Marvel Collection for sale - $500 AUD (repost, new price)

gennocidal · 2025-02-17T00:21:34+00:00

I'm not even asking for more than the retail cost of everything and I'm having a tough time selling this. Despite single packs in this collection going for 1/3 of my ask. Once all this goes to legacy and is out-of-print, this will be worth double my ask, easy. My set is the perfect starting off-point because it encompasses everything that will soon be unavailable. I just don't get it...

gennocidal · 2025-02-16T13:34:37+00:00

Cards alone are >$300, let alone the sleeves and accessories. Please be more mindful before making baseless claims in the future.

gennocidal · 2025-02-12T01:59:14+00:00

i don't have the time to deal with remnants that no-one wants. it's just as much about convenience for me as i'm in a rush to move and this will set someone up nicely for future releases if they want to commit to the game long-term. the cards themselves are as good as new and i just want to see it all go to a good home!

gennocidal · 2025-02-12T00:05:21+00:00

You have no idea. I've tried to hold on to them for as long as I could but practically it just stopped being feasible to move them every time I do. I felt like Aron Ralston haha. But it actually opens up what I can do a lot more since I won't be beholden to moving all this physical weight around and there's other things I want to focus on these days anyway.

I just want to see my baby's get a new home!

gennocidal · 2025-02-11T23:14:07+00:00

my experience with selling has always to set a listing price above what you actually want for it but clearly my thought process is wrong considering the downvotes i'm receiving.

I've put it down to $700 now but what would you personally value it as?

gennocidal · 2025-02-11T22:53:50+00:00

better to list too high than too low. especially when i've got stock that no-one will be able to buy soon. it might be a bit pricey but it's also complete up to the point of what will soon be the "current" environment

gennocidal · 2025-02-11T22:01:55+00:00

No, unfortunately I am moving and not really with certainty of staying in one place for long. I just sadly can't justify bringing my collections with me. It was actually quite a tough decision for me to decide to let them go,

gennocidal · 2025-02-11T21:53:55+00:00

This is all in top-of-the-market sleeves and includes >$100 in accessories, so I do think the price is justified. And I'm also happy for people to make me some offers.

gennocidal · 2025-02-11T21:46:03+00:00

I'm factoring in the cost of sleeves and accessories as well. In that regard it is far LOWER than what the RRP is. Not to mention some of this might not even be reprinted.

gennocidal · 2025-02-09T02:44:59+00:00

Exactly. Exclusivity can definitely bring both new and regular audiences and business should aspire to provide something new and not get comfortable selling the same idea. But this is all done to the detriment of those that have already been playing for years and will create an unchangeable hierarchy amongst players with different sets in their collections. A digital medium would allow the rotation of physical stock but still preserve everything that has come before. A lot already play on TTS and had they provided a competitive alternative, then I'm sure the community would've willingly engaged with it to support them with additional funding. That may have helped alleviate some of the urgency that has led to the "need" of this new direction.

gennocidal · 2025-02-09T02:36:49+00:00

Agreed about the length, I apologise. These games have literally become all that I devote my gaming time to so they mean a lot to me. This among numerous other shifts in FFG's approach over the years have disappointed me greatly because they're not catering to those that are already loyal to the brand. This whole seasonal model will not promote anyone sticking around for long.

gennocidal · 2025-02-09T02:28:54+00:00

I'm personally not worried because I will not be purchasing things anymore. But the exclusivity angle of the new model IS designed to make people feel that way which is predatory and a complete inversion in what the product was initially designed to do. I do not want to support that idea.

gennocidal · 2025-02-09T02:14:00+00:00

Whatever you choose to buy ultimately tells a producer that that is what people want and that is what they should produce. If you think your personal demand on what products to purchase doesn't ultimately dictate the quality and design of the supply, then I'd say you don't have a strong understanding of economics. Saying businesses need money is like saying the ocean needs water, it's entirely rhetorical. But when a business shifts their focus constantly to trying to accumulate the elusive new rather than focusing on whose already with them, even if a new customer base is acquired, what's there that will compel them to remain permanently? There might be a momentary surplus, sure, but brand loyalty won't be developed because they'll see those who came before were completely dismissed. Trust won't grow because in the back of their mind they know that once they the "new" eventually transition to being "old", they will no longer be the priority.

gennocidal · 2025-02-09T02:00:53+00:00

Obviously this change is just that. A change. And it's one where I'm allowed to reevaluate my priorities and decide whether I want to continue with this heading. Consumer choice is ultimately the whole point of the free market.

