-
The current state of Magic
First, this isn't a "the sky is falling, Magic is dead" thread. But there are quite a few things going that are worth discussing imho.
Chris Cocks is the CEO of WotC now, leading to a stronger (and much necessary) focus on the digital department. Right now, MTGO is getting its ass kicked by several competitors. I don't think the 20 million $ number is accurate and should be higher, given rough estimates calculated from league runs and trophies, but it also shouldn't be anyway near the often quoted 100 million $ mark by the community.
Now why is that a problem for WotC? Maro has stated on his blog that Magic Duels is nowadays their main way to get new people into (paper) Magic. But with their competition being not crap like Wizards' digital department, it will significantly cut down the rate of new players. And we're seeing already the effects of this, as Magic's growth has slowed down to single digit numbers.
What certainly doesn't help the case for Wizards is that their R&D went to shit as well: Their cash cow Standard has been plagued by massive problems for several years in a row now - be it Siege Rhino, Collected Company, Dual/Fetchland mana bases that costs 500$+ for half a year of Standard and now the recent bannings plus the change of B&R announcements. Looking at the results of PT Aether Revolt, it has 8/8 aggro decks in the Top 8, with 6 of them being Mardu Vehicles. But they, at least the Neo Twin combo (which they completely missed, btw) isn't destroying the format. Balanced format is balanced. Scrapheap Scrounger was a 31/32 in that Top 8. It's puzzling how they don't include safety valves like Rest in Peace anymore.
It seems that WotC has entered full panic mode due dropping tournament attendance, considering how quickly they've revoked the accelerated rotation schedule, the introduction of Masterpieces to make "normal" Magic cards cheaper and the new B&R schedule. Yet they still don't know how to fix their stuff.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Magic just isn't on the right path these days. I think the cards that get printed reflect what the players want, but not what is good for the game.
Players want cards that are always useful, old cards valuable cards reprinted, packs and specific singles to be available everywhere, and for the cards they buy to be powerful in comparison to all previous cards printed. Players don't want powerful hate cards, to be told no by their opponents too much, to be color or mana screwed, to have their lands destroyed, or to lose before they get their chance to play cards.
So, Wizards tries to do it all, with each concession in design for players resulting in a hit to brand and future of the game.
Narrow powerful cards are much less common. Some valueable old cards become less valuable to entice people to buy the new set. Every set is printed so much that collectibility is not a relevant word; the best cards are worth little and the other cards are worth nothing. Standard has overpowered cards, and they dominate the tournament scene while they are in print. Control as an archetype has been on a steady downturn for a decade. Control was preceded in the death by combo. Combo needs effective counter spells in the environment for it to be healthy, and people hate effective counter spells being played against them. Every couple years there is a not terrible combo deck, but it rarely lasts. Combo was preceded in death by land kill, which will really never return.
This is probably just a 2 am rant, but I am just a little bit disappointed with the way this game has developed recently. Magic isn't in a space where it can double the returns to Hasbro again by some trick. I get the feeling that high double digit growth year after year after year set the bar too high. When reality set in that saturation happened, small money grabs that players were clammoring for became the norm to boost profits. That is a slippery slope that leads to significantly diminished perception of value of their products.
I'm not saying the sky is falling either, but I would like to see a big left turn coming up ahead.
I'm also not trying to say that magic good old days were perfect either. Losing to cuneo blue and sinkhole decks wasn't fun. However, those mechanics need to be somewhat playable, in my opinion.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Can't speak about standard, but from both a limited and a Legacy perspective, I've really enjoyed both Kaladesh and Aether Revolt.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barook
Neo Twin combo (which they completely missed, btw)
Authority of the Consuls begs to differ. I do not think they missed that combo. While they have a lot to fix, they are not that inept.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
They're also trying to be like Hearthstone without understanding what makes that game good.
I'll guess people will never be happy, but five years ago we would've been here claming the fall of the game for other reasons, with the good old days still being better. Yes, they're having some big problems right now, but I'll argue it was all for improving the game and moving to, you know, the new century. I won't claim to like and defend all their shots, but the "good old days" brought them to bee just another name owned by Asbro, which tell us a lot. About the price of old and new card I don't know how to put it, but here in Italy politicians from the 60/70 used to say: "Give a communist a house and a piece of land and you'll have a perfect conservative."
Enviado desde mi Moto G (4) mediante Tapatalk
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wanderlust
Can't speak about standard, but from both a limited and a Legacy perspective, I've really enjoyed both Kaladesh and Aether Revolt.
It would help, if the last 8 years of sets didn't all feel the same for standard or if pices are artificially driven by the 4th rarity and WotC Co-Op with vendors. All that is paired with the inability to deliver an Online Platform to recruit new players within a season mode tied to Standard. It baffles me that there are successful cardgames popping up left and right in AppStores while WotC/Hasbro are unable to even release MTGO for non-Windows platforms
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dice_Box
Authority of the Consuls begs to differ. I do not think they missed that combo. While they have a lot to fix, they are not that inept.
They said so themselves.
