Modern Buy-Out Madness
Economics forum
Posted on July 12, 2015, 2:55 a.m. by WovenNebula
It seems every other day another staple is on the rise.
I personally don't think this is healthy format.
With all the artificial inflation will there be an eventual bubble pop?
I'd like to know the communities thoughts on this ever increasing possible problem.
Unforgivn_II says... #3
Artificial inflation isn't really artificial. When the demand remains and supply is removed, prices go up. Stores buy all the supply, and they control the price. So until its deemed that the deck running said card is ineffective, the prices stay high, because why not? People are still demanding those cards.
The only way to lower prices is to: A) increase supply (by reprinting in a standard set), or B) have less demand (by the deck becoming ineffective or, heaven forbid, people stop playing in large numbers).
Until Wizards reprints the shit out of every Modern staple (which is unfathomable), prices will continue to rise. I don't think mass reprinting is the answer either. We love our double standards as MTG players. We hate it when a card we need gets an "unnecessary" price spike, but love it when our collection gets a massive boost from some cards that we have playsets of jumping through the roof. And we hate it even more when our money cards take a price dump from a reprint before we were able to trade/sell them. So no matter what Wizards does, we rage about it.
Modern doesn't earn Wizards a ton of money. They make nothing off of resale prices. They make tons of money off of something with a ridiculous MSRP like MMA, but how many times can they afford to pitch a "great limited environment" (which I wholeheartedly agree with; its really fun) before we start raging about that because what we really want is expensive cards. Standard and Sealed are the biggest cash cows for Wizards, and those are what keep them creating the game we love.
I don't think there is an easy way for Wizards to adequately support Modern. Modern will become like Legacy, where there is an incredibly high buy-in and low popularity (I'm not saying Legacy is dead; that's another discussion). I think once some years pass and we have a decent card pool starting with M15, we will have a new Modern, and Wizards can stop supporting our current Modern actively. It'll be a clean slate and we can start anew
July 12, 2015 4:10 a.m.
Unforgivn_II - It is artifical because its not consumer driven. It's essentially a type of price fixing. Very frowned upon in other sectors.
July 12, 2015 8:16 a.m.
Servo_Token says... #6
This is why I stopped playing Twin in Modern, the deck cost far too much to maintain. Terminate is $5? No thanks. I'll just play burn so I also have a legacy deck and sell off the twins and, holy moly, $5 Deceiver Exarchs.
July 12, 2015 9:06 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #7
I'd just like to point out to everyone that modern has been sustaining deck prices for quite a while. Affinity has the same overall price, even though some cards have gone up. How this works is that when a staple is reprinted, it becomes cheaper, so people start buying into the deck, and another staple becomes more expensive.
Mox Opals are no longer unobtainable, but now Arcbound Ravagers are more expensive, and the overall deck price has not changed*.
It's similar with Steam Vents decks. Cryptic, Twin, and manabase got cheaper for Twin, so Snappy shot up (also because of Delver), but the deck is still ~$1000*.
*(By not changed, I'm saying that a $50-$100 price increase in the deck is really not backbreaking. It's to be expected during modern season and after an influx of players.)
July 12, 2015 9:10 a.m. Edited.
APPLE01DOJ says... #8
At least when you buy an expensive staple it doesn't just loose it's price a few months down the road... Like ummmm Standard. How many staples in standard cost 40$ a pop and you always need 4 and in a few months they're worthless?
July 12, 2015 9:19 a.m.
UpsetYoMama says... #9
It's not healthy for the game.
Luckily I was already building tron and had got my Oblivion Stones and Grove of the Burnwillows before the stupid jump.
I'm not going to buy some of the cards at the prices they're currently at. Even if it means I have to wait two years for a reprint, then whatever.
My Zoo deck can survive without its copy of Horizon Canopy.
I'll just put building my affinity deck on hold.
And Modern is not Legacy or Vintage. Some of the cards, especially in Legacy, can't be reprinted (or at least Wizards has said they won't reprint them). As far as I know, anything in modern could be reprinted at any time. Someone correct me if I'm wrong there.
