The current state of Magic

[maharis]

When one reads a quote like that, there are far more negative conclusions we can draw than positive ones. Modern (let alone Legacy/Vintage/EDH/etc.) discussion is conspicuously absent from all the Wizards-generated Arena content. That really worries me. It is especially worrisome in light of quotes like the one in the FAQ. Arena is clearly Wizards' big play, and we should not be happy that existing non-rotating formats are conspicuously absent from that discussion. Standard certainly isn't. We see that word "Standard" in all kinds of Arena press. The other formats, however, are missing. It also seems very unlikely that Wizards will want to maintain and fund two products that do effectively the same thing. Their track record with that has been terrible, as we've seen many digital MTG games fall by the wayside.

The potential salvation of MTGO is that it remains profitable for Wizards despite Arena being the client of choice. Maybe it just doesn't require that much upkeep and its margins are pretty good. If that happened, we would still see MTGO as the non-rotating format client, even if Arena was all about Standard and Limited. MTGO would still soldier on and the non-rotating formats we enjoyed would stay viable for longer. This is definitely possible. But I think it's not very likely that Legacy, Modern, and other non-rotating formats currently feature prominently in Wizards' vision of Arena.

I don't think your interpretation of the situation is incorrect, but I just disagree that it's something to worry about right now. Everything around Arena is still very questionable. Like if you had to bet what would still be going in 2020:

-Legacy
-Arena
-Neither

I would bet on neither first, then Legacy. Arena is still a huge gamble and Wizards, as you've said, is not historically adept with digital -- or finding alternative avenues to monetize MTG, for that matter. (That boardgame they put out a while ago was on sale for $10 at Target in less than six months.)

No, there are actual big money investors in M:TG cards weirdly enough. Those guys have $$ and LOVE teh RL. They would absolutely sue because they have such an absurd $$ amount of cardstock that's only valuable because of RL.

Hasbro is a global, publicly traded corporation that deals with international licensing and supply chain management, as well as the massive liability exposure that comes with selling toys. Their legal department surely can tangle with the big boys if needed. And I doubt there are any true big money players that are long MTG cards and care all that much about the reserved list protecting their investment. The kind of person that would actually be a threat to Hasbro legally could, or should, know of much better investment vehicles than a stack of Beta duals.

To the extent that they "fear" that breaking the reserved list would lead to a lawsuit, I would guess that Hasbro simply does not believe dealing with the small-potatoes lawsuits is worth their time. I doubt they worry that a finding against them would exceed the revenue benefits from reprinting and selling RL cards.

[Miscanthus]

reserved list and lawsuit stuff...

What if wizards were to print a cycle like this?

Blighted Isle
Land - Island Swamp
T: Add B or U to your mana pool.
Blighted Isle comes into play tapped unless you control two or fewer other lands.

I would imagine this might be good enough for legacy use. Many decks (Delver and Storm builds, for instance) very rarely have or want more than three lands in play.
This would therefore be a viable budget option for those looking to enter the format. At the same time, it is clearly inferior to the original dual lands, and it does not violate the "spirit" of the reserved list.

Print a cycle like this a few times (and maybe a similar sort of cycle geared toward more controllish decks that do want more than four lands in play), and the demand (and by extension the price) for reserved list duels might well drop off a bit...ultimately bringing in more players and breathing more life into the format.

[Barook]

I would bet on neither first, then Legacy. Arena is still a huge gamble and Wizards, as you've said, is not historically adept with digital -- or finding alternative avenues to monetize MTG, for that matter. (That boardgame they put out a while ago was on sale for $10 at Target in less than six months.)

Let's be realistic here - Magic, as a franchise, doesn't really have legs outside the actual card game. That's why all Magic movies have ended up in development hell and if one ever comes out, it will bomb. If I want to play Magic, I'll play Magic and not some shitty game that rips off the original with rehashed ideas. Cobbler, stick to your last.

[Lemnear]

What if wizards were to print a cycle like this?

Blighted Isle
Land - Island Swamp
T: Add B or U to your mana pool.
Blighted Isle comes into play tapped unless you control two or fewer other lands.