Quote:
We did miss the interaction with Saheeli, however, and that has led to some . . . interesting decks in Standard. While we were pushing for more combo decks in Standard with Aether Revolt, this is not the kind of deck we would intentionally take a risk with. In hindsight, Felidar Guardian definitely should've said "creature or artifact." Pro Tour Aether Revolt is this weekend, and we'll be watching to see how these decks do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemnear
It would help, if the last 8 years of sets didn't all feel the same for standard or if pices are artificially driven by the 4th rarity and WotC Co-Op with vendors. All that is paired with the inability to deliver an Online Platform to recruit new players within a season mode tied to Standard. It baffles me that there are successful cardgames popping up left and right in AppStores while WotC/Hasbro are unable to even release MTGO for non-Windows platforms
It can't run on non-Windows OS without starting to code it from scratch due to their reliance on Windows-only programs. The responsible people just didn't care enough until Hearthstone took over the market.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barook
It can't run on non-Windows OS without starting to code it from scratch due to their reliance on Windows-only programs. The responsible people just didn't care enough until Hearthstone took over the market.
They still don't care or why is MtG 2015 the only App I can find in the Google Playstore? They need to deliver a common platform for the game on iOS, Android, Windows and Mac even if it ONLY includes Standard in Seasons.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barook
Well fuck. That changes my views a fair amount.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
At this point I'm not that worried. Standard sucking might funnel more people into Modern, Legacy, Vintage, and other formats that actually have deck diversity (except Legacy, unless you really like brainstorm). Standard has been overpriced for so long that I'm surprised people wouldn't just jump into something that holds value for the same initial investment (Modern). If online or other video games were what got people into Magic maybe this will finally force WotC to make an online Magic platform that isn't complete horseshit.
That or make an interesting standard format, but as others have said, they pander to what people think they want and then end up with these overpowered and uninteresting standards. Problem is it takes a long time for the current Standard sets to rotate, so if they print a less powerful set no one will want to buy the cards until the powerful ones have rotated.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Phoenix Ignition
At this point I'm not that worried. Standard sucking might funnel more people into Modern, Legacy, Vintage, and other formats that actually have deck diversity (except Legacy, unless you really like brainstorm). Standard has been overpriced for so long that I'm surprised people wouldn't just jump into something that holds value for the same initial investment (Modern). If online or other video games were what got people into Magic maybe this will finally force WotC to make an online Magic platform that isn't complete horseshit.
That or make an interesting standard format, but as others have said, they pander to what people think they want and then end up with these overpowered and uninteresting standards. Problem is it takes a long time for the current Standard sets to rotate, so if they print a less powerful set no one will want to buy the cards until the powerful ones have rotated.
There is no platform to suck people into the game which is pretty much the iOS/Android/Mac/Windows base we talk about. Its just WorC being unwilling to admit that MTGO, the client and the absurd prices for their digital goods are a massive fail. I mean, who the hell do they think to attract if a digital copy of Rishadan Port is 120$? Have they ever taken a look at the price for decks in heartstone or Gwent or for micro-transactions in other successful AppStore games? How the fuck do you want to suck Kids into the MtG brand with such paywalls?
If they had balls, they just close down MTGO and develop a cross plattform app to play season-based standard format with some 0.99$ inApp-Purchase for boosters and tje option to grind for them.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Closing MTGO would make the Chronicles reprints look like less than a tiny hiccup in the customer trust into WotC. Lots of people standing to probably lose hundredsof thousands of $. Altogether, their customers are likely holding millions of dollars in product on MTGO.
The tragedy of the situation is that closing down MTGO and releasing a state of the art, free to play multiplatform client is the only way I see MtG having a future in the digitial age.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
The biggest problem about Magic as a whole is Not about Balance or Card Design or pricing. It's Hearthstone, it's All About Hearthstone. PSully has mentioned it several times on Cedtalk. When you watch Pro Tour on Twitch, you can barely see which card is which in each player's hand, broadcasting the game is a nightmare. If you show both MtGO and Hearthstone to a new player who doesn't understand the interface of both games, there's no competition, the new players would pick Hearthstone inevitably.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
In another way, Hearthstone is also the single-greatest thing to happen to Magic, quality-wise. One has to undoubtedly say that both MTGO and Paper Coverage is way better today than what it was back when HS was released. I just wish WotC had already started working on all the general problems way earlier.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julian23
In another way, Hearthstone is also the single-greatest thing to happen to Magic, quality-wise. One has to undoubtedly say that both MTGO and Paper Coverage is way better today than what it was back when HS was released. I just wish WotC had already started working on all the general problems way earlier.
Are they even working on them now? I've been waiting for a long time now to actually be able to play MTG online without dumping in over a thousand dollars. I was playing it before and sold out, but for that much money I couldn't believe the amount of bugs and general shittyness of the program.
I've never been a standard player so can't say much about how that format is or isn't changing for the better.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julian23
Closing MTGO would make the Chronicles reprints look like less than a tiny hiccup in the customer trust into WotC. Lots of people standing to probably lose hundredsof thousands of $. Altogether, their customers are likely holding millions of dollars in product on MTGO.
The tragedy of the situation is that closing down MTGO and releasing a state of the art, free to play multiplatform client is the only way I see MtG having a future in the digitial age.
Jup. WotC amazingly managed to repeat the colossal fail of an uncontrolled secondary market instead of fucking binding cards to accounts once pulled, like every damn MMO does for its virtual property of value since the beginning of the Millenium.
