Foil Cards and the Great WOTC Swindle
Economics forum
Posted on Feb. 25, 2014, 3:26 p.m. by brcap
Foils are an interesting economic mechanism Wizards' uses - no doubt. It is in their interest to release a certain number of premium cards per set, but decidedly less in their interest if all of those premium cards were mythics.
The more Brimaz, King of Oreskos saturates the market, the less hes worth, the less compelled I am to go buy a box/crack packs to get him the secondary market effects the primary.
So instead of a box with significantly more mythics, I get a box that replaces a certain proportion of such premium cards with foils. And, in order to keep some economic interest in foils, some of them will themselves be mythic.
Now, one question is who among us actually care about foils? Sure, if pulled a foil Brimaz, King of Oreskos I would think it was great. I would then head straight to my LGS to trade it in for 2 regular ones (notwithstanding some consideration of when it might see maximum returns).
In a game where the value of the card is a product of its playability (a complex idea simplified for current purposes) and availability the foil market is 100% artificial. A Foil Brimaz, King of Oreskos is functionally equivalent to a regular printing. Much like Diamond rings, or baseball cards, Foil printings have no intrinsic value.
Wizards have effectively said: weve made special edition cards functionally no different from their originals, but theyre worth much more, because REASONS! And weve swallowed it whole.
Again, remember scarcity of foil prints are irrelevant to the game.
But it s more complicated than REASONS, because Wizards aims for MTG to be more than a game; it aims to be a set of collectables - and this justify the scarce = expensive thinking, right?
It does, if we swallow that the cards are collectables; but Id argue their not; at least not in the same sense that stamps, baseball cards, or other pure collectables are, being items that depend in no way on their functionality. At the forefront, cards are valued by the formula above (playability and availability); only afterwards is the increased value denoted to foil scarcity applied (ie applying pure collectables thinking).
Put simply, their value is still derived from the actual playing of the game. If the cards are functional (measured by competitive constructed play). Rarity has very little impact on cost otherwise, which is why we have junk Rares.
There is no logical connection or market force that justifies jumping from thinking in terms of: sweet card is expensive, to a pure: scarce card is expensive. Wizards have just collectively sold us on the idea.
Now, Id tend to side a little more towards this being a good thing for Wizards (hooray for capitalism and all) and therefore good for the game, but I also dont like the idea of our being collectively sold a wholly artificial idea that impacts my wallet. It feels a little like being swindled. As mentioned, Wizards are not certainly alone in this kind of operation, and I even respect them a little for pulling it off.
But those are my thoughts and I wondered if anyone else cares about these shenanigans.
Well foils are interesting, but whatever their value, they are hard to sell. My LGS won't buy them because they don't sell for them on TCG or locally. Only two player's I know are actively trying to foil out a deck (EDH of course). The rest of us are 'meh' about it.
February 25, 2014 3:38 p.m.
Servo_Token says... #4
Yes, there are certain printings in Foil that people saught after. Fiendslayer Paladin comes to mind here.
I wouldn't say that having foils is a worthless addition to the game, because you have to consider that the game is meant to cater to everyone. Sure, I as a 20 year old man don't see the value in a shiny piece of paper as opposed to a dull one with the same function, but for the kids out there, the kitchen table players, the whole casual crowd, having a foil version of a card can be significantly important. I remember back when I was casual that the foil card in the intro packs meant everything to me. I didn't care that it was widely available, it was an awesome shiny version of a cool card that I had and my friends didn't.
Also, pimping out EDH decks is a pretty popular thing to do, and foil versions are a hot commodity in the EDH field.
So sure, competitive players don't really care for them and therefore won't dish out for them, but there is definitely a market for them, and that's why they are the prices that they are.
February 25, 2014 3:41 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #5
As far as WotC is concerned a foil card is only worth a little less than $0.10, because that's about how much they get paid per card (I don't know this for certain - I'm working backwards from other information about wholesale costs). Even after distributor markup and vendor markup, any given card only sells for about $0.25 retail. Granted, that's before anyone knows exactly what the card is, but still.
Like you said, the rest of the market value comes from play value, and premium and regular versions of a card are functionally identical. The difference in secondary market values is strictly due to collactability, one being scarcer to the other. Printing premium versions of cards is something meant to appeal to collectors and players who like to show off. The value of a premium card is subject to the same market pressures as the regular version, and WotC isn't screwing anybody.
February 25, 2014 3:51 p.m.
Cobthecobbler says... #6
See, I'm totally on-board with your way of thinking.
The only foils I care about is commons and uncommons. Obviously I'm not struggling to get those non-foiled, but If I pull foil Magma Jet s (Which I have already, twice!) I'm taking the regular ones out of my deck and putting the foils in. Why? Because it looks nice and trading them probably won't happen, and the return value on those is significantly low.
