about set release frequency

On 14 May 2006 03:45:24 -0700, "tzimisce_dragon"
<clan_assamite DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

>me and many people of my playgroup are curious if there is an official
>plan for the set release frequency.

No, there is no official public plan.

>Are sets going to be released every
>X months ? if yes, how many months is X ?

There is no official announcement or promise or anything else on this.

>Or are they just going to be released in random intervals ? e.g.
>sometimes every 4 months, sometimes every 6 or 9 months... e.t.c.

They will be published as schedules and money permits.
 >> Stay informed about: about set release frequency 

As far as the "mini-expansions" go, I'd like to see starter-only sets.
In other words, release a set as usual with a few starters, and then a
few months later release a few additional starters (perhaps with
starter-only vamps) incorporating some of the "chase" cards of that
set, plus showing how this set might blend with previous sets. That
way, rather than forcing people to buy a bunch of completely new cards,
they have a resurgence of interest in the sets already in print. It's
also helpful for newer players, who have strategies they would like to
try but can't quite get going. An example of this idea - following the
Kindred Most Wanted, WW might have released a starter-only set with
Assamites, Setites, Ravnos, and Giovanni, incorporating some rares from
KMW and also some core cards that newer players might need. Since
Final Nights starters may be hard to get in some areas, people wanting
to focus on those clans could still be set up.

-Eric Simon
 >> Stay informed about: about set release frequency 

In message <44698f98$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem
<salem_christ.geo DeleteThis @hotmail.com> writes:
>i believe the official line is that Nights of Reckoning doesn't count,
>as it wasn't a "full-sized" release.
>
>I can't remember when the set before that came out, though.

Legacies of Blood: Release Date: November 14, 2005

Start of December to end of July = 8 months. Faff around with the extra
days in November and August, depending on what the release date for the
new base set turns out to be. That's about nine months. Plus the small
release of NoR, which is intended to keep V:TES on the product radar
without actually requiring players to fork over their entire pay cheque.


In any event, it would be pretty stupid for White Wolf to make
themselves a hostage to fortune by precisely stipulating 9 month
intervals when any random thing could cause that to change - a problem
with sourcing appropriate artwork, a massive change in the price of
paper stock (which happened in the mid 90s, as I recall), their
preferred card printer being busy (or going out of business), a round of
illness at the White Wolf offices knocking out a lot of work and having
to prioritise certain products above others, issues coming out of
playtest causing a delay as a substantial rework is needed, wanting a
release to coincide with a big show or convention (the date of which
varies a bit from year to year, or certain details not being known until
later on) etc.

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
 >> Stay informed about: about set release frequency 

Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 volya42 DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > As far as the "mini-expansions" go, I'd like to see starter-only sets.
>
> I think the problem with something like that is that the profit margin
> isn't as high on starters as it is on boosters. The whole point of
> starters is to get new players into the game. The money is made on
> booster sales.
>
> What are the current prices? $10 for a 90 card starter deck or $3 for an
> eleven card booster? Starters would have to double in price to make that
> worthwhile and newbies aren't as likely to pick them up at $20 each.
>
> Matt Morgan

Surely there are other ways to figure the math besides a retail
cost-per-card basis. Consider this - the expansion symbol wouldn't
even have to be different. So you would end up with a few extra cards
that aren't put out in the main set, but then come out later, and other
than that the cards are already being printed. A little extra design
and packaging would be all you need.

And part of the purpose would be to get people to go back and buy more
boosters from the previous set or two. Essentially, you'd be selling
starters (reasonably cheap to make once you've got the process in
place) to drive sales of boosters that you've ALREADY made. I think it
makes sense both game-wise and money-wise.

-Eric Simon
 >> Stay informed about: about set release frequency 

On Tue, 16 May 2006 volya42.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:

> As far as the "mini-expansions" go, I'd like to see starter-only sets.

I think the problem with something like that is that the profit margin
isn't as high on starters as it is on boosters. The whole point of
starters is to get new players into the game. The money is made on
booster sales.

What are the current prices? $10 for a 90 card starter deck or $3 for an
eleven card booster? Starters would have to double in price to make that
worthwhile and newbies aren't as likely to pick them up at $20 each.