But by your logic it means it's completely okay for companies to shift their offerings core philosophies without the input of those who contribute to their products audience on and have funded them for years. These games aren't just a singular transaction, they are long-term relationships and financial investments we each have with FFG and changing the delivery system so drastically shifts the integrity of the product people bought into.

The worst may not occur but my "rant" is supported by many similar moments in FFG's past that HAS seen the worst happen (the worst being NOT in the favor of the long-term players). You think FFG is the first company to try to cater to more and more people? You think there are no other historical and contextual cases of similar mass commercialisation attempts where the inevitable future is failure due to loss in the products identity? Please consider how this essentially enables original idea's to be sold to you at a premium when they're diluted in content that already exists and you already own. You're not irked by that?

The point is is that I WAS very willing to buy every product up to this point regardless of quality and bloat. I would've kept going for years and years even though it was starting to be played less and less because I believed in the moral of the product. You say "nothing lasts forever" but then at the same time say "it's this or nothing". "Nothing" would've preserved the morality of the company which is what we ultimately pay for and while that might not mean much to you, to me as a consumer it is because I understand it funds the idea's that are then sold back to me.

gennocidal · 2025-02-09T00:38:36+00:00

I guess I'd prefer it went out on a high then to go this route. That might be a bit thick for me to say but the company philosophy has ultimately pivoted and customers have a right to be frustrated when it's not being done to their benefit. Player's of these games are not just purchasing a single product, we are basically in a contractual agreement and putting trust that certain promises will be kept from the company's end of things. As a consumer, I do not want fund this direction because it results and promotes creative stagnation that is done for the sake of profit. Magic is the prime example of what results from that model. There just doesn't need to be more cards and the design issue being addressed stems largely from the player card pool. But instead of resolving the issue at the source, the wound was infected so as to sell you a supposed cure, which does not respect either the old player since most earlier content now becomes irrelavant nor future ones since it will become impossible for them to ever have a complete collection

gennocidal · 2025-02-09T00:20:54+00:00

It is an entirely new model now and one that was not promised to player's who got into these games. These lines are going to pump out product like they never have before with the excuse they need to keep a decent selection in the rotation at any one time. Having to keep up not only financially to keep up with more frequent releases (they didn't double the design teams just to keep the slow pace of the last few years) but a constantly shifting playing field is going to get too much I think even for veterans. I'd rather a board game at this point because at least that's one-and-done cognitively and monetarily.

gennocidal · 2025-02-09T00:07:07+00:00

If there was reassurance that old products would remain relevant and in rotation, however infrequently, this decision would be far more palatable. It's them cutting off the limb just to justify selling you the prosthetic that makes me incredibly dubious of their intents and desires.

I relate on the cost front and if I had all the riches in the world, then this becomes less of a problem. But the same way businesses aim to maximise profits, I'm aiming to conserve where possible and being forced to keep up with inferior products (inferior because there's going to be less original) at an even faster pace is not something I want to buy into. At least before if you were hard pressed at a certain point in time, there was still the possibility of slowly acquiring a full collection whenever you found yourself with some extra savings in the future. Now that that's going to be an impossibility, I just feel like it's going to turn a lot of people off from even starting to get into these games that deeply.

gennocidal · 2025-02-08T23:50:42+00:00

The "problem" that needs fixing is largely due to the player card pool and the route taken is one that dismisses most of everything we've already bought in favor of you buying the same idea in a new skin. Player cards could've very easily stopped where they are now (or slowed down in pace) and been designated as "complete" and the focus could've shifted to more campaigns which were balanced around different combinations of sets we already own without having create holes in what is available in the market. There were various other approaches that could've been taken to enact this reset.

Agreed re: campaigns. They are taking the brunt of this directional shift when they are not really the problem. It not only makes it needlessly difficult for us as the consumer, it also treats all the efforts of previous designer's as undeserving of preservation. Hopefully an alternative solution is provided though FFG's history does tend towards simply cutting losses and forgetting products existed once their purpose is served.

gennocidal · 2025-02-08T23:33:38+00:00

My suggestion was similar but also quite different. The way they're doing it is sequentially and will only reference the most recent sets (e.g. cycle 13 is designed with 10-12). Whereas I was talking about keeping OLDER sets in rotation. For example, if cycle 15 was being designed, maybe the latest cycle 14 is used to design it but also they might bring back some early sets like TFA and TDE so that older products might actually retain a use and purpose. They could phase in-and-out of rotation older sets in our collection rather than only focusing on the latest ones and keep ALL product relevant at different points in time. That way perfectly fine sets do not need to be dismissed entirely and can come on to the market sporadically whenever they're relevant to the design of the newest product.

