GeekStack is recruiting playtesters for our online trading card game with a science and technology theme. If you're interested, sign up here. Thanks!
What Are CCG’s Really About?
Posted on | July 9, 2009 | No Comments
David Sirlin (one of my top inspirations for game design) recently wrote a great article about subtractive design and cutting down to the essence of what a given game really is about. He make lots of great points, one of which is that cutting out part of a game offends those who were attached to it while making the remaining experience better.
True to his point about offending people, I took offense and learned a lesson about my own view of games when I read this paragraph near the end:
But on a more zoomed out level, what is Magic really about? Is it about delivering the most fun gameplay experience possible to its players? Or selling collectible items that have artificial scarcity? One gets in the way of the other, as it stands. I propose that the essence of customizable card games is the gameplay, and that collectability is purely a barrier between players and the game. But making such a statement naturally creates a firestorm of argument because it forces us define what the essence of a game is. That can be uncomfortable to do.
I agree that he has a point, but I think he missed something else. The essence of a card game is gameplay, but collecting is essential to a collectible card game. Yes, beyond a certain level of investment in the game (hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of packs) to get all the best cards, it is only about gameplay. But for everyone below that bar, collectability and scarcity add a whole new game of resource management, involving real money and relationships to get the cards you think are best. You can use skill and understanding to be competitive with less money, or use money to make up for lack of experience. None of this matters at the highest level of gaming where Sirlin plays, but for the millions of everyday players around the world, it’s an integral part of the experience.
Also, for some people the deck customization is more fun than playing. Again, this doesn’t apply to high level competitive players like Sirlin, but if you love the themes and art, use it as a springboard for imagination, or don’t have access to other players, deckbuilding is fulfilling in its own right. If it was easy to have every card, then deckbuilding would have no tension and lose a lot of its fun. With his Yomi game, the decks are premade and fixed so it’s a card game, not collectible card game.
Finally, the business model of CCGs creates a different business experience. The artificial scarcity creates a lot of value, and the money paid for that value goes into creating a great product. Magic makes $100M/year, so they can spend a lot on design, development, art, promotion, events, and outreach. I imagine that Yomi will sell for $10-$20 a deck, so it can’t make Magic-sized money. 
Its self-contained nature means it might be around long after Magic stops being made. Magic makes a lot of money but costs a lot to produce, so if the money stops rolling on, the game will stop being made. Yomi might have more longevity than Magic, but it can’t compete in depth and breadth of the experience. On a continuum between D&D and chess, Magic is closer to D&D and Yomi is closer to chess. They’re not really competitors and the world could use more games like both of them.
I have nothing but respect for David Sirlin, but he missed the point of CCGs.
Delicious
Comments
Leave a Reply
