There is No "LCG Model"
Get the full intelligence
Search transcripts, export clips, track mentions, and explore all topics from “There is No "LCG Model"” inside PodZeus.
In this three-part episode of The Covenant Cast, hosts Zach and Jonathan launch a critical examination of the Living Card Game (LCG) model, arguing that its current form is fundamentally unsustainable. They trace the evolution from TCGs to LCGs, highlighting how the promise of accessibility and fairness through fixed-content cards has not translated into long-term viability. The core issue, they assert, is that LCGs attempt to replicate the tournament-driven, collectible culture of TCGs without the financial engine of randomized booster packs, leading to collapsed retailer support and diminished perceived value. The hosts explore alternative models—direct-to-consumer sales, subscription access, publisher-owned game spaces, and digital integration—and emphasize the need for a new cultural and economic language that values experience, community, and sustainability over collection. The discussion expands in the second segment with hosts Steven and John, who stress that LCGs must abandon the TCG playbook entirely, targeting non-TCG audiences and positioning themselves as low-pressure, social experiences rather than competitive staples. Games like Hubworld and Gudnak are cited as successful examples of this shift, leveraging digital integration and slower release cycles to build sustainable communities. The final segment, led by hosts John and Andrew, reinforces the idea that there is no single 'LCG model'—each game must be designed with its unique audience and values in mind. They advocate for a more deliberate release cadence of 2–3 sets per year for most TCGs to prevent burnout, while affirming that fixed-card games offer fairness, affordability, and long-term sustainability, even if they don’t match TCG revenue potential. The episode closes with a call for creators to design with integrity, prioritizing player experience over constant monetization and embracing alternative models that align with their vision and community.
The LCG model is unsustainable if it tries to replicate TCG structures without the financial and cultural mechanics of collectibility.
Fixed-content games require a new business and cultural framework that emphasizes experience, community, and accessibility over collection and secondary markets.
Slower release schedules (2–3 sets per year) are more sustainable and reduce player burnout, especially for emerging or smaller games.
Digital integration and direct-to-consumer models offer significant advantages for LCGs, enabling instant access and reducing the burden of physical collection management.
Success for alternative card games lies in targeting non-TCG audiences and building communities around shared values like sustainability, fairness, and inclusivity.
…and 2 more takeaways available in PodZeus
The LCG Model: A Failed Experiment
“The LCG model does not work. It can work if it changes, but sending LCG packs to a distributor so that they can get bought by a retailer at the price point of $15 to $20 and then sold on a retail shelf... was a very unsustainable model.”
The Myth of Accessibility and Fairness
The hosts challenge the foundational premise of LCGs: that they eliminate pay-to-win and make games more accessible. They argue that while the idea of fairness is appealing, it’s a false promise. The reality is that TCGs are more successful financially because they tap into human psychology—randomized loot boxes create excitement and long-term engagement. The hosts use Star Wars Destiny as a case study: despite being more collectible than most LCGs, it generated far more revenue than any LCG ever did, proving that collectibility drives success.
The Financial Reality of Fixed Content
“If you want to compare the amount of money that Super Smash Bros has made versus the amount of money World of Warcraft has made, you should because one game you buy once and then you get everything all at once. The other one, I run a dungeon and I might have a 1% chance of getting the coolest sword in the game.”
The Inevitable Failure of LCGs in the TCG Ecosystem
“You cannot replace $250 a month with a $20 membership. And a $20 membership, interestingly, is a barrier that the thesis here is how many people are willing to pay for a $20 membership? That's the thing.”
The Myth of the 'Costco Hot Dog' Model
The hosts use the Costco hot dog analogy to illustrate how LCGs are treated as loss leaders in retail—valuable for attracting foot traffic but not financially sustainable on their own.
“If you want to compare the amount of money that Super Smash Bros has made versus the amount of money World of Warcraft has made, you should because one game you buy once and then you get everything all at once. The other one, I run a dungeon and I might have a 1% chance of getting the coolest sword in the game.”
“You cannot replace $250 a month with a $20 membership. And a $20 membership, interestingly, is a barrier that the thesis here is how many people are willing to pay for a $20 membership? That's the thing.”
“The LCG model does not work. It can work if it changes, but sending LCG packs to a distributor so that they can get bought by a retailer at the price point of $15 to $20 and then sold on a retail shelf... was a very unsustainable model.”
Hosts
hubworld
media
Magic: The Gathering
media
zach
person
sorcery
media
jonathan
person
fantasy flight games
organization
arkham horror
media
Gudnak
media
Netrunner
media
alpha clash
media
Get the full intelligence
Search transcripts, export clips, track mentions, and explore all topics from “There is No "LCG Model"” inside PodZeus.
Start discovering podcast insights today
Start with a 7-day trial and explore a growing catalog of popular podcasts. No credit card required.
No credit card required • 7-day trial • Cancel anytime