And even though modern has a larger buy-in, once you're in, it actually becomes cheaper than standard in many ways. There's less of an influx, even if deck popularity shifts because of the meta.
July 12, 2015 9:19 a.m.
TheNinjaJesus says... #10
Part of the problem people might have with staple inflation (and part of this whole thing feeding something that resembles in equal parts resentment, consumer mistrust, and loathing) is the fact that, if I recall correctly, there was some talk that Modern was supposed to be budget compared to Legacy and Standard (with one having all the expensive stuff, and the other requiring constant purchases to keep up). If Modern truly was supposed to be the budget format, they've gravely miscalculated the rate that they need to reprint staples, or how frequently they need to print Modern Masters sets to keep the price for commons below five dollars. This most recent MM set helped for some stuff but not for others (Spellskite, for example, has changed about five bucks. I remember it being around 25ish before Modern Masters, now it's about 22). It's great for secondary markets, arguably bad for Wizards, and actively bad for players.
July 12, 2015 11:51 a.m.
TheGodofNight says... #11
I don't know, I think there's another way to look at this. I think that price spikes like this force innovation. When you can't afford the top tier decks, you build something altogether new that people don't expect.
July 12, 2015 12:06 p.m.
NoPantsParade says... #12
But you still need the modern staples for the deck to function properly. A control deck won't do as well without Snapcaster Mage simply because the card is irreplaceable. Sure, his price wasn't the result of a buyout, as far as I know, but he's still stupidly expensive. If said control deck plays another control deck with Snappy, the deck with Snappy has a much higher chance of winning unless the pilot sucks.
Sure, you can innovate a new deck and possibly do well at FNM. But in a much more competitive environment like a GP, you don't have a good chance at doing well.
July 12, 2015 12:37 p.m.
buildingadeck says... #13
TheNinjaJesus: I would have to agree. When many of the decks you see in Modern cost upwards of $1100-$2000 (granted, that's not even the price of a Black Lotus), I would no longer consider the format to be budget. I guess by comparison to Legacy or Vintage, though, it is cheaper.
The biggest issue with the inflation of prices is that new players on the Modern scene now have an even higher barrier of entry to start playing, and as a person new to the format, these players rely on others to help them along. These other people will obviously tell them, "Oh, man. You absolutely have to have 4 Tarmogoyf if you want to play any sort of green deck." Goyf's price hasn't changed much, but the point is that these fallacies encourage the inflation of prices. Scapeshift doesn't run Goyf (it just runs 4 Cryptic Command, but that's remarkably cheaper than 4 Goyf).
July 12, 2015 12:38 p.m.
buildingadeck says... #14
NoPantsParade: Certain staples are replaceable, though, and Snappy isn't always ideal in every control deck; I don't run it in Tron, and I've been pretty successful with my deck. For instance, Remand in my deck could easily be replaced by Mana Leak, and I know many people who actually prefer the Leak. A lot of the time, there are ways to cheapen your deck without greatly decreasing the playability of the deck.
July 12, 2015 12:41 p.m.
"these fallacies"
It's not a fallacy. Goyf is required in any aggro deck running green.
Citing scapeshift as an example is below convincing.
Citing snap caster in tron is also below convincing.
July 12, 2015 12:44 p.m.
NoPantsParade says... #16
I didn't mean Tron. I should've specified that since U Tron doesn't play or need him, unless I'm missing something. But Snappy was the first example I could come up with before work.
July 12, 2015 12:45 p.m.
buildingadeck says... #17
ChiefBell: Obviously, I'm not arguing that Goyf is bad; it's absolutely necessary in any deck that wants to go aggro in green, excepting Elves and Naya Burn (not sure if he's used in that one, but it doesn't NEED him). However, Elves is the perfect example of a deck that is green that does not want Goyf. So telling starting players they need to run 4 Goyf if they're running green is, a lie. The Titan ramp decks also don't need him.
As for Snapcaster Mage, again, I'm not saying he's not useful; he is, like Goyf, one of the best cards in the format. However, you don't NEED four of them to play a control deck. I consider Fae to be a control/tempo deck, and it does not run him, but I'd say he belongs around the $75 mark, so I don't think he's too far off.
