Brian Kibler on Magic’s battle to catch up with Hearthstone

[Jagil]

I usually lurk, but I found this quite interesting so I thought I would share. I feel a discussion on the future of magic has been brewing recently on these boards. Kibler raises some interesting points, which you can read about here:

http://www.pcgamer.com/brian-kibler-...h-hearthstone/

a reddit discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone...catch_up_with/

Here is a great run down on the awkward history of Magic Online:
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/...f-magic-online

And a tech-savvy discussion on the mtggoldfish article on Hacker News:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10077222

If this is in any way the wrong forum, or just not orderly, feel free to move/delete/pm

All the best,

[Lord Seth]

Before being more streaming friendly or anything like that, shouldn't the most important fix for MTGO just to be make the program good? Fix the bugs, get a better interface (I suppose this overlaps with the streaming thing), make things more pleasant to use, etc. That just seems like the most important thing to fix up.

[bruizar]

In all fairness, Hearthstone is a drag. It's also quiet inaccurate to see Hearthstone as based purely on Magic / paper TCGs. As a game developer I traveled to Japan to meet some of the brightest minds in this space. The modern online card games garnered attention when a group of 15 guys at Konami developed Dragon Collection in 3 months an it made $10 million a month, outperforming Kojima's Metal Gear Solid which took 300 people 3 years to build. This subsequently lead to a race on mobile card games (and the dethroning of Kojima). Hearthstone's roots are a clear mashup of asian freemium monetization systems and western high fantasy paper card games. The inability to trade cards with players cripples the social interaction and economy that has given Magic cards a live of its own regardless of the actions of wizards.

I played Hearthstone upon release and it is totally unappealing to me. It does not compare to paper magic in terms of feel nor deck design freedom / gameplay interactions.

MTGO I will never touch unless they bother to support Mac or at least iPad.

[Lemnear]

Its so obvious and WotC still fails to see the problems. Its embarassing. Props to Kibler laying a finger into the wound to wake up Hasbro

[Barook]

The problems are far deeper than that:

1. Convenience is a major point. If you plan to play in a tournament, you have to waste hours, especially when your match takes 5-15 minutes while the rest of the round takes 50+ minutes. Leagues might fix that, but we have to wait and see how that is going to turn out, considering their incompetence.

2. No proper stream support sucks, but it's far from the biggest problem they have. I agree that the major downtime between rounds is unappealing for streaming.

3. Cost is one of the biggest points here, and I agree with that. I don't feel bad for jumping into Arena in Hearthstone - it costs 150g, but I'm guaranteed a pack for 100g, plus whatever I get for performing well. On MTGO, however, they continuesly cut price support more and more to milk the fanbase even harder. E.g. I don't get why Vintage/Legacy/Pauper DEs have a significantly lower change to go positive compared to Standard/Modern events (12.5% vs 31.25%). Prizes are extremely unappealing. Take 2-mans for example - 20 Play Points (aka "2$") to enter, winner gets 30 PP, loser 5 PP. You would need a win percentage of 57% to break even. Why not 39 PP for the winner and nothing for the loser? Now you only need 51.3% to break even, making it more appealing for everybody to play said queues, even Casuals. Casinos also make rake on roulette with the small off-chance on colors. It really hurts them to not have any economist on their team. Putting a random dude who once Top 8ed a Pro Tour as qualification in charge of the MTGO economy is a fucking joke.
They need to find a way to make playing MTGO "worthwhile" in the same way Hearthstone does instead of cutting prizes everywhere. I sold out of MTGO after the announcement of PP since used to grow my collection by doing well in events. Under the current system, it's basically impossible.

4. Client: I completely missed that point. It's sluggish, has a terrible UI design and is bugged out of the wazoo. Them putting up a bug blog and then ignoring 99% of all bugs is a travesty, especially when they continuesly introduce new, game-breaking ones. E.g. KotR can now sacrifice any permanent instead of just Plains or Forests, and it wasn't even recognized in this week's bug blog. And even when they do, they take their sweet time of 4-6 weeks to fix such bugs.
The lack of Android/Apple support stems from the use of Windows Presentation Foundation as basis. They should have hired a competent team of programmers at competitive wages to do the thing from scratch long ago, but I doubt that they're going to do such a drastic step anytime soon, if ever. Right now, they're trying to sugarcoat a steaming pile of shit.

[Lormador]

The very things that make Magic so wonderful inhibit its expansion into an online realm. Hearthstone interactions are simple and designed to facilitate its convenience and accessibility. There's no need to respond to various triggers, and there's no way to take actions during the other player's turn.

I think the whole effort to make Magic viable in an online form is rather doomed, nor would it be a great idea for the game to expand in this direction. Much of the game's charm is being a physical, social experience.

