Demise of magic [Archive]

bruizar

10-27-2019, 03:09 AM

"Hard to say they're overly focused on digital when they just released a new format that is not available on their shiny new online platform."

Launching a format requires $0 investment. Launching Arena requires many millions. Where are the investments in physical tournaments? Where are the investments in proper card stock? Where are the investments in LGS's? It's direct-to-consumer or Amazon or Walmart, pushing out too much product, catering to the whales with collectors editions and introducing massive power creep. These are the same pay-to-play practices that come from the Zynga era of video games where they search for whales and abuse an addiction, because that is what it has become for many. The only reason why this forum exists is because we are all heavily invested into the game with thousands of dollars worth of product. Spoilers feel like a chore because one set is spoilered and 2 DAYS LATER the next one already begins (War of the Spark into Core2020)

The comparative enjoyment you get from something like Magic does not objectively justify the thousands of dollars in your collection. Legend of the Five Rings, Star Wars Destiny, Rollplayer, Dominion, Keyforge, and so many other games are objectively not thousands of times less enjoyable as Magic the Gathering is, and some of them are arguably more enjoyable. Thus, the reason why you're in the game, is because your wallet is in the game, not because you like the game so much.

The professor compared the price of the Throne of Eldraine collectors box (and I believe also the Mythic Edition box) to the Nintendo Switch + 2 or 3 games you could buy for that. We can all agree that the value for money of a Nintendo Switch and a game like Zelda and Super Smash Bros Brawl, which required 7 generations of consoles and billions of dollars of collective technology RND, is far higher than a foil Jace that curls up like a pringle. Even the counterfeits don't curl up like that.

Michael Keller

10-27-2019, 10:30 AM

Legacy, however isn't in a great shape.

Care to elaborate? I’ve heard that story for fifteen years since the end of 1.5.

FourDogsinaHorseSuit

10-27-2019, 10:45 AM

bruizar

10-27-2019, 11:15 AM

So you selling your collection or what?

I am much less inclined to spend on new cards. I’ll monitor the trend, and if i feel that at some point things escalate to the point where im no longer comfortable holding my collection i will sell off.

My point here is not to complain, my point is to raise what i see is a threat to magic and see whether others dhare the same thoughts or not. I guess for you the answer is, nothing’s threatening magic right now.

bruizar

10-27-2019, 11:18 AM

Care to elaborate? I’ve heard that story for fifteen years since the end of 1.5.

I think Legacy in local areas is doing great, but the coverage has pretty much disappeared in the professional circuit. By nature of its stagnance/slowness, legacy is insulated to a large degree from the problems felt throughout other formats and media.

FourDogsinaHorseSuit

10-27-2019, 12:06 PM

I am much less inclined to spend on new cards. I’ll monitor the trend, and if i feel that at some point things escalate to the point where im no longer comfortable holding my collection i will sell off.

My point here is not to complain, my point is to raise what i see is a threat to magic and see whether others dhare the same thoughts or not. I guess for you the answer is, nothing’s threatening magic right now.
Lol at the idea that this thread, titled "the demise of magic" was for anything but to complain about kids these days and their Mana efficient threats with three abilities.

pettdan

10-27-2019, 12:16 PM

Here's a different perspective on recent events. Note that I basically get all my information from online gossip here and on Reddit, so I may very well be misinformed. Also this is just a perspective, there are other perspectives too that aren't necessarily wrong.

My point here is not to complain, my point is to raise what i see is a threat to magic and see whether others dhare the same thoughts or not. I guess for you the answer is, nothing’s threatening magic right now.

Anyway, long story short, my response to your question is that I'm carefully positive to how the game is developing.

The demise of magic has really happened this year and i dont think it will get any better because there is a different ceo at the helm who is adamant on short term profit. There seems to be no long term strategy besides ‘push digital’ and ‘monetize addicted paper players’, stretching wallets to their breaking point.

1. I think Wizards' strategy of establishing MtG as an online game is a good idea, for the game too. About two years ago there was discussion here about how MTGO needed an updated business model, perhaps worrying that MtG's days may be counted, and that's what we have a remedy to now with Arena. The game is supposedly thriving, who doesn't like being able to play basically for free at home at any time (I haven't tried it yet, I heard it's not entirely free, but something in that direction)? Wizards are bringing in new players and a digital business model being more profitable for them is a driving factor for that.