And here comes the joke:
Some people WILL lose thousands of dollars at the inevitable server shutdown or whenever the people just quit this bugged shit.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barook
It can't run on non-Windows OS without starting to code it from scratch due to their reliance on Windows-only programs. The responsible people just didn't care enough until Hearthstone took over the market.
You'd never design a computer game like Garfield designed Magic: the Gathering. The complexity of shared turns, the massive swath of card types, many other rules minutia from a game programming perspective make it far more complex. That being said, WotC has utterly butchered Magic Online, but stuff like Hearthstone was ground up digital only and the mechanics are designed as such.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nedleeds
You'd never design a computer game like Garfield designed Magic: the Gathering. The complexity of shared turns, the massive swath of card types, many other rules minutia from a game programming perspective make it far more complex. That being said, WotC has utterly butchered Magic Online, but stuff like Hearthstone was ground up digital only and the mechanics are designed as such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemnear
Jup. WotC amazingly managed to repeat the colossal fail of an uncontrolled secondary market instead of fucking binding cards to accounts once pulled, like every damn MMO does for its virtual property of value since the beginning of the Millenium.
And here comes the joke:
Some people WILL lose thousands of dollars at the inevitable server shutdown or whenever the people just quit this bugged shit.
nedleeds is right, and not just from a programming perspective. The MODO business model was designed in the early aughts (the MODO beta went live in 2001 IIRC), when having the online game work as closely to the paper one, especially in terms of how your cards worked in the market, was a key selling point (hence the Digital Objects piece of the name and redeemability of online cards for paper ones). MODO was indended as an adjunct, and quite possibly was intended as much to create an approved alternative to Apprentice as it was to stake out a meaningful space in competitive Magic or be its e-commerce arm. The client (and a lot of its implementation) leaves a ton to be desired, but short of blowing the whole thing up and starting from scratch, they're stuck with the thing as it was created 15 years ago.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barook
Now why is that a problem for WotC? Maro has stated on his blog that Magic Duels is nowadays their main way to get new people into (paper) Magic. But with their competition being not crap like Wizards' digital department, it will significantly cut down the rate of new players. And we're seeing already the effects of this, as Magic's growth has slowed down to single digit numbers.
Source for its growth being only single digit numbers? I'm not sure I've seen data on its growth before and I'm curious about it.
Quote:
What certainly doesn't help the case for Wizards is that their R&D went to shit as well: Their cash cow Standard has been plagued by massive problems for several years in a row now - be it Siege Rhino, Collected Company, Dual/Fetchland mana bases that costs 500$+ for half a year of Standard and now the recent bannings plus the change of B&R announcements.
Siege Rhino was annoying, but I don't think it was any worse than the usual Standard screw-ups. The dual/fetchland was a catastrophically bad idea to the point I'm baffled they did it. I don't even think dual/fetchland is inherently a bad idea for Standard (you do have to be cautious with it, though), but to do it while having no hate whatsoever for it? That's a terrible idea. Lack of hate for it resulted in the awkward fact you'd end up with better mana in a 3-color deck than a 2-color deck.
What is especially odd is the order they did it in. It was fetchlands, then battlelands. Here's the problem. With that kind of manabase, the fetchlands will be more in demand, because you'll be running more of them than the battlelands. But the fetchlands were from the older set no longer being opened as frequently. So with that order, they made all the demand be for the older set rather than the current one. This meant the expense was greater than if the fetchlands were in Battle for Zendikar. If it had been the other way around, players might not have been driven off as much as the fetchlands would be cheaper. But even from their own perspective, it also meant that Wizards of the Coast benefitted less because the greater desire for fetchlands wasn't causing increased interest in the current set they were pushing, but the older set.
Quote:
Looking at the results of PT Aether Revolt, it has 8/8 aggro decks in the Top 8, with 6 of them being Mardu Vehicles. But they, at least the Neo Twin combo (which they completely missed, btw) isn't destroying the format. Balanced format is balanced.
Scrapheap Scrounger was a 31/32 in that Top 8. It's puzzling how they don't include safety valves like Rest in Peace anymore.
I seem to remember some complaints here back when Rest In Peace was spoiled about how the graveyard hate was becoming too powerful or something. That said, Rest In Peace would've been a good card to have around; if it had been legal Emrakul probably wouldn't have gotten banned. But as you note, it's puzzling they didn't do that... normally they always followed up a block by printing some stuff to hate on the previous block's mechanics to ensure they didn't stay too powerful. Stony Silence after Scars, Rest In Piece after Innistrad, Burning Earth after Return to Ravnica, Back to Nature after Theros.
Quote:
It seems that WotC has entered full panic mode due dropping tournament attendance, considering how quickly they've revoked the accelerated rotation schedule, the introduction of Masterpieces to make "normal" Magic cards cheaper and the new B&R schedule. Yet they still don't know how to fix their stuff.
Well the accelerated rotation schedule was a pretty bad idea from the get-go. Two-set blocks was a reasonable idea, but I don't know why they decided they had to accelerate rotation at the same time. Maybe they were just stuck on the "let's rotate after each block" mentality.
I don't think Masterpieces are really panic mode. I think they would've done that regardless, as expeditions were apparently popular on the whole. There's a big difference between doing something, then quickly reversing on it (rotation) compared to doing something, then deciding to keep doing it (Expeditions/Masterpieces). The former can be a sign of "panic," but not so much the latter.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julian23
Closing MTGO would make the Chronicles reprints look like less than a tiny hiccup in the customer trust into WotC. Lots of people standing to probably lose hundredsof thousands of $. Altogether, their customers are likely holding millions of dollars in product on MTGO.
