Obvious question: How much has Yu-Gi-Oh impacted Magic?
Richard Hutnik
could argue that it is a return of the play mechanics of the Illusory
Mask, but Yu-Gi-Oh bring around seems to have brought a return of the
play mechanics.
So, do people feel that morph is there because of Yu-Gi-Oh? Also, how
else has Yu-Gi-Oh impacted Magic.
- Richard Hutnik
Jasper Overman
Richard Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37bc9e37.02100...@posting.google.com...
What is Yu-Gi-Oh ?
--
Jasper Overman
DCI level 2 Judge
David Chapman
Imagine Pokemon, but even worse. Or so I hear,
anyway.
--
How am I supposed to keep a low profile when
Godzilla with a white-man's Afro is on the back
porch!
Spa...@yahoo.com
Its an odd game.
You need to have all the restricted cards in your deck (which are
all like $20US), and almost every card has a card that is strictly better
but is just harder to find and costs more. More you spend, the better
your deck is, period.
Its hugly popular with the kids that just outgrew pokemon but dont
have the brain capacity for magic yet.
Jasper Overman
<Spa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ansgbl$6do$1...@News.Dal.Ca...
> David Chapman <evil...@madasafish.com> wrote:
> > The seas boiled, the skies fell, and Jasper Overman said:
>
> >> Richard Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:37bc9e37.02100...@posting.google.com...
> >>> Morph as a play element appears taken directly from Yu-Gi-Oh. One
> >>> could argue that it is a return of the play mechanics of the Illusory
> >>> Mask, but Yu-Gi-Oh bring around seems to have brought a return of the
> >>> play mechanics.
> >>>
> >>> So, do people feel that morph is there because of Yu-Gi-Oh? Also,
> >>> how else has Yu-Gi-Oh impacted Magic.
> >>>
> >> Three words:
> >>
> >> What is Yu-Gi-Oh ?
>
> > Imagine Pokemon, but even worse. Or so I hear,
> > anyway.
>>
> You need to have all the restricted cards in your deck (which are
> all like $20US), and almost every card has a card that is strictly better
> but is just harder to find and costs more. More you spend, the better
> your deck is, period.
> Its hugly popular with the kids that just outgrew pokemon but dont
> have the brain capacity for magic yet.
Well, I've not been living under a rock, I'd heard about the game,
obviously. The game isn't released in the Netherlands (yet?) Anyway, I don't
think that this new game had a large impact on magic. At least, not on the
development of new game mechanics. New sets are developed over a period of
two years. For now, Yu-Gi-Oh is a lot smaller than magic, so magic isn't in
any way 'required' to change it's game mechanics to appease players from the
other game.
Spa...@yahoo.com
Actualy I think yu-gi-oh is much bigger than mtg, its just
it has only recently come to english.
Rast
<ansgbl$6do$1...@News.Dal.Ca>:
> You need to have all the restricted cards in your deck
> and almost every card has a card that is strictly better
> but is just harder to find and costs more. More you spend, the better
> your deck is, period.
Wait, I thought you were talking about Yu-Gi-Oh, not Type 1.
--
"Sometimes I stand by the door and look into the darkness. Then I
am reminded how dearly I cherish my boredom, and what a precious
commodity is so much misery." -- Jack Vance
Angel Gonzalez
"Richard Hutnik" <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37bc9e37.02100...@posting.google.com...
yu-gi-oh is such a mtg ripoff....i mean 7 bucks for 5 cards or so? geez, i
say its only advantage over magic is the cartoon....never did like
cartoons....
Richard Hutnik
I am getting responses to this original thread that rank from
ignorance to utter contempt for Yu-Gi-Oh. My original post was meant
to ask if any of the PLAY MECHANICS in Yu-Gi-Oh have jumped over to
Magic. So, am I right in assuming that most people here believe morph
as an ability was added to the game for any reason but Yu-Gi-Oh having
it as a major element?
- Richard Hutnik
Remus Shepherd
> I am getting responses to this original thread that rank from
> ignorance to utter contempt for Yu-Gi-Oh. My original post was meant
> to ask if any of the PLAY MECHANICS in Yu-Gi-Oh have jumped over to
> Magic. So, am I right in assuming that most people here believe morph
> as an ability was added to the game for any reason but Yu-Gi-Oh having
> it as a major element?
