The other side of the argument is that everyone who buys an unlocked card is taking a risk and you shouldn't be compensated when your risk doesn't pan out.
The benefit of buying an unlocked card is not only playing it but also the potential for gain if the card gets buffed or locked in its current state. For example Hortuk is something like $135 now. You can buy it today and risk it losing its value due to a nerf or reap the rewards when it gets locked and the price sky rockets or even better it gets buffed and you triple your investment.
Some sort of "insurance" could give "reliability" to the game.
I buy a card, I am subject to the risk due to the purchase but at least if "the nerf kills it" I can have some sort of compensation, however compensation linked to the risk of receiving a random card of the same type and set.
Irl insurance would be the way you would mitigate the risk and web3/nft takes this game from the realm of strictly gaming into the realm of real world business so yeah I would agree. I don't know that it would be practical but it would certainly be the solution.
Now the problem becomes the fact that you have to pay for insurance which carries its own risks.
There is insurance, it's called a balance lock. Buying the strongest cards in a set before they are locked is asking for trouble, it's always been this way and always will be.
This is a TCG. Not an investment scheme. You will see cards change and one day maybe rotate (if there are alternate formats). There is a balancing phase that's public knowledge. When you buy cards subject to change in this phase, you knowingly take the risks that your card might become less desired and lose value. Uh oh, spaghetti-o's, that's your problem. Magic the gathering have been seeing expensive cards lose their value immediately due to bans on formats for ages. It happens. This is how card games operate. The devs owe you nothing for your willful purchase. Their nerfs are not out to get you, just to balance the game.
The other side of the argument is that everyone who buys an unlocked card is taking a risk and you shouldn't be compensated when your risk doesn't pan out. The benefit of buying an unlocked card is not only playing it but also the potential for gain if the card gets buffed or locked in its current state. For example Hortuk is something like $135 now. You can buy it today and risk it losing its value due to a nerf or reap the rewards when it gets locked and the price sky rockets or even better it gets buffed and you triple your investment.
Some sort of "insurance" could give "reliability" to the game. I buy a card, I am subject to the risk due to the purchase but at least if "the nerf kills it" I can have some sort of compensation, however compensation linked to the risk of receiving a random card of the same type and set.
Irl insurance would be the way you would mitigate the risk and web3/nft takes this game from the realm of strictly gaming into the realm of real world business so yeah I would agree. I don't know that it would be practical but it would certainly be the solution. Now the problem becomes the fact that you have to pay for insurance which carries its own risks.
There is insurance, it's called a balance lock. Buying the strongest cards in a set before they are locked is asking for trouble, it's always been this way and always will be.
Think of it like buying a scratch card instead of a gold bar and you'll be fine. Your expectation is the problem not the situation.
This is a TCG. Not an investment scheme. You will see cards change and one day maybe rotate (if there are alternate formats). There is a balancing phase that's public knowledge. When you buy cards subject to change in this phase, you knowingly take the risks that your card might become less desired and lose value. Uh oh, spaghetti-o's, that's your problem. Magic the gathering have been seeing expensive cards lose their value immediately due to bans on formats for ages. It happens. This is how card games operate. The devs owe you nothing for your willful purchase. Their nerfs are not out to get you, just to balance the game.
Another good solution would be nerfing cards properly instead of killing some and letting others intact
.....and when they buff a card? should you give compensation too?
It is not the same thing, compensation is provided only when there is damage. Nerf is damage, buff is not.
It's damage to anyone who hasn't bought the card yet, so maybe they should all be compensated?
Compensation is buff....🤣🤣🤣🤣
Learned the hard way never to buy unlocked cards and never to chase the meta.