They could have done that any time, just like they did functional reprints of Fork for years. They just have no interrest in supporting Legacy/Vintage and when they got hinted at that they do it (functional reprints) for Fork but not cards people care for, they came up with the "spirit of RL" bullshit and started claiming their hands are tied.

[Misersoneof]

When one reads a quote like that, there are far more negative conclusions we can draw than positive ones. Modern (let alone Legacy/Vintage/EDH/etc.) discussion is conspicuously absent from all the Wizards-generated Arena content. That really worries me. It is especially worrisome in light of quotes like the one in the FAQ. Arena is clearly Wizards' big play, and we should not be happy that existing non-rotating formats are conspicuously absent from that discussion. Standard certainly isn't. We see that word "Standard" in all kinds of Arena press. The other formats, however, are missing. It also seems very unlikely that Wizards will want to maintain and fund two products that do effectively the same thing. Their track record with that has been terrible, as we've seen many digital MTG games fall by the wayside.

The potential salvation of MTGO is that it remains profitable for Wizards despite Arena being the client of choice. Maybe it just doesn't require that much upkeep and its margins are pretty good. If that happened, we would still see MTGO as the non-rotating format client, even if Arena was all about Standard and Limited. MTGO would still soldier on and the non-rotating formats we enjoyed would stay viable for longer. This is definitely possible. But I think it's not very likely that Legacy, Modern, and other non-rotating formats currently feature prominently in Wizards' vision of Arena.

Could someone ELIF, why is it that modern/legacy/vintage wouldn't be profitable in a digital game? I thought that the whole idea behind MTGO was that accessibility made the paper game difficult for some players to get into but a digital version would make it much more accessible? Other than the fact that they are crap at making a digital product (which really has no excuse), why can't they design a digital game that has a subscription, allows players to buy whichever cards they want at fixed prices and gives them the ability to play ad infinitum? I would gladly pay $100 up front plus $15 a month if it meant I could play legacy whenever I wanted.

EDIT:Grammar

[Jerry9]

Once upon a time, MODO did not have proper Legacy or Vintage formats. Wizards was absolutely terrified of competing with their paper selves. We are just seeing the same thing again with Arena.

Older formats could be viable in Arena, but Wizards has backend themselves into a corner. Over time, MODO has become the worst of all worlds. Its buggy, hard to maintain, hard to use, and not very accessable when compared to other digital games. It needs to be replaced. However, people and vendors have dumped thousands of dollars into it. Announcing a full replacement would likely cause a panic and kill the program overnight. If Arena flops, they will have nothing left to fall back on. I think Wizards is aware of their own history of digital shortcomings. They do not want to go all in on Arena before its proven to be viable (UI, maintainability, profitability, etc), so they will play this noncommittal song and dance for a few years.

[HSCK]

When one reads a quote like that, there are far more negative conclusions we can draw than positive ones. Modern (let alone Legacy/Vintage/EDH/etc.) discussion is conspicuously absent from all the Wizards-generated Arena content. That really worries me. It is especially worrisome in light of quotes like the one in the FAQ. Arena is clearly Wizards' big play, and we should not be happy that existing non-rotating formats are conspicuously absent from that discussion. Standard certainly isn't. We see that word "Standard" in all kinds of Arena press. The other formats, however, are missing. It also seems very unlikely that Wizards will want to maintain and fund two products that do effectively the same thing. Their track record with that has been terrible, as we've seen many digital MTG games fall by the wayside.

The potential salvation of MTGO is that it remains profitable for Wizards despite Arena being the client of choice. Maybe it just doesn't require that much upkeep and its margins are pretty good. If that happened, we would still see MTGO as the non-rotating format client, even if Arena was all about Standard and Limited. MTGO would still soldier on and the non-rotating formats we enjoyed would stay viable for longer. This is definitely possible. But I think it's not very likely that Legacy, Modern, and other non-rotating formats currently feature prominently in Wizards' vision of Arena.

Not sure why Wotc should care about Modern on Arena, they should focus on bringing EDH. It's easily the actual most popular constructed format and would mesh well with how cards are earned in the game and it'll create good viewing by having legends to follow for gameplay.

[Misersoneof]

Once upon a time, MODO did not have proper Legacy or Vintage formats. Wizards was absolutely terrified of competing with their paper selves. We are just seeing the same thing again with Arena.