I know nothing about Yu-Gi-Oh. But face-down card mechanics were a
part of Magic since Alpha, and some players have always wanted to see it
return.
And let's face it, there's only so many things you can do with cards. :)
You can put them face-up, you can put them face-down, you can turn
them sideways, and you can put them on top of other cards. No reason not
to use every mechanic you can. (Only thing Magic is missing is 'touching
edge' effects, a la Phil Foglio's 'Girl Genius' card game.)
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Adam
Hutnik) wrote:
Morph was inspired by cards like Illusionary Mask, not Yu-Gay-Oh.
Nico de Boer
"Richard Hutnik" <richar...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:37bc9e37.02100...@posting.google.com...
And maybe the people that made Yu-Gi-Oh took a long and good look at Magic
and decided to add the mechanic to Yu-Gi-Oh,That makes more sense looking at
the time needed to develop a set.
>
> - Richard Hutnik
Greetz Nico
Richard Hutnik
I am perfectly aware of the Illusory Mask in Magic. The question is
why did the play mechanic come back now?
This is what I am asking. Would not the popularity of Yu-Gi-Oh
motivate WoTC to bring back this old play mechanic in a game system
that is more balanced?
- Richard Hutnik
Daveykins FoxFire
I have a love-hate relationship with Yu-Gi-Oh. It's "Pokemon" as it
*should* have been . . . . but with a cheap as $#!* MTG knock-off!
MTG is your brain. Dueling Monsters is your brain ON DRUGS!!
I'm more of a cartoonist than a MTG(O) player, but I had a question in
my head when I was watching Yu-Gi-Oh: What would that show would look
like if MTG was involved?
Check out my answer: http://www.grimmoire.com/planeswalker
Tim Lammarsch
>
> I am perfectly aware of the Illusory Mask in Magic. The question is
> why did the play mechanic come back now?
>
> This is what I am asking. Would not the popularity of Yu-Gi-Oh
> motivate WoTC to bring back this old play mechanic in a game system
> that is more balanced?
>
I don't know how long Yu-Gi-Oh is around (never seen it) but AFAIK Morph was
developed about one and a half year ago.
--
Tim
<commander [AT] holycows [DOT] de>
Clicking on "Reply by Mail" won't work, sorry.
Garscow
> I am perfectly aware of the Illusory Mask in Magic. The question is
> why did the play mechanic come back now?
Because it's only now that the M:tg rules have become robust enough to
be able to handle abilities like this.
You'll notice more complicated (rules wise) cards have been appearing in
more recent sets. Morph is in line with this.
ref: Mirari and Clone, also Radiate.
Garscow
Richard Hutnik
> Richard Hutnik is supposed to be the writer of this text:
>
> >
> > I am perfectly aware of the Illusory Mask in Magic. The question is
> > why did the play mechanic come back now?
> >
> > This is what I am asking. Would not the popularity of Yu-Gi-Oh
> > motivate WoTC to bring back this old play mechanic in a game system
> > that is more balanced?
> >
>
> I don't know how long Yu-Gi-Oh is around (never seen it) but AFAIK Morph was
> developed about one and a half year ago.
Yu-Gi-Oh, I believe, has been popular longer than that. The game has
been around in Japan for several years at least, and been in the
United States for over a year. It does seem, at least someone at
Wizards saw the game, and realized that the play mechanic worked well
in Yu-Gi-Oh, so they decided to bring it back to Magic.
- Richard Hutnik
TmC47
I think people are thinking along the lines of the beta card Camoflage
here...
It allowed you to turn any number of creatures upside down, and attack with
them after a good shuffle. Heaps of fun.
I had one, but never played it. My mates wouldn't let me... ;)
Andries
Orgg99
>Wizards saw the game, and realized that the play mechanic worked well
>in Yu-Gi-Oh, so they decided to bring it back to Magic.