2. SCG in the US and MCM in Europe have been arranging tournaments that are fairly popular. If Wizards does a bit less for the competitive paper scene for older formats then that opens up for other actors to grow in that area, actors that can nurture the second hand market and make money off of that while growing the culture around the game and the paper competitive scene. GP's are focusing more on casual play and the play experience, it seems. This is perhaps in line with how they try to make the judge organization independent, one can speculate. If it doesn't stand on its own legs, why waste your energy breathing artificial life into it? More on that in the next section.

3. By focusing their resources on developing and establishing online play, Wizards optimize their resources to bring new players into the game. As player numbers increase, the inflow of new online players trickling down to paper magic, this benefits all actors in the ecosystem around the game, more perhaps than if Wizards would try to handle every part of the ecosystem by themselves. SCG, MCM and other actors can focus on making their business attractive to their customers, stimulating paper magic play which stimulates their sales. Everyone can be a winner!

It's nice for players to be able to choose between online play (where you today typically start, I guess), casual playing or competitive play in different formats with different qualities catering to the needs of different types of players.

I think a new format coming up helps keep Standard players from quitting with the disappointment of their cards becoming useless and worthless. As they appreciate a larger format I think that will eventually make a large amount of them interested in Modern and Legacy too.

And regarding the increased power level of recent printings, a nice aspect of this is that the reserved list cards are becoming less necessary. This can be a bonus for Legacy, which has been doomed from future growth by the limited amount of necessary cards. They are not so necessary any more. As long as new printings doesn't make old strategies irrelevant, the game can grow in aspect of competitive strategies. With that said, the negative aspects you bring up are not wrong, they are also a part of the picture of what's happening.

Edit: updated with the two quotes.

bruizar

10-27-2019, 08:35 PM

I
Here's a different perspective on recent events. Note that I basically get all my information from online gossip here and on Reddit, so I may very well be misinformed. Also this is just a perspective, there are other perspectives too that aren't necessarily wrong.

Anyway, long story short, my response to your question is that I'm carefully positive to how the game is developing.

1. I think Wizards' strategy of establishing MtG as an online game is a good idea, for the game too. About two years ago there was discussion here about how MTGO needed an updated business model, perhaps worrying that MtG's days may be counted, and that's what we have a remedy to now with Arena. The game is supposedly thriving, who doesn't like being able to play basically for free at home at any time (I haven't tried it yet, I heard it's not entirely free, but something in that direction)? Wizards are bringing in new players and a digital business model being more profitable for them is a driving factor for that.

2. SCG in the US and MCM in Europe have been arranging tournaments that are fairly popular. If Wizards does a bit less for the competitive paper scene for older formats then that opens up for other actors to grow in that area, actors that can nurture the second hand market and make money off of that while growing the culture around the game and the paper competitive scene. GP's are focusing more on casual play and the play experience, it seems. This is perhaps in line with how they try to make the judge organization independent, one can speculate. If it doesn't stand on its own legs, why waste your energy breathing artificial life into it? More on that in the next section.

3. By focusing their resources on developing and establishing online play, Wizards optimize their resources to bring new players into the game. As player numbers increase, the inflow of new online players trickling down to paper magic, this benefits all actors in the ecosystem around the game, more perhaps than if Wizards would try to handle every part of the ecosystem by themselves. SCG, MCM and other actors can focus on making their business attractive to their customers, stimulating paper magic play which stimulates their sales. Everyone can be a winner!

It's nice for players to be able to choose between online play (where you today typically start, I guess), casual playing or competitive play in different formats with different qualities catering to the needs of different types of players.

I think a new format coming up helps keep Standard players from quitting with the disappointment of their cards becoming useless and worthless. As they appreciate a larger format I think that will eventually make a large amount of them interested in Modern and Legacy too.

And regarding the increased power level of recent printings, a nice aspect of this is that the reserved list cards are becoming less necessary. This can be a bonus for Legacy, which has been doomed from future growth by the limited amount of necessary cards. They are not so necessary any more. As long as new printings doesn't make old strategies irrelevant, the game can grow in aspect of competitive strategies. With that said, the negative aspects you bring up are not wrong, they are also a part of the picture of what's happening.