The tragedy of the situation is that closing down MTGO and releasing a state of the art, free to play multiplatform client is the only way I see MtG having a future in the digitial age.
Realistically, they're going for their typical tactics of making "thing" so undesirable that pretty much all support is gone before they kill it.
Worked for Extended.
Worked for Modern PT.
Will work for MTGO.
Once Magic Digital Next releases, they're most likely going to completely cut redemption, nuking the market. Collection value will continously go down as people naturally quit/switch over while no fresh blood comes in. At the point where collections are extremely low value, they'll pull the plug. Crisis averted, while people still got fucked over.
@Lord Seth: Quarterly earning reports from Hasbro iirc. We'll get the report for 2016 this week, which might contain new info.
The accelerated rotation model was a clear sign of greed that backfired terribly. They thought they could milk the userbase even more while being less concerned with R&D ("If it's broken, it's going to rotate in 6 months anyway, who cares!"), which resulted in dumb shit like a dual/fetchland manabases without hate in Standard.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
If SaffronOlive's article is anything to go by it seems like MTGO was initially created to prove that MTG could be played online. It seems like the problems that it has had have been because Wizards really isn't a software company and have no idea how to manage software. Not sure what the reasons were but it seems like their online client was probably one of the lowest items on their list of concerns which leads us to the state of MTGO now. I think that they could have easily have let the company that developed the original program maintain it or contracted out if they wanted to come up with a brand new client. I don't know if it's a direct result of their new management but it seems like someone light a fire underneath the MTGO team in order to improve whatever they can about the program.
Fwiw, I think the most impressive part of MTGO how the MTG ruleset (for the most part, minus all the dumb bugs that show up every now and then) have been implemented online.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CptHaddock
Fwiw, I think the most impressive part of MTGO how the MTG ruleset (for the most part, minus all the dumb bugs that show up every now and then) have been implemented online.
It's been a while since I've last seen the MODO client (played my last games on it in 2011 or so, I think), but unless things have massively improved, that is also the ONLY (mildly) impressive part of it.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord Seth
...
I don't think Masterpieces are really panic mode. I think they would've done that regardless, as expeditions were apparently popular on the whole. There's a big difference between doing something, then quickly reversing on it (rotation) compared to doing something, then deciding to keep doing it (Expeditions/Masterpieces). The former can be a sign of "panic," but not so much the latter.
I'm not a fan of masterpieces since they look like a pretty blatant cash grab, but they're not a 'state of the game' problem.
I think R&D went off the rails a bit with the whole 'creatures are powerful' new world order thing. Part of that is that planeswalkers seem to have displaced creatures as efficient victory conditions, so creatures have been shifted more toward splashy immediate effects that were once more the domain of non-creature spells.
I also feel like R&D screwed up the current standard environment because they wanted to ensure that vehicles and graveyard synergies were strong in constructed.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
If the numbers from OP's article are accurate, it's just more writing on the wall. Gamers continue to see a substantial shift with what interests them. For all the strengths MTG has, playing the game in person cannot compete with digital games moving forward (meaning both digital collectible games and "esport" video games).
I'm equating Magic's situation to video rental stores being overtaken by Netflix (or digital media in general). Magic/Hasbro may financially stable today, but I honestly question its future --- especially as young gamers grow up with digital apps/digital ccgs in place of Magic. That has already happened with university students not understanding Blockbuster. You could also equate the situation to Millennials cutting out traditional cable television.
Magic's online client was designed in the late 90s and implemented in the early 00's. It hasn't adjusted to a marketplace centered around iOS/Android/free-to-play games. IMO everyone is glossing over Magic's Achilles's heel: complex rules and economics. Magic has so many cards, numerous phases with sub-rules to remember during a turn, "the stack", and keywords on basically every card. Sometimes competitive rules or card errata change. That's daunting for new players. I've tried playing different board games and card games with similar amounts of verbiage and just shut down.
By contrast, I've dabbled in Hearthstone. It's a bit too straightforward when you come from competitive legacy play, but I no doubt see its appeal. It has a slick interface, is simpler to play, and cost me $0 for several hours. Unlike MTG, Hearthstone can adjust errata, numbers, and create complicated-to-do-by-hand mechanics because it is digital. Economically, if I wanted to put money into Hearthstone (or a digital game), $100 goes a lot further than it does in MTG (paper or online).
This part of the article resonates with me the most as to why I believe Magic is in trouble moving forward:
Quote:
SuperData also noted that 7.6 percent of digital card game players in the U.S. buy in-game content. Many digital card games, including Hearthstone, are free-to-play, and buying digital packs is usually the fastest way to get new cards.
Also, 86 percent of digital card game players watch online videos of other people playing digital card games. This includes influencers who broadcast and upload their play sessions on sites like Twitch and YouTube as well as esports tournaments. Many watch as a way to learn new strategies.
Unless I'm mistaken, there is no "grind" for Magic Online. The client is just a digital representation of the paper game. IIRC, there's no free-to-play aspect. You're paying full retail for a business model created in the 90s (boosters, theme decks, etc). The appeal of watching someone play Magic on a stream is prohibited by 1) the client looking like crap and 2) the game being complicated.
