Will Modern Masters now be a Recurring Product?
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on Sept. 1, 2015, 9:35 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
The first Modern Masters set was, from what I heard, both popular and financially successful, and the second set, while not quite as good as was the first, in my mind, was still sufficiently popular and successful that I suspect that WotC shall not make it a recurring product, which would be a great idea, now that there shall be no more core sets to provide a reprint-heavy set that is not set on any specific planes.
I certainly do not expect that there shall be an MM set every year, but perhaps every two years, since the second set was released two years after the first. Using the first two sets as examples, if a third set is printed, it shall likely include reprints of cards in all sets that were in the first two sets, plus the next two blocks: specifically, the Innistrad and Return to Ravnica blocks. As a side note, since Dark Confidant was reprinted in the first set and Shadowmage Infiltrator was reprinted in the second set, I believe that it is safe to presume that Snapcaster Mage would be reprinted in a theoretical third set (as all of those cards were designed by players who won major events).
What does everyone else have to say about this? Will Modern Masters now be a recurring product? Why or why not?
Core sets r gone and blocks are now made up of 2 sets, i say yes.
September 1, 2015 10:13 p.m.
gnarlicide says... #6
Lol, youll end up getting Ranger of Eos instead. hahaha
September 2, 2015 12:29 a.m.
IzzetxT1nk3rer says... #8
Yes on another Modern Masters Set. Personally I think Wizards will one day do a MM set with reprints cards from all modern sets. A problem I see with continuing the Modern Masters series the way it is now is that there will be a point where majority of players will already have a most of the cards contained in the sets besides the expensive and heavily bought cards.
September 2, 2015 5:53 a.m.
Eliiiiiiiiiiiiiiza says... #9
I feel like Snapcaster will eventually be back, because the most recent MM set only went up to Alara block. If they release another one, they'll have to include Scars block and maybe a little bit of Innistrad just to keep the set fresh. Hey, if Scars is back, we get the swords and B-Skull, so I don't mind.
September 2, 2015 9:42 a.m.
They included Scars block in this years Modern Masters, which means the next one will most likely reach into Innistrad block and feature Goyf (again), Liliana otV, and Snappy (most likely as a mythic) as it's main selling points.
September 2, 2015 10:47 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #11
I was very disappointed that the second MM set did not contain Phyrexian Obliterator, but instead reprinted Dark Confidant another time, so I do hope to see the obliterator in a potential third MM set.
September 2, 2015 9:52 p.m.
I hope so, but if we do get another MM, I won't pre-order my box before all of the set is spoiled. I was very unhappy with the recent set. It was $2 more a pack, and you had a much lower chance of getting your money back on each booster. Some really stupid/ annoying decisions were made on what into the set.
September 5, 2015 3:23 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #13
phc: hopefully, WoTC shall learn from that experience, and lower the prices of a potential third set while also increasing the chances of drawing good cards, to make one's investment worthwhile.
September 5, 2015 9:55 a.m.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
"Lower the price"
"Increasing the chances of drawing good cards"
It's like you think WotC want to do anything other than use MM as their personal money printing device.
Don't get your hopes up is my word on it.
WotC will use MM as a way to get high valued product into circulation, but due to being limited print runs will never be enough to really put a huge dent in prices, thus encouraging people to buy the next MM set so they can pull a Goyf or whatever.
WotC understand supply and demand at the end of the day. I saw loads of this "I'm not going to buy any MM2015 as it has a bad return value". Did it make any difference? Nope.
September 7, 2015 8:06 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #15
Maltanis, I am no expert on economics, but I do know that lower prices for products means that more people shall purchase the product, which translates to more money for WotC; in summary, lower prices for products is more profitable for WotC.
September 7, 2015 3:47 p.m.
DemonDragonJ, Not sure I agree with you there. WOTC printing more MM will lower the -secondary market- price of cards printed in it. That doesn't actually make them any more money.
With a higher MSRP and a limited print run, WOTC has already pretty clearly set out their plan for MM sets: They are purposefully providing less supply than the demand for the cards so that it justifies the larger MSRP. Considering how few places were selling MM2015 at MSRP even with the promise of a larger run than MM2013, there's still plenty of room for larger print runs without touching the price at all.
September 10, 2015 8:30 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #17
Devonin, does not greater supply automatically mean lower prices? Is that not how economics work? Is not the main reason for high price a low supply?
