ic0n67 wrote:
Aklo wrote:

Also, WotC became an internal division in Hasbro. The chances of Hasbro selling WotC are frankly remote.

I believe this would make it easier to sell off as its assets are not interwoven and its health is more separated from Hasbro as a whole and just is more attractive looking from the outside. I mean I could be wrong, but you see it a lot when a company breaks off a piece of their business then that piece of business is sold in the near future, even if it is not the initial intention.

Will they? I don't think it is in their immediate interests as WotC is their biggest money maker iirc, but if and when the bubble burst (as the ebb and flow of business would dictates it will burst) they will probably be more vulnerable to sale than if they were as they were before. I mean thus the old adage of buy low sell high would be in play if we are going to be perfectly honest. Remember that business is not dictated by doing the smart thing as we would easily be able to see, it is dictated by whether so old codger that sits at a long table gets and extra penny or not.

WOTC was a Hasbro subsidiary (basically an owned but separate company) for decades but recently was integrated MORE into Hasbro as a division.  So while there is still a lot of organizational separation for a division, it is much less than there had been previously.  Reversing that and selling it off would be unlikely, but I dont think it makes it "remote" though.  Wotc is one of the few bits of hasbro making money so as long as that remains the case THAT makes a sale a remote possibility.

Being a game does make it harder for the bubble to fully burst.  Online play and sales also help insulate it from total collapse (neither were widespread for comics in the 90s).

2

(9 replies, posted in Announcements)

I think the issue is that each batch of guild kits is a single set: GK1 (Selesnya etc) and GK2 (Simic etc).  I think that this might be the first time that a single "set" has had varying set symbols (well I guess timeshifted stuff, but that was also a rarity).  My bet is that there isnt a simple way to denote a different set symbol while maintaining compatibility with the official set name.  That is, if the made it like GK1-A for Selesnya, imports and exports could be trouble, as well as linking to other databases (like gatherer).  Alternatively using a second set of data (another field, card lists etc) would likely not be trivial to implement for something that until now was a given (set code = symbol).

3

(9 replies, posted in Announcements)

Awesome, thanks!

When adding the Duel Decks: Elves vs. Inventors (https://deckbox.org/editions/472-duel-d … -inventors) to my inventory, I noticed that the symbol used for the uncommon cards was actually the common symbol (white vs silver) (for example Treetop Village https://deckbox.org/mtg/Treetop%20Villa … ;lang=us).  Rare and mythic rares were correct.
I tested with filters and the cards do seem to be correctly tagged as uncommon, the symbol is just incorrect.

Thanks!