What if VTES was rebooted into an incompatible 2.0 version?

TBH, I see a slow death. We prolong it, by adding great expansions, but we are losing players at faster rates than gaining them. Quite many choose digital solutions, which are quite unwieldy. IMHO, something like digital VTES reboot with proper UI could prove beneficial. You keep the general mechanics, do not need the IP-related tapping mechanic and have a fully functional platform to test what works. Being digital, it does not replace general meetings for VTES, yet allows to gather some insight, how open the market is for a VTES kind of game. If general familiarity is kept, I am pretty sure veterans would not be against it, as it would not compete with VTES directly.

Yeah, this is along the lines Hearthstone has. Also I would be grateful if anybody could offer a brief rebuttal, as making Hearthstone-like VTES was surely was discussed before

So Ashur,
You recognise there is a risk, a non-zero risk, of Hasbro getting their law department out and suing a publisher out of existence.

The 'tap mechanic' may not be the only IP. The rulebook itself might be covered IP. IP doesn't restrict itself to patentable material. The Coca Cola brand is not patentable (any longer, if ever) but is IP. So bringing up the death of the "Deckmaster Patent" is basically a strawman in this overall situation. But you also confirmed, you have no idea if the Discipline Icons, Action/Action Modifier/Political Action/Etc Icons, the Burn Icon, the Pool Icon, the action icon... these could all fall under possible IP not owned by WWP/Paradox. Heck even the FONTS used on the cards might be part of this suite of IP that is not owned by WWP/Paradox. Any of these might be enough of a trigger for Hasbro to send in their lawyers even if they know that they currently don't own the IP, because if they WIN... they end up owning the IP at the end of the case.


VTES 2.0 has none of that risk or baggage. So, unless a Hasbro IP deal is signed relatively quickly... WWP/Paradox would be unlikely to try release a VTES Reprint or a VTES 1.5 with their oWoD reboot. It seems like the easiest and most elegant solution for WWP/Paradox is to build VTES 2.0 from the beginning, rather than backing a project that is highly uncertain and comes with it the chance of blowing all of your development work.


Kombainas:
Yeah, I can see that too. An VTES2.0 Online could possibly work, but the great strength of VTES is its interpersonal dynamic so I'm unsure about the growth and popularity of online VTES. That could be my own bias towards playing games with people in the same room.

Lönkka wrote:

Based on how the 1st edition moved and how the 2nd edition is now moving I got to say that it has had a VERY strong start, second only the Android Netrunner. Moving about 10x better than the 1st edition was during its last year.

Has dig deeper.
GoT story is terrible.

Information about the discontinuing of the game was published at november 2014, so a little less than a year before the relice of second edition core set. It's kind of obvious, that sales of the first edition wasn't so good after the fact.

Second point - story of one player, exited to switch editions:

"I have friends who are competitive GoT players, and I just can't play with them, despite the fact that we all learned the game at the same time. The ambiguity/counter-intuitive nature of the rules in the core set turned me off despite being a huge ASoIaF fan, and as everyone else didn't mind and went in whole-hog, bought tons chapter packs, and expanded their decks, my measly slightly-supplemented core deck only lost more and more and more, and what's worse, it became less fun to lose as those losses came from more difficult-to-follow rules and cards. A typical turn usually went something like this:

Me: I attack you for 3.
Friend: I play this response, killing your attacker, then activate this effect, getting a character out of my dead pile, then kneel this influence to discard one card from your hand, then stand all my characters to claim 3 power and kneel all your locations.
Me: ...what?"

Generally first edition was unplayable and, as mostly two player game at competitive level, got no reasonable way for a new player to enter. As I understand the field of it was like a legacy/vintage MTG format, stale with nessesity to obtane old expensive cards to compete.

Situation in VtES got nothing to do with it. The game, surely, is a little bloated with cards and rules, but all of it can be quite easily solved if we got will to do it.

We just need to have all staples available.

elotar wrote:

Situation in VtES got nothing to do with it. The game, surely, is a little bloated with cards and rules, but all of it can be quite easily solved if we got will to do it.

I think we might just have different definitions of "a little." Having started VTES after it was discontinued, and having done some rather significant efforts to bring others into the game, I can tell you that the game is extremely unwelcoming to new players. If you tell somebody that there are over 3000 possible library cards to play with, they will pack up and head for another game. Even once a player knows the game, it's incredibly daunting to play it. Just think of all the cards and disciplines and effects that might come up that you've never heard of before! Those factors drive new players away.

I'm not saying that VTES is horrible (I clearly like it), but I am saying that my opinion is that a relaunch would be extremely valuable. Just printing the VEKN sets (and previous cards) seems like a good way to keep a tiny core group of gamers committed, but it in no way encourages new players to start. A relaunched game with good advertising is the best way to keep a large player base. And remember, large player base means that the company will continue to support the game, which means you get to keep playing it. It's in your best interest, too!

Given that VTES has over 3500 cards, I think it's safe to say that the situation is a bit different. Also, Magic removes mechanics bloat with set rotation, VTES just keeps it all.