However, if I pull a foil Archangel of Thune , I'd rather trade it for 2 non-foils, because I am struggling to even get one at the moment. It's just hard figuring out how to do that, and sometimes you have to play the trade game between two other traders. Trade the foil to someone who wants it for something that the other trader wants for his non-foil Archangel(s).
February 25, 2014 3:52 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #7
The collectible part of the game is huge. I used to know a guy that had 4 sets of all expansion sets, and all Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, minus one set of power 9. I think it was beta he was missing. He had a whole box of dual lands, and it goes on and on. Pages of jace, ect. He did not play the game. I had to help him build some decks. He was the nicest guy, and I wish I was still in touch with him. He just saw the game in a way that I do not.
February 25, 2014 3:55 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #8
I don't care about having foils, and would do exactly the same thing as you - trade them in for more cards. But I know people who foil out decks because they enjoy doing it, and they're also collectors who consider Magic to be an investment as well as a game.
I don't think Wizards puts foils in packs to increase profits or to take advantage of customers. Most players who are searching for specific rares buy them on the secondary market, and that doesn't increase profit for Wizards. They're going to make the same amount of money either way. They're more strategic in trying to increase profits, such as building sets that play well in limited, like the Theros block, which means more packs are sold, or reprinting Modern cards based on demand.
February 25, 2014 4:07 p.m.
A worthwhile capitalist maxim to remember: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."
So yeah, a foil may not be worth anything to you. It may as well be a note saying "you get two Brimaz!" instead of an actual card. But it's worthwhile to someone, otherwise the price wouldn't be higher. If no one actually cared, then the price for a foil and non-foil would be the same. Just because it's not a priority for you, doesn't mean it's not a priority for everyone. A stainless steel fork works just as well as a gold one. Doesn't mean the people who value the gold fork more are bad people.
February 25, 2014 4:50 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #10
I have to point out that WOTC has no direct influence on the secondary market. Foil prices generally mean nothing to them.
WOTC prints foils because they're cool and people like them. The people set the demand, and the demand sets the price. WOTC has nothing to do with pricing outside of the impact their design choice have on the secondary market and player demand.
Additionally, because foils are nowhere near common enough to justify cracking packs specifically for them, so it can't really be said that WOTC is selling us on foils. They don't get the benefits. Secondary market sellers do.
Those facts being as they are, your argument is kind of baseless. It's factually wrong to claim that WOTC makes money from foils except in some fringe cases (for example, Alara Reborn premium boosters, or premium decks [which have been discontinued]). Foils don't really sell product. They're just a nice perk for players. And in that capacity, foils are unnecessary as far as gameplay is concerned. This is one of those different strokes for different folks kind of issues.
February 25, 2014 5:03 p.m.
I will make this one remark, then probably say nothing more on the subject: I bought a Gilded Lotus because it was so damn pretty, and had alternate art. It cost me a buck more, but that was a decision I made for my EDH stuff. Was I not fungal in this regard? Yeah, I wasn't, but that is my choice. It is SO damn nice though...
February 25, 2014 6:15 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #12
DrLitebur Tough actin' Tinactin can really help you out with that.
That card does look very nice though.
February 25, 2014 6:49 p.m.
I will go out of my way to attain foils. Now, I'm not an idiot about it, so I won't trade 2 chase rares for 1 foil (unless I have excess), but I will still value foils above normal. Why? They're nice to look at. I'm gonna sit there staring at my cards for hours on end, so why not make them nice to look at? I like all oddities and variations. Foil, foreign, altered, misprint/cut, promo, etc.
I will pay more than normal for them because they are worth more to me. If you wanna talk about what they're "really" worth, realize that they're really worth about a penny either way. It's a piece of card. The only difference is how much someone wants that piece of card.
February 25, 2014 6:53 p.m.
I try to get as many cards as foils if I can manage it. My one complaint is that my soft sleeves don't stop the bending so well. My biggest comfort is that this habit I have fallen into over time naturally protects against counterfeiting. I see the potential future usefulness as proxies as another plus.
Of course, all of this is different than getting foils in a pack or something which is what I think you are talking about?
February 25, 2014 7:35 p.m.
There is certainly something to be said in some people simply enjoying a nicer looking card and are willing to pay more for it. On whole, I would seriously doubt the number of people of this category justifies the foil market/mark-up on their own (more on this below).
The EDH trend of Foiling-up your deck is an interesting one, because it revolves around the idea of status (Id say few people following this trend do so simply for aesthetics, given the cost), and implicitly the belief that foil give this status. Theyve effectively wholly bought the idea that foils should be worth more via their scarcity.
Epochalyptik and Rhadamanthus, I think its a far too common mistake to think WotC profits aren't influenced by the secondary market. They're profit comes from controlling the game to whatever extent they can as a supplier - which is considerable.
