OK. I would like to start a discussion that I consider as important. The thing is not easy and I will try to get to everything quite carefully and in details, trying to keep everything as simple as possible in the same time.

So let's start...

COMPARISON OF PACKS AND THEIR PRICES
theFarWilds
15 card pack (11 commons, 3 uncommons, 1 rare)
Approx. $3 per pack
Deck: 40+ (decided to count the deck in Battles-PvP mode)

WoW TCG (newest expansion)
19 card pack (unknown)
Approx. $2-$2.70 per pack (depending if bought in box or alone)
Deck: 60+ cards

Poxnora (newest expansion)
10 cards (6 commons, 3 uncommons, 1 rare; 10% that rare = exotic)
$3 per pack
Deck: 20 cards

COMMENT:
I would count WoW as major game and both Poxnora and TFW as indie ones.
I really wanted to write something long and analytic but I got a headache so just a few words.
Considering the fact that value of TFW cards is and will surely always be lower than WoW TCG and that TFW is indie game it is a bit surprising that packs contains less cards and are more expensive. Obviously, UpperDeck (WoW) sells more of their packs but the reason is not one (popularity) but two: popularity and reasonable price of a pack.
I'm also a bit troubled of rarities in TFW boosters. Devastating majority of commons, is that good?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems like I wanted to write something huge and it turned to be fairly small (being sleepy doesn't help ).
But my conclusion here is that jed with devs should think of one thing:
Is it better to sell less packs for more?
Or is it better to sell more packs for less?

What will attract more players? What will make players feel more satisfied?
What will work better in short and what in long-term?

I'm not an economist but...
Coming from my experience as both buyer and seller I would say that lowering product's price a bit to gain more attention is usually a very good thing. Why? Because there are always ways to gain more money (simply add new product and add +$0.30 to its reasonable value and this can cover at least part of what can be considered as "losses").
Are they truly losses? It depends on your point of view.
Example:
Player wants to spend $20 to try a game (quite average amount of money that people invest into online CCGs).
$3 pack; 6 packs bought
$2.50 pack; 8 pack bought

If this is considered as loss because player gained this 30 cards more I would say one is wrong.

Part of playing CCGs is buying packs. Not individuals but countless players spend more money on CCGs than really needed. Why? Because there is something like love of buying packs. Love to something unexpected. To a mystery
More cards = more fun.
More fun = bigger satisfaction.
Bigger satisfaction can = more bought products.
Why? Because players rarely think in terms of rational, Kant's thinking. They base their decisions on impulses and emotions just like majority of us do when we go shopping and get excited about things or are enthusiasts/fans of things.

It's one of the most important things for the game, imo, and I would be happy (very ) to see players participating in this discussion but even more some opinions of devs.

Thanks for your time

Oh, and one more thing.

There is a certain need for bigger packs (more cards, a bit smallest value of each card). This would both help players to get something a bit cheaper and devs to get more money at once.

I also wouldn't complain at Starter Decks

strong support for starter packs also, even just selling starter decks we play with, ive spent 30 bucks, it has provided me with a decent number of cards, yet its an uphill battle against the computer cause i dont have enough creatures, although i have plenty of those awsome spells such as volcano.

I agree pack prices should be reduced, even to 125 G would be an improvement, i think 125 is fair and profetable, putting cards @ 2.50usd a pack, if you cant undercut magic cards per pack where you have no printing cost (mind you they are 3.50ish most places you can get them @ 3.00 if you find the right spots) , while i do enjoy this game a lot, i feel i should have the capacity to build a more solid deck then i have been able to so far, as I have been having a hard time against human players with the starter decks. Theres also the issue of redudent packs, after a handfull its not going to be worth buying them once youve got the bulk of your commons in playset, this is an issue with any game, but with max 3 cards theres some i already have overflow from, and there is no need for extra cards past 3 in this game whatsoever, so eventualy you'll be buying packs which hold next to no value whatsoever.

Moreso then buying packs a market for buying individual cards would be nice, be all like yes i will spend 15g a piece to get myself some dwarven home guards. like right now i really want to get some treefolk, got lots of cards to support them, but very few of the treefolk themselves, i have no intrest in buying an additional 30 bucks worth of cards quite yet. And the people who have extras dont need the same things, they need rares i dont have or am unwilling to part with for commons. They need to get the trade market up as a priority to anyone whose actualy spent money on the game.