So is the sky falling? I was under the impression we're beyond peak-MTG. It began its slow decent years ago. Can't exactly put my finger on when, but the game has felt stale to me since Modern became a thing.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Shareholder earnings remarks
Go to Page 7.
Game category up my 9%, led by PIE-FACE (the fuck is this? :eyebrow: ) and then MtG as the fastest growing games.
I've also looked through the other shareholder papers. Nothing disproves the slowed down growth of Magic, especially how certain categories are lumped together.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barook
Shareholder earnings remarks
Go to Page 7.
Game category up my 9%, led by PIE-FACE (the fuck is this? :eyebrow: ) and then MtG as the fastest growing games.
I've also looked through the other shareholder papers. Nothing disproves the slowed down growth of Magic, especially how certain categories are lumped together.
This is pie face: http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/webapp/...game-b70630000
As for their numbers, there's a lot of noise within their data. Nothing concrete for MTG aside "the 8th straight year of growth
in MAGIC: THE GATHERING". There are veiled references to Magic doing well, but there's number distortion and spin as Hasbro is a giant with a "$1.4 billion gaming portfolio". Internationally their franchise brand revenues are up 3% (MTG lumped in there).
From what I've glanced, Hasbro increased its profit margins but "...had higher expenses associated with investments to profitably grow Hasbro for the long term. These include investments in MAGIC: THE GATHERING and our consumer products teams; higher depreciation from our investment in IT systems; and higher compensation expense associated with our stronger performance." I can't parse out how much of the MTGO factors into said IT investment.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
@ Warden
There is literally ZERO need for WotC to create a client being able to cover all the complicated mechanics from more than 2 decades.
They can focus on a client with the mechanical niveau the MTG 2013 platform (PSN) introduced. Basic mechanics and interface worked fine, but the game had no lasting appeal as the game was very limited in terms of deckbuilding, collecting and compeditive play. Why not create a cross platform client able to handle current T2 mechanics and rules for a season and then add the mechanics and cards of the next one paired with a ranking/reward system just like Hearthstone?
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemnear
@ Warden
There is literally ZERO need for WotC to create a client being able to cover all the complicated mechanics from more than 2 decades.
They can focus on a client with the mechanical niveau the MTG 2013 platform (PSN) introduced. Basic mechanics and interface worked fine, but the game had no lasting appeal as the game was very limited in terms of deckbuilding, collecting and compeditive play. Why not create a cross platform client able to handle current T2 mechanics and rules for a season and then add the mechanics and cards of the next one paired with a ranking/reward system just like Hearthstone?
You answered your own question. If MTG started in Theros, there's really not enough separating it from Hearthstone or other competitors to make it worth it. MTG's greatest competitive advantage is its depth in card pool, rules, and history. Anything that separates players from that is simply not the same game. They could do anything they want with the IP and the rule set. But if they made a living card game version of MTG where they didn't have to worry about development mistakes burning off months of revenue, it wouldn't be backwards-compatible, and wouldn't be able to leverage 20 years of established players.
Wizards' original sin is the reserved list. Many of their poor/vexing decisions can be traced back to it. By artificially cutting itself off from many of its most powerful tools, they are unable to create a product for that segment of its audience. That means they have to double- and triple-down on finding customers that aren't influenced by it. But in doing that, they have to compete in a market against games that weren't developed before Netscape was founded.
Magic is also heavily dependent on the LGS to distribute and rationalize its product. But it's 2017. Leaning on a brick-and-mortar experience is harder than ever. Blockbuster is the perfect example. Both Wizards and the LGSes need a vibrant tournament scene to survive. We are seeing that that isn't a guarantee with Wizards R&D right now. This explains why in the past several years there's been a big shift in the profile of limited/draft, which sells a booster box every time it fires. Plus it's easier to curate.
But it's not the same game and doesn't retain customers the same way. Constructed drives the conversation. See this board.
One thing I've noticed over the past couple years is the increased profile of board games. A store I went to for months loyally, spent hundreds on cards, decided to switch to a heavier board game strategy. "They'll die without the MTG community," we said. Two years later, still in business. The LGS in my town has marginalized comics, offers few other card games -- just a big emphasis on board game nights and selling board games, and running MTG drafts. (Can't find any singles there but there are stacks of draft chaff EVERYWHERE). The store I go to most regularly doesn't even sell any comics or other card games -- just MTG, MTG supplies, and board games. MTG is surviving on its history and loyal fan base, but even when it comes to the in-store/in-person experience, the cheaper and lighter (from a rules perspective) board games are encroaching on that market. For deeper games and even competitive play, the digital games are eating MTG's lunch.
Sky's not falling, but there are cracks in the ceiling for sure.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
I have no idea how "the game is completely unable to attract any new players" isn't a fundamental problem in your eyes
-
Re: The current state of Magic
I hate the reserved list as much as anyone, but I think it's a little too convenient to put the blame on the thing that makes magic worse for legacy players. They cut themselves off from selling the same cards again and again - but you don't make money by selling the same cards again and again. ABU duals are not actually very interesting cards, they merely serve as an upper bar of 'what a dual land could be', vintage-power stuff has no place in tournament magic, and the only other relevant cards on the reserved list are some junk for commander or a few key legacy rares. Hearthstone didn't rise because of the reserved list. There is a ceiling on the amount of people in America who were ever going to be interested in playing a game with 'Flusterstorm your Flusterstorm' complexity. (That includes current Magic players.)
