Page 3 of 3 First 123
Results 51 to 63 of 63

  1. Post
    #51
    Bloody wrote:
    tbh i been away from the M:TG for a long time but i do beleive WOTC has never sold sets of cards, some are done by 3rd party , and wotc does not determine the price,. My original Beta Black lotus card goes still can be sold for around $12000 USD
    Believe what you want I guess but they do sell them. The latest one is transform cards, 15 for $75.

  2. Post
    #52

  3. Post
    #53
    spfun wrote:
    Why is this all happening now when its EA? If anything they're incredibly late to the scumbag (lootbox) party...
    Because of star wars really. Hopefully this extends to all games.
    I remember when csgo boxes came in, I bought a few keys and stuff. Got a $100 knife, couldn't believe people would pay real money for pixels. I knew people who spent thousands of dollars on keys and boxes.
    .it's a dirty practice, I'll never spend real money to get s chance to win something in game.

    Sent from my MX4 Pro using Tapatalk

  4. Post
    #54
    CODChimera wrote:
    Believe what you want I guess but they do sell them. The latest one is transform cards, 15 for $75.
    i just checked and while some of the retailers were called Wizards trading etc , none of them were wotc, they were 3rd party ?

  5. Post
    #55
    CODChimera wrote:
    Believe what you want I guess but they do sell them. The latest one is transform cards, 15 for $75.
    Premium foil reprints of well-known cards, often with new art is not the same thing as re-selling second hand singles.

    Loot boxes and microtransactions cannot be gambling so long as there is no fixed, enforced monetary value from the rewards. There are rarer skins/unlocks, but unless those can be directly attributed to a monetary value, they hold no more intrinsic value than any of the common skins/unlocks and as such, are no different to a 'mystery bag' as sold by roughly a billion retailers the world over without a gambling license.

  6. Post
    #56
    Celticknife wrote:
    Premium foil reprints of well-known cards, often with new art is not the same thing as re-selling second hand singles.
    The whole point is that Wizards can very easily decide the price of cards.

  7. Post
    #57
    CODChimera wrote:
    The whole point is that Wizards can very easily decide the price of cards.
    No, they can decide the cost of sealed, alternate product. They can also go some way to alleviating the cost of second hand cards by reprinting them, as they do every year in the Masters sets. You might see it as a technicality, but it's an important technicality since Wizards very specifically have nothing to do with the second hand market.

  8. Post
    #58
    Ok so if they released a pack that had all the shocklands in it then what would happen to the price of shocklands?

  9. Post
    #59
    CODChimera wrote:
    Ok so if they released a pack that had all the shocklands in it then what would happen to the price of shocklands?
    Depends on the price they set for the supplemental product. Either way, it's explicitly why they do not release FTV or similar supplemental product with all high-demand cards. You used the transform cards as an example - of those 15 cards, only JVP and Huntmaster are particularly pricey. The Delver alternate art is cool, so there is some demand for that too, but outside those three cards you are massively negative on EV. It's worth pointing out that FTV reprints have historically had bugger all impact on prices of those cards, since the majority of modern and eternal players do not foil out their decks.

    FWIW shocklands aren't worth much currently anyway, and they did reprint the enemy fetchlands in MM17.

  10. Post
    #60
    **** I lost my post. Alright you win WOTC can't change the price of the cards in their card game.

  11. Post
    #61
    I'm not saying they couldn't, I'm saying they very intentionally don't.

  12. Post
    #62
    it is pretty intentional, you mix the words "cards " gambling etc and it becomes a shit storm to manage when many of your potential market is below 18. So you do not want to risk any chance that they will put gambling restrictions onto the MtG product. ( tho i believe their main market are above gambling age nowadays but they still need to keep the 12-15 year olds coming in to get into the MtG )

  13. Post
    #63
    Bloody wrote:
    it is pretty intentional, you mix the words "cards " gambling etc and it becomes a shit storm to manage when many of your potential market is below 18. So you do not want to risk any chance that they will put gambling restrictions onto the MtG product. ( tho i believe their main market are above gambling age nowadays but they still need to keep the 12-15 year olds coming in to get into the MtG )
    Yes, and this highlights the fundamental crux of this issue - what actually is gambling?

    For me, gambling implies a chance of receiving zero return i.e. losing entirely. If you open a CSGO lootbox, or a booster pack of MTG cards at absolute worst you are still receiving a product. Some people consider any monetary transaction with an element of 'chance' to be gambling.

    Personally, I think speculating on BTC and other crypto is closer to gambling than opening loot boxes, but that's just me.