Richard,
No matter how hard you try to push for a correlation between "morph" and that
Yu Gi Oh game, it didn't happen. Not only was the face-down mechanic used in
MtG back in 1994 ('93?) but it could be argued that "phasing" used a "face down
mechanic" as well. (I realize that turning a phased-out card face down was
merely a convenient way of denoting the permanent's "phased-out-edness", but
still, during the Mirage era there were face down cards all over the place.)
Plus, I remember reading a Duelist article about 5 or 6 years ago where an R&D
type was asked about "running out of new ideas". The R&D guy laughed and said
that they had new mechanic ideas locked away that would carry Magic for many,
many years to come. It is likely that the general idea for "morph" has been
percolating for 5 years or more. And long after Yu Gi Oh is D O A, Magic will
still be thriving with plenty 'o new mechanics, none of which will need to be
borrowed from the latest Pokemon incarnation.
Regards,
Tom
Richard Hutnik
So, what you are saying is Wizards of the Coast is totally ignorant of
what other CCGs are doing and what play mechanics are popular at a
given time in other games. So, are you next expecting the makers of
Yu Gi Oh to be sued by Wizards, because they stole an idea they had
brewing for years? Wizards has done it in the past, why not now?
Why is there this very hostile adverse reaction to someone suggesting
that another cardgame comes out, and has SOME impact on Wizards
deciding to bring back an old play mechanic, modified a bit? Did I
EVER say that Yu Gi Oh created the concept? Or did I even say that
Wizards deciding to utilize it again due to Yu Gi Oh was a bad idea?
By the way, Pokemon is a creation of Wizards.
- Richard Hutnik
Special K
Hutnik) wrote:
<snip>
Hey, I just remembered something! You're boring, and my killfile
works!
*plonk*
Kenton "Special K" Cernea
Part of this balanced breakfast.
pseudosoldier
Hutnik) wrote:
>By the way, Pokemon is a creation of Wizards.
>
Pokemon is a Japanese game that Wizards helped translate/export
outside of Japan. I believe they had something to do with the
development of later sets, but AFAIK the original set was completely
done by the Japanese.
- pseudosoldier
Remus Shepherd
> So, what you are saying is Wizards of the Coast is totally ignorant of
> what other CCGs are doing and what play mechanics are popular at a
> given time in other games.
I think it's more a case of, 'they don't care'.
> So, are you next expecting the makers of
> Yu Gi Oh to be sued by Wizards, because they stole an idea they had
> brewing for years? Wizards has done it in the past, why not now?
Wizards owns the copyright on collectible card games. They've driven
CCGs to bankruptcy in the past. If they're not doing that to YGO, it's
probably because the makers of YGO have licensed the patent from WOTC,
and thus WOTC is making a share of the profits YGO pulls in.
If that's the case, then yes, WOTC certainly does know about the game.
I still don't think they care.
> By the way, Pokemon is a creation of Wizards.
So is almost every CCG put out since 1998, because of that patent.
It's barely profitable to create a new game as it is, and WOTC drove many
other publishers' games into the grave. I think the same will happen to
Yu-Gi-Oh eventually; the bigger it gets, the more money WOTC will want for
using their license, and eventually the makers of YGO will decide that
it's just not worth it.
But hey, enjoy your game while it lasts. :)
Xis
> Wizards owns the copyright on collectible card games.
I believe that this is false. Wizards owns a patent on one game mechanic:
tapping. Other companies are perfectly free to produce CCGs, as long as they
either 1:don't use that mechanic or 2:deal with Wizards.
-Jaug
WotC actually owns a series of patents including "tapping", casting costs,
different colors of cards,and collectability (there are others, it's been a
while since I've read the document) . It's really silly what the Patent
Office let them get away with.
Oh, and BTW Pokemon is owned by Game Freak, Wotc has a licence to produse
the game in English (and other languages beside Japanese I believe).
--
- Jaug
I've seen the man play the game
I've seen the game play the man.
Remus Shepherd
Wizards also owns tapping. But the important patent is 'collectibility'.
Basically anyone can make a card game as long as it isn't collectible.
Steve Jackson (Illuminati) and Phil Foglio (Xxxenophile, Gear Girl) are two
examples of games that skirt around the WoTC patent.
If your card game is not sold as a complete set, and/or has cards of
different rarities, then Wizards gets a percentage of your profit.