Edit: updated with the two quotes.

I hear what you are saying and yes online will grow, not because they have such a great business but because people look for more rich play experiences after Hearthstone. This will increase when Riot Games releases its online tcg in the near future based on the league of legends lore.

Wotc was not at Spiel this year, their arrogance was shown in absence with just a couple of card sellers here and there while other games were actively introducing new players to their game, including fantasy flight games with Star Wars Destiny, Keyforge, konami’s yu-gi-oh!, square-enix’s final fantasy, force of will and pokemon. Even Hasbro was very open, and when I asked why WOTC wasnt there they could only answer I dont know, the company is completely separate. Spiel is one of the standard ways for games companies to bring in new blood to your game and Magic chooses deliberately not to be there meaning that they dont care abiut the paper playerbase nor the community. I spoke with one of the main distributors of magic and he confirmed my views on the new direction of wotc and the fact that they just squeeze out as much money and push out as much product as fast as they can until the player base rejects it, and they dont care about the long term impacts that will cause. You are just a walking wallet essentially.

Barook

10-27-2019, 08:54 PM

I

I hear what you are saying and yes online will grow, not because they have such a great business but because people look for more rich play experiences after Hearthstone. This will increase when Riot Games releases its online tcg in the near future based on the league of legends lore.

Wotc was not at Spiel this year, their arrogance was shown in absence with just a couple of card sellers here and there while other games were actively introducing new players to their game, including fantasy flight games with Star Wars Destiny, Keyforge, konami’s yu-gi-oh!, square-enix’s final fantasy, force of will and pokemon. Even Hasbro was very open, and when I asked why WOTC wasnt there they could only answer I dont know, the company is completely separate. Spiel is one of the standard ways for games companies to bring in new blood to your game and Magic chooses deliberately not to be there meaning that they dont care abiut the paper playerbase nor the community. I spoke with one of the main distributors of magic and he confirmed my views on the new direction of wotc and the fact that they just squeeze out as much money and push out as much product as fast as they can until the player base rejects it, and they dont care about the long term impacts that will cause. You are just a walking wallet essentially.
The beauty about this is that karma is a bitch and it will bite WotC in the ass in the foreseeable future. People are fucking pissed about Standard being absolutely horrendous (https://www.reddit.com/r/MagicArena/comments/dnvu7q/mcq_weekend_day_2_stats_and_fun_facts/) and Arena getting buggier and buggier by the minute.

LOLWut

10-27-2019, 09:24 PM

The beauty about this is that karma is a bitch and it will bite WotC in the ass in the foreseeable future. People are fucking pissed about Standard being absolutely horrendous (https://www.reddit.com/r/MagicArena/comments/dnvu7q/mcq_weekend_day_2_stats_and_fun_facts/) and Arena getting buggier and buggier by the minute.

Of 102 decks, 8 decks did not run green.

Card name: Veil of Summer
# of copies: 247
# of decks: 92

Currently, 67% of the field is Oko decks.

Meanwhile in Modern:

https://i.imgur.com/8iW325l.jpg

Standard and Modern are good formats and you can trust WotC on the direction of the game because they know what they're doing :|

ESG

10-27-2019, 10:02 PM

Meanwhile in Modern:

https://i.imgur.com/8iW325l.jpg

Standard and Modern are good formats and you can trust WotC on the direction of the game because they know what they're doing :|

Interestingly, Oko is in six out of those eight decks. Big splash for that card.

jmlima

10-28-2019, 06:49 AM

The beauty about this is that karma is a bitch and it will bite WotC in the ass in the foreseeable future. People are fucking pissed about Standard being absolutely horrendous (https://www.reddit.com/r/MagicArena/comments/dnvu7q/mcq_weekend_day_2_stats_and_fun_facts/) and Arena getting buggier and buggier by the minute.

The continuous ban cycles are also taking a toll, certainly with me.

I do think the formats are going out-of-wack and we are getting into a silly point where the new normal is release-ban-release-ban...

Zombie

10-28-2019, 06:49 AM

https://i.imgur.com/7aRnFmB.png

jmlima

10-28-2019, 06:49 AM

Bloody well, twin is really oppressive.

