Not so much, secondary market prices only come forth out of popularity of a game.
I was going to tease you and suggest if you're going to nitpick a nitpicker, that you go all out... but then we'll be including pronunciation guides or something like that. XP
If you're an old hand at this game, pardon me. I've literally forgotten more people who have been a part of the Pokémon TCG than I know right now; I've been part of the online community since 2001 and playing since the game debuted in North America. I am by no means a good player, even when I tried. I also am by no means an expert on economics, as it hasn't been a major part of most jobs I've worked (
Edit: Beyond its inherent role) and it was only the focus of a few courses I took in school. Still, I think I have at least a fundamental understanding of it. Though not for this site, and rarely as a paid position, I
have been writing about the Pokémon TCG since 2003... though I probably didn't start making much sense until about 2010. ^^'
I bring up my background because
Pokemon has one of the highest percentage of cards printed that never see a competitive game in a filmed tournament.
is something I've been saying for last six to seven years, maybe longer. Well, I cannot speak for how it compares to
other games; while I've played many,
most have suffered the same issue.
I don't know if I failed to communicate what I meant in my last comment, or if you were just eager to "prove" me wrong.
Markets care about supply and demand. A less popular TCG may still experience higher prices because the people releasing the game
know the demand is limited, and adjust their print runs accordingly. On the other hand, they may overestimate demand and then, as you said, you end up with even the
best cards having comparatively low prices. Other factors apply as well; releasing a set when demand is low not because desire is low, but because the customer base is currently low on discretionary income. Or the card is useful to players but also is in high demand as a collectible. I assumed all of this was understood as a fundamental part of the discussion, so I did not clarify "All other things being equal..." or "Within the scope of the Pokémon TCG..." when I explained that making all the higher rarity cards "good" would create a larger barrier to entry than having the same cards available at a lower rarity.
Edit: I should also clarify that I don't want "bad" high rarity cards; I'm saying that stuffing all the good stuff into the highest rarity might make pulls from boosters more satifying, but it will make the game more costly for players. I firmly believe we (the players) need to demand more
quality cards in the releases; if the powers-that-be need filler, include more reprints. Which gets back to the wish that
regardless of competitiveness, I would prefer premium rarity cards just be an alternate release of something more available, with new artwork, holographic treatments, etc.
As for the prices, yes they
still create a barrier to entry; you may be able to trade for what you need or get lucky with your pulls, but in the end, the less money you have to invest in the game, the more luck and haggling skill you'll need to offset it. There are
many TCGs where decks cost more than in Pokémon, but that does
not make this TCG affordable, except by comparison. TCGs
need players* that are worth enough to spend significant amounts on either the primary or secondary markets,
but not worth so much that just taking the time to really play the game is costing them. In fact,
few players I know hit this sweet spot; most just try to get by spending less
or spend far more than they ought to (often without realizing it). If this seems like an overly detailed answer, my apologies; I honestly wasn't 100% sure what to make of your comment, and for far too long I was one of those players who spent more on the game than he realized while praising the Pokémon TCG for being so "affordable". >_<
*
Edit: The word "need" is too strong, but I've already made things confusing by editing this comment. My apologies; I ought to have gotten it right the first time (or second time, as this is clarifying and expounding upon my earlier comment). My understanding of Pokémon TCG revenue, based on comments that are admittedly quite old and no longer available (re: what I remember a WotC employee saying), stems mostly from all those people who just buy the odd booster pack. They don't really collect, they rarely even attempt to learn how to play; they just get a few cards. When an adult purchasing for his or herself, its a nostalgia thing at this point; the recepient is usually a child, however, where the booster pack is just a "toy" for the kids.