It's amazing that I'm still steamed about that patent, five years later.
Even more amazing that I'm giving them more money. :) But the good things
they've done with MTG, and the amazing revamp they put D&D through, have
done a lot to redeem WoTC to me. :)
Nico de Boer
"-Jaug" <sj...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:uqea706...@corp.supernews.com...
> Xis wrote:
> > "Remus Shepherd" <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Wizards owns the copyright on collectible card games.
> >
> > I believe that this is false. Wizards owns a patent on one game
> > mechanic: tapping. Other companies are perfectly free to produce
> > CCGs, as long as they either 1:don't use that mechanic or 2:deal with
> > Wizards.
>
> WotC actually owns a series of patents including "tapping", casting costs,
> different colors of cards,and collectability (there are others, it's been
a
> while since I've read the document) . It's really silly what the Patent
> Office let them get away with.
For a full test of the patent here's a link:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1
&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5,662,332'.WKU.&OS=PN/5,662,332&RS
=PN/5,662,332
I hope the wrapping doesn''t give problems.
Greetz Nico
David Chapman
> "-Jaug" <sj...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
> news:uqea706...@corp.supernews.com...
>> WotC actually owns a series of patents including "tapping", casting
>> costs, different colors of cards,and collectability (there are
>> others, it's been a while since I've read the document) . It's
>> really silly what the Patent Office let them get away with.
>
> For a full test of the patent here's a link:
> I hope the wrapping doesn''t give problems.
Yes, it does - in the way that three-line URLs *always*
do. In cases like this, www.makeashorterlink.com is
your friend.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C2B812512
Nico de Boer
"David Chapman" <evil...@madasafish.com> schreef in bericht
news:ao7j5d$k7me9$2...@ID-93395.news.dfncis.de...
> The seas boiled, the skies fell, and Nico de Boer said:
>
> > "-Jaug" <sj...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:uqea706...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >> WotC actually owns a series of patents including "tapping", casting
> >> costs, different colors of cards,and collectability (there are
> >> others, it's been a while since I've read the document) . It's
> >> really silly what the Patent Office let them get away with.
> >
> > For a full test of the patent here's a link:
btw, I meant to write text, instead of test.
>
> > I hope the wrapping doesn''t give problems.
>
> Yes, it does - in the way that three-line URLs *always*
> do. In cases like this, www.makeashorterlink.com is
> your friend.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?C2B812512
Thanks, I knew there was a site that provided that service, I added it to my
favorites directly. And thanks too for making that shorter url directly.
Greetz Nico
David DeLaney
>Richard Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> So, what you are saying is Wizards of the Coast is totally ignorant of
>> what other CCGs are doing and what play mechanics are popular at a
>> given time in other games.
>
> I think it's more a case of, 'they don't care'.
Well, they might look, but the development cycle is longer than most
people think, so the Latest Fad Card Game is likely to have peaked and
gone again before any trace of its mechanics could show up in a Magic set...
>> So, are you next expecting the makers of
>> Yu Gi Oh to be sued by Wizards, because they stole an idea they had
>> brewing for years? Wizards has done it in the past, why not now?
>
> Wizards owns the copyright on collectible card games.
Er, no. They own a patent, I believe, on the concept of 'tapping', again
I believe. They don't own any such lucrative thing as "a copyright on
CCGs"...
> They've driven CCGs to bankruptcy in the past.
I don't know of any they've done this -deliberately- to. It's quite easy,
it turns out, for a CCG to drive -itself- to bankruptcy ... just as with
_any other_ kind of business.
>> By the way, Pokemon is a creation of Wizards.
>
> So is almost every CCG put out since 1998, because of that patent.
Again, nope. You'll note that not many CCGs actually use 'tapping' as
a concept; Wizards is as far as I know benevolent about licensing it
out, but they _do_ watch for that element.
>It's barely profitable to create a new game as it is, and WOTC drove many
>other publishers' games into the grave.
Again, WotC didn't do that on purpose as far as I can tell. Dozens and
dozens of game manufacturers, all trying to capitalize on the TOTALLY
unexpected popularity of Magic in 1993-4-5, did so all by themselves.