Meanwhile in Modern:

https://i.imgur.com/8iW325l.jpg

Standard and Modern are good formats and you can trust WotC on the direction of the game because they know what they're doing :|

FTW

10-28-2019, 08:10 AM

Deirex85

10-28-2019, 08:27 AM

Hyperbole thread is hyperbole.

jmlima

10-28-2019, 08:29 AM

To win Standard SCGs, just play 4 maindeck Noxious Grasp.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/standard-sultai-walkers#paper

Even in Brainstorm.format, we don't maindeck 4 Red Elemental Blast (excluding Painter decks).

This is pretty funny:

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/tournament/mythic-championship-vii-qualifier-weekend#paper

Mr. Safety

10-28-2019, 08:41 AM

I was at a small 1K Legacy event this weekend, and if anything the scene seems to be growing, not only for Legacy but magic as a whole. There is a fairly big contingent of people who want to immediately play Pioneer at FNM as well as a dedicated Modern/Legacy playgroup. I do however feel like WOTC is creating their own demons with the disparity of power level that has happened recently. Massively impactful sets are coming at a breakneck pace, from Modern Horizons, War of the Spark, and now Eldraine. It's a little bit mentally exhausting to keep up, honestly.

I like the energy that is being pushed into magic, but it also feels like it's becoming much more high-maintenance. Modern and Legacy don't offer stability nearly as much as they used to, they are changing almost as often as Standard.

Magic isn't dying, if anything it's having a growth spurt that is creating awkward social situations.

Michael Keller

10-28-2019, 09:01 AM

I think Legacy in local areas is doing great, but the coverage has pretty much disappeared in the professional circuit. By nature of its stagnance/slowness, legacy is insulated to a large degree from the problems felt throughout other formats and media.

Legacy is, if anything, receiving more coverage due to Team Constructed events filling the void where Opens were alternating between formats. Local events are the same as they’ve always really been. Legacy doesn’t have as many players as Modern or Standard - and that’s okay.

I think the format is in a terrific spot. Honestly, I think people are seeing stability and great success with decks using basic land mana bases and seeing that they can afford them now which brings them in based on overall entry cost reduction.

Especially thanks to Vista and Astrolabe.

10-28-2019, 09:02 AM

Oh, it's been a while since we had one of these threads...

Too bad I can't dig up (was it CrashTest over at Salvation, years ago, maybe?) but this isn't some new sentiment.

Standard has sucked before and the game still exists.

Modern has sucked before and the game still exists.

Wizards has ramped up product releases before and the game still exists.

Now, is there a limit? I'm sure there is. We aren't at it. In fact, we aren't likely even close. What would indicate that we are, besides us old people shaking our fist at clouds over "back in my day" sentiments?

LarsLeif

10-28-2019, 11:10 AM

Mr. Safety

10-28-2019, 11:15 AM

Honestly, I think people are seeing stability and great success with decks using basic land mana bases and seeing that they can afford them now which brings them in based on overall entry cost reduction.

Especially thanks to Vista and Astrolabe.

This is huge, 100% agree.

bruizar

10-28-2019, 12:35 PM

bruizar

10-28-2019, 12:37 PM

Nice to see someone finally bringing up that XYZ will kill magic, this has to be the first time someone has had these thoughts and made a take like that.

(Fondly remembering all the exact copies of this thread posted annually over the last 15 years :D ).

I’ve played the game since Legends. My first box of mtg was Fallen Empires and I survived throughout the Chronicles debacle. I have no reason to flag this if there wasn’t a problem with the game I love and grew up with. In fact, MTG has been 2/3rds of my life.

Oh, it's been a while since we had one of these threads...

Too bad I can't dig up (was it CrashTest over at Salvation, years ago, maybe?) but this isn't some new sentiment.

Standard has sucked before and the game still exists.

Modern has sucked before and the game still exists.

Wizards has ramped up product releases before and the game still exists.

Now, is there a limit? I'm sure there is. We aren't at it. In fact, we aren't likely even close. What would indicate that we are, besides us old people shaking our fist at clouds over "back in my day" sentiments?

When the whales can’t afford the game anymore, you know you have a problem.

