= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on "Stuck In The Middle With Bruce" - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (93)
I have a Magic deck, but I don't often play. That's because Magic is not only an interesting game, its been carefully designed to continually suck more money out of your pocket.
Ever since it was first introduced (I happen to own a first generation deck) the game has been slowly increasing the power levels of the cards so that older cards are less and less valuable and one needs to buy ever more newer cards just to stay competitive.
Add to this the fact they regularly bring out new types of cards that radically shift the power balances in the game and one finds that it becomes a very expensive hobby to keep up with if you want to play with a random assortment of your friends.
So, like Warhammer 40K (another game known for being designed to be a money sink), I've deliberately stayed away from being competitive at. Oh, I have a few decks back from when the game was launched and recently was gifted another few by a friend who wanted to play, and I really do enjoy playing, but I'm not going to let myself get sucked in.
The game was actually designed without the 'collectable' element, which emerged naturally from the design process since everybody always wanted access to more/newer cards as they played. See any of the various histories regarding Richard Garfield's original concept and playtesting.
Arguably, the focus on sucking money out of your pocket came about the time the cards began to develop aftermarket values, it became widely popular, and events like sanctioned tournaments and the 'pro tour' began ('94-'96)
I find it 'interesting' that we've both had our posts voted down to zero. Could it be that someone objects to pointing out that the game is a money sink and therefore one might have perfectly rational reasons to avoid it?
Posts now start at zero, with self-voting no longer allowed.
Ah, interesting. That was not considered important enough to get into the RSS feed, so I never saw it.
In addition to what Z M Davis said, I voted both of your posts down because I felt they added nothing useful to the discussion. Thomblake's was just information responding to yours, so I left it alone.
This comment isn't meant as arrogant or aggressive, just an explanation since it seems you've asked for one.
To directly answer your question:
I do not object to the comment, but I think it is less valuable than other comments. Hope that helps.
That, of course, is your opinion and you're welcome to it. But I thought that I was (perhaps too verbosely to be clear) pointing out that this the original article was yet-another post on Less Wrong that seemed to be saying.
"Do X. Its the rational thing to do. If you don't do X, you aren't rational."
I was trying to point out that there may be many rational reasons for not doing X.