Some survived, an AWFUL lot didn't (because their rules weren't well-
written/well-tested, because the game they put out just wasn't interesting
to play, any number of other reasons ...). The odd discovery that nearly
no gamers can afford to be addicted to _more_ than one CCG/CMiniaturesG
didn't help things a lot either - but that's not something Wizards designed
into their game, it's just how things turned out, I think.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Julian Lighton
Orgg99 <org...@aol.com> wrote:
>> It does seem, at least someone at
>>Wizards saw the game, and realized that the play mechanic worked well
>>in Yu-Gi-Oh, so they decided to bring it back to Magic.
>
>Richard,
>No matter how hard you try to push for a correlation between "morph" and that
>Yu Gi Oh game, it didn't happen.
This is impossible to say, unless you're one of the designers. They
may have been inspired to revisit it by Yu-Gi-Oh. They may not have.
Maybe they were inspired by some completely different game, CCG or
not. They may not even know what, if anything, inspired them.
> Not only was the face-down mechanic used in
>MtG back in 1994 ('93?)
A face-down mechanic was used, but it's not the same mechanic as morph.
> but it could be argued that "phasing" used a "face down
>mechanic" as well. (I realize that turning a phased-out card face down was
>merely a convenient way of denoting the permanent's "phased-out-edness", but
>still, during the Mirage era there were face down cards all over the place.)
Yes, it could be argued, but it's not a very good argument.
>Plus, I remember reading a Duelist article about 5 or 6 years ago where an R&D
>type was asked about "running out of new ideas". The R&D guy laughed and said
>that they had new mechanic ideas locked away that would carry Magic for many,
>many years to come. It is likely that the general idea for "morph" has been
>percolating for 5 years or more.
It's possible it was. It's possible it wasn't.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. (IIR what little I know of YGO's play
C, morph isn't even a direct ripoff of the mechanic.) The real
question is whether it works, and is fun.
Julian Lighton
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>Richard Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> So, are you next expecting the makers of
>> Yu Gi Oh to be sued by Wizards, because they stole an idea they had
>> brewing for years? Wizards has done it in the past, why not now?
>
> Wizards owns the copyright on collectible card games.
They own the patent. Not the same thing.
(And the patent issue is a bit more complex than just "CCGs" or
"tapping".)
>They've driven
>CCGs to bankruptcy in the past.
Name one. AFAIK, they have never sued, or even threatened to sue,
anybody for patent infringement. (And I think we'd hear about it if
they drove a game under that way, rather than by dominating the
market.)
>If they're not doing that to YGO, it's
>probably because the makers of YGO have licensed the patent from WOTC,
>and thus WOTC is making a share of the profits YGO pulls in.
Check the packaging. Does it mention the patent at all?
>> By the way, Pokemon is a creation of Wizards.
>
> So is almost every CCG put out since 1998, because of that patent.
Um, no. Even if somebody licenses the patent, that hardly makes their
game a creation of WotC.
Orgg99
No kidding?
>Yes, it could be argued, but it's not a very good argument.
>
That's your opinion.
>It's possible it was. It's possible it wasn't.
That's a pretty gutsy stand.
>The real
>question is whether it works, and is fun.
>
Also a matter of opinion.
Orgg99
>anybody for patent infringement.
Oh, they sure have.
It was probably way before your time but you can go back to 1994 when a guy by
the name of Fred Ditzler put out his own Magic expansion called "Middle Ages"
(which actually took the form of stickers that we put on top of land cards).
It was actually very popular (around here, anyway) because Wizards seemed real
slow in those days to come up with new sets for Magic-hungry game players.
Wizards forced Fred to cease and desist pretty quickly. And I know that they
have engaged in many legal "discussions" over the years to, rightly, protect
their product.
Julian Lighton
Orgg99 <org...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Name one. AFAIK, they have never sued, or even threatened to sue,
>>anybody for patent infringement.
>
>Oh, they sure have.
>It was probably way before your time
Not at all.
> but you can go back to 1994 when a guy by
>the name of Fred Ditzler put out his own Magic expansion called "Middle Ages"
>(which actually took the form of stickers that we put on top of land cards).