Mr. Safety

10-28-2019, 12:54 PM

This is spot on. You verbalized what I mean with wallet fatigue and spoilers feeling like a chore.

While I agree with you completely, it doesn't make me want to leave the game. I'm not sure how others feel about it, but I'm just going to adapt like I always have and keep playing Legacy/Modern. Pioneer looks like a dumpster of horse shit, but I have never been nostalgic for Standard other than for the Lorwyn/Morningtide era, which is completely left out.

To quote Tommy Boy: "You're either growing or you're dying, there ain't no middle ground." Magic is growing, and pushing harder for growth, because it knows it will just die if it doesn't. Rather than give up on my hobby I will continue to be involved at whatever level I can manage.

10-28-2019, 12:58 PM

I’ve played the game since Legends. My first box of mtg was Fallen Empires and I survived throughout the Chronicles debacle. I have no reason to flag this if there wasn’t a problem with the game I love and grew up with. In fact, MTG has been 2/3rds of my life.

I've played since Mirage, but I don't see how this is relevant. Things are different than they were. Of course, the whole world is different than it was.

Legacy will never be the same format it was when it was 1.5, will never be the same format it was pre-Innistrad, never be the format it was even last week.

There is nothing wrong with nostalgia, in-itself. But thinking the world should stay forever beholden to it is anachronistic. It's going to change, it already has and it will more.

When the whales can’t afford the game anymore, you know you have a problem.

What is the evidence of this?

And even so, even if we prove this is so, remember, we are not, here, the "typical" Magic player. If this process leads to higher sustained sales, because of higher overall segmented sales, for example, who are we to say "this is worse." Worse for us? Maybe. Worse for Magic? Only sales data will say.

But rest assured that if sales data is bad, things will change again. To be cliché, he only constant is change, right?

FourDogsinaHorseSuit

10-28-2019, 12:58 PM

I’ve played the game since Legends. My first box of mtg was Fallen Empires and I survived throughout the Chronicles debacle. I have no reason to flag this if there wasn’t a problem with the game I love and grew up with. In fact, MTG has been 2/3rds of my life.

When the whales can’t afford the game anymore, you know you have a problem.

So you're 40 and unable to keep pace with the kids?

Mr. Safety

10-28-2019, 01:00 PM

So you're 40 and unable to keep pace with the kids?

I resemble that comment! I just turned 40, and no way can I keep pace with the kids. But I love the game and I'll keep playing until I can't. I actually love trading and playing with younger players, giving them a leg up and supporting the next generation of Legacy players (not that I'm that great, I'm going senile at this point...)

FourDogsinaHorseSuit

10-28-2019, 01:02 PM

I resemble that comment! I just turned 40, and no way can I keep pace with the kids. But I love the game and I'll keep playing until I can't. I actually love trading and playing with younger players, giving them a leg up and supporting the next generation of Legacy players (not that I'm that great, I'm going senile at this point...)

Bruizar alt identified.

Mr. Safety

10-28-2019, 01:10 PM

Bruizar alt identified.

Call me Nega-bruizar, for short.

easysantiago

10-28-2019, 01:12 PM

When the whales can’t afford the game anymore, you know you have a problem.

I don't see this being the case.

Play the formats you care about and hope the game keeps growing in participation, however that looks. I am fortunate to play in a healthy Legacy scene, but outside of that, Pauper is always there, even if only at the casual level. I have a blast losing in both Legacy and Pauper and only pay attention to new product if it contains MB or SB tech for my decks.

bruizar

10-28-2019, 01:26 PM

I don't see this being the case.

Play the formats you care about and hope the game keeps growing in participation, however that looks. I am fortunate to play in a healthy Legacy scene, but outside of that, Pauper is always there, even if only at the casual level. I have a blast losing in both Legacy and Pauper and only pay attention to new product if it contains MB or SB tech for my decks.

I can tell you I was prized out of collecting foil playsets of sets, which was my thing for many years. I acquired some Wrenn & Six, and most of the hot cards of Modern Horizons, but War of the Spark was completely out of reach for me besides Narset/Karn/Teferi and a few others. €1000 each jpn alternate art Liliana Dreadhorde General into Mythic Edition into Collector's Boosters Boxes sure as hell priced me out of new product, and I normally spend a 4-figure number per set. Although I love Throne of Eldraine, I only cracked the prerelease boosters and my winnings there.