As I mentioned, they profit by controlling the release of "premium cards". Put simply, if mythics were less scarce (ie foil printing was removed but the odds of pulling premium cards remained constant) then their secondary market value would fall, intern making it more realistic to gather those cards as singles in lieu of hunting for them in the primary market. The harder it is to find a Brimaz, King of Oreskos online or at my LGS, the more push there is crack a box to find it. They create demand through control.
You might say: removing foils and reducing the ratio of premium cards correspondingly would solve that; and it would, but it is also in WotC interest to have its consumers believe they are getting their monies worth, and a 1/32 (eg) premium distribution odds would significantly diminish this and intern the push to continue playing/buying.
Moreover, WotC certainly indirectly control the secondary market values of their cards by controlling the relative functionality of the cards. WotC has a good idea that Brimaz, King of Oreskos
is a highly functional card, and similarly that others have a lower functionality. They do not release relatively few excellent cards solely for sake of the playability of the game (its arguable whether that would be a reason at all), but rather for the economy of the game, the effects it will have the above, and the longevity of their business. That in itself is a seperate long disscussion.
I understand its unlikely many of us here have any extensive economics background, but to say that a foil card is worth its production cost to WotC, or that they arent significantly affected by secondary markets; ignores well economics. I would imagine WotC spends hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in consideration of the above. Their employees arent limited to artists and game designers, but also economisits and market Analysts - theyre good at this.
As you noted, WOTC prints foils because they're cool and people like them. This is true , but in reverse causation. WOTC prints foils and tells us that theyre cool, so we buy them. They sell us on the myth of their value. Again, some are willing to pay a premium for aesthetics, but they would not have the numbers to justify the overall price difference.
As your comments tell, I think theres considerable confusion still so Ill diamonds as an example. They are perhaps the best example of a company creating the myth of value to create demand. The vast majority of diamonds are owned by DeBeers, and they arent particularly scarce; DeBeers withholds their supply to artificially create scarcity and control their market value. Prior to a marketing campaign by DeBeers in the late 1800s, diamonds were not used as engagement rings .. nor were engagement rings considered customary. Diamonds were worth a fraction of their current value (notwithstanding inflation) prior to this because there was no demand apart from simply being pretty things. They were marketed as a necessary component of marriage, the population bought in, and now diamond engagement rings are a social obligation. Like foils, diamonds are pretty but have no intrinsic value, they dont cost what they cost because theyre nice to look at (though that is a small part of both), but because of careful business strategy.
I reiterate that Im not saying foils (or diamonds) are useless, or that we shouldnt have them, etc. only interested in an informed economics discussion about their existence.
February 26, 2014 10:38 a.m.
Where's the tin hat?
What you're really saying is WoTC is manipulating the secondary market constantly for their profit. The foils are part of this conspiracy. I don't believe this is true at all, that there is a conspiracy. WoTC only trying to sell a product that appeals to the LCD. The LCD likes shiny things, WOTC don't have a stake in the secondary market outside of maintaining NEW product for stores to sell. The pricing in the market is fully set on supply and demand. The fact that mythic and rare foil chase cards are the most expensive, is because of the demand for them. I have plenty of foils, rares, mythics that are not worth anything in the long run, because the demand for them isn't there, but the supply is the same as the expensive ones.
The fact you're missing is this is and always has been a collectible card game, with different rarities for cards. Not everyone is supposed to have 4 of every card, that's the fact, regardless of income and spending power. The shiny adds to the collectible part of the game. And so what if the secondary market rapes the consumer. The consumer is the one pulling their pants down and bending over. If the consumer didn't, then the money thing would be a non-issue. Because the demand is gone.
Don't get mad at the company for pushing it's product the best it can and make it appealing to everyone, because that is in their best interest. That's all that matters to them and should. NWO is an example outside of this that annoys me, because it makes for crappy limited environments (this is not a debate on nwo and it's effects on limited, so please lets leave this alone), but makes the barrier of entry lower so WoTC does get new players, sells more product and creates a demand for their sealed products.
I don't like this conversation,because it ignores the fundamentals of business.
February 26, 2014 10:53 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #17
There is no part of the process where Star City selling a foil Brimaz at a premium over the regular version means WotC gets more money in their pockets. No one buys foils from WotC, primarily because they don't sell them. They sell booster cases, and the buyers are distributors, major resellers, and LGSs. We buy foils from major resellers, LGSs, and each other. Saying that WotC prints certain cards because it will encourage people to crack packs for pricey singles is like saying the game is kept popular by making Standard expensive to get into, and that doesn't make sense.