Great post, Zycomancer!
Thanks for the input

I'm quite sure that if other players would speak out we could gain some knowledge about what we all really want from the packs.

Having spoken to jed, the starter decks are on the way in the immediate future, and the trade market and individual card market are both in the plans already.. This is a beta, guys... they are worried about making the game work right before adding more bells and whistles. I completely understand that it can get annoying at times, but it's also not like they snap their fingers and code writes itself. Coding takes tame and a lot of thought/work... Having been a coder for years, I'm quite impressed with what they have done here.

Don't throw me into the "it's free, don't bitch" pile, I'm not like that at all. I'm just saying that it takes time to get things coded, that's all. Give him\them some time and it'll be handled.

No one in this thread even tried to imply anything about coding or anything like "hurry up!", so honestly I'm not sure what your post is really referring to.

However, what I would like here to discuss are the available packs of boosters (are they fine? Should they be cheaper/more expensive? Should they contain more/less Commons, Uncommons, Rares?) and possible future packs.

Myself I believe that $3 for a pack with 3 uncommons and 1 rare in game that for next months will probably not hit more than average 200 players online and generally an indie production is a bit too much and although I want to buy some gold I'm really not sure if I would like to get 3 rares for $10 and having to spend $100+ to have some chance to get Super Rare.

But what I'm really curious of are your thoughts and your feelings about this subject.

Yes starter packs and a market place are very near the top of the todo list for us.

As far as number of rares in the pack if there were more than 1 then the rares wouldn't be that rare which would pretty much defeat the purpose.

As far as the price... we aren't super fixed on the price we will probably experiment at some point to see what it should be. That said I don't think you can directly compare it to those games since gold can be used for a lot more than just buying packs and there are tons of ways to get extra gold in the game.

Just throwing my two cents in here.

One of my primary concerns with this game is that it has a very big cost to get started (entry cost). I tried to build a decent deck after spending $40 and it was ugly. I almost quit the game because I realized that I would need to spend a lot more money in order to get enough cards to play a full race deck.

Couple of things that I think need to be prioritized to help the game build a sustainable player base. As it stands now this game is very expensive to get started in.

1) There must be starter decks ASAP so players can spend ~$10 to get a playable deck then augment it with packs. I believe that this is the way most players get into games like these. I know that the devs have said they are on the way. In my opinion there isn't a higher priority item that needs to be done prior to this.

2) There needs to be discounts for box or multiple packs purchases. Serious players aren't going to start playing unless this happens.

3) Don't allow trading until you finalize the rarity of cards. This is going to be controversial since trading is the cornorstone of a collectable game but no one has any idea who has inside info in this game. Allowing trading opens the door to the appearance of impropriety. For example, Player A does a common for common trade with player B and the next day the common player A traded away gets changed to a Ultra-Rare, etc. How is player A going to feel? Whether or not player B had inside info is irrelevant to player A as they probably will feel they were ript off.

4) Stop calling the game Beta. A game stops being a beta once people start paying for the final product. Other games have done beta ccg's but none of them, that I am aware of, charged for the final product while in beta. The closest was Saga which charged for packs but didn't let players keep what they opened instead if you bought 10 packs in beta your card collection was wiped when the game went live and you received 10 new packs which were the final product.

Please don't take my comments as negativity towards the game. I am enjoying it and hope for its success.

Stater decks and price tweeking needs to be hurried along. I've spent 30$ myself and i definantly would love to be able to get a starter deck still, you don't come across enough basic creatures buying packs to start throwing something good together, even selling the decks we all get to playtest with would be fine as a base for a collection.

Pack pricing needs to be considered as well, i like the idea of greater discounts on what you buy. The 500 gold @ a time minimum is also a little annoying. I would like to buy enough to get into the emerald tournement thats going on right now, but i dont want to be spending 10.00 to do so.

Very nice posts, guys

I agree with nearly everything that zultor has written and I believe that devs (in their calculations) became too scared of losing money. The point is that right now they are simply not gaining them.

You guys spent $40 and $30. Thanks to knowing this I decided to not spend any money as long as I will not see some improvements (starter decks and discounts for multiple packs or bigger packs for less money per card). If those will not be satisfying I will simply not waste money as there is nothing worse than spending money on something that still needs my money.
Any - excuse me - bullshit that the nature of CCGs is to invest into them hundreds of dollars will not work here. Better made games are affordable for $20. And that's something smaller, indie, companies should try to compare themselves and offer something different than just expensive games. Seriously