantity over Quality
The more product introductions over the year, the more sales they will generate. As most of the sales are through the large retailers, the variety of different product types drives sales. This is why we have 4 mediocre sets each year rather than 3 better ones, and why we have all these oddly packaged combinations with weird oversized cards, figurines, and the like.

4. Pokemon matter most
New product sales, particularly at big box retailers, are driven by new Pokemon, not trainers or supporters. It doesn't matter if a product launch has meaningful trainers or supporters, as long as there are new Pokemon.

These are just a few of my observations. What are your opinions?

 

[platinumwaiter]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case. In my view, this seems logical.

 

[Otaku]

The views expressed are likely, but a lot of the justifications wanting. Which is not to say that FunnyBear is incorrect with, for example, points two and three. This could very well be exactly the kind of thinking those in charge of the Pokémon TCG engage in, but that does not mean it will work out as anticipated.

TCGs include an inherent, inalienable luck element, however past the basic structure of the game too much luck does scare off players. All players? No, but some. I don't have enough data to know if more players are attracted by luck or scared off by it, and we could have quite the discussion of whether or not player "should" be attracted or scared off by it.

The same goes for quantity over quality; for one thing nothing states these two are mutually exclusive. There will be overlap, and the question is if they are wisely utilizing that overlap. I've stated before; if a set needs filler, turn to reprints. Throw in some alternate art or treatments (not necessarily expensive ones) and you can just have players happy that the chase rare card of a few sets ago is now back as something more obtainable... while collectors still get to enjoy "chasing" after the super-special-awesome version.

 

[FirestormXVI]

I agree with #1, #3, and #4, but I would disagree with #2 being "good for the game." I think with the swiss format, players do eventually hit the point where they'll play players of similar skill and at least get off one win (aside from the one 0-x). Increasing the luck factor of the game would help increase the chances of an inexperienced player in beating an experienced player, but a once-in-a-long-while occurence isn't really going to make that inexperienced player a long-time player and only serves to frustrate long-time players - which in turn could cause them to quit. I wouldn't call that a worthwhile trade off.

 

[baby mario]

TPCI has no say whatsoever in #2.

I dunno if they have much choice over #3 & #4 either. I doubt they could just decide not to release all the 'filler' cards from Japan and make small sets with a higher ratio of playable cards and Trainers.

 

[rileysill32]

TPCI has no say whatsoever in #2.

I dunno if they have much choice over #3 & #4 either. I doubt they could just decide not to release all the 'filler' cards from Japan and make small sets with a higher ratio of playable cards and Trainers.

"The Pokémon Company International, a subsidiary of The Pokémon Company in Japan, manages the property outside of Asia and is responsible for brand management, licensing, marketing, the Pokémon Trading Card Game, the animated TV series, home entertainment, and the official Pokémon website. Pokémon was launched in Japan in 1996 and today is one of the most popular children’s entertainment properties in the world." -www.pokemon.com

They are in charge of 100% of anything to do with pokemon TCG outside of Asia..

 

[ShadowCard]

I doubt they could just decide not to release all the 'filler' cards from Japan and make small sets with a higher ratio of playable cards and Trainers.

They have and still do move around what cards go into what sets. It used to be more common in the DP era. It usually has to do with theming, such as cards connected to a movie or putting all of the eevee evolutions into the same set if they were originally distributed by alternative ways outside of a main set.

---------- Post added 10/28/2012 at 05:38 PM ----------

1. TPCi wants a slowly changing format
I believe this is a big part of the reason for the re-org of sets relative to their Japanese counterparts is due to the desire to have the biggest format changes occur after Worlds and much less throughout the season with perhaps the biggest changes after Cities. A slowly changing format results in decks that are built being playable and competitive throughout the season. When new players build decks, they spend a significant amount of money and this is perhaps their first investment in the game (or their parent's). If the deck becomes worthless after two months, it will tend to sour new players on the game. I feel this is often the reason that many format changing cards are held up in mid-season releases- Its good for the game.

Do you have examples of this besides the rotating of the Modified format?

A lot of BW is only good until the next set. The pokemon of BW have no staying power. Each new set that has a different version of a pokemon is clearly a better version than the one from the previous set so there isn't a reason to play any kind of split. The only pokemon that have really survived new sets are Terrakion, Electrik, Mewtwo EX, Sableye, and Darkrai EX.

Emboar was always unstable so it isn't a surprise that it fizzled out. Zoroak, Tornadus, Thunderous, Chandelure, Cobalion, Kyurem, Durant, Vanelluxe. What happened?

 

[KAZUTO!!!]

I agree with #1, #3, and #4, but I would disagree with #2 being "good for the game." I think with the swiss format, players do eventually hit the point where they'll play players of similar skill and at least get off one win (aside from the one 0-x). Increasing the luck factor of the game would help increase the chances of an inexperienced player in beating an experienced player, but a once-in-a-long-while occurence isn't really going to make that inexperienced player a long-time player and only serves to frustrate long-time players - which in turn could cause them to quit. I wouldn't call that a worthwhile trade off.