The comparison to DeBeers doesn't work. Yes, both DeBeers and WotC give instruction on primary market values (MSRP), but the topic you brought up is about secondary market values. Secondary market values are completely up to the discretion of outfits like Star City, Troll and Toad, and Cool Stuff Inc., and are driven by what consumers are willing to pay.
February 26, 2014 10:54 a.m.
SharuumNyan says... #18
Wizards WANTS cards to be more available to the secondary market, because it means more people will get enthusiastic about more formats, and will play more Magic. Creating scarcity is the exact opposite of what they're trying to do, with the exception of cards like the P9 that they promised never to reprint.
Foils have very little influence on their profits. A pack with a foil creates the same profit for them as a pack without a foil. A person collecting all foils will grab them on the secondary market instead of opening packs for them, and Wizards doesn't profit from the secondary market.
One thing Wizards has done to increase profits is release the Duels of the Planeswalkers game. By reaching out to console players, they have enticed more people to play the paper game. That's the kind of profit-building strategy they work with.
February 26, 2014 11:11 a.m.
Rhadamanthus, you've misunderstood the point on how WotC's control creates demand, and intern how the surrounding points fall into place. gufymike you certainly have, as there is no conspiracy here, simply good business practices.
It's looking like this is probably the wrong place to have this disscussion, but i thank you all for your interest thus far.
I'll simply end by speaking very broadly. Place youself in WotC shoes; you are a game designer but also a business. If a secondary market for your product existed it would be overwhemlingly in your interst to excersie whatever control was possible therein. I'll leave to yourselves to reflect on the ways they can do this or to revist the above (and no, i don't mean via back alley shake downs - but via smart business). But it should be obvious to all that it would be economically Naiive for WotC to ignore any effect they could have on that market.
February 26, 2014 11:17 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #20
@brcap: I can see why you're arguing, and I can see what you're arguing, but your points are wrong. They come from a flawed understanding of MTG economics.
WOTC obviously has a stake in the secondary market, but don't conflate that with WOTC having a direct interest in the value of every card they print. What they care about is having enough demand to justify a product. Powerful and rare cards - the ringers in any set - are the selling point. By comparison, foils are too rare, inconsistent, and generally insignificant to have an appreciable impact.
As I said, WOTC has an indirect influence on the market through their design choices. However, they don't set prices. Part of this is due to the fact that they don't profit directly from SM values. Once they sell their product, they're done with it. They follow demand and use SM reaction to influence future designs, but their direct concern, and their profits, are only concerned with a set or product the moment it leaves their hands.
Your understanding of why foils are valuable is also completely erroneous. Foils wouldn't sell if people didn't want them. WOTC doesn't "create" the demand in the sense that they tell players "hey, this card will make you cool. Buy it." WOTC prints the cards, people determine that they like them, and people buy them.
February 26, 2014 11:19 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
Also, it's worth continuing the conversation. If you have an opinion, and you can articulate it in a civil and understandable way, then defend it.
February 26, 2014 11:24 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #22
@brcap: There's no "control" aspect to Magic in the way you're describing. WotC prints to demand from distributors and major resellers. The print run does only last for a certain window of time, but the total quantity is determined by demand. The last expansion set to have its availability limited by shortfalls to overall demand was The Dark, and the only booster-based set to have a purposefully restricted print run was Modern Masters (Collector's Edition, From the Vault, and Commander's Arsenal were specifically made to be limited-edition collectables).
February 26, 2014 11:37 a.m.
brcap "As I mentioned, they profit by controlling the release of "premium cards". Put simply, if mythics were less scarce (ie foil printing was removed but the odds of pulling premium cards remained constant) then their secondary market value would fall, intern making it more realistic to gather those cards as singles in lieu of hunting for them in the primary market. The harder it is to find a Brimaz, King of Oreskos online or at my LGS, the more push there is crack a box to find it. They create demand through control."
This says conspiracy. They are printing something to set the secondary market value to a high level. Which is something they have stated they are not doing, in fact they are doing the opposite. Trying to keep the secondary market from exploding beyond comprehension. And this where they spend millions on.
I will not argue against them manipulating the market through reprints and filling only a portion of the demand. They have to maintain a balance here. There is no getting around this for them. They understand for modern to thrive, it can't be priced liked legacy is. They want modern to thrive more than anything, so they give us things like Modern Master. They do limit the product to keep from devaluing the secondary market for the existing items. They have to do this or LGS and people who sell their sealed product will go out of business and lose players and collector trust. Because the last time they did something similar was chronicles, which destroyed the secondary market and put people out of business.
February 26, 2014 11:47 a.m.
SharuumNyan says... #24
If Wizards was deliberately trying to inflate prices they wouldn't have printed more C13 decks based on demand. They would have done a limited release, and let players fight to the death over the few True-Name Nemesis on the secondary market.
