Ah Otaku, you are very right, but you misunderstood my intentions. I did not claim that a diverse and (reasonably) balanced meta game meant I agreed with the pokemon companies set design (or lack thereof). Good meta =/= good card design on the whole
That last sentence doesn't make much sense to me; you cannot have a good metagame with lousy card design. Even accidental/unintentional good card design is needed. Did you mean that just because you have good card design, you may not have a good metagame? This might be true, but only if you somehow separate good card design from good rest-of-game design, which seems... odd.
This may be part of what I attribute to lowered expectations. If we used the iconic letter grades seen in schools, right now we mistake a "C" level metagame as an "A" level one, because all we really see are "C", "D", and a whole lot of "F" ones. This makes it seem like, even with a lot of dodgy card design, like we have a good metagame. It means we separate things that ought not to be separated. If your card design is not leading to a healthy metagame, it isn't good card design.
I'm not sure why they insist on making about 5-10% (a number I'm making up for arguments sake but feels pretty correct to me) of cards in any given set playable at a moderate or high level and every other card in the set be completely worthless (from a competitive playing point of view). But that's how they roll.
Least amount of effort for the payoff I suspect (coupled with things discussed later). They know they can do it this way and still make money; doing it the better way carries more risk and a lower reward.
I guess the ideology behind it is that they would prefer to try and get a small number of cards correct and fair, be cautious and if in doubt underpower a card than overpower it. Focus on the small number of cards that they know will be viable and fill the set up with fun and random crap for the collectors and kiddies.
Yes, this is safer but not really safe; things like
Tropical Beach demonstrate how a seeming bit of hard-to-collect filler can dramatically affect the metagame because of underestimating its effect. This is why I loathe a principle espoused by some WotC designers I read. They intentionally create bad cards so that players who enjoy the challenge of finding a use for them can do so, as well as making it so that not every card has an intended use. However in a system all about balancing countless variables, these seem like they are begging to go wrong sooner or later. Again, if this thought seems incomplete, it is because I'll expand upon it quite soon.
Competitive players don't buy as much as the set collectors, and overall most cards are sold to random kiddies who just like pokemon and never bother to learn the rules. Most competitive players just buy on the secondary market, which stimulates a little sales for the TCG source company but not as much as other sources. So while pokemon will often put tonnes of time and resources into their competitive side, it can't make as many sales as people who buy but don't play competitively. It just doesn't make as much sense.
Non-collector, non-player purchases most like outstrip either of the other two by a significant margin. At one time serious players were apt to get more packs, because you either got what you needed or got adequate (sometimes quite good) trading fodder. Maybe it was less a matter of more even card design and more a matter of player ignorance, but it seems a worthwhile goal to strive for even if it is difficult to meet.
The fact that OP exists means either it is a prestige thing the-powers-that-be desire, or that it contributes to long term stability (and thus sales) of a TCG. I suspect both to be true. Now what it is important is to consider not only the hierarchy of what makes the most money, but which of the three major markets (player, collector, other) has interests that clash with the others. "Other" (people who neither truly play nor collect) have minimal requirements; maybe price point but probably nothing other than being "Pokémon" or "the Pokémon TCG" is required. There are ways to lose them, but it would have to be bizarre things (cards lose all artwork =P). Collectors obviously need something to collect, but again as long as you don't make things too boring (losing foils and the like) or completely strip the collector aspect entirely (releasing cards as complete sets, no collecting required) you'll keep them.
So... that just leaves the players. The smallest group, but the only one a TCG can easily lose or (with effort) expand significantly.
I would love to be able to stop opening three or four packs, looking through them, going I got nothing, putting the crappy unplayable rares in my folder where nobody will ever want them and putting the rest of the cards in my big box of commons nobody will ever use. I would love to be like, Ooooh this common has potential, or this uncommon could be used in this interesting way.
But the more interactions and abilities they put in the more dangerous unforeseen card combinations turn up. MTG hire the best players they can find to be card testers along with the set designers. This top level play test group spend months with each set playing dozens of different decks daily (yay alliteration). But they still miss game breaking and meta shifting combos on a regular basis. I don't think yugioh even bothers any more. They just print a load of shiat, see what floats to the top and if need be ban or restrict it until their metagame is working again.
The thing is, part of this is their own fault; they chose to go for the "gimmick to gimmick" approach. I would like to see "gimmicks" be more about collecting (as in holofoils, reverse holos, Full Arts) and not about game play, at least until we have a stable base (which I believe we are currently lacking).