My point was not to discuss cards but to note that experienced players telling people that cards are an absolute must-have greatens the barrier to entry by creating a high price for cards. At this point, this is off-topic, so I apologize.
July 12, 2015 1:24 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #18
buildingadeck You missed the point entirely. Goyf and Snappy are modern staples. Fact. No, not every deck needs to run them, but that's irrelevant. You cited poor examples for your reasoning, thus weakening and almost invalidating your entire argument. If a new player desires to get into a competitive Modern scene they must possess certain staple cards for whatever deck they are building. Any variation of Control requires Snapcaster Mage. And variation of Green Aggro or Midrange (barring Elves) often will require a playset of Goyfs.
When you say, "the point is that these fallacies encourage the inflation of prices." That is factually incorrect. Firstly, because it isn't a fallacy. Secondly because it isn't the same as the recent trend in increasing prices in Modern. There is a vast difference between a buyout and a steady upward climb in price over time.
July 12, 2015 2:15 p.m.
TheNinjaJesus says... #19
The debate here isn't the "how" or "why" the price is increasing, though. Whether it's spec or people hammering home that these cards are staples (whether they are staples or not) is a distinction without difference. The fact that there are decks in Modern that use staples to be competitive, and, in an almost-broader sense, the fact that staples exist, is part of the problem. Barriers to entry are the cost of the card first, and people saying "If you want to play Modern with THAT color, you need X copies of card Y" second, though they are problems that are linked. By extension, decks that use these higher-priced cards drum the innovation right out of the format.
July 12, 2015 3:02 p.m.
Servo_Token says... #23
Curious as to what Ukrainian accessories are. Are they similar to propane accessories?
And while saying that "having staples is bad", not everyone has the time to innovate. This means that they rely on the people that do to do the work for them, get the deck that has proven itself to be good based on someone else's work, and the sheer number of people that do this is what causes prices to go up and cards to become "staples".
If I have two kids, (Thank the Lord that I don't yet) a full time job, and ya know, responsibilities, I probably don't have the time to sit on Gatherer to find the next best combo. However, I theoretically get paid a bunch of money and when I get time off, I like to go to tournaments. This means that I'm going to go online, MTGTop8 to find the best deck that is appealing to me, buy it and play it. Every couple of weeks / months, i'll do this again because the metas change and I can afford to.
This is a large majority of the people that you see at big tournaments like GPs and SCG events. If you want to see more janky home brews, go on cockatrice.
July 12, 2015 5:01 p.m.
TheGodofNight says... #24
Don't mistake my earlier comment. I'm not saying people shouldn't buy staples, or that staples shouldn't cost $$. What I am suggesting, if you can't afford to buy into a T1 Modern deck, then you should rely on innovation to create something new. If you have the $$, then by all means, buy the cards you need. I work a decent enough job that my budget for cards is good, not great. I wouldn't shell out for $2000 deck in one paycheck without a really good reason. I am saying that if cost is your biggest prohibitive factor to why you don't buy staples, then you need to be creative and innovative to compensate. Of course, not everyone had such skill, but I think the higher card costs do lead to budget brews, unheard of combos, and unexpected builds, which help to keep the format healthy. Just my thoughts.
July 12, 2015 6:04 p.m.
WovenNebula says... #25
I do agree innovation would help the format, however, I am a player who owns quite a bit of modern staples and loans them out to friends. My main concern is the friends and players who can't afford to get into it especially since these buy outs are getting ridiculous, I am afraid it may stunt the growth of the format. Yes prices will go up as players are added, but at this pace WoTC won't be able to keep up with reprints if this frequency of buy outs continue to increase at this rate.
July 12, 2015 7:09 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #26
TheNinjaJesus First off, there will always be staples. You simply can't say "prices are high because staples exist". That's utter nonsense. This is a competitive game in a competitive format. There will always be the best of something and because of that staples will always exist. This isn't an artificial construct, it's part of the game.