February 26, 2014 12:06 p.m.
@Epochalyptik, I do enjoy your comments and discussion, so i'm happy to respond. Though I'm sure we're all aware it becomes reasonable to consider the time investment necessary in explaining an argument can quickly outweigh your interest in furthing it (i do have things to do today :P
That said, to your first point, i've certainly never inferred WOTC have a direct interest in the value of every card they print - they necessarily work on a general basis - creating scarcity of powerful cards to increase overall demand.
It seems like your objection to the idea are the base concepts.
You've still ignored the economics of a consumers desire to buy is affected by their belief they are getting there money's worth. THIS is a principle reason foils exist. Competitive players crack packs primarily in search of powerful cards, but are appeased by valuable ones (eg foils) in their stead because of their trade value. It would be bad for the game and the product they are selling to omit this (as explained above) hence Foils are significant to the primary market.
To say WotC profits are only concerned with a set or product the moment it leaves their hands is the same as saying each card is only worth it's production cost to them - this ignores their desire to propagate demand amoung many other things. Their goal is not to sell you a pack... but to enjoy the pack and come back and buy another. They know they aren't done with you once you bought their product because they have more products to sell (your belief that they are is an oversimplification of business), so the product they sell you is optimized to net return business. What I have been discussing is that this optimization is not simply in terms of game design, but by economics that include the SM.
You've also ignored my example / argument of how SM prices effect PM demand in this regard, in favour of simply asserting a lack of connection. I agree that they don't profit directly from SM values, my argument is that they profit indirectly.
Though I can understand why you've construed it that way, I am not arguing WotC simply directly markets that foils are great, we buy their pitch and love them. No active marketing is required on their part, they relly on the implicit association of a pretty and scarce thing being valuable. My initial point was that in a game where value is primarily derived from function, there is no compelling reason for the consumer to objectively accept this. The brilliance is that WotC creates that compulsion for the reason above; we want value out of what we buy so we accept foils are valuable. This benefits both the SM and PM.
I dont deny the SM primarily runs itself (at least as a product of its internal supply/demand etc), only that the PM can and does influence it in its favour.
February 26, 2014 12:19 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #26
The only way foils would have any influence over the primary market is if people purposely bought a lot of packs with the intention of getting a foil to trade/sell for value. But no one does that. At least not anyone I know.
Also, competitive players rarely crack packs to get rare cards. They do it for fun, if at all, because they know that cracking packs isn't an economical way to buy cards.
February 26, 2014 12:36 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #27
"You've still ignored the economics of a consumers desire to buy is affected by their belief they are getting there [sic] money's worth."
No, I've actually acknowledged that. As I said, people wouldn't buy foils if they didn't like or want them.
Foils are not significant to the primary market. They do add an element of appeasement, you're right, but they do not justify cracking packs. The chances of pulling a foil are so low that the foil itself serves a more whimsical or amusing purpose. While the effect the foil has on the person who opens it is certainly not worth discounting, it does not act as an incentive to buy product.
Also, and this is an aside, competitive players don't often open packs. The EV of packs is always lower than MSRP, so opening packs is an economically irresponsible way to build or expand a collection. Most competitive players actually buy singles from the secondary market.
I think you're taking my argument about WOTC's concern for product a bit out of context. WOTC obviously wants to create sustained demand for its product. That's the MO of any successful business. But WOTC stops making profit off of a particular instance of a product after that product leaves their hands. Once a box is off into the secondary market, WOTC doesn't see any more profit from it. All the money that changes hands over that box from that point on goes between players and stores. WOTC distributes using a top-down model: it provides a single point of entry, the PM, and doesn't reacquire its product after that.
As I've said, WOTC certainly monitors its products' performance in the SM. They use trends and feedback to influence their designs. My entire argument has been based on establishing that WOTC sees indirect benefits, not direct benefits. The only direct benefit is the money that make at point-of-sale to distributors. Everything else operates through channels and through other agents in the system to produce some kind of advantage for WOTC, be it information, demand, or something else.
That said, I do argue that you're exaggerating the effect that SM prices have on PM demand. Yes, expensive cards are in demand, and yes, WOTC can capitalize on that demand through reprints and other means, but the majority of WOTC's capitalization on this demand is indirect; it is used to fuel demand for other products, not to give an immediate return to WOTC itself. You're misunderstanding the argument.
Your argument about wanting and receiving value is flawed. WOTC does not construct the value of foils in any way other than by making them more exclusive and more appealing from a collector's standpoint (and anyone can have this standpoint, not just collectors). The model works the opposite of the way you imply. Players like foils, so demand goes up, and, consequently, price follows. The wording of your argument implies that you're saying people buy foils, then construct the idea that foils are valuable so as to justify their purchases.
February 26, 2014 1:01 p.m.
