Search options (Page 2 of 2)

Because your account is set to vacation mode, users aren't able to add items to a shopping cart. FYI

Pricing will likely stabilize after some time. Right now, the duel deck is much too new and pricing is unstable due to speculation. Personally, I advise not trading cards form the set until a month or two down the road once pricing stabilizes (and thus, whatever aggregates Deckbox uses to estimate pricing will stabilize also).

—1

Any chance you'd be willing to lower the premium price? I can't speak for others (though I have seen a recurring theme among the few that have posted on this), but the current price is not of value to me. However, $1-$2 would be (with the current features). I certainly don't want to suggest you sell yourself short, but I often look at online SaaS and think, "10 years ago if this were software in a store, would I pay a year's worth of this SaaS cost on it?" In this case, that cost would be $117. Most software (even really good stuff), gets relegated to the $10 bin at Office Depot.

I don't know what your margins are and I, again, don't want any of this to come off insulting. I, too, am a business owner and know the importance of valuing one's own time. I just wonder if a lower pricepoint would offer an increased premium userbase that will offset the lowered cost. Personally, I would wait for a month or two to see how this pricepoint ($7) does, but after that, maybe this could go up for review?

Perhaps a Model from another Business
On a related note, an entrepreneur coach I follow, Mike Michalowich (http://www.mikemichalowicz.com/), was launching a new over-the-phone mass coaching program a few years back. The idea was, the conference call was more like an investor's call where you'd have anyone who wanted to participate take part in the call, and afterward, you can download the calls whenever you want. Of course, a system was implemented to handle the logistics and all that, but the point is that he launched the service not sure of what the price point should be. So, he sent out an email to all of us with an offer.

He presented three prices: $0.99, $9.99, $29.99. He let us choose what we wanted to subscribe at, saying we can pay what we think it's worth. I chose $9.99 per month. I'm not sure what the cost ended up settling at (he grandfathered us all in at our old prices as a thank you), but to this day I pay for it (and only use it a fraction of the time). Maybe there's some sort of lesson for Deckbox in this example?

It would certainly remove much of the complexity I suggested. For those who are just looking to have one full set of an edition, your suggestion will hit the spot. Those kinds of users would probably make up the large majority of those who would be interested in this sort of feature.

By the way, I'm not sure if I'm missing it or if this is not part of the feature, but is there a way to create custom "editions." The way I've been using the [Decks] feature is to organize my collection of special lands (e.g., all fetchlands, duals, fast lands, etc.). By placing 4 of each land in such a "deck," I can in theory track how many of them I have (I'm looking to get foil playsets of each land). However, one feature decks lack is being able to specify the edition of the card (it defaults to the most resent edition). Does the new edition checklist feature offer a solution to this?

Ah, damn. The main thing I've been waiting for and it's paid. That was a smart move but Deckbox, as I'm sure it'll be a strong motivator that will push some over to the paid side. The pricing for the premium is a bit high for my tastes (for a $1 more I get a monthly subscription to Hulu Plus or Netflix), and for this sort of non-essential tool, I'm more in the $1-2/mo camp.

Sebi: Thanks for keeping the remaining features free. I've seen some good organization tools out there, but this is the only one that's online and free to use (other than now the premium side). One shouldn't be expected to work for free in life, so I appreciate your (and your team's) generosity in offering so many hours of your life for free for a community that includes many ingrates who don't value your time, and only want to get, get, get due to a sense of entitlement.

Oops, didn't read this part.

I see your point in wanting to take an overall look at the issue and wanting to make a "what's best for the community" decision. I simply disagree with you in your assessment that the false conviction rate is low enough to be acceptable. I have no idea how high or low the false conviction rate is at the moment, but what I do know is that any system should strive for a 0 false conviction rate. We may only be talking about card trading here and not an actual justice system, but the principles are the same (regarding this particular discussion).

