Pokemon Announces Record-Breaking Sales in Europe During 2021 for Pokemon TCG and Toys

[Mimikeon]

I guess its lucky I've never made anything worth eternalizing
The main difference between tcgs and other regulated markets is that tcg companies have production monopoly and thus their markets have an imposed scarcity. There's no practical situation that stops a reprint of base set for example. There are plenty of financial benefits to not doing so, both for the company and other off-exchange market participants. This is not "natural" supply and demand.

If financial incentives don't count, then almost everything is "artificial" by your definition.

Also, a reprint of base set wouldn't be considered the same as the original.

 

[Mimikeon]

Here is my idea for Implementing NFT's the right way. Oppose to the believe of some on here, you actually do have ownership with NFT's and Pokemon could use it like that:

1. They upgrade the whole TCG Online Plattform and integrate it in a NOT TOO INVASIVE manor into their other games. For example you could find a hidden TCG Card in Pokemon GO or the newer games. Play the tcg game inside of the other games and so on

2. If you pull a real Card you get access on the same card in the TCG APP(or they could make a special rarity which makes the card "Uploadable" in case the online tcg market gets inflated)

3. Now to the NFT part. If you have a certain amount(2-5) of a Card you can mint it on to the partnered Blockchain, that way you have ownership over your own unique Card(not the Artwork itself) <= This system is allready found in games like Gods unchained and is very well resieved from Community and company alike.

I know NFTs are misused a lot and people are getting scammed. But it acutally is cool technologie to make digital goods more sustainable. Look how much money is spend on Fifa every year again and again just for the Football player being worth nothing a year later.

Not all of us are hyper-capitalists who only care about how much something is worth. I don't care about reselling a digital item in a game, and I don't know why anyone does, especially since it means that people have to be locked out of that item for it to have any value.

 

[fleshrum]

If financial incentives don't count, then almost everything is "artificial" by your definition.

Never said they don't count. I'm just excluding them from the category of "practical reasons;" we still have ink, we still have cardstock, TPCi has the art assets that would be needed. The implied question being why they wouldn't print more of base set, if they have the materials to do so? But they don't, not with the same rarity distribution, pack size, or allocation. So it isn't a material reason. Must be something else.

(And yes, lots of aspects of market functionality are artificial. It's what makes regulated markets function in the first place.)

Also, a reprint of base set wouldn't be considered the same as the original.

Never said it was, nor am I advocating for it. Just saying that a product that is functionally identical is technically materially possible, despite it not happening for *some other reason.*

 

[Mimikeon]

Never said they don't count. I'm just excluding them from the category of "practical reasons;" we still have ink, we still have cardstock, TPCi has the art assets that would be needed. The implied question being why they wouldn't print more of base set, if they have the materials to do so? But they don't, not with the same rarity distribution, pack size, or allocation. So it isn't a material reason. Must be something else.

(And yes, lots of aspects of market functionality are artificial. It's what makes regulated markets function in the first place.)


Never said it was, nor am I advocating for it. Just saying that a product that is functionally identical is technically materially possible, despite it not happening for *some other reason.*

Then this conversation can't go anywhere because you'll exclude whatever doesn't fit your narrative/argument.

 

[fleshrum]

Then this conversation can't go anywhere because you'll exclude whatever doesn't fit your narrative/argument.

If you introduced something that actually contradicted my argument, I'd of course, take it into consideration in good faith. But you haven't, so... I can only conclude that you can't think of any material resources TPCi doesn't have access to which prevent a 1-for-1 reprint of Base Set, either. It's okay to just admit that instead of being snarky.

 

[Mimikeon]

If you introduced something that actually contradicted my argument, I'd of course, take it into consideration in good faith. But you haven't, so... I can only conclude that you can't think of any material resources TPCi doesn't have access to which prevent a 1-for-1 reprint of Base Set, either. It's okay to just admit that instead of being snarky.

Production capacity. If they print old sets for the hell of it, that leaves less room at the factories to print new sets.

But I'm not being snarky; you just arbitrarily decided that financial reasons aren't practical. As such, I can't trust you to not just decide that any point I make is "impractical."

 

[fleshrum]

Production capacity. If they print old sets for the hell of it, that leaves less room at the factories to print new sets.

This is true, but releasing an old set in tandem with new ones (i.e. within the current schedule of design to production to release) wouldn't necessarily disrupt the production flow. It could though, for sure.

But I'm not being snarky; you just arbitrarily decided that financial reasons aren't practical. As such, I can't trust you to not just decide that any point I make is "impractical."

My point is literally that financial reasons are the only reasons that are worth considering in this hypothetical, since the material cost has not changed in any meaningful way. They could print a 1 for 1 reprint of base set, they have all the materials and assets to do so. Why don't they? It must be some other reason.

 

[LexGoyle]

Now comes the inverse relation to it very soon. Just like in the 1990s, pokemon was all day everyday, then people got annoyed.

I think it's more people are just in it for the money at this point. Too many are focused on dollar value of the cards/sealed product.

 

[PartTimeTCGCollector]

I think it's more people are just in it for the money at this point. Too many are focused on dollar value of the cards/sealed product.

I was trying to imply that. People will buy and sell for a larger price but the buyers will decline. They feel like "I will save my money for something else". That would be best.