So WOTC doesn't want digital games to take money away from paper games? That seems shortsighted and like standing on the wrong side of history. My dad founded a new trade magazine company back in 2005 and a few years later it was gone. He didn't see how digital print forms would overtake paper and he lost everything. If I were WOTC I would slowly move away from paper and focus on digital.

[ktkenshinx]

Could someone ELIF, why is it that modern/legacy/vintage wouldn't be profitable in a digital game? I thought that the whole idea behind MTGO was that accessibility made the paper game difficult for some players to get into but a digital version would make it much more accessible? Other than the fact that they are crap at making a digital product (which really has no excuse), why can't they design a digital game that has a subscription, allows players to buy whichever cards they want at fixed prices and gives them the ability to play ad infinitum? I would gladly pay $100 up front plus $15 a month if it meant I could play legacy whenever I wanted.

EDIT:Grammar

I think those formats are profitable in digital games, and I think your example is a great monetization idea. I would certainly pay something like that up front with a reasonable $15/month fee to maintain an account. There are also plenty of ways Wizards could add cards to Arena in a way that supports older formats. The problem is that they aren't doing any of this and none of their early buzz around the game mentions it. Indeed, it's conspicuously absent. Standard and Limited experiences are explicitly named. Modern/Legacy/EDH/Pauper/etc. are never explicitly mentioned and there are even vague references to possible alternatives coming in the future. This creates much more worry than it does confidence. I expect this is because Wizards is trying to tap into a more casual market than the veteran, vocal, enfranchised community all of us represent. This may be good for business and might even be better for the game as a whole. But it's probably not good for players like us.

Not sure why Wotc should care about Modern on Arena, they should focus on bringing EDH. It's easily the actual most popular constructed format and would mesh well with how cards are earned in the game and it'll create good viewing by having legends to follow for gameplay.

I have never seen any numbers to suggest EDH is a popular constructed format outside of personal anecdotes. It probably is at a local, game-group level. When it comes to major events, however, Modern is the clear frontrunner. Multiple gaming organizations, including Wizards, SCG, CF, and others, have gone on record admitting that Modern is currently the most popular format by views and attendance. To be clear, I'm not saying Modern is the "best" format: only that it is the most popular by tracked views and attendance numbers of the major organizations. Unfortunately, I think Wizards doesn't view Modern (or Legacy/EDH/etc.) as profitable formats the same way they do Limited and Standard. This is why Arena has explicitly mentioned these formats and has yet to acknowledge the impact for other format players. This should be cause for concern.

[HSCK]

I think those formats are profitable in digital games, and I think your example is a great monetization idea. I would certainly pay something like that up front with a reasonable $15/month fee to maintain an account. There are also plenty of ways Wizards could add cards to Arena in a way that supports older formats. The problem is that they aren't doing any of this and none of their early buzz around the game mentions it. Indeed, it's conspicuously absent. Standard and Limited experiences are explicitly named. Modern/Legacy/EDH/Pauper/etc. are never explicitly mentioned and there are even vague references to possible alternatives coming in the future. This creates much more worry than it does confidence. I expect this is because Wizards is trying to tap into a more casual market than the veteran, vocal, enfranchised community all of us represent. This may be good for business and might even be better for the game as a whole. But it's probably not good for players like us.

I have never seen any numbers to suggest EDH is a popular constructed format outside of personal anecdotes. It probably is at a local, game-group level. When it comes to major events, however, Modern is the clear frontrunner. Multiple gaming organizations, including Wizards, SCG, CF, and others, have gone on record admitting that Modern is currently the most popular format by views and attendance. To be clear, I'm not saying Modern is the "best" format: only that it is the most popular by tracked views and attendance numbers of the major organizations. Unfortunately, I think Wizards doesn't view Modern (or Legacy/EDH/etc.) as profitable formats the same way they do Limited and Standard. This is why Arena has explicitly mentioned these formats and has yet to acknowledge the impact for other format players. This should be cause for concern.

Except tournament Magic is at best, 10% of the game? They want to increase their market share and appeal to as many as possible, catering to that casual crowd is way more important. EDH had to easily be a much larger part of that than Modern. Spikes always overvalue how important they are, and when it comes to our forum it's no exception.