>It was actually very popular (around here, anyway) because Wizards seemed real
>slow in those days to come up with new sets for Magic-hungry game players.
>Wizards forced Fred to cease and desist pretty quickly.
But not through their patent; they didn't have it yet.
Julian Lighton
Orgg99 <org...@aol.com> wrote:
>>It's possible it was. It's possible it wasn't.
>
>That's a pretty gutsy stand.
It's not a stand at all; there aren't enough facts available to make a
stand on. You think that, because they once said they had many years
worth of new mechanic ideas, it's likely that morph was one of them,
and not something inspired by Yu-Gi-Oh. I think that it's impossible
to say; just because they had lots of ideas doesn't mean that they
stopped coming up with more, and I don't see why it matters anyway.
>>The real
>>question is whether it works, and is fun.
>
>Also a matter of opinion.
Well, yes. Your point being?
David DeLaney
>>Name one. AFAIK, they have never sued, or even threatened to sue,
>>anybody for patent infringement.
>
>Oh, they sure have.
>It was probably way before your time but you can go back to 1994 when a guy by
>the name of Fred Ditzler put out his own Magic expansion called "Middle Ages"
Ah, yes, I remember that.
That wasn't, particularly, a "different card game" in any way; that was
specifically designed to be an expansion _for Magic itself_, one which wasn't
sanctioned by the company that -makes- Magic in any way. Surprise that WotC
got after him and stopped him from doing so shows a little bit of naivete,
I think (feigned or not)...
If you're thinking of making expansions or cards -for Magic- you'd best check
with them and prepare to hear the answer 'no' a lot. Similarly, if your
game is Magic-with-a-coat-of-blue-and-white-paint they'll get after you.
This is a different question from "I have come up with a collectible
card game, will WotC try to stop me from publishing it" entirely...
Xis
"Remus Shepherd" <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> Wizards also owns tapping. But the important patent is
'collectibility'.
> Basically anyone can make a card game as long as it isn't collectible.
> Steve Jackson (Illuminati) and Phil Foglio (Xxxenophile, Gear Girl) are
two
> examples of games that skirt around the WoTC patent.
Wow, that is really ...surprising. I wouldn't have believed you without the
patent-office link above. I'm truly shocked that Wizards could be awarded a
patent for something so broad.
Chris Mattern
Richard Garfield didn't tinker around the edges, he created a
major new genre of gaming that was different from anything
seen before. So he's entitled to a patent not just on fiddly
details, but on the genre he created. XXXenophile and INWO
were completely collectable (although they did away with
differing rarities). Decipher's Star Trek is still going
strong, and Shadowfist is making a nice comeback with Z-man,
to name two examples that were never linked to WotC. Shoot,
Decipher's Star Wars didn't get killed because of a CCG patent,
it got killed because of the Star Wars licensing. WotC may
have the patent, but they don't seem to be using it to to kill
rival CCGs (maybe collect a small license fee...).
(Um, by the way, "Gear Girl"? Do that mean "Girl Genius: The Works"? That's
not collectible, although it uses the same gameplay mechanics as XXXenophile,
which was. Illuminati, of course, came in a non-collectible form that predates
Magic, and INWO, which was collectible.)
Chris Mattern
David Chapman
> (Um, by the way, "Gear Girl"? Do that mean "Girl Genius: The Works"?
> That's not collectible, although it uses the same gameplay mechanics
> as XXXenophile, which was. Illuminati, of course, came in a non-
> collectible form that predates Magic, and INWO, which was
> collectible.)
And the new INWO box set, which is a non-collectible
edition of the collectible game.
Gustavo Fischer
> "Richard Hutnik" <richar...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:37bc9e37.0210...@posting.google.com...
>> "Nico de Boer" <nico.(no)de.(spam)bo...@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
> news:<1034101486.781098@cache1>...
>>> "Richard Hutnik" <richar...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
>>> news:37bc9e37.02100...@posting.google.com...
>>>> richar...@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) wrote in message
>>> news:<37bc9e37.02100...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> I think people are thinking along the lines of the beta card Camoflage
> here...
> It allowed you to turn any number of creatures upside down, and
> attack with them after a good shuffle. Heaps of fun.