Every time I get a valuable foil, I immediately off-load it. This is because I don't value foils at all. I do, however, know a number of people who love foils and try to foil out every deck they play seriously (To the tune of foil fetches, and other very high value cards)
To suggest to them that the only reason they like foils is that WOTC -told them to- is both hilariously wrong and quite insulting.
While one can argue that the purpose of foils is to encourage booster pack purchase from magpies who really like foils, the actual chance of getting foils at all, let alone particular foils let alone particular RARE foils is so low that I feel pretty safe to say that nobody, at all, buys sealed product with the primary goal of getting particular foils.
Foils just percolate into the market to be sought after by people who happen to care about them, pretty organically. By the hands of people buying boxes and cases for other reasons, who happen to not be interested in foils.
I actually think that, on the whole, the ratio of "price of chaff to price of chase" among foils is actually stronger towards the worthless end than for non-foils. That is to say, there are more non-foils worth a lot more than the baseline chaff price of other non-foils than there are foils for foils.
February 26, 2014 1:45 p.m.
Ok, now we're getting somwhere.
One point main at a time.
We agree comsumers do not (typicaly) crack packs for foils. I have not argued otherwise. I have agrued that consumers do, however, crack packs with value in mind. People don't buy somehting they feel is largely or most likely to be worthless. Your agrument of few people cracking packs for foils is equilvalent to stating few people crack packs for any one specific card - it is correct, but meaningless in this context. People crack packs for value (alongside fun etc), and the presence of foils significantly effects the value of the set as a whole (being 1 in 70 cards). We cant seperate any element of that "value" and call it individually insignificant, because each element (being the chase cards, foils, your personal preferences etc) works together to dervice that concept of value, moreover with the knowledge those packs contents are randomized.
If you agree that value is an important factor in the PM, which i believe you do, then I submit that foils represent a significant proportion of a set's worth and nessessarily impact the PM regardless of whether I'm actively seeking them out or not.
Next, im aware you're saying WotC is only paid once for each product - this is self evident, and I haven't contested this or argued incongruently with it. Nor would I say i've exaggerated anything, only spoken in broad economic concepts. If you find fault the concept that scarcity in the PM drives consumers back the PM where demand exists, you've yet to explain why. This effects WotC imdediate sales, not just via demand of reprints or future sales.
I havent argued this effects 75% of WotC imdediate sales ... or even 15%; as those would frankly be baselss assertions. I would argue if it even represented 5%, that that would be a significant impact on their business. As Rhadamanthus pointed out, printing runs last for a certain window of time, but the total quantity is determined by demand (though the notion of control @Rhadamanthus was arguing against was not the same I put forward). Scarcity in the PM driving consumers back the PM allowing for increased sale by demanding further printing.
Note also that nowhere have I limited my arguement to include only an imdediate sales impact - though notabley that was the example I gave. I agree they can control the SM to some extend for future revenue gains as well, as others have mentioned.
Lastly I dont mean to imply that people buy foils, then solely construct the idea that foils have value so as to justify their purchases - only that it is a self affirming excersise. Note though, that i (we) didn't start by calling them " pemium cards ", WotC did that. They did, in fact, assign them the potential of increased value right out of the gate, and as i've argued, we (the SM) follwed suit. Now, it's established that they have a increased value, though this value is (in some part) artificial.
@Devonin you raise an important distinction. I haven't argued (or at least, meant to argue) that we like something because we're told to (though honestly i think that happens pretty much our whole lives to a greater degree than we're collectively happy with addmitting). I have argued that we accept their increased value because we're told that's just the way it is or should be, without a reasonable justification into why the increased value is meritted (at least to the degree it is).
February 26, 2014 4:26 p.m.
@brcap : I have never in my life, when deciding about the value of a box as to whether it is worth buying or not, considered the value of foils in that set on the secondary market. 1 in 70 foils when 99.9% of them will be worthless (And being worth 15 cents instead of 10 is worthless) is simply not worth considering.
Considering I'd be likely to get, say, 70 Elspeths before I got a single Foil Elspeth, and know that in multiple boxes I may only get 1 Elspeth at all, even considering the potential value of a foil Elspeth simply does not factor into my valuation of a set.
I simply deny that the demand for foils leads, in any way, to any particular increase in demand for a set, compared to demand for particular format-relevant mythics. There may be a person, or even a hundred people who buy more packs because they want to crack foils, but they are such a minuscule drop in the bucket as to be meaningless. People who use set value to drive their primary market purchases are looking for format-staple quality rares and mythics, waaaaay before they are even considering foils.
February 26, 2014 4:34 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #31
I believe foils started with Pokemons or something. Magic did not have them at the time. When they did start to get them, there were many who were excited. I remember I did not care, and traded them away. I am thinking they had many requests to put this in to the game, and so they did. I know it is the same company.