As for catching up with Hearthstone in particular, I think that's a lost cause. Now and then I glance around at what games people are playing on the subway in Beijing, and Hearthstone is a very common sight on the devices of young ladies. Were any of these individuals to enter a Magic tournament, there would be mass whiplash. The demographic reach of Hearthstone is far beyond what Magic ever achieved.

[(nameless one)]

One main reason I enjoy playing Hearthstone is because I can play it on my phone. I wish there was a way I can at least playtest Magic on my phone. It also doesn't help that adult life catches up to your Magic time.

I still love playing Magic. Whenever I get the chance, I play it whether casually with my friends or coworkers. Even do drafts once a month.

I also want to point out that it's way cheaper to play competitive Hearthstone than competitive Magic.

[nedleeds]

The title should be Magic Online's battle. Magic Online is a failure. Comparing Hearthstone to paper Magic isn't terribly compelling.

[Barook]

The title should be Magic Online's battle. Magic Online is a failure. Comparing Hearthstone to paper Magic isn't terribly compelling.

MTGO might be a failure.

Thing is, Hearthstone has surpassed Paper + MTGO combined in both earnings AND playerbase numbers in no time.

God knows what would have happened if they made MTGO a good product from the get-go instead of a cash cow they intentionally gimp for the most stupidest reason.

[Aggro_zombies]

God knows what would have happened if they made MTGO a good product from the get-go instead of a cash cow they intentionally gimp for the most stupidest reason.

Hearthstone would still be blowing Magic out of the water, because Hearthstone is a simpler, easier-to-learn game that can be played quickly, has enough RNG to not feel unwinnable if you're playing people better than you, and makes for great stories when the dice fall your way.

Magic is a great game, don't get me wrong - that people still put up with MTGO is testament to this fact - but it's not filling the same niche Hearthstone does. Hearthstone is targeted more or less directly at the hearts and minds of casual gamers. Magic...kind of isn't.

[Barook]

Hearthstone would still be blowing Magic out of the water, because Hearthstone is a simpler, easier-to-learn game that can be played quickly, has enough RNG to not feel unwinnable if you're playing people better than you, and makes for great stories when the dice fall your way.

Magic is a great game, don't get me wrong - that people still put up with MTGO is testament to this fact - but it's not filling the same niche Hearthstone does. Hearthstone is targeted more or less directly at the hearts and minds of casual gamers. Magic...kind of isn't.

Of course Hearthstone would still blow it out of the water, but MTGO has a userbase of what? Maybe 100k total? Probably even less.

The thing is that MTGO is completely all-around user-hostile. And it's not just the base game preventing more people to get in.

[Aggro_zombies]

I think that even if the client were good, the gains would be modest. Hearthstone was designed as a video game and Magic wasn't. Having a client designed by competent UI designers with a solid back end won't fix that.

Take the convenience argument, for example. Tournaments in Magic use Swiss pairings. What are you supposed to do when one guy with a control deck enters an 8-man? Most other matches will finish before his does. Those players have to wait on him. How do you fix that? You can't pair the next round until he's done. You could make it easier to double queue, but then matches will take longer because players will constantly be tabbing between games. You could reduce each player's timer, but that punishes both control decks and decks with lots of triggers, activations, or interaction disproportionately while rewarding non-interactive linears like Burn. You could not use Swiss pairings, but then how would large tournaments work (also, two-man queues already exist)? Would you just toss everyone into a pool for X rounds and then give out prize based on W/L record as people finish their rounds? But then pairings won't be random as decks will be more likely to play only decks of a similar speed the deeper you go (ie, fast decks finish first so they will be more likely to play other fast decks in later rounds). That introduces the possibility of weird deckbuilding skews and makes the program worse as a testing tool. Also, it makes pairings more awkward in smaller pools as the only available opponents when you go to your next round may be people you've already played.

Hearthstone works as well as it does because it's not designed to be played super seriously. Magic is saddled with a meatspace rules legacy that isn't compatible with the kind of easy, casual digital gaming Hearthstone allows. A good client won't change that.

[Zombie]

It's further exacerbated by the fact that Magic is, at heart, a game of giving permission - one of my main pet peeves about Duels is having to wrest thinking time from the program constantly.

[Barook]

I think that even if the client were good, the gains would be modest. Hearthstone was designed as a video game and Magic wasn't. Having a client designed by competent UI designers with a solid back end won't fix that.

Take the convenience argument, for example. Tournaments in Magic use Swiss pairings. What are you supposed to do when one guy with a control deck enters an 8-man? Most other matches will finish before his does. Those players have to wait on him. How do you fix that? You can't pair the next round until he's done. You could make it easier to double queue, but then matches will take longer because players will constantly be tabbing between games. You could reduce each player's timer, but that punishes both control decks and decks with lots of triggers, activations, or interaction disproportionately while rewarding non-interactive linears like Burn. You could not use Swiss pairings, but then how would large tournaments work (also, two-man queues already exist)? Would you just toss everyone into a pool for X rounds and then give out prize based on W/L record as people finish their rounds? But then pairings won't be random as decks will be more likely to play only decks of a similar speed the deeper you go (ie, fast decks finish first so they will be more likely to play other fast decks in later rounds). That introduces the possibility of weird deckbuilding skews and makes the program worse as a testing tool. Also, it makes pairings more awkward in smaller pools as the only available opponents when you go to your next round may be people you've already played.