I'm a pretty new player, who knows enough to build a competitive deck but not much else. I see I'm paired against Player A, who's had multiple Worlds, Nationals Top Cuts, Regs and States wins, etc. I feel really intimidated, and my friend tells me I'm going to get 6-0'd.

Now, let's say I somehow manage to win. I beat Player A through some very fortunate circumstances for me. However, I don't know enough about the game to realize just HOW lucky I got, so I think to myself "Hey! I just beat the best player ever! This is MY game!" And then I would want to continue, and even improve so I can make sure I beat Player A again.

Same thing could be said if I won, or even Top Cut, a tournament. I'd want to continue playing, and I don't think I'd quit.

Now, if I was Player A, even after having lost to a "scrub," I've played this game for a long time, and had many successes. I'll probably have success again, and one loss, or even several losses, won't make me quit the game.

 

[baby mario]

"The Pokémon Company International, a subsidiary of The Pokémon Company in Japan, manages the property outside of Asia and is responsible for brand management, licensing, marketing, the Pokémon Trading Card Game, the animated TV series, home entertainment, and the official Pokémon website. Pokémon was launched in Japan in 1996 and today is one of the most popular children’s entertainment properties in the world." -www.pokemon.com

They are in charge of 100% of anything to do with pokemon TCG outside of Asia..

Except that all the cards, mechanics and rulings are created in Asia, and are 100% decided on by Japan.

So . . . yeah. If Japan wants flippy cards, we have flippy cards.

They have and still do move around what cards go into what sets. It used to be more common in the DP era. It usually has to do with theming, such as cards connected to a movie or putting all of the eevee evolutions into the same set if they were originally distributed by alternative ways outside of a main set

I know they have the ability to move cards around and delay them (like they did with Vileplume and Lost World). I was responding to the OP's point about quantity over quality.

 

[FunnyBear]

Do you have examples of this besides the rotating of the Modified format?

A lot of BW is only good until the next set. The pokemon of BW have no staying power. Each new set that has a different version of a pokemon is clearly a better version than the one from the previous set so there isn't a reason to play any kind of split. The only pokemon that have really survived new sets are Terrakion, Electrik, Mewtwo EX, Sableye, and Darkrai EX.

Emboar was always unstable so it isn't a surprise that it fizzled out. Zoroak, Tornadus, Thunderous, Chandelure, Cobalion, Kyurem, Durant, Vanelluxe. What happened?

Just an observation of several years of competitive formats. It seems common that big potential changes in the format mid-season are prevented by holding back certain format changing cards. I remember feeling this over the last 3-4 years whenever people complain about the releases. I'm a bit starved for examples right now, but a look back on the dates of releases and the cards held back from the sets would surely show some.

Last season, if I recall, Reshiphlosian, Zek/Pachi/Shaymin, then Zekeels, and Durant were decent all season. The others were Tier 2-3 and stayed there until the rotation. When those first ones fell out of favor, you couldn't win events with them anymore, but they were still decent, playable decks right up to the rotation. We build decks for Juniors at league. How would it look if we had to tell parents the deck would fail hard after the next release? There's no question this state of affairs exists, the only question is whether or not it is intentional.

 

[Aron Figaro]

As far as design goes, blame Japan. TPCi handles translation, distribution, marketing, etc - not development. I've never heard of a developer being hired by TPCi for Pokemon TCG in my life, and I'm pretty sure they never have. The devteam is entirely in Japan.

The rest of these sound completely right though, and I laugh, because if these were documented goals at any of the studios I worked at back when I was a game developer, the product manager would be facing a firing SQUAD let alone firing!

 

[chrataxe]

I agree with 3 and 4.

But...

1=3

Your first and third point seem to be the same, but disagree with one another. With holding Catcher was pretty obvious. EP was a horrible set and they needed something to drive sales. They did the same thing with Primes (even did sort of the same with Vileplume in Undaunted) in HGSS sets and Lost World/Holo Energies in CoL. I goes back to quantity of quality.

2=4

Your second point is also a bit strange as it kind of ties into your fourth point. One thing most people do not realize is that Pokemon, compared to other card games, has far less luck than you think. This misconception comes for two reasons. First, people see flippy cards but don't take into account they aren't actually played much. Second, people don't play other TCG's. MtG/WoW have payment systems and low draw. Low draw = harder to hit the cards you need. Pokemon cycle hands/draws a ton of cards EVERY TURN. If you can draw two "extra" cards turn five in Magic, you are doing good and that usually comes at the price of missing a spell drop. That would be the equivalent of playing Bill every 4 turns or so and NOT playing a pokemon/energy the turn you do. Pokemon has a lot less luck than people think, their ignorance of other games drives this idea. If you don't believe me, sit down one day with a Magic player at your store and let them play with one of you good decks. I'll almost guarantee they will say, unprompted, "Man, I wish I could draw this much in Magic!" Either way, if sales are driven by Pokemon (and they are), there would be no need to continue to print awesome cards like Juniper or Cyrus or Catcher, all of which are non sales driving trainers that reduce luck.