As for the cost of pokemon, like I can't think of any hobby that is cheap to get into. Hobby might as well mean "random interest you throw far to much money at", try picking up a new sport, especially a full contact one or an extreme one, you will spend way over $200 for initial starter kit. Fishing, even a beginner set of golf clubs, some balls and a monthly membership to the local green, gonna be over $200. Video gaming? Pfft try getting a current get console for under $200, even second hand with only one controller and two games you won't unless you risk craigslist or whatever. If the hobby was cheaper it might not exist as we know it, they might not be making enough to have giant live stream tourneys, hires good (from certain points of view) card designers, the awesome artists we all love, the scholar ships, the promo prize support they send out, the advertising and the online game. As far as TCG's go pokemon is the cheapest to enter into at a competitive level if that is your goal in the game. As for hobbies? Pokemon can be as cheap or expensive as you like, I have one friend who just buys a couple of packs every time she is in town and has spare change. Puts her cards in an album and just looks at them occasionally. That's the level she takes the hobby to. Me and my fiancée are about 60 cards (mostly full arts and secret rares) away from having a full playset of standard. We have sunk a LOT of money and time into this hobby, but for us it's our main hobby, we are two young people with expendable income and a love for the cards and this game. We are very much the exception.
I think you are not equally applying the same criteria
As for hobbies? Pokemon can be as cheap or expensive as you like...
That goes for almost any hobby. For some people, writing can be a hobby. I am fond of tabletop role-playing games, though I haven't played one in quite some time. My preferred rules system (GURPS) allows you to download the GURPS Lite .pdf for free. It contains simplified rules but they are compatible with the full game. You just need some paper, a pencil at least one set of three six-sided dice, plus your imagination to play the game. If you want to have to do less of the work on your own, the two core books are Basic Set: Characters and Basic Set: Campaigns. Those the two books are rather pricey together (you could be looking at enough to pay for a deck if we consider shipping or the cost of a storage medium for the digital versions)... well I should explain the game's name:
Generic
Universal
Role
Playing
System
GURPS is basically a tool kit to run any kind of setting for an RPG. Other supplements are available, but either contain alternate rules, optional rules, or simply use the actual rules to "build" more advanced mechanics and settings from them (saving you the effort of doing it yourself). There are a lot of supplements, but especially if you do have a storage medium to save digital copies to (technically you could read them on anything that can access said medium) you'll find it about as affordable as a TCG, but far more diverse.
Let us also not forget the associated costs of playing a TCG; yeah it is quite inexpensive if you and your friend each buy a second hand World Championship deck (as an example), but even typical casual level play means repeatedly investing every few months in new cards. Anyway, a lot of hobbies have variable costs and a lot of the classical ones are almost free.
In the UK there are maybe 40 players who are legitimate threats to top eight a regionals, in the whole US there are maybe what 150 good players? By good I mean will be able to top cut multiple regionals, cities and states in a year and have a reasonable shot at cats. I promise you they don't spend enough on cards to make it worth the pokemon companies time and effort to hold those tournaments.
They don't have to; the cost for tournaments is spread out among all product sold. You don't have to top cut to be helping to pay for the tournaments.
Also remember there are intangibles we cannot easily measure, like how Organized Play may bring stability/long term sustainability to the game, where as lacking those things can result in a less expensive but less substantial product, a la Digimon and many other TCGs.
But the other 2000 people in the UK who will show up to one or two local cities or regionals, play some random deck that is months old in the eyes of the metagame followers, go 2-4 and go home with maybe a single booster as a thank you from the TO? That's when it starts getting worth holding those events. Because without those events those people wouldn't collect or play. And without the countless kiddies and random collectors like my friend who just buy a few packs every week when they can afford it the CCG wouldn't exist. Most cards printed are a reflection of the collectors and kiddies. Us who follow the meta and tourney scene seriously look at the random chaff and go Pfft why did they bother. But some little kid somewhere is jumping around their living room because they just pulled an Exploud and they love Exploud.
I have addressed this stuff elsewhere. Though I'll repeat with the last bit: it doesn't have to be exclusive. They can make a worthwhile Exploud (and indeed have before!) so that the player and the kid are happy.
You have to just accept that most the cards printed won't fit your niche interest in the hobby, because there are about five different ways people enjoy this hobby and Pokemon Company caters to all of them well.
Again, it isn't an "either/or" proposition, but in many cases it can be "both".
As for the Shaymin EX thing, yeah you are right. It also depends if you are gonna plan on playing expanded next year, cause if it does rotate and expanded continues to be a popular format for cities and regionals then shaymin are still gonna be required to a certain extent.
Unless something replaces or hard counters it later on. Or it gets reprinted. etc. Lots of stuff can change in that time.