Matt Morgan
 >> Stay informed about: about set release frequency 

On Tue, 16 May 2006 volya42 RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:

> Surely there are other ways to figure the math besides a retail
> cost-per-card basis. Consider this - the expansion symbol wouldn't
> even have to be different. So you would end up with a few extra cards
> that aren't put out in the main set, but then come out later, and other
> than that the cards are already being printed. A little extra design
> and packaging would be all you need.
>
> And part of the purpose would be to get people to go back and buy more
> boosters from the previous set or two. Essentially, you'd be selling
> starters (reasonably cheap to make once you've got the process in
> place) to drive sales of boosters that you've ALREADY made. I think it
> makes sense both game-wise and money-wise.

I don't work in the accounting dept at WWGS or anything. My understanding
is that it's pretty much standard in ccgs that starter decks don't make
money. I could be wrong about that. Anyway, I'm not knowledgeable enough
on the subject to debate it with you except that it seems pretty logical
to me that 3x as many cards for the same money isn't a great way to make
bank. Maybe they can save money by not coming up with a new expansion
symbol. I kinda doubt it.

Matt Morgan
 >> Stay informed about: about set release frequency 

On Tue, 16 May 2006, Ankur Gupta wrote:

>> I don't work in the accounting dept at WWGS or anything. My understanding
>> is that it's pretty much standard in ccgs that starter decks don't make
>> money. I could be wrong about that. Anyway, I'm not knowledgeable enough
>> on the subject to debate it with you except that it seems pretty logical to
>> me that 3x as many cards for the same money isn't a great way to make bank.
>> Maybe they can save money by not coming up with a new expansion symbol. I
>> kinda doubt it.
>
> I think you missed the point. Eric's assumption is that production costs
> constitute the vast majority of the cost of product. Packaging is relatively
> minor in comparison.

I'm not talking about packaging. I'm talking about whether you make money
by selling three times the product for the same price or not. I'm
thinking not.

Anyway, I suggest you guys argue this one with someone who knows more
about the industry than I do. I can't give you the satisfaction you need.

Matt Morgan
 >> Stay informed about: about set release frequency 

> I don't work in the accounting dept at WWGS or anything. My
> understanding is that it's pretty much standard in ccgs that starter
> decks don't make money. I could be wrong about that. Anyway, I'm not
> knowledgeable enough on the subject to debate it with you except that it
> seems pretty logical to me that 3x as many cards for the same money
> isn't a great way to make bank. Maybe they can save money by not coming
> up with a new expansion symbol. I kinda doubt it.

I think you missed the point. Eric's assumption is that production costs
constitute the vast majority of the cost of product. Packaging is
relatively minor in comparison. Therefore, if a given "print run" is built
with 200 cards, but only 150 are released in the "major set", then the
other 50 could instead be released in these starter decks that Eric is
talking about. In other words, stagger the number of cards being released
at any given time, and in such a way as to foster sales of older booster
sets. One suggested approach is in starter decks.

Now, if Eric's assumption is wrong (or there are unconsidered things
here), that's a different matter. But, hopefully those in charge will at
least consider it.

Ankur
 >> Stay informed about: about set release frequency 

On Tue, 16 May 2006 14:35:17 -0400, Ankur Gupta <agupta.TakeThisOut@cs.duke.edu>
wrote:

>> I don't work in the accounting dept at WWGS or anything. My
>> understanding is that it's pretty much standard in ccgs that starter
>> decks don't make money. I could be wrong about that. Anyway, I'm not
>> knowledgeable enough on the subject to debate it with you except that it
>> seems pretty logical to me that 3x as many cards for the same money
>> isn't a great way to make bank. Maybe they can save money by not coming
>> up with a new expansion symbol. I kinda doubt it.
>
>I think you missed the point. Eric's assumption is that production costs
>constitute the vast majority of the cost of product. Packaging is
>relatively minor in comparison. Therefore, if a given "print run" is built
>with 200 cards, but only 150 are released in the "major set", then the
>other 50 could instead be released in these starter decks that Eric is
>talking about. In other words, stagger the number of cards being released
>at any given time, and in such a way as to foster sales of older booster
>sets. One suggested approach is in starter decks.
>
>Now, if Eric's assumption is wrong (or there are unconsidered things
>here), that's a different matter. But, hopefully those in charge will at
>least consider it.
>
>Ankur

What I've been told suggests packaging is not minor at all. Sure, it
helps to have a starter box be card sized rather than taller/wider and
the rulebook could be dispensed with as a cost savings. But, the only
time someone in the industry told me anything about margin on their
starters, it was to say that they had negative margin.
 >> Stay informed about: about set release frequency