To reel this back a little, the point of this whole discussion is to determine how to deal with situations where a person is involved in a number of trades that all involve a given card that is seeing an out-of-the-ordinary price difference as compared to other markets, correct? I'm arguing it's each person's responsibility to determine his or her own perception of value for a card, regardless of what the pricing shows, and those arguing otherwise are saying it's not; the responsibility lies with the person who proposes a given card in a trade.

Regardless of the initiator's intentions, those arguing for a protectionist environment for card owners I think agree with me that pricing fluctuations are an instigator to the problem. I don't know that background, but jassi earlier said:

Assuming that's right, I'm guessing importing price data from any site that is dedicated to selling wouldn't fly. So can a neutral site be used instead? MTGGoldfish and MTGPrice come to mind.

Patterns are circumstantial evidence. The line of thinking you outline is dangerously close to "guilty until proven innocent."

*EDIT*
On an unrelated note, I just noticed that my registration date shows 2013 and not 2014. How'd that happen?

I'm not sure how you got to yours, either. I wasn't referring to monetizing the website.

Also interesting points. Let me throw this scenario at you so you can tell me what Deckbox's stance would be in that case:
When I'm interested in a card, I'll often initiate trades with multiple users. The reasons are several, including, but not limited to, a) I want several copies of the card, b) I know many users on Deckbox either ignore trades (maybe they have too many to look through, I don't know) or cancel them (often without a word), c) several trade negotiations will likely break down.

With your above explanation, my understanding is if that card happens to be one experiencing such a glitch and I don't realize it, I'll be tried/judged as a scammer. The conclusions I take from this are:

• the person suggesting a card (I assume both when initiating a trade or during trade negotiations) is responsible for checking other market prices (presumably TCGmid) on the other person's behalf to ensure the price isn't experiencing a price fluctuation

• or, limit the number of trades any given card is in to avoid being accused as a scammer

• the burden of proof/reputation liability lies with whomever suggests a card for trade

Thoughts?

I don't know, jassi007, I'm not sure I see anything wrong with that (I'm guessing that's what you're trying to imply with that comment). Buying when there's a good deal (e.g., store sales, stocks during recession, house flipping, etc.) is what we all try to do in various markets. Cards have no centralized pricing database (and rightfully so, otherwise that would be a form of price fixing), and each market is allowed to determine a cards worth on it's own terms. Just because a card is valued lower (even much lower) here than on other markets (TCGmid, for example), doesn't mean it's any more or less valid. I'm positive if you take a quick spin through eBay's latest sold listing for any given card, you'd find plenty examples of people winning bids (or even Buy it Nows) for values much lower than what TCGmid shows. However, that's not considered scamming. Instead, it's praised by other buyers as having "found a good deal." The difference here is that suddenly we all take on the hat of the seller (by way of valuing our cards when trading) and some people aren't emotionally equipped for that. They don't want to be responsible for making valuation decisions and instead want somebody else to protect them.

This can evolve into a greater discussion on how much protection does a person deserve from his or herself, and I think that may be outside of this discussion's scope. However, I'll say that IMO sellers/traders are responsible for determining their own card values and shouldn't look to Deckbox to protect them from people looking for good deals. $100 for Underground Sea is a no-no for one person, and a rent-saver for another. There's no need to be insulted just because someone low-balls them. If they don't like it, they can counter, IMO.

I'd like to point out also that just because somebody proposes a trade using Deckbox values without consulting TCGmid first doesn't mean the person is trying to scam the trading partner. We're all responsible for determining our own perception of value on our cards, and while one might feel this card is worth $2 more or that card is worth $4 less, others might not. A Black Lotus may be worth thousands, but to me it would only be worth hundreds (I'd rather spend the money elsewhere), so it's a matter of worth to any given individual.

Card prices fluctuate, and TCGmid is not the alpha and omega of card pricing — it simply happens to be the one many use as their pricing standard. I suggest being more empathetic of other traders and not assuming people are trying to scam unless they're doing something that shouldn't be able/are not allowed (which, proposing trades, regardless of the values involved on either side, is not equivalent to scamming).