[ktkenshinx]

Except tournament Magic is at best, 10% of the game? They want to increase their market share and appeal to as many as possible, catering to that casual crowd is way more important. EDH had to easily be a much larger part of that than Modern. Spikes always overvalue how important they are, and when it comes to our forum it's no exception.

I don't disagree with the brunt of this. The post of mine you quoted even said as much: "This may be good for business and might even be better for the game as a whole. But it's probably not good for players like us." This isn't about a "sky is falling, Magic is dying" situation. It's that Wizards is pushing hard for a demographic that members of this forum don't really belong to, and it is very possible that our player demographic is not benefited by these changes. Arena is a huge push in that direction and, so far, not a push for Modern/Legacy/Vintage/EDH/etc., i.e. the formats and experiences that enfranchised, vocal spikes prefer. Standard and Limited are part of the Arena experience. This is very clear from all the released material so far, and Spike is definitely part of the Standard/Limited demographic so Spike isn't left behind entirely. But the particular kind of Spike that doesn't play Standard/Limited should not be confident about their prospects if Arena is any indication.

As for EDH vs. Modern, if anyone has any actual numbers or even quotes from reputable sources, I'd love to see them. Without that information, I'm just going to stick with the widely mentioned source material about Modern popularity and avoid speculating on whether or not EDH is more/less popular.

[Barook]

Except tournament Magic is at best, 10% of the game? They want to increase their market share and appeal to as many as possible, catering to that casual crowd is way more important. EDH had to easily be a much larger part of that than Modern. Spikes always overvalue how important they are, and when it comes to our forum it's no exception.

Given that Magic Duels and its ilk were one of the main reasons why Magic's popularity exploded at the beginning of the decade, it certainly makes sense to copy Hearthstone as it destroyed their main way of getting new players into Magic. As a teacher, I see kids playing with Yugioh or Pokemon cards, but not once I've seen anyone play Magic. It just isn't as hip as it once was, at least in terms of Paper recruitment.

[HSCK]

I don't disagree with the brunt of this. The post of mine you quoted even said as much: "This may be good for business and might even be better for the game as a whole. But it's probably not good for players like us." This isn't about a "sky is falling, Magic is dying" situation. It's that Wizards is pushing hard for a demographic that members of this forum don't really belong to, and it is very possible that our player demographic is not benefited by these changes. Arena is a huge push in that direction and, so far, not a push for Modern/Legacy/Vintage/EDH/etc., i.e. the formats and experiences that enfranchised, vocal spikes prefer. Standard and Limited are part of the Arena experience. This is very clear from all the released material so far, and Spike is definitely part of the Standard/Limited demographic so Spike isn't left behind entirely. But the particular kind of Spike that doesn't play Standard/Limited should not be confident about their prospects if Arena is any indication.

As for EDH vs. Modern, if anyone has any actual numbers or even quotes from reputable sources, I'd love to see them. Without that information, I'm just going to stick with the widely mentioned source material about Modern popularity and avoid speculating on whether or not EDH is more/less popular.

I mean, your source for Modern misses most of the player base, but I'm pretty sure WotC has that kind of data and will use it when making decisions on how to monetize Arena.

[ktkenshinx]

I mean, your source for Modern misses most of the player base, but I'm pretty sure WotC has that kind of data and will use it when making decisions on how to monetize Arena.

All we know is what has been publicly released, and all those signs point to Modern being the most popular constructed format for which we have that information, and according to the organizations stating that publicly. Like I've said in previous posts, there are lots of disclaimers to how accurate/comprehensive that information is. It's just what we have.

This is not to undermine other formats. It's simply to say that Modern is popular and yet it is conspicuously absent from the official Wizards content around Arena. Meanwhile, Standard and Limited are explicitly mentioned. Plus we have a vague reference to a way that Arena will use old Standard cards. All of this should be cause for concern if you are an enfranchised, veteran player who is currently financially/emotionally invested in a non-Standard/Limited constructed format.

[Lord Seth]

Given that Magic Duels and its ilk were one of the main reasons why Magic's popularity exploded at the beginning of the decade, it certainly makes sense to copy Hearthstone as it destroyed their main way of getting new players into Magic. As a teacher, I see kids playing with Yugioh or Pokemon cards, but not once I've seen anyone play Magic. It just isn't as hip as it once was, at least in terms of Paper recruitment.