February 26, 2014 4:45 p.m.
@Devonin, im afraid you've fundamentally misunderstood the argument. I'd only suggest you re-read my arguments.
Another important all round point to any other commenters, is that we are talking economics ; and hence how a market behaves, not how you, as an individual actor, behave.
February 26, 2014 4:49 p.m.
I'm lost to the point of this conversation now. I don't agree that foils do anything for the singles market and I think they are a market unto themselves. Where only a select few want to participate.
February 26, 2014 4:55 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #34
@brcap: Your last post was hard to understand. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, or where you're trying to go with it. If you clarify, I'll respond to it.
The one thing I did get, which is the point you make in your final two paragraphs, is that you think the foil market is somehow arbitrary or artificially determined by WOTC. That's wrong. This game is governed by simple economics. If players want something, there's demand. An increase in demand causes an increase in price. Prices stabilize wherever supply and demand balance; if stores can sell card X for price Y at a profit and with consistent enough success, then price Y is where that card will sit until a change in either supply or demand bumps the price in one direction or the other.
In my opinion, you've yet to make a convincing case for that claim. Foils have more value than nonfoils because people like foils. They determine that the shiny backing is worth the extra cost, so they buy foils. Or they determine that the shiny backing is not worth the extra cost, so they don't buy foils. Foils obviously have more potential value because they're rarer and more aesthetically appealing than nonfoils, but the argument that WOTC somehow assigned them value is, thus far, baseless. Furthermore, the claim that we accept the values because that's the way they are is pretty naive. The values are what they are because sellers believe the current prices offer an acceptable balance between profit per sale and frequency of sale. If we accept that, we either buy the foils (if we want them) or move on. If we don't accept that, then maybe we don't buy the foils, but we also ignore how the market works.
February 26, 2014 4:57 p.m.
I think it really just comes down to supply and demand. Even if the demand for foils isn't astronomical, the supply (for rare cards, particularly) is so extremely low compared to normal printings that it's not uncommon for a foil to be many times the price of a normal printing. A rare card that is in demand will likely have people seeking its foil counterpart, and with such a small number of foils in comparison it's only natural that they cost more.
Also, brcap, I'm not quite sure what exactly you're arguing. Are you against foils altogether, for their immediate discontinuation, or just enjoying a nice debate? No problems with any of those, just wondering what exactly brought about this post.
February 26, 2014 4:57 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #36
I didn't read most of this (tl;dr), but I often crack packs without any expectation of getting value out of it. I just enjoy cracking packs. Most packs I open are largely worthless, and I know that going in. If I get a good rare - bonus! If I get a good foil rare - double bonus. But foils are never a consideration towards my motivation to actually buy packs. Commons or uncommon foils are pretty useless, and that's what we usually get. They get a "oh, pretty" reaction, then they get stuck in a box.
When I buy a lottery ticket, I do so with the hope of winning the lottery. When I open random packs, I do so for the fun of opening packs. There's a big difference between the two. If I wanted a Brimaz I just have to pay $35 and get my Brimaz, rather than opening possibly hundreds of dollars of packs to get that Brimaz. If I want to win the lottery I only have one choice - keep buying lottery tickets. It's the choice in Magic to buy stuff on the secondary market that largely removes the appeal of buying packs just for pure value.
February 26, 2014 5:20 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #37
@brcap: Constantly moving the goalposts and changing the subject doesn't constitute a "discussion", or anything resembling a "debate". Are we talking economics or are we talking about how WotC fooled all the sheeple into laying down money for foils? I have no idea what's going on in this thread anymore.
February 26, 2014 10:39 p.m.
@Rhadamanthus I feel you bro, I think I've only "fundamentally misunderstood" his argument, as he said, because I don't agree with it.
February 27, 2014 7:32 a.m.
@Jp3ngu1nb0y, I was only looking for other thoughtful responses or counter-positions (I admit using the term Swindle was a tactic to poke the bear a little) . I do take your point about packs vs lottery tickets and agree with most of it, but would argue it's not as binary a distinction as you make it out to be (fun vs winning). My general argument depends on the idea that the sales of packs depend necessarily on consumers not viewing them as worthless on whole (regardless of an understanding that the odd pack may be just that by statistics). I would say thats an economic point I take largely for granted (people dont buy something they know to be junk), but you raise a good point. Id argue it's hard to conceive of what the 'fun' in cracking packs would look like if you entirely removed the idea of winning/value. Part of the fun must be the hope of netting something good, which would make value a factor in your deciding to buy. To remove value entirely from why you crack packs, would leave only an enjoyment of statistical randomness regardless of outcome.