Make of that what you want.

10-28-2019, 02:01 PM

Make of that what you want.

I don't have the slightest idea of what should be made of that.

I don't see why the game would die because you can't afford playsets of foils. I don't see why the game would die because you feel "priced out" because one alternate art foil is worth a lot. I don't even see how that "prices you out." If you can't have the most expensive option then all options are invalid?

I used to buy full 4x sets of every new set. I don't any more. Things change. The game won't end because you don't feel that the prices of foil sets is "worth it" though. It seems hard to believe that you are the lynchpin of the game's success. Or even people who have/had similar buying habits.

Like I said, either this strategy "works" for Wizards and sells, or it doesn't and will be replaced, time will tell.

bruizar

10-29-2019, 05:30 AM

I don't have the slightest idea of what should be made of that.

I don't see why the game would die because you can't afford playsets of foils. I don't see why the game would die because you feel "priced out" because one alternate art foil is worth a lot. I don't even see how that "prices you out." If you can't have the most expensive option then all options are invalid?

I used to buy full 4x sets of every new set. I don't any more. Things change. The game won't end because you don't feel that the prices of foil sets is "worth it" though. It seems hard to believe that you are the lynchpin of the game's success. Or even people who have/had similar buying habits.

Like I said, either this strategy "works" for Wizards and sells, or it doesn't and will be replaced, time will tell.

Mtg has lost me on new product, I figure most of those who visit this website hardly purchase new product anyway, sitting on old legacy staples exclusively, so there is little to no pain felt. Yes, i will go to eternal weekend and the local legacy meetups, but I am dedicating more of my time to other card games. It seems like entrenched magic players are completely blind to other games or any criticism at all, almost to the point of mtg being a religion. Except, the church has been corrupted and the things that made magic great have largely disappeared. Mark Rosewater is a stellar designer and is imo one of the few saving graces of mtg. Were maro to suddenly leave, the company would be in a similar situation as with Apple and tbe Steve+Jony combo. Yes, apple still makes products that sell well, but the splendor and aura of quality is long gone.

Smuggo

10-29-2019, 06:12 AM

Magic is dying again eh? It's been dying at least 20 of its 25 years if you listen to some people.

jmlima

10-29-2019, 08:39 AM

...It seems like entrenched magic players are completely blind to other games or any criticism at all, almost to the point of mtg being a religion. Except, the church has been corrupted and the things that made magic great have largely disappeared. ...

It's a bit like the title of this thread being slightly misleading. Magic is not dying , but the magic the gathering game some of us knew and loved certainly is. A new magic the gathering is now appearing, which is all about fast paced splashy releases and continuous changing decks and formats.

To play competitively , the time of 'buying into a deck' are a thing of the past. The time of 'specializing in a deck' is also a thing of the past. Now you have to be continuously looking into an ever-changing meta-game and be prepared to change decks, archetypes, etc with every release and ban to suit the new environment.

Some people will love it, some people will hate it. Previous experience tells us there is a real burn-out rate in player numbers with this methodology (other games have done it before) and you survival is dependant on your ability to replace the leavers, once it stops, you're toast.

For a game like this, cardboard and high prices are anathema, so you need it to be online (less attachment to 'a collection' and way cheaper to change continuously) which leads me to the obviously painful choice Hasbro will one day have to do about either go full-on cross-breeding between both (a la pokemon) or abandon the idea that the two can be continuously compatible.

10-29-2019, 09:10 AM

The thing is, the game we "knew" in '96, or even 2006, is well and dead. By today's standard, it was barely even alive. The whole world has changed, Magic has to change with it or pay some heavy consequences.

Not that I think that all changes are for the best. In fact, it's pretty likely that most of the changes have been for the worse, which is why most get "rolled back" after a while. But, if you really love Magic, as a game, you should applaud their efforts at dynamicism, because if they were just staunchly conservationists for the "good ol' days" the game would be dead by now.