September 10, 2015 9:42 p.m.
There is more supply, but there is also more demand as a result.
It works like this:
"I don't play Modern, I want to start, I should buy some packs"
opens pack
"OMG A Tarmogoyf! I can totally play Modern now ...oh...wait...now I need 3 more Tarmogoyf"
The addition of 1 Goyf to the market actually created the demand for 3 more. When the very first MM was released, the price of Goyf went -up- rather than down. Now with MM2015 they produced a lot more of it than they did of MM2013, but Goyf only dropped from around 200 to 160, and will start to creep back up again.
If they want to justify the MSRP of 9.99 USD versus the MSRP of normal sets being 3.99 USD, they -have- to produce less of it than they do of a normal set (which they basically print unlimitedly as demand continues to exist, until they eventually put it out of print a year and a bit later)because if they printed it as often as needed until stores didn't need more, they'd never be able to support the tripling of the retail price.
September 13, 2015 8:44 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #19
I still see no reason why WotC cannot have the MSRP of MM be the same as that of a normal set; in my mind, if they really wished to support the modern format and make it more accessible to everyone, they would make the cards less expensive and easier to obtain; it is that simple, in my mind.
September 13, 2015 8:57 p.m.
Yes, they could charge MSRP of 3.99 for MM2017, and still reprint all the big modern staples, and then print exactly as much of it as they would any regular expansion set.
Then the secondary market for modern would collapse, and ravening hordes of speculators and collectors and people who just bought Dark Confidant the day before they announced they were making as much MM2017 as people wanted show up at WOTC with torches and so on.
September 13, 2015 8:59 p.m.
Not to put too fine a point on it: Some cards being really expensive in the secondary market help them sell primary market booster packs.
You sell way more booster packs of a set where the best card is currently worth 200 dollars than you do of a set where the best card is worth 5 dollars.
September 13, 2015 8:59 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #22
I said I wasn't going to buy any MM2015. And you know what? I didn't. I don't support Wizards and their greed. I support the secondary market, the common folks that aren't the Wizards fat cats. I don't even buy packs in non-limited print run sets, e.g. every set other than Modern Masters/Conspiracy-esque sets. Not anymore.
September 13, 2015 9:06 p.m.
You realise that the "common folks" that are the secondary market probably generate an order of magnitude more money than the "greedy" primary market yes?
For every 10 dollar pack WOTC sells that has a 200 dollar Goyf in it, they make 10 bucks, and the guy who sells the goyf for 200 makes 190.
And if you think WOTC is greedy and want to punish them, punishing the LGS trying to sell enough product to keep their doors open isn't going to help the community much either.
Also if everybody adopted your attitude, there wouldn't BE any cards for the secondary market to trade and sell.
September 13, 2015 9:08 p.m. Edited.
canterlotguardian says... #24
If I buy $50 worth of singles from the LGS, how does it impact their bottom line more than if I would have bought $50 worth of packs? Also I am almost literally the only one in my area who feels how I do. The other people who frequent my LGS are pack fiends, and they buy singles to boot. I just cut out the randomness. If I only have $50 to spend and I know that I could get the cards I need for those $50, why would I spend that $50 on packs knowing I vastly more than likely will not get the exact cards that I need? And for what, getting more bulk C/UC cards that will sit around in my bin never getting used until I sell them at bulk on eBay or something? No thank you. I used to be a pack fiend like everyone else at my LGS but I wisened up. That and I'm poor. I need to make my money stretch until it screams, and packs absolutely are not the way for me to do that. xD
September 13, 2015 9:13 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #25
Devonin: I do not wish to sound selfish, but, what I care about most (in terms of this game, not in my overall life) is that I can obtain the cards that I desire at the best possible prices. Is it wrong to have that perspective on this game? Surely, many players have that mindset?
September 13, 2015 9:16 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #26
Also, I almost never purchase booster packs; I almost always purchase cards as singles, so that I can obtain what I seek without also getting cards for which I have no use.
September 13, 2015 9:18 p.m.
It's the idea that "Packs are WOTC being greedy so I'll just not buy packs and only support the secondary market" that I take issue with.
It punishes the store for a perception of he company's greed, it ignores that the secondary market only exists because of the primary market, and if everybody acted that way, the game couldn't exist.
Yes, it is ALWAYS better financially to buy singles over packs. Yes.