> I had one, but never played it. My mates wouldn't let me... ;)
Morph feels a lot like Camouflage (before the errata), and it愀 really
fun. Morph vs Morph standoffs are great, especially if they let yours go
unblocked and it愀 a Skirk Commando or Ebonblade Reaper :-)
> Andries
--
Gustavo Fischer - g...@montevideo.com.uy
Julian Lighton
Chris Mattern <matt...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Xis" <wai...@oblivion.patiently> wrote in message
>news:GGzq9.1312$cI2...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Remus Shepherd" <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Wizards also owns tapping. But the important patent is
>> 'collectibility'.
>> > Basically anyone can make a card game as long as it isn't collectible.
>> > Steve Jackson (Illuminati) and Phil Foglio (Xxxenophile, Gear Girl) are
>> two
>> > examples of games that skirt around the WoTC patent.
>>
>> Wow, that is really ...surprising. I wouldn't have believed you without the
>> patent-office link above. I'm truly shocked that Wizards could be awarded a
>> patent for something so broad.
>>
>Why not? Literally, nobody had done anything like it before.
>Richard Garfield didn't tinker around the edges, he created a
>major new genre of gaming that was different from anything
>seen before.
IIRC, people did in fact dig up prior CCGs after the patent was
granted. There was a Warhammer one that sank without a trace, and
there was a much older sports game.
> So he's entitled to a patent not just on fiddly
>details, but on the genre he created. XXXenophile and INWO
>were completely collectable (although they did away with
>differing rarities).
INWO had differing rarities.
Remus Shepherd
> (Um, by the way, "Gear Girl"? Do that mean "Girl Genius: The Works"? That's
> not collectible, although it uses the same gameplay mechanics as XXXenophile,
> which was. Illuminati, of course, came in a non-collectible form that predates
> Magic, and INWO, which was collectible.)
"Girl Genius" is what I meant -- I posted from work, and forgot the name
of the game. My point with it, and with the INWO full set that came after
MTG, was that they avoided the patents by making them non-collectible.
Chris Mattern
"Remus Shepherd" <re...@panix.com> wrote in message news:aofr50$6cv$1...@reader1.panix.com...
a CCG. A CCG is an enormous amount of design/development work--and it
never stops. If you stop producing new cards, the game is "dead" and people
stop playing it. A CCG is a big gamble--if you can get a following, you get
a good constant stream of money coming in, but if you can't, it's a lot of
money down the rathole. Making a game non-collectable (and in particular,
making it a fixed deck, which Girl Genius is) lowers the stakes considerably.
You spend a lot less on Girl Genius than a CCG, but by the same card, people
are more likely to just pick up a Girl Genius deck and play than get involved
in a CCG. I really think those factors had a lot more to do with it than the
patent. If WotC was using the patent to kill rivals, why didn't they kill
Decipher's Star Wars, which was their single biggest rival? Instead, it died
to Lucasfilm's refusal to renew the license. And their Star Trek goes merrily
on, as does Shadowfist, Legend of the Five Rings (which is no longer WotC-
connected), and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle (also no longer WotC-connected).
Chris Mattern
D. Barreto
"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message
news:uqmeeq7...@corp.supernews.com...
Even those aside, collecting cards and playing card games are as old as
cards themselves. Putting the two together was not "creating a new gaming
genre"... millions of kids have made homebrew sports games out of their
baseball and hockey cards over the years... RG created a great game sure...
but he didn't invent the genre... at best he gambled there was an untapped
market for it... but that shouldn't be patentable.
Remus Shepherd
> If WotC was using the patent to kill rivals, why didn't they kill
> Decipher's Star Wars, which was their single biggest rival? Instead, it died
> to Lucasfilm's refusal to renew the license. And their Star Trek goes merrily
> on, as does Shadowfist, Legend of the Five Rings (which is no longer WotC-
> connected), and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle (also no longer WotC-connected).
WotC is using the patent to make money. If they drive rival games out
of business, that gives MTG more market share and makes WotC money. If
their rivals instead choose to license the patent and pay WotC a share of
their profits -- as all the games you've listed must be doing -- then that
makes WotC money.