I feel like a lot of the problems for the company are ultimately due to how conservative they are when it comes to pushing any sort of boundaries with the structure of the game. Sets still come out in blocks, limited means draft and sealed, decks always have 40 or 60 cards, tournaments have a t8, etc. etc. A lot of these things are accidents of history and were never the result of top down planning or a long-term strategic plan - it's all just path dependency. There are a lot of directions you could go with all of these structures, some of which could lead to really new and engaging tournament experiences.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iatee
I feel like a lot of the problems for the company are ultimately due to how conservative they are when it comes to pushing any sort of boundaries with the structure of the game. Sets still come out in blocks, limited means draft and sealed, decks always have 40 or 60 cards, tournaments have a t8, etc. etc. A lot of these things are accidents of history and were never the result of top down planning or a long-term strategic plan - it's all just path dependency. There are a lot of directions you could go with all of these structures, some of which could lead to really new and engaging tournament experiences.
Well, I think the real "original sin" of the game is the distribution model. It's positively antediluvian at this point. Why are people looking at things like LCGs and board games? In no small part because it's all there in the box. No need to waste money on packs, play the lottery with boxes, or hunt down singles. Getting kids into the game where you are pitching spending several hundred dollars on a deck that the metagame might obsolesce in 6 months or even less and at best you can play for 2 years is a pretty tough sell, really and that's just for Standard. It's even worse when you pitch it at a thousand for Modern, or two thousand for Legacy.
We have to realize that we, as Legacy enthusiasts, or Vintage or whatever, actually have something wrong with us. We are not the average consumer, by any stretch of the imagination.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
I think there is some genius in the distribution model - people like collecting things, that becomes a game in itself and it's easier to spend large amounts of money on Magic when you do it over tons of small purchases. Opening up packs is a more socially acceptable way to play the lottery.
But I agree that it's important to realize how far we are from average consumers. This forum has a dedicated thread where people show off their $20,000 Japanese foil decks and then other people insult them for not spending enough money on their deck.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iatee
I feel like a lot of the problems for the company are ultimately due to how conservative they are when it comes to pushing any sort of boundaries with the structure of the game. Sets still come out in blocks, limited means draft and sealed, decks always have 40 or 60 cards, tournaments have a t8, etc. etc. A lot of these things are accidents of history and were never the result of top down planning or a long-term strategic plan - it's all just path dependency. There are a lot of directions you could go with all of these structures, some of which could lead to really new and engaging tournament experiences.
One thing I've seen from a couple of online games, even those who try to emulate Magic, is fixing one of Magic's most glaring problems gameplaywise: Non-games, especially due to resources.
We've accepted getting fucked over by manaflood/manascrew because we're veterans, but what about players new to the game? They've removed Stone Rain and any other decent attempt at LD from the game forever due to how negatively received the inability to play your cards is (some reason why counters were nerfed to hell). Yet WotC sees getting screwed by RNG as the Holy Grail of game design since it's "awesome" when Jonny Spike loses one game out of hundred to Casual Mc Nooblord due to screw/flood. :eyebrow:
I do wonder how Magic would change (aside form mana denial getting significantly worse) if we had a "land library" and a "non-land library". Whenever you draw a card, you could choose from which pile you draw your stuff. Same goes for search, reveal effects, etc.; this would basically prevent you from ever getting manascrewed/flooded. I'm well aware that it would need safety measures (like a minimum library size to prevent T1ing every turn because a too small non-land library would allow to draw combos every starter hand) and would fundamentally change how certain cards work in terms of power level (e.g. Brainstorm, Bob, etc.), but it's just a silly thought experiement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
H
We have to realize that we, as Legacy enthusiasts, or Vintage or whatever, actually have something wrong with us. We are not the average consumer, by any stretch of the imagination.
Anybody right in their mind would put up with MTGO, either.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Everything that decreases RNG is ultimately a gift to highly competitive players. I don't think that the system is perfect or anything, but I would be surprised if the mana system is really is the thing that keeps new players out of the game, since as you mentioned, having good luck (opening up a bomb in limited, opponent getting mana-screwed, etc) is generally how they get their signature wins.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
I am pretty sure a whole Generation of Legacy Players got to enjoy "ensure your opponent is manascrewed" in Legacy
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iatee
I hate the reserved list as much as anyone, but I think it's a little too convenient to put the blame on the thing that makes magic worse for legacy players. They cut themselves off from selling the same cards again and again - but you don't make money by selling the same cards again and again. ABU duals are not actually very interesting cards, they merely serve as an upper bar of 'what a dual land could be', vintage-power stuff has no place in tournament magic, and the only other relevant cards on the reserved list are some junk for commander or a few key legacy rares. Hearthstone didn't rise because of the reserved list. There is a ceiling on the amount of people in America who were ever going to be interested in playing a game with 'Flusterstorm your Flusterstorm' complexity. (That includes current Magic players.)
Well, in making this point it's a little oversimplified, but... The point is that there is a place where things like duals and power are balanced. Those formats are the ones we play (Legacy and Vintage) which have safety valves built in like Force and Wasteland. But because Wizards is unable to support these formats, they cut themselves off from being able to serve the component of their market that doesn't want to keep up with Standard rotation. They know this, which is why Modern exists. But Modern, of course, has its other issues, which I'm not going to go through here because the point is about customer retention, not whether or not the format is good.
