telengard said:

What description? I looked at it again and it still says it's a cooperative game.

I think this one :
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=175&esem=2

Star Wars: The Card Game is an LCG that places players in control of their favorite Star Wars characters. Players will launch fleets of starships and direct some of the most famous heroes and villains in the Star Wars galaxy. With a wealth of characters, starships, missions, and enemies, Star Wars: The Card Game immerses players in galactic conflict.

 Aha, very sneaky! Two words can make all the difference.

Hurdoc said:

People enjoy WATCHING man vs man sports. My guess is far more people PARTICIPATE in hiking/ climbing/ camping/ canoeing and other non-competative activities and enjoy doing these with others (co-op) and alone (solo).

bigeeh said:

When I go hiking or canoeing, it is a competitive activity! 

telengard said:

This.  I've done the PvP card game already, a couple of times.  And now the players are gone, my money is gone, and the cards are virtually as worthless as the cardstock they're printed on.  Sure, we're all excited about the new adversarial card game when it comes out, but when we all can't find enough players, or FFG loses the license, or we just move on the next "exciting" new game (or even go back to the old one...I hear Magic is still around), I end up with a game I may have loved that I now resent for making me love it.  FFG's Lord of the Rings will NEVER do that to me, and neither I nor it will ever need to care if anyone else loves it or not.  I am saddened that, once again, I will need to rely on the whims of (Sartre's) "other people" for a Star Wars game, which will likely prevent me from getting invested in it.

 I just want to pipe up and say how annoyed I am at the title of this thread. I know it's a small thing, but when I check this thread a couple times a day, the fact that this thread is always up top starts to grate on my nerves. The issue I have is that it's not at all a respectful way to discuss the issue of co-op vs. pvp. The title is sarcastic and specifically pointed at evoking defensive emotions in those who prefer pvp by insinuating that their desires are ridiculous because, by comparison, popular sports would not be interesting if they were not competitive. And it works at doing just that! I want to shout every time I read this title! I just wish there was more activity here so this thread could get drowned out to a later page (and yes, I know that my posting bumps it and does nothing to aid in this thread's sliding into nothingness).

But while I'm on a tirade, let me just reiterate something that I hope applies to most of those who are pro-cooperative. When I say cooperative, what I'm really saying is that I prefer the system they used at GenCon 2011 which imitated the system that The Lord of the Rings uses. I am in no way saying that competition is a bad thing. I love competing in the fan-based LotR tournaments that utilize the scoring system to compare results among players. I think it really does add an exciting element to the game. So yes, competition is rewarding. BUT, the issue I have with standard pvp games is that you need two people to play. From what I've seen so far on these forums, most of us are not high school kids who are going to spend hours with our friends in the evenings after our homework is done. Many of us have other responsibilities that not only make it more difficult to find time for our hobbies, but nigh impossible to coordinate play time with other like-minded individuals. The result, as has been repeated ad nauseum here, is a stack of useless cards that did a good job of supporting a game company, but are little use to the customer after about a year or so. The cooperative format, as we have come to call it, is much more flexible in that it allows engaging solo play. Additionally, when you do find time to get together with friends, it is refreshing to work together against a common foe and walk away from the table at the end of the session without the common tensions between winner and loser. Earlier posts were very excited about the ability to bring other non-gamers, such as spouses and others, into this game through its co-op nature because the new player doesn't have to deal with a more experienced player completely destroying them as they learn to play. Now, add these bonuses to a solid scoring system for comparisons and competitions and I think we have a winning product. I will be sad to see cooperative play replaced by the less accessible player vs. player system.

 Ultimately FFG will probably make a decision based on sales projections, which reflect the opinions of large groups of people  - not just those of us who frequent the forums.

I don't know what national sales are like, but at my local game store they sell multiple copies of each Call of Cthulhu expansion, but can't sell a single pack of the Lord of the Rings expansions.  LotR sold well enough when it came out, but the local players in my area got bored of the game very quickly because of no head-to-head aspect.

Of course that is purely anecdotal, and national sales reports will tell FFG the real story.  I guess whichever model is generating more sales will correlate with the decision to go cooperative or not.

TheProfessor said:

Funny it is the exact opposite at my local store. LoTR is by far the best seller in relation to all other LCG products. Also the a city store i know of is still running weakly lotr events that get a lot of people while coc (teh only other lcg to have one) is on a monthly basis