@Rhadamanthus and @Devonin, while your interest in appreciated, I hope you can understand my reluctance to reiterate my points when they are misunderstood or when you are lost, particularly if I feel some re-reading and timely consideration on your part can overcome this. I apologizes if you find it belittling, it not my intention, my time is simply limited.
@Epochalyptik you'd have to clarify which points you have difficulty with (at least to save me from writing an essay on everything) and may response may deal with your latter points.
February 28, 2014 11:51 a.m.
Didgeridooda says... #40
You could just argue the the game as a whole is a swindling.
February 28, 2014 11:55 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #41
Honestly, the entirety of it. We've changed subjects many times, and post 2:8 is just difficult to understand in terms of direction and significance in the context of the discussion.
If we just "reset" the discussion, I think we'd be able to get somewhere.
February 28, 2014 12:04 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #42
I don't misunderstand your points. I disagree with some of them and I'm responding to them with my thoughts and the specific points of disagreement. If I seem "lost" it's because your responses come across as sidesteps and straight topic changes and are inherently difficult to follow. To be completely honest (and admittedly very blunt), I feel like I came in expecting a discussion but got a rant instead.
February 28, 2014 1:10 p.m.
Centurion13 says... #43
I don't know about WOTC using foils to rip us off. I do know that a lot of my playing in Magic is about 'quality of life'. I play casually. I play EDH, Three Card, and like that. We have a club that meets twice a week to do this.
A cardboard box, a pad of paper and a backpack is fine for the average Standard player, but me? The money I save by needing only one of a kind in my playstock (for EDH) versus a full playset of the latest killer card - goes into sprucing up my decks with foils. And other stuff.
They're pretty. I like looking at them when I play them. Lands, artifacts, whatever. It enhances my enjoyment of the game. I don't have a cardboard box, I commissioned a wooden chest to carry my stuff. Before that I used fancy cigar boxes (and the cards smelled nice, too). I make abacus style life counters with metal beads and they use foil cards. They're pretty, and cool to look at and use.
I have little glass beads for tokens. And I keep the more attractive older spin-down counters to roll for who plays first.
Hell, I even converted an oversize card from the old days into an EDH life counter and timer. Two minutes is the limit for a turn in our club. And 15 poison is the limit.
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m10/Centurion013/CarryingCase_zps46083d07.jpg
Like I said, quality of life. I get to enjoy not just the game, but other hobbies that tie into it as well. The foils add immensely to that pleasure - I am happy even to get a foil common, as long as the art 'pops'. Some do, many don't, but that's part of the fun. Right now I am busy acquiring chinese foil lands. If this is WOTC ripping me off, they are welcome to the money they earn.
May 13, 2014 6:26 p.m.
WovenNebula says... #46
There have been foils sought after in other collectible cards prior to wizards of the coast deciding to do so for magic the gathering. ( Lightning Dragon being the first card printed as a foil and Urza's Legacy being the first set to have foils.) Wizards intentions, past, present, and future, on foils are to be as a collectible for collectors, not the average MTG player. (Since they realized MTG has become collectible and more than just a game) Foils have never been printed to replace rare and/or mythic spots in booster packs but an addition to booster packs for collectors to seek for, as they are also copies of cards that are non-foil. If play the game to play the game of course rarity of the card will effect its cost as well as demand but if you are seeking foils those are for people who play the game and who also collect and they are for people who are just collectors. There are various articles on why wizards decided on foils and they no way impact what cards are worth but vice versa for the most part unless for the rare instances where a foil is scarce for whatever reason to drive its price up.
May 13, 2014 8:39 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #47
It's fine to revive an old thread if you post something constructive. Given that this conversation isn't exactly date-sensitive, I don't see a problem here. The post was definitely well thought out.
@Centurion13: That's pretty much the way I play. I don't have a problem with my cedar deckbox or my foiled decks. I think a lot of the dissent for foils comes from two different camps: the people who want to have all foils (basically a higher quality of life, as your argument would put it) but who can't afford them, and the people who are opposed to the idea of super rarity.
To the first camp, my response would be that nicer and rarer things will inevitably cost more. One shouldn't expect that a TCG will not exhibit the same supply and demand patterns that govern other rarity-based trade systems.
To the second camp, my response would be roughly the same. Magic is, first and foremost, a TCG. It's based on rarity. Not every person should or will have every card. Given that WOTC doesn't end up doing the gouging, they aren't wholly to blame. Foils are just another way they make their product more collectible, and therefore more enjoyable, to the player base as a whole.
Ohthenoises says... #2
My only desire for foils is usually repurposing them as a base for my token making.
Foils are the same, yes, some I find more aesthetically pleasing. Moonveil Dragon for example, it has no real value either way but the art looks AMAZING in foil due to what it accentuates.
February 25, 2014 3:32 p.m.