So, what should be done? First, "vote" with your wallet. Second, don't make doom and gloom posts about how the game is "dying." Third, support what you think/feel is worth it. Let the "system" sort out the rest. The idea that if you can't have alt-art Japanese foil chase mythics than the game is not worth playing, strikes me as more "sour grapes" than anything. Now, don't get me wrong, I think the notion of "chase-cards" like that is stupid and detrimental to the game, but it doesn't stop me from supporting what I do think is good for the game.

I personally feel that Rosewater is a blight on Magic's design, but I would readily admit that I am biased. In reality, he probably has done some things to keep the game relatively healthy, but consider me skeptical about anything like "visionary" status.

Now, I am not saying you should spend money on things you don't think are worth it. I'm not saying that you must like the game's current state. It's likely a good idea to have "other hobbies" as well, be them other card games or whatever. But this doom and gloom? Not really warranted, to me. And mind you, I'm the sort of person who likes to think about teleology and eschatology.

I paint and play miniates games, I also play some of the new L5R LCG, and of course, still buy Magic cards from time to time. Nothing wrong it focusing on other things when the game is not in the place you'd like. That isn't the eschaton, that's a normal course of life, really. Like I said, support the things that you do like. If that ends up not being Magic, well, that too is a part of life. Magic is not a static object, it's a dynamic game. The paradigm today will likely not be the one is 5 years. Maybe you'll like that one more, maybe less. That's your personal preference, but it's not the pulse of the game.

jmlima

10-29-2019, 09:20 AM

...
Not that I think that all changes are for the best. In fact, it's pretty likely that most of the changes have been for the worse, which is why most get "rolled back" after a while. But, if you really love Magic, as a game, you should applaud their efforts at dynamicism, because if they were just staunchly conservationists for the "good ol' days" the game would be dead by now.. ...

IMO, it's not an effort at 'dynamism', it's an effort at keeping the game a viable economic concern and expanding the profits. Which, since they are a company, it's fair play. And this effect became very pronounced in these past few years.

10-29-2019, 09:33 AM

IMO, it's not an effort at 'dynamism', it's an effort at keeping the game a viable economic concern and expanding the profits. Which, since they are a company, it's fair play. And this effect became very pronounced in these past few years.

Sure, but I think there is a bit more to that. Because in that pursuit, they have opened up more "ways to play" and product aimed at a more broad amount of market segments. So, yeah, it's a product and it's "final cause" will always be "to make money" but they have done things to, in my mind, "open the game up" to other ways to play besides Standard and Limited with only lip-service to other (non-rotating) formats.

If you don't want to consider that as somewhat "dynamic" then sure, I'm just not sure what one would call it then. Still, in the past, there was no notion on their part to make a product like Modern Horizons, or going a little further back, the Commander decks. That has changed. Because, like you said, the world has changed, economically, technologically, and so the game and it's marketing strategy must change.

It's not just change for change's sake, of course. It's change to survive and thrive in the current market climate.

bruizar

10-29-2019, 10:33 AM

Previous experience tells us there is a real burn-out rate in player numbers with this methodology (other games have done it before) and you survival is dependant on your ability to replace the leavers, once it stops, you're toast.

For a game like this, cardboard and high prices are anathema, so you need it to be online (less attachment to 'a collection' and way cheaper to change continuously) which leads me to the obviously painful choice Hasbro will one day have to do about either go full-on cross-breeding between both (a la pokemon) or abandon the idea that the two can be continuously compatible.

This is very accurate. Right now they are increasing both velocity and price, and those should be inversely related. I suspect in the short term MTG will enjoy growth from the current TCG revival that's part of a broader trend for Gen X pop culture, be it Stranger Things/Neverending Story, D&D, Magic, Terminator. This growth has and will continue to obscure the imo very real problems in the change of direction currently being advanced by wotc. Yes, Magic will readjust and abandon that which does not work, and right now it does work, but empires far greater than WOTC have fallen. There have been so many transgressions over the last 2 years that the good will of many players including myself, and the good will of LGS's is running thin. My LGS has minimized Magic to 1 draft per week because of the way that WOTC treats LGS', and would run zero drafts if he wasn't loyal to his customers.

Here are ALL the events for my country (it used to be a lot more):
https://untap.nl/event-kalender/

If you take into account the increased number of releases, you would agree there is a problem. Less time to play a new set and fewer moments to play with those cards. Why buy them in the first place if you can hardly play several times before you need to go through the spoilers again and chase the next mythic.