Of course, without the RL, the necessity to invent Standard never would've existed. Like I said, I have to oversimplify the point a bit. But I do think a game company promising to never print certain game pieces ever again was a clear miscalculation, because who knows what utility something could have down the road, either in game play or in reprint equity? (Imagine you were around when the RL was announced and asked people which card they thought would be worth more in 20 years if the game was still being played: Cadaverous Bloom or Lion's Eye Diamond.) I give the company a pass for not thinking 20 years out in 1996, because who would, but I still think every year that passes reinforces the folly of the list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
H
Well, I think the real "original sin" of the game is the distribution model. It's positively antediluvian at this point. Why are people looking at things like LCGs and board games? In no small part because it's all there in the box. No need to waste money on packs, play the lottery with boxes, or hunt down singles. Getting kids into the game where you are pitching spending several hundred dollars on a deck that the metagame might obsolesce in 6 months or even less and at best you can play for 2 years is a pretty tough sell, really and that's just for Standard. It's even worse when you pitch it at a thousand for Modern, or two thousand for Legacy.
We have to realize that we, as Legacy enthusiasts, or Vintage or whatever, actually have something wrong with us. We are not the average consumer, by any stretch of the imagination.
I agree with this. But the difference between this and the RL is that no one in 1994 knew how the internet was going to upend business models. E-commerce has drastically changed MTG by removing the barrier of card availability (assuming unlimited financial resources). That's not even to discuss the very concept of a living card game. Hell they were still issuing straight-up errata that you had to track down in the mid-90s. They had no concept of the potential audience for this game or how the economy would grow around it. So I wouldn't call it an original sin just because it wasn't an unforced error like the RL. If anything, it's amazing that this game and the LGS model has survived to this point when titans like Borders, Tower Records, and Blockbuster, that were similarly dependent on their roles as distributors of leisure content, have been relegated to the dustbin of history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barook
One thing I've seen from a couple of online games, even those who try to emulate Magic, is fixing one of Magic's most glaring problems gameplaywise: Non-games, especially due to resources.
This and the rest of your post, and some other posts ITT, talk about the gameplay of MTG relative to competitors, and while there are definitely valid criticisms, I think it has to be noted that Magic is a fundamentally solid game, and many of its so-called competitors are just aping the "good" parts and cutting out the "bad" (for better or for worse). Hex: Shards of Fate is basically a fanfic where MTG was invented in 2013 instead of 1993.
The thing is that you can't look at MTG's gameplay in a vacuum. All the other issues we're discussing are part and parcel to the MTG experience. If the ruleset was different from the start, who knows whether the game would've resonated for a generation. And while growth may be slowing, it's certainly not stopping. But no property can really be invincible from market forces. The most accurate view of MTG, I guess, would be that it has an quickly narrowing margin for error as the market evolves, and disasters like what happened to Standard over the past couple rotations have downstream effects that are concerning. (I would've immediately fired Sam Stoddard and Mark Rosewater when the Standard bannings were announced, since that was the pure implementation of their vision of what standard should look like in order to avoid bannings like JTMS and SFM, and they clearly misjudged what to do.)
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
maharis
Well, in making this point it's a little oversimplified, but... The point is that there is a place where things like duals and power are balanced. Those formats are the ones we play (Legacy and Vintage) which have safety valves built in like Force and Wasteland. But because Wizards is unable to support these formats, they cut themselves off from being able to serve the component of their market that doesn't want to keep up with Standard rotation. They know this, which is why Modern exists. But Modern, of course, has its other issues, which I'm not going to go through here because the point is about customer retention, not whether or not the format is good.
Of course, without the RL, the necessity to invent Standard never would've existed. Like I said, I have to oversimplify the point a bit. But I do think a game company promising to never print certain game pieces ever again was a clear miscalculation, because who knows what utility something could have down the road, either in game play or in reprint equity? (Imagine you were around when the RL was announced and asked people which card they thought would be worth more in 20 years if the game was still being played: Cadaverous Bloom or Lion's Eye Diamond.) I give the company a pass for not thinking 20 years out in 1996, because who would, but I still think every year that passes reinforces the folly of the list.
Wasteland/FoW/Brainstorm are indeed the key distinction between modern and legacy. They're also not on the reserved list. If Wizards wants to print powerful safety valves in the format, they mostly just need to be willing to print new modern cards that skip standard. And beyond already-reprintable Wasteland/FoW/Brainstorm, 'the reserved list' is a drop in the bucket of the set of all possible magic cards. Wizards can print whatever the hell they want. We care about these existing old cards for nostalgic reasons, not because they actually represent some pinnacle of magic design. Outside of the duals, most of the relevant reserved list cards for legacy are design fuckups like LED.
Reserved list was obviously not part of some long-term strategic plan and nobody at Wizards loves it. But if all the modern players right now were playing legacy instead, does that change anything for the business? Modern masters is just called legacy masters and has duals in it instead of goyfs.
Modern is also, despite its flaws, extremely popular, the most successful non-standard constructed format of all time. It might even be more popular because of its flaws - these days it's a better pet deck format than legacy and non-rotating players are a little more casual.