WovenNebula unfortunately for all its promotion of Modern as a format, Wizards cares very little for it. I feel that the Modern Master sets have done a great deal more harm than good. And unless staples become increasingly common in Standard, then Modern will continue to suffer the current financial difficulties that have been created by sets designed with limited print runs.
July 12, 2015 7:51 p.m.
NoPantsParade says... #27
I actually think MM 2015 brought about good and bad. The first MM didn't do too much due to its limited print run compared to MM 2015. Nonetheless MM 2015 did bring down a lot of prices for rares like Fulminator Mage, Clique, Cryptic Command, Bitterblossom, and others. However, the cards that weren't printed in that set were targets of buyouts or whatever and spiked in price like Blood Moon, Oblivion Stone, and recently Archbound Ravager.
I feel like MM had unforeseen consequences that WOTC really had no control over, but they were successful in bringing down prices of some staples this time around.
July 12, 2015 8:19 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #28
NoPantsParade I agree that these consequences were unforeseen. I don't hold Wizards responsible for that, because these events really had no precedent, even with the original Modern Masters. However, I do believe that Wizards could have taken steps to reprint the commons and uncommons that still need reprinting. It will be interesting to see how, or if, they respond to the current situation.
July 12, 2015 9:03 p.m.
TheNinjaJesus says... #29
I'm not disputing that staples can and should exist... I've stated that they're part of a bigger problem involving the speculator's market, Wizards diligently ignoring secondary markets that are artificially inflating prices, and other factors. If, whenever one of these cards spiked 200% or more, they immediately added it to a reprint on an upcoming set at an acceptable rarity level if acceptable to the flavor, then there wouldn't be people getting priced out of Modern with the same sort of frequency we see right now. Let me give you an example- if they reprinted let's say, Cryptic Command (I saw some guy who had a binder of Cryptic Command- as clear an example of someone being the gatekeeper to the format as possible. He had 250 copies.) as a Mythic in Battle for Zendikar, would that make it NOT a staple card? No, it would always be a Staple card. They just would see the price tank, and people who camped on the value pay the price for keeping their less affluent fellow players from entering a format. Wizards sells cases of BFZ, a ton of blue players would feel emboldened to enter Modern with this little blessing.
This is just one possibility, and one example, and one potential solution, to the question of the Modern price spike problem.
July 12, 2015 10:57 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #30
TheNinjaJesus the problem with that idea though, is that it would completely unbalance Standard. The power level that WOTC is going for in Standard (and limited) is not anywhere near what Modern is at - if they start reprinting Modern staples in Standard legal sets, then you're going to have serious problems.
July 12, 2015 11:05 p.m.
TheNinjaJesus says... #31
No doubt, but they're also on an unsustainable path right now, anyway. I'm suggesting solutions leaning towards removing barriers to entry, as a Standard player attempting (and failing) to get into Modern because I don't have any Goyfs, don't want to spend 40ish dollars per for Cryptic Command, Amulets spiked to 10 ruling out Amulet Bloom... not to mention how expensive all the Pacts would be. There's just too many barriers to Modern, which was supposed to be the format "everyone could play"
July 12, 2015 11:20 p.m.
TheNinjaJesus says... #32
And yes, I can acknowledge that means that I have anecdotal evidence. Thing is, I've seen a lot of people sharing my anecdotes about playing in Modern. In person, and online.
July 12, 2015 11:21 p.m.
WovenNebula says... #33
We need to keep in mind not all modern staples could break standard or make standard modern like. Tarmogoyf at pre order was only a few dollars upon release, it did become better in standard but didn't break it with there being a lack of fetchlands and other variables. Cryptic Command was good but didn't do that well in worlds etc.
Here is a glimpse to the 2007 standard worlds that had a clump of modern worthy cards to date
July 13, 2015 12:14 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #34
WovenNebula you raise a valid point. Perhaps the only counter I offer to that point is given the recent trends in Standard sets, Wizards wants to tone down the overall power level. Drastically. At least that has been my observation, which may run counter to some considering the Standard environment right now and the Standard environment from when I started playing Magic, which was in ISD-RTR.
