Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Sony PlayStation (Games)

Why Card Copying May Not Ruin Eye of Judgment 96

Last week it was revealed that the cards used in Sony's interesting new CCG/Videogame hybrid Eye of Judgement can easily be copied and reused. The large symbols on the cards that register with the game also make them prime candidates for counterfeiting. It may sound dire, but weizur writes with a link to a post on the Zen and Games site that theorizes this may not be the end of the world for the game. "Ultimately the rules of the game change. No longer is it a game about collecting and skill begins to play a much larger role in the game in the long run since personal wealth and ability to acquire cards becomes a non-factor. What Magic has taught us though is that this isn't really a bad thing and much fun can still be had when the game becomes a game of skill and less a game of chance, this is of course in theory as Eye of Judgment probably doesn't have the depth and finesse that Magic has and ultimately the game design of Eye of Judgment and it's ability to be a fun game will be the ultimate test."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Card Copying May Not Ruin Eye of Judgment

Comments Filter:
  • by geminidomino ( 614729 ) * on Monday October 29, 2007 @12:05PM (#21157813) Journal
    When did Magic become a game of skill instead of personal wealth?
  • Re:Gimmick (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Constantine XVI ( 880691 ) <trash.eighty+sla ... l.com minus poet> on Monday October 29, 2007 @12:10PM (#21157873)
    Millions of Magic players (and the various anime-based TCG games, for the younger set) seem to be just fine with the idea. It just happens that the camera setup lets you play online (you can play just fine in person with real cards only)
  • by apparently ( 756613 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @12:13PM (#21157917)
    I can't possibly see people wanting to buy a game then hundreds of cards just for the fun of it. Surely once you buy the game that's all you should need, instead this way you have to keep buying every few months or your cards are too weak and useless in such a cutthroat place like online gaming.

    That's the CCG model, just updated for online-play. Having to buy the latest cards hasn't made M:TG die.

    Having cards actually be rare is a good thing, if they could pull it off. Games get boring when everyone has access to the same spells and same powerdecks. Sure, the even-playing field means that there's now a skill-requirement (a good thing, as well), but only at the expense of variety. Too bad R&D didn't give the idea more than 2 seconds of thought.

  • by toleraen ( 831634 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @12:19PM (#21157953)
    Probably around 1998, for me at least. The group of friends I played with tended to use proxies for the more expensive cards. It was a lot cheaper, and more fun, to try out new deck ideas that way. No point in spending lots of cash on the real cards just to test out a deck theme, only to find that the idea didn't work as well as you wanted.
  • by AuraSeer ( 409950 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @12:19PM (#21157965)
    However, this absolutely sucks for Sony, who is now only going to make money through the sale of the Eye and the game itself.

    Oh, how will they ever survive? No video game company has ever made a profit just by selling video games!
  • Re:Poker? IROC? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fistfullast33l ( 819270 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @12:46PM (#21158269) Homepage Journal
    You mean like Poker, a card game where the players get cards from the same deck?

    While I'm not an expert in CCG, I think I would argue that randomness plays a larger part in Poker then in a game like Magic. How random is this game when you can choose the cards you wish to put in your deck before the game begins? That's like stacking a deck in Poker so you always get a flush...
  • by rev_dru ( 618154 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @12:54PM (#21158351)
    The rarity of cards has never stopped anyone from net-decking. It has just forced them to choose between spending money and losing. Typically, when you build a magic deck, you don't look at what cards you have, but what cards are legal in the current format. When you're done, you go out and get the cards that you are missing. Theoretically, if every player had access to every card in the game, they would probably still play the exact same decks.

    In online games, casual players are mixed in with more serious players, so you play against tournament-style decks even in casual play. This will put pressure on the casual player to get the money rares. From my perspective, having all of the cards available to everyone will not change the decks people are playing at all. It will only make the game cheaper for the players.
  • by rkanodia ( 211354 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @03:02PM (#21160121)
    The strategy in a game should come from choosing your cards correctly, not from buying tons of cards looking for a game winner.

    I used to play Magic, and this exact criticism is why I don't anymore. I have no problem with the idea of deck construction, but making 'rare' cards more powerful just allows the creators of the game to cash in on an artificial scarcity of their own design. The whole thing about 'rarity is designed for Limited play, where players don't bring their own decks' is a canard, because Limited and Constructed players alike use the same packs of cards to play. If rarity were really about making Limited a better format, you would just be able to spend $40 and get a big box with enough of each card to be able to make any valid deck for Constructed play, and then Limited events would use the same packs that they do now.

    I'd happily play a 'CCG' based on slightly more 'traditional' board/card game economics (fixed price for fixed cards), but interestingly enough, there are none that are popular. I daresay that the thrill of opening a pack and finding out what cards you got is a big hook for new players, who are then sort of gradually introduced into additional levels of indoctrination as they become normalized to their previous levels. It's sort of like Scientology - just as no one would join the Church of Scientology if spending $10,000 to read 'OT 3' were the first step, no one would start playing Magic if the first step was to spend $400 on a 'tournament competitive' deck, which will require $100 of new 'tech' every two months or so for as long as you want to play. But you know, that first packs of cards is pretty cool, and then you start buying more cards once you see that your friends are able to do better by playing different cards, and then you read about this cool combo engine on some website, and then you learn how a deck full of dual-lands would make it so much more possible for you to add a splash of Blue, and then...
  • by morari ( 1080535 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @04:12PM (#21161067) Journal

    Having to buy the latest cards hasn't made M:TG die.
    No, but constantly banning cards in order to FORCE you to upgrade your entire collection sure has turned away more than enough people that I know who were once into it. That is Wizards of the Coast though. They have an almost painful reputation of such underhanded tactics across a slew of gaming lines. It's really too bad that the Call of Cthulhu CCG changed to a non-collectible format, as it is the best I've ever played (even nudging past Netrunner by an inch or two).

To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift. -- Shelley