In short:
- If they want modern to have the 'fair' aspects of legacy, they can just print them.
- Maybe people would be having more fun if they were playing legacy instead of modern, but I doubt the total number of people in this group would be substantially different.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemnear
@ Warden
There is literally ZERO need for WotC to create a client being able to cover all the complicated mechanics from more than 2 decades.
They can focus on a client with the mechanical niveau the MTG 2013 platform (PSN) introduced. Basic mechanics and interface worked fine, but the game had no lasting appeal as the game was very limited in terms of deckbuilding, collecting and compeditive play. Why not create a cross platform client able to handle current T2 mechanics and rules for a season and then add the mechanics and cards of the next one paired with a ranking/reward system just like Hearthstone?
Have you played the current iteration of Duels of the Planeswalkers? It's on Steam, iOS, Android, and I'm pretty sure PSN/XBL too. Definitely got off to a rocky start, but most of the bugs have been ironed out at this point, Stainless is getting better at communicating, and updates are showing up on time. Has seasons, has rankings, can grind for cards or spend real money. Pretty decent IMO.
I just don't think a digital version of MtG is ever going to be as good as something that was designed to be digital. Duels does a pretty good job, but they've definitely had to drop some of the more subtle/obscure rules interactions, and you still end up with an awkward "response window" timer and something that just doesn't flow as well as Hearthstone. Hopefully I'm wrong and they'll find some really talented game designers who can come up with really elegant solutions for things like that.
Personally I think they should be leveraging the solid product they already have. Not that a digital counterpart is bad, but I always thought a big part of what makes Magic fun is getting to hang out with other people that have similar nerdy interests and I hardly ever see them pushing that aspect. Their marketing is either some weird ego trip shit like "Here I rule!" and "power up your deck with more mythic bullshit to crush your opponents!", or it's completely focused on plotlines and main characters.
Meanwhile, they exercise no quality control over stores or venues, have fair to mediocre coverage of large events, and seem to be on an active crusade to make those big events as unappealing as possible to physically attend. They're also moving at a snail's pace in response to fairly widespread coverage of buyouts and counterfeiting.
To their credit, they are pushing multiplayer products pretty hard, and getting some reprints in at the same time with the draft-only sets. I just wish they'd put some effort into showing that the game is a social activity. A bunch of kids gathered around a table losing their shit when a player top decks their only out, people laughing and comparing sealed pools, handshakes after a hard-fought match, marathon gaming sessions in the basement with movies and snacks and shit. That's what Magic has that Hearthstone doesn't, and I think it is (or should be) a large part of the appeal of the game.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iatee
Wasteland/FoW/Brainstorm are indeed the key distinction between modern and legacy. They're also not on the reserved list. If Wizards wants to print powerful safety valves in the format, they mostly just need to be willing to print new modern cards that skip standard. And beyond already-reprintable Wasteland/FoW/Brainstorm, 'the reserved list' is a drop in the bucket of the set of all possible magic cards. Wizards can print whatever the hell they want. We care about these existing old cards for nostalgic reasons, not because they actually represent some pinnacle of magic design. Outside of the duals, most of the relevant reserved list cards for legacy are design fuckups like LED.
Reserved list was obviously not part of some long-term strategic plan and nobody at Wizards loves it. But if all the modern players right now were playing legacy instead, does that change anything for the business? Modern masters is just called legacy masters and has duals in it instead of goyfs.
Modern is also, despite its flaws, extremely popular, the most successful non-standard constructed format of all time. It might even be more popular because of its flaws - these days it's a better pet deck format than legacy and non-rotating players are a little more casual.
In short:
- If they want modern to have the 'fair' aspects of legacy, they can just print them.
- Maybe people would be having more fun if they were playing legacy instead of modern, but I doubt the total number of people in this group would be substantially different.
Sorry -- my point was that Wasteland is balanced in a world where your duals come in for no life -- you couldn't put such a thing in a shockland format because it would severely pressure mana instead of strategically pressuring it. Whether or not Wasteland is on the reserved list is immaterial -- it is too powerful in a world where the duals are anything worse than the ABUR editions. There are similar arguments for Force and several other cards in Legacy.
I agree with you about Modern. In fact the amount of time and energy expended on Modern indicates that what the most vocal and enfranchised players want to do with this game is strategic, competetive constructed, but this is at odds with Wizards' goal of perpetual expansion. What feeds that goal is things like limited and standard, but those don't appeal to the same feelings.
So you have a game whose depth is a key reason that people get invested and stay involved, but that depth also makes perpetual profitability and customer acquisition incredibly difficult. It's not a great equation.
-
Re: The current state of Magic
I think that the only way Magic can die is if card design continues to get worse, I think that as long as card design is good magic will continue to grow. I disagree with those who say that Hearthstone and other online card games will kill magic, the reason why is that the experience of face to face gameplay where you can feel your cards and talk with your friends in real life is a very significant part of magic that online card games will never be able to replicate. I think that Magic can definitely exist as an online game in the form of an improved MTGO software, but trying to convert the game to an online-only, watered-down, direct competitor to Hearthstone will probably kill the game. I also dont think that Magic is continuing to get harder to play and learn complexity-wise. I think that once you know the fundamental aspects/basics of the game the only thing you have to do to play whatever format or deck you want is the ability to read the cards. MTG's learning difficulty is lessening if anything.