On the other hand, aren't Yugioh and Pokemon aimed much more towards kids? You look at Magic booster packs and they say "12+" whereas Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh products say "6+". They're clearly aimed at a younger crowd (even if older people do also play them), so them being much more popular among kids makes sense.

[Lord Seth]

All we know is what has been publicly released, and all those signs point to Modern being the most popular constructed format for which we have that information, and according to the organizations stating that publicly. Like I've said in previous posts, there are lots of disclaimers to how accurate/comprehensive that information is. It's just what we have.

This is not to undermine other formats. It's simply to say that Modern is popular and yet it is conspicuously absent from the official Wizards content around Arena. Meanwhile, Standard and Limited are explicitly mentioned. Plus we have a vague reference to a way that Arena will use old Standard cards. All of this should be cause for concern if you are an enfranchised, veteran player who is currently financially/emotionally invested in a non-Standard/Limited constructed format.

Honestly, I think this may come from two factors.
1) Wizards of the Coast not wanting to commit too much to something. Suppose Magic Arena is a failure? Then they can just retract it. Trying to commit to Modern ahead of time forces them into it.
2) While there's really no excuse for the many bugs of MTGO, I expect that it's harder to program than something like Hearthstone for the simple fact that older cards weren't meant with the modern ruleset in mind and thus have to be incorporated into it, making the base program much more complicated. If they limit themselves to Standard, then the programming will be a heck of a lot easier, but trying to come in with Modern being legal will make it more complicated. As they presumably want to try to not have the many bugs of MTGO, I expect sticking to Standard will help them do that.

[kombatkiwi]

On the other hand, aren't Yugioh and Pokemon aimed much more towards kids? You look at Magic booster packs and they say "12+" whereas Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh products say "6+". They're clearly aimed at a younger crowd (even if older people do also play them), so them being much more popular among kids makes sense.

I've seen a lot of YGO players (teenagers or older) not want to try magic because they have the impression that the playerbase is full of sweaty neckbeards, at least locally I have seen a lot more of them try to start playing pokemon or the new dragonball game.

For much younger players maybe having the TV shows and related things to support the card game makes these other games like Yugioh/Pokemon more appealing

[Phoenix Ignition]

Honestly, I think this may come from two factors.
1) Wizards of the Coast not wanting to commit too much to something. Suppose Magic Arena is a failure? Then they can just retract it. Trying to commit to Modern ahead of time forces them into it.
2) While there's really no excuse for the many bugs of MTGO, I expect that it's harder to program than something like Hearthstone for the simple fact that older cards weren't meant with the modern ruleset in mind and thus have to be incorporated into it, making the base program much more complicated. If they limit themselves to Standard, then the programming will be a heck of a lot easier, but trying to come in with Modern being legal will make it more complicated. As they presumably want to try to not have the many bugs of MTGO, I expect sticking to Standard will help them do that.

This was my take as well; I think they're biting off a lot more than they can chew just promising a client that looks and feels polished while playing and can go from beginner mode to full control mode. I don't think anyone who's seen MTGO thinks they can even pull this off, much less a fully functioning Vintage-Standard + drafts on their first try.

I actually think they will add Modern in eventually, since really Standard and draft just don't have the depth to keep people happy after they know that Modern and more are out there in MTG. Even if they don't add it I wouldn't worry about a new format popping up, Modern-Lite or whatever, unless it was legitimately fun enough to hold people's attention.

[Crimhead]

Like if you had to bet what would still be going in 2020:

-Legacy
-Arena
-Neither

I would bet on neither first, then Legacy.

You would bet that Legacy cease to "go on" within just 2 years? That's wholly alarmist, I think.

[morgan_coke]

You would bet that Legacy cease to "go on" within just 2 years? That's wholly alarmist, I think.

I don't think Legacy is on a 2 year timespan either, but when it goes the way of Vintage, it will happen fast. Any kind of recession, and you'll see a LOT of people start looking at that $20k worth of cardboard and thinking "hmmm..."

I mean, that's what happened with Vintage, to a degree, a large number of the Power 9 left the USA during the last downturn.