The Fundamental Failure of the Variants in One Set Blocks and no Core Set era

 I can imagine being present at the meetings where the one set block was sold (and bought) by the people at Wizards with the power to implement this significant mistake. The logic is simple, as it often is for great successes and great failures: 

our players love many types of sets and many types of worlds >> we can visit more worlds and a wider variety of game mechanics new and old the faster we shift from block to block >> our traditional blocks last a whole year in three sets >> we can triple the frequency of visits by going to one set blocks >> one set blocks are the answer 

The logic of great successes is equally simple:

Our large sets are drafted best in two-color archetypes >> let's make a three set block that is designed around two-color archetypes >> Ravnica I, II, III, and someday, I hope, IV, V, VI, and infinity.

But it gets worse because there is an additional logical sequence for failure that has been sold and bought at Wizards: that the core set needs to be replaced by a set that sells better. This one makes sense from a short-term financial perspective. It is true that core sets don't sell as well, initially, as other sets do. But long term, core sets sell for many more years than block sets do. Why? well, because people like me, when we build cubes, we need core set cards to glue the cube together. I still buy M12 and M13 packs. I use those cards in cubes. In addition, Magic without new players will wither and die, and the core set is that introductory product. By getting rid of the core set (again!), Wizards is reducing the number of new players. You don't believe me, right? I have no evidence, right? If I am wrong, I am just one random dude. If I am right, Magic will have some rough times ahead specifically because of several major mistakes I discuss here: variants in products that cannibalize casual products, the one set block, and the abandonment of the core set. 

Here is the logic then:

our players love many types of sets and many types of worlds >> we can visit more worlds and a wider variety of game mechanics new and old the faster we shift from block to block >> our traditional blocks last a whole year in three sets >> we can triple the frequency of visits by going to one set blocks >> one set blocks are the answer >> oh and the core sets sells like crap >> out with the core set >> we can quadruple the frequency of visits

We have a precendent for what can happen when the core set is abandoned, and even if the Amonkhet era is not exactly comparable, it is similar. Back then, we had two block sets with one large set and one small set. Complete cycles, especially complete uncommon cycles, are important sellers of packs. The Ranvica I, II, and III cycles of uncommons, and commons make those packs eternally in high demand. It's dumb to crack packs for rares and mythics, but if there is a solid and complete common or uncommon cycle, those packs will get cracked into oblivion (the signets, the guild mages, the guild charms. The Eldraine+ era at least does have some complete cycles, and all sets are large. This is great. At least this mistaken era does not have the problem of incomplete cycles. This mistaken era only shares the lack of a core set with that other mistaken era. With all large sets, we do have plenty of cards that make decks better in a way we did not during the Amonkhet era. 

Enter cash-generating ideas that can be sold to managers who get paid to deliver a higher stock valuation this financial reporting quarter: variants that sell packs at a higher price point. 

Here is the logic then:

our players love many types of sets and many types of worlds >> we can visit more worlds and a wider variety of game mechanics new and old the faster we shift from block to block >> our traditional blocks last a whole year in three sets >> we can triple the frequency of visits by going to one set blocks >> one set blocks are the answer >> oh and the core sets sells like crap >> out with the core set >> we can quadruple the frequency of visits >> many variants increases collectability and allow us to make more expensive packs

So what do we have?

1. Variants triggering whales into a speculative wave that prices out the casual player out of collecting complete sets. These variants and the products they are sold in canibalize causal products.
2. Sets that live in their own worlds generating decks that are mostly one-set decks.
3. Fewer products like Ravnica III to get today's new players to be tomorrow's cube builders.

There are solid counters to all of my points:

1. If Wizards makes more money, it's better for the game.
2. Look at all these worlds we are visiting. Aren't they cool?
3. One-set blocks have good drafting environments (Eldraine, Ikoria, others).

So what is this fundamental failure? Today's Magic is for whales and it is not for casual players. Whales give Wizards managers a short term fix. Casual players generate long term income. Can someone in Wizards management tell the difference between long term income and short term cash grabs before it is too late? Let's hope so. This peasant is on another Amonkhet-like fat packs only break. When the next three sets of Ravnica get announced, can someone reach out to me?