July 13, 2015 2:22 a.m.
TheNinjaJesus I definitely know the feeling, the moment I suggested my deck idea to the guy at the cardstore a guy standing behind couldn't wait to blurt out "4 Noble Hierarch", even though
1) I've set myself a limit of $300au (It was $200au at the time he made the comment), and 4 Heirachs were going to set me back 80% of my budget... Still need the other 56 cards, and;
2) Running all 5 colours, Birds of Paradise ended up being a much better buy anyway at 1/10 of the cost.
$300 is still too high a price for quite a few people, most of my friends cite cost as the biggest reason for not playing MTG, or card games in general. Mind you in this kind of price range I still have to avoid things like Tarmogoyf entirely, but it will allow me to get a bunch of shocks and a few fetch lands that I need to really make the 5-colour thing work.
CanadianShinobi Personally I'm glad, more recent sets, like the Takir and RTR blocks shifted away from sets like say, Return to Mirrodin, the set I stopped playing during. Plus, they were loaded with cool cards and mechanics.
July 13, 2015 2:35 a.m.
SergeyVasilenko says... #36
ThatJunkMage, "Curious as to what Ukrainian accessories are. Are they similar to propane accessories?"
Anything, even fat. The magic dies in our country. Restore is almost impossible due to the lack of cards
July 13, 2015 10:01 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #37
Baix why are you glad though? You seem to forget that Modern relies on Standard for new cards. And since Wizards already refuses to print cards in Standard with Modern in mind, I can't very well see them dulling down Standard as a good thing.
July 13, 2015 11:11 a.m.
WovenNebula says... #38
July 13, 2015 11:37 a.m.
WovenNebula says... #39
@JexInfinite Referring to the link above the price of affinity doesn't affect me since I own the deck and will never trade/sell it off, but it seems even though certain cards prices dropped others went way beyond. The deck didn't equalize to same price as before but increased overall. For new players that I know it turns them off to modern, especially if this buy out trend continues and accelerates.
July 13, 2015 11:47 a.m.
CanadianShinobi Ok, I'll rephrase - Better for standard, maybe not so good for Modern. Hard to say what the solution is though, and I can't say I've not been back into MTG for long, having been out since Scars of Mirrodin.
Do you power creep and risk other formats being compromised? Shift Modern to a the same space Legacy/Vintage is and start a Modern 2.0. Or do you print a Modern Masters set where cards like Tarmagoyf become commons/Uncommons so they can't be cards that are hard to come by?
July 13, 2015 11:55 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #41
No, Baix you print the commons and uncommons that need reprinting in Standard. Cards that are not format breaking. But Wizards seems to be increasingly reluctant to do so. Modern Masters is not enough. When Serum Visions is $15 there is something grossly wrong. Rares are not the problem here.
July 13, 2015 12:05 p.m.
CanadianShinobi What the hell? I didn't realize we were at a point where $15 commons is a thing...
July 13, 2015 12:21 p.m.
NoPantsParade says... #43
Ancient Stirrings is a $4 card and played in one deck.
July 13, 2015 12:22 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #44
Baix now do you understand my concerns a little better?
July 13, 2015 12:29 p.m.
Servo_Token says... #46
Green tron is the obvious one, what's the other deck that uses it? Pretty sure there's only one.
July 13, 2015 4:15 p.m.
CanadianShinobi It's $18 here... commons should not cost anything more than 50 cents, ever...
Do you think there's still room for innovation in the format, I imagine since you'd be buying less commonly used cards in those instances where you're trying to create something, resulting in a lower buy-in price?
At least I hope so, because that's what I'm trying to do
buildingadeck says... #2
I find it terribly annoying as a person trying to enter the format. Because my deck is U-Tron, the Oblivion Stone jump hit me the hardest, but I find it obnoxious. Unfortunately, there isn't much we can do about it except choose not to sell or buy cards that are clearly at inflated prices. Sometimes we let TCG decide what a card is worth, but as consumers, our actions decide the market value. Supply and demand.
July 12, 2015 3:53 a.m.