The patent is a win-win scenario for WotC. That doesn't make it right.
Steve Lord
> In article <20021012150637...@mb-ct.aol.com>,
> Orgg99 <org...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>It's possible it was. It's possible it wasn't.
> >
> >That's a pretty gutsy stand.
>
> It's not a stand at all; there aren't enough facts available to make a
> stand on. You think that, because they once said they had many years
> worth of new mechanic ideas, it's likely that morph was one of them,
> and not something inspired by Yu-Gi-Oh. I think that it's impossible
> to say; just because they had lots of ideas doesn't mean that they
> stopped coming up with more, and I don't see why it matters anyway.
If the original poster (Richard Hutnik, digging through the half-dozen
threads) is still reading and wants a definitive answer (or if someone
else wants a definitive answer), try sending it to a...@wizards.com --
maybe it'll be answered by one of the people who actually knows where
Morph came from and put here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/1002
*snip*
--
Steve L
Julian Lighton
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>Chris Mattern <matt...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> If WotC was using the patent to kill rivals, why didn't they kill
>> Decipher's Star Wars, which was their single biggest rival? Instead, it died
>> to Lucasfilm's refusal to renew the license. And their Star Trek goes merrily
>> on, as does Shadowfist, Legend of the Five Rings (which is no longer WotC-
>> connected), and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle (also no longer WotC-connected).
>
> WotC is using the patent to make money. If they drive rival games out
>of business, that gives MTG more market share and makes WotC money.
Say what?
This isn't toasters. If people can't buy one company's product, they
do not necessarily buy another's. It's at least as likely that WotC
has a larger share of a smaller market.
>If
>their rivals instead choose to license the patent and pay WotC a share of
>their profits -- as all the games you've listed must be doing
Must they?
Chris Mattern
> In article <aoh45j$gum$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Chris Mattern <matt...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> If WotC was using the patent to kill rivals, why didn't they kill
> >> Decipher's Star Wars, which was their single biggest rival? Instead, it died
> >> to Lucasfilm's refusal to renew the license. And their Star Trek goes merrily
> >> on, as does Shadowfist, Legend of the Five Rings (which is no longer WotC-
> >> connected), and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle (also no longer WotC-connected).
> >
> > WotC is using the patent to make money. If they drive rival games out
> >of business, that gives MTG more market share and makes WotC money.
>
> Say what?
>
> This isn't toasters. If people can't buy one company's product, they
> do not necessarily buy another's. It's at least as likely that WotC
> has a larger share of a smaller market.
In fact, in situations like this--niche product that holds some possibility
of appealing to a wider market--companies generally *like* successful rivals,
because they widen the appeal of the product and make more likely that
*everybody's* sales will increase.
Chris Mattern
pseudosoldier
See: "professional wrestling" and the downfall of WWE (nee WWF) after
their acquisition of WCW, their strongest (only?) competitor.
- pseudosoldier
Remus Shepherd
>>of business, that gives MTG more market share and makes WotC money.
> Say what?
> This isn't toasters. If people can't buy one company's product, they
> do not necessarily buy another's. It's at least as likely that WotC
> has a larger share of a smaller market.
You may be right about that. I don't know if WotC realized that back
in 98, though.
>>If
>>their rivals instead choose to license the patent and pay WotC a share of
>>their profits -- as all the games you've listed must be doing
> Must they?
Reading the patent, yes, they must.
Julian Lighton
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>Julian Lighton <jl...@fragment.com> wrote:
>>> WotC is using the patent to make money. If they drive rival games out
>>>of business, that gives MTG more market share and makes WotC money.
>
>> Say what?
>
>> This isn't toasters. If people can't buy one company's product, they
>> do not necessarily buy another's. It's at least as likely that WotC
>> has a larger share of a smaller market.
>
> You may be right about that. I don't know if WotC realized that back
>in 98, though.
No idea, since, as far as I've been able to tell, they never did
anything to push anybody out of business with their patent.
>>>If
>>>their rivals instead choose to license the patent and pay WotC a share of
>>>their profits -- as all the games you've listed must be doing
>
>> Must they?
>
> Reading the patent, yes, they must.
As far as I know, nobody does.