September 13, 2015 9:21 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #28
Devonin, the vendors from whom I (or anyone else) purchase the singles needed to first purchase booster packs from which to get those singles, so does it really make a difference whether I purchase a booster pack or a single from a vendor? Either way, the vendor needed to first purchase the product directly from WotC before selling to the consumer.
September 13, 2015 9:39 p.m.
Yes, buying singles from the store and buying packs from the store both give money to the store. Not sure why you're telling me that like I don't already know it?
September 13, 2015 9:47 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #30
Just saw this discussion. Comment #21 is myopic. As is #18.
@canterlotguardian:
The secondary market is responsible for singles prices being high. WOTC produces the product and sells it to distributors. Distributors then sell to stores.
Stores both open product themselves and sell sealed and opened product to players. Players sell and trade both to players and stores.
It's the interaction between the stores and players, combined with the demand for certain cards, that determines the prices of any given card. WOTC has indirect influence over prices in that they can increase or decrease production for a given product, thus increasing or decreasing the maximum possible supply for a given product, but they do not control the secondary market. WOTC makes nothing from SCG selling you a Tarmogoyf for $200. WOTC's revenue comes from designing interesting new product and capitalizing on demand for existing product to return.
Modern Masters (the original and 2015) accomplish the latter. There are three primary functions for a product like Modern Masters:
- Cash in on the demand for specific format staples.
- Get in-demand cards back into immediate circulation.
- Accomplish #2 without greatly disturbing the market and divesting players.
And although #1 is a for-profit motive (something that isn't inherently bad, given that we operate in a capitalist system and would not be enjoying this game if it didn't sustain itself financially as a product), the general tact with which WOTC approach it (to wit, by giving special attention to #2 and #3) means that the product line supports the game and the community rather than harms it. And part of that support is getting cards into the hands of players and stores so that they can be passed on.
Saying that you don't support WOTC for making Modern Masters and that you'll support the secondary market instead (as though you even had the option of buying product from WOTC) is like saying that you don't support automotive companies and you're loyal to the used car salesman, who has his hand in your wallet.
You're not obligated to buy into products if you don't like that they share goal #1 above. But don't act like their existence is somehow a great threat to the stability and health of the consumer base.
And if your gripe is with the packs and not the singles, then the comment is further myopic; the cards come from the packs. It doesn't matter which one you're buying; you're giving money to the secondary market for your purchase. You're not giving your money to WOTC no matter what your decision.
To DemonDragonJ: It seems that I make the following points every time this sort of discussion comes up (because I do). WOTC cannot productively reprint lots of expensive staples at great volume and set a low MSRP for them.
First, doing so would divest the multitudes of players who already own those cards. How would the thousands of Modern and Legacy players feel if WOTC announced that they'll reprint Goyf until it's $25? They'd feel cheated because their investments are now worth drastically less.
Ever heard of the Reserved List? A long time ago, back when the game was still new, WOTC released a set including many reprints of popular and expensive cards from the first sets. This particular set, Chronicles, was printed widely and caused those invested in the original cards to lose a great deal in perceived value. The backlash from divested players and collectors spurred WOTC to create the Reserved List, which is a list of cards that cannot be reprinted. It was meant as an apology and a promise from WOTC to not try the same trick again. And although both WOTC and many community members, including professional players, store owners, and average players, have explained why the Reserved List was and remains a mistake, the lesson it taught should not be forgotten.
When you reprint cards ad nauseam you create loss both financially and reputationally. Financially, those who invested in the cards when they were more expensive have now lost potential/perceived value. Reputationally, your trustworthiness is diminished because players, sellers, and collectors cannot count on you to care about the value of their investments.
And while you can make the case that lower prices might entice some players to try other formats or product, it's the reputational loss that kills. WOTC's main moneymakers are Limited and Standard because they encourage the purchase of new product. If you sell a bunch of people on your non-rotating formats, you reduce their need for new product. (Notice that Modern Masters is sold as a draftable set in order to mitigate this phenomenon.) If you divest many other people in the process, you create trust issues that will likely cause players to leave the community and encourage those who come in or stay to remain within walking distance of the revolving door.
What products like Modern Masters do, as I illustrated above, is provide a compromise between the interests of those willing to invest and those who have already invested. They increase the supply of poplar staples enough to cause a corresponding increase in the game's popularity and decrease in the barrier to entry, but not so radical a decrease as to divest those who are already past that barrier.