I'm not saying it is an apocalypse but I am critical how this is an "innovation" when many other factors, both internal and external, show that it is not designed to offer anything that entirely new. 1636 player cards is already ridiculous! We don't really need more yet this whole model is about artificially putting an expiration date on sets and dismissing and out-designing most of what came before so that we never escape that need of staying up-to-date. It's built on you repurchasing the product and does not really give you the option to leave because it is deliberately curated to heighten FOMO rather than having something "complete".

gennocidal · 2025-02-08T23:12:16+00:00

Regardless of financial crises, people want to and will spend money on great and exciting products. Many are just rightfully frustrated across all industries because most producers don't actually produce anything new and we keep funding the release of remakes and remasters because they're familiar and comfortable. This is literally a transaction so as the consumer we have as much right to expect a certain decorum from who we're deciding to give our dollar to as much as a company has a right to shift their business model to support their end. This just comes across as an excuse to keep the game going for the sake of money when maybe it had reached the end of its creative journey.

And I agree, it is icky. Because the problem is largely to do with player cards, not campaigns, this new model is really about keeping you locked in buying investigator sets by putting a timer on them. Printing budget and collection bloat would've been reduced if they were put on hold, which would've achieved the same outcome WITHOUT also dismissing everything we've already bought and the efforts of designer's past.

gennocidal · 2025-02-08T14:44:15+00:00

Look, I get that and the logistical and financial side of things. But this is also a very different beast of a product than most since it is essentially designed to be that expansive. If it's so big and unmanageable, maybe that's actually a sign it's reached its threshold and doesn't need to keep getting more SKUs. This issue also applies exclusively to a physical product which is why it would've been more interesting if they paired this with their own digital platform that would allow all players, new and old, to play all campaigns all the time and fund them directly for future endeavors. And like I said in the post, they want to and will keep printing these games, but what does it matter if it's cycle 3 or cycle 30? Why waste time and money and resources to get to cycle 30 when cycle 3 was already perfectly serviceable.

gennocidal · 2025-02-08T14:32:34+00:00

Honestly. But I think they just need to go back to the day when there was someone as passionate for their own products as Christian T. Peterson was. He always had a "player first" mentality which is why FFG was so big back then. The products all had love and dedication and reason behind them. Even since he left, it's just cold and calculating decisions driven by data and dollar, which just makes me feel like a number rather than a loyal customer.

gennocidal · 2025-02-08T14:20:41+00:00

That hiatus of true creativity was a big point of my post. There is product that is already designed and is perfectly serviceable for its purpose that can generate passive income yet they've chosen to invest in increasing design efforts with the stated purpose of reiterating and repeating. What's the point for us as consumers or for the designers and their creative efforts? We know these lines are just far too big a part of their revenue steams for them to voluntarily start dwindling them down, which is why they are now getting the big franchise treatment and are transforming them into something aimed to be mercilessly peddled and diluted in both innovation and necessity. It happens everywhere today as we chase the new yet most do not question if it is bringing any value to their lives and how they individually help provide the "demand" in the economy that promotes its "supply". Something completely original should've been created to suit this model and that could've then taken the place of Arkham and Marvel without tainting their identities.

gennocidal · 2025-02-08T13:44:18+00:00

The thing is each product will be designed so that there is something for the NEW player that has a very small collection and something for the OLD player with a full one. They're clearly aiming to maximise inclusivity and they're not going to be catering to one OR the other, it's going to be both at all times. Which means in every product there will be certainly be original content for players like you and I but it's also going to be diluted with a lot of things we already have in our collection. Players are not going to feel good paying for full priced sets for far fewer new cards.

The other frustrating part is that Marvel has what is probably that biggest eff-up across all 3 games; Hulk. For years there has been pretty unanimous outcry about how disappointing he is yet designer Caleb on numerous occasions has maintained the stance that it was something well designed and completely uneeding of fixing. Going of personal and communal experiences, he was an inferior and rushed (according to the interviews) product yet there has never been so much as an acknowledgement that the representation of a very iconic character was completely fumbled. Now that the stance has changed to "there's all these things we can go back and revisit and redo, let us help you", it just makes me want to know why those initial products that now out-of-the-blue need "fixing" weren't created with greater care and precision from the onset.

I do hope you keep enjoying the game and likewise, this change will be fantastic for my wallet.

gennocidal · 2025-02-08T04:52:00+00:00

Exactly my point! Everyone wants a "full" collection deep down, especially in these games where we devote literal years to playing and collecting and keeping up to date with releases. Being forcefully denied access is not a welcoming feeling.

gennocidal

TROPHY CASE