Hearthstone works as well as it does because it's not designed to be played super seriously. Magic is saddled with a meatspace rules legacy that isn't compatible with the kind of easy, casual digital gaming Hearthstone allows. A good client won't change that.

Well-done leagues are probably the best solution to the issue. And I doubt you could influence your match partner that much. 2-mans would be the ideal solution if the payout didn't suck. The most fun I've ever had on MTGO was during the release days of VMA where boosters were worth a shitton and you could go positive with a winrate of 40%. Sure, not sustainable in the long run, but boy, it was fun to not waste time and still get something out of it.

It's further exacerbated by the fact that Magic is, at heart, a game of giving permission - one of my main pet peeves about Duels is having to wrest thinking time from the program constantly.

MTGO could save alot of time with a proper UI. For starters, you don't have to engage in shuffle orgies that take minutes like in Paper.

But why can't I tap my duals intelligently for mana when casting spells? If I cast DRS, it doesn't fucking matter if I tap my Bayou for or . Even free progamms can do that while MTGO does not. Or why doesn't MTGO allow to set up loops for infinite combos?

[Lemnear]

Game of thoughts: Is there even a way to fix MTGO and it's twisted High entry barrier without basically starting from scratch again? Is there even a way to actually "end" the current failed MTGO without a shitload of legal questions/issues? I mean, it would be funny if they simply announce to turn off the Servers in a year and rebuild the game, compeditive aspects and Economy under a new MTG Trademark.

Blow up the whole online market and speculation in one wipe! Lol

[Aggro_zombies]

Game of thoughts: Is there even a way to fix MTGO and it's twisted High entry barrier without basically starting from scratch again? Is there even a way to actually "end" the current failed MTGO without a shitload of legal questions/issues? I mean, it would be funny if they simply announce to turn off the Servers in a year and rebuild the game, compeditive aspects and Economy under a new MTG Trademark.

Blow up the whole online market and speculation in one wipe! Lol

This would be even worse than just letting the current MTGO continue to fester. There's plenty of players who are fine with an ugly, buggy client but would lose their shit over that client vanishing unless WotC could guarantee that (1) their collections would make it through completely intact and (2) the new version would be out quickly and work smoothly from day one. The first is possible but their track record on the second is frightening - the current version was in beta for, what, two years? And it's still ass?

Maybe the next version will be remade from the ground up but that won't be out for a long time and there's no guarantee that it'll be an improvement on what we have now. WotC just cannot figure out software.

[Barook]

Game of thoughts: Is there even a way to fix MTGO and it's twisted High entry barrier without basically starting from scratch again? Is there even a way to actually "end" the current failed MTGO without a shitload of legal questions/issues? I mean, it would be funny if they simply announce to turn off the Servers in a year and rebuild the game, compeditive aspects and Economy under a new MTG Trademark.

Blow up the whole online market and speculation in one wipe! Lol

Sure, they could do that. The damage to the brand as a whole and the following class action law suit probably isn't really worth it.

They could always change the price structure in MTGO. They just did a massive overhaul 2 weeks ago with the whole play point thing, except they made the prize structure even more stupid.

The whole thing could be salvageable with a good client + rewarding prize structure if they put competent people in charge without the toxic management at Wizards meddling. So, basically, never.

And even a completely new program would be doomed to fail. Magic Duels was pure cancer - a mess of bugs and disconnects on par with MTGO, if not worse.

[DLifshitz]

I mean, it would be funny if they simply announce to turn off the Servers in a year and rebuild the game, compeditive aspects and Economy under a new MTG Trademark.

They could simply develop the new version of MTGO while keeping the old one around, then migrate people and their cards to the new one. Or give people strong incentives to move to the new one. Really, there are many ways they could proceed. The thing is, for several years now Hasbro have been doing the absolute minimum to keep MTGO running. Why would they suddenly do a 180^o turn and invest money into a workable client?

[Shaman]

I just avoid to play Carpet of Flowers because I go mad about resolving every trigger. If I add zero mana, it even asks for the color... and asks it again next main phase...

[Barook]

Actually, wouldn't it help the flow of MTGO if priority is automatically passed after a certain amount of complete inaction? Hearthstone does it, and Paper magic punishes you for slow play as well (as long as you call a JUDGE! as you should in such a case).

That would also kill the incentive to double/tripple queue and force you to focus on the game before you, although I'm not sure if Wizards would want that. The client would also need to be more stable and have a fair solution for the case of disconnects because it would suck to lose to that.