Ever since RTR (shortly after Modern was announced), WOTC has been experimenting with reprinting select Modern and eternal staples in Standard-legal primary releases. The shocks and Thoughtseize in particular are good examples. In addition, Modern Master was released to more directly tap the demand and to re-release cards that didn't fit into the Standard environment. WOTC has developed more aggressive reprinting policies after a few years of litmus tests, but the balance between the interests of the community stakeholders is still a driving force.
And I'm not really sure why either of you (DemonDragonJ and canterlotguardian) are comparing the purchase of boosters and singles. There's no real difference between them for the purposes of this discussion. Singles prices aren't based on whether people are buying packs or singles. They're based on supply and demand. And regardless of whether you're buying packs or singles, your money is going into the secondary market. It is not going to WOTC. WOTC isn't selling you any of its product in the primary market, and all of the product that the secondary market is selling had to be bought on the primary market in sealed form. WOTC doesn't sell sealed product to players, and it doesn't sell singles to anybody.
September 13, 2015 10:05 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #31
Wow. Long comment is long.
The fact still remains that it is more economically feasible for me to buy singles rather than to buy packs. While I do acknowledge your points and the fact that I may have been a bit shortsighted in my initial knee-jerk reaction (I often find myself getting heated on this particular subject, as practically no one else I know IRL believes that buying packs to get individual cards is both a colossal waste of money and a waste of their time as consumers, as I have come to realize over my course of being active in Magic), my main reasoning for even posting that to begin with was my reasoning I stated above, the financial one.
Looking back on it, I didn't make that clear to begin with- it wasn't even stated at all, actually, though my stated reasoning was high on my list of priorities to speak my mind on. So that was my bad. :)
September 13, 2015 10:31 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #32
The fact that it's more economically feasible to buy singles than packs has nothing to do with whether you should support WOTC. WOTC only sells sealed product. The difference in price between a single and a pack is a function of the secondary market retailer giving you certainty over uncertainty. The cards all come from the same place and in the same form.
September 13, 2015 10:51 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #33
Except I don't buy sealed product directly from Wizards anyways. It's all from my secondary market. However, as far as I was aware, the store owner has to purchase product from Wizards, which while it does come via a distributor, the distributor themselves have to get their product from Wizards directly. I suppose the act of them paying the distributor for Wizards' product isn't the same as the money going into Wizards' pockets. Unless the money does end up there eventually.
I'm very much pro-small business, so I tend to support the small shops over the big chain entities. I suppose I was letting that get in the way of my logic- that, combined with a misconception of how the secondary market actually works.
September 13, 2015 10:58 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #34
Your first paragraph does not at all speak to the issue you seem so concerned with. There is a linear supply chain from WOTC to distributors to retailers. Practically speaking, is the only way in which product gets to the secondary market. You don't buy sealed product directly from WOTC because you cannot buy sealed product directly from WOTC. They don't sell it to you. You can only buy product, sealed or unsealed, from the secondary market. And whether you choose to buy a pack of Modern Masters or the single of whatever chase card you want, the money to get that product onto the secondary market changed hands long ago. In terms of "support" for WOTC, there is no economic difference between you paying SCG for a $4 card and you paying SCG for a $4 booster. Somebody paid a distributor who paid WOTC in order to get that item to the secondary market. Your choice doesn't alter that process.
September 13, 2015 11:06 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #35
Huh. I guess I was really misinformed about the secondary market. I shall withdraw from this thread for the time being and reconsider a few things. :)
September 13, 2015 11:09 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #36
Cards in the first MM set retained watermarks if their original printings were marked, but cards in the second MM set did not; why was that? I like watermarks on cards that are associated with specific factions.
September 22, 2015 10:22 p.m.
JakeHarlow says... #37
I'd like to know what happened with that, too, DemonDragonJ.
September 23, 2015 2:38 p.m.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #38
I actually don't. Call me a sucker for flavor but I want an izzet watermark on Electrolyze when I'm playing 
but if I add 
to the mix, I'm now playing grixis instead of Izzet and the izzet watermark no longer makes sense.
Basically I want the guild mark in UR delver but not UBR delver
Epochalyptik says... #2
This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum (auto-generated comment)
September 1, 2015 10:11 p.m.