53
Magic the Gathering's Final Fantasy crossover set made $200 million in a single day
(www.eurogamer.net)
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
53 points (96.5% liked)
Games
20670 readers
492 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would say so. As long as you aren't abusing the secondary market to proxy cards that are totally out of reach for your play group's power level
If proxies are allowed, then why wouldn't everyone in said group reconfigure their decks to include their clutch cards? That sounds like an unnecessary and illogical parameter, and implies an unavoidable need by the group to purchase their cards "normally" to feel that they're doing it correctly. π€πΌ
Brings us right back to "Fuck WotC, GW, CMON, etc.", eh? π€·π½ββοΈ
Speaking as a player that doesn't use proxies, if the people I play with suddenly all started to compete with stronger and stronger decks using proxied cards, I'd feel more likely to quit playing with them than try to keep up. Not everyone is looking for power.
Speaking as a fellow peasant, I'd like to point out that you seemed to understand earlier that proxy-use is assumed to be agreed on by the group and therefore open to all players. This latest comment implies a lie-by-omission ambush tactic, which is indefensible of course, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
I'll restate for crystal-clarity:
Unless, of course, the commercial component is essential to your personal validation of the gameplay β which, let's be honest, is basically just painting a new face on clown punching.
In other words, Pay-to-win systems're pretty commonly regarded (worldwide) as greedy corpo bullshit, so how do you reconcile this Pay-to-feel-like-a-winner tradition?
By simply not looking it in the face? πΆπ€·π½ββοΈ