10-29-2019, 11:05 AM

If you take into account the increased number of releases, you would agree there is a problem. Less time to play a new set and fewer moments to play with those cards. Why buy them in the first place if you can hardly play several times before you need to go through the spoilers again and chase the next mythic.

Well, I do agree that the current release paradigm might be unsustainable in the long run. However, I don't think it will kill the game by any stretch. What is more likely, to me, is that we are in a sort of "hyper-expansive" phase, partly (I think) because of Arena. I think we will see a "contractive" phase at some point, if it is the case that this expansion is unsustainable (and I think it likely is to some degree).

As for the distribution angle, well, I do think some change is coming there too. The issue at hand is that, to me, it is not clear just what that future looks like. Not being an economist by any stretch of the imagination though, I don't have a "real" idea of what direction things are headed in that respect. However, I do think the distribution model is highly antiquated and each "patch" it gets going forward only makes the core issues that much more evident.

The problem is that Wizards likely has legitimate fears about how "tied" the game's success is to "natural" and "artificial" scarcity. Again, being that I am not an economic theorist, I couldn't say intelligibly what they should do. But that is the "horizon" that I see, how to maintain the game's success, but actually "modernize" and expand the game's distribution. I don't think there is an easy answer to that though.

bruizar

10-31-2019, 03:02 AM

kombatkiwi

10-31-2019, 03:42 AM

shoving 3 commander releases down our throats where it used to be 1 each year
The above attitude only makes sense when operating under the following paradigm:

When the whales can’t afford the game anymore, you know you have a problem.
But the the whole premise of this is false.

This isn't a case of "whales" not being able to afford "the game" any more, it's the anecdotal experience of 1 random person no longer being able to justify buying literally everything the company releases

Maybe you get warm fuzzies from opening up your binder or storage box and having playsets of the entire card catalogue looking back at you, but I don't know why you think that you (1 random person) no longer being able to do this somehow implies the demise of the game. There were already plenty of people (the vast majority by far) who never viewed magic in this "must own everything in 4x" light so I don't see why you need to act Chicken Little for becoming part of this group. If you aren't interested in these commander cards then don't buy them. I'm not interested in limited so I don't play it. There are people who play limited as their main focus and even the simple idea of owning cards doesn't hold much appeal for them

I scrolled back and someone else already made basically the same reply to you

I don't see why the game would die because you can't afford playsets of foils. I don't see why the game would die because you feel "priced out" because one alternate art foil is worth a lot. I don't even see how that "prices you out." If you can't have the most expensive option then all options are invalid?

I used to buy full 4x sets of every new set. I don't any more. Things change. The game won't end because you don't feel that the prices of foil sets is "worth it" though. It seems hard to believe that you are the lynchpin of the game's success. Or even people who have/had similar buying habits.

More commander products is probably a good thing for people who like commander. There are people who prefer their formats to remain relatively stagnant but 1) In a casual format like commander you can probably still play an "out-of-date" favourite deck without much meaningful consequence and 2) The feedback to wizards from these people will necessarily be "don't sell us anything new please" which is obviously not something that a company will listen to.

There are legitimate concerns about the quality of card design making the games unfun, and a lack of organized-play support pushing competitive players away (recent announcements have alleviated this considerably), but there's no reason to burst a blood vessel just because they announced a new commander set.

bruizar

10-31-2019, 05:06 AM

Every standard legal set is legal in Commander, so Commander already gets a lot of new cards added to the card pool. Increasing the release schedule for Commander specific sets by 300% does not just impact Commander, but also Legacy and Vintage.

Death and Taxes, legacy's premiere competitive budget deck for pro's and new entrants, was destroyed by Modern Horizons with Wrenn & Six and Plague Engineer. Now there's only burn left, and maybe Astrolabe good stuff can become a viable deck, not sure yet. When 1 specialty set alone eliminates an important budget option from the meta, and the velocity of specialty sets increases, that's a disturbing trend.

Good luck playing Wrenn & Oko Threshold mirrors or playing degenerate combo.

FTW

10-31-2019, 07:29 AM

Increasing the release schedule for Commander specific sets by 300% does not just impact Commander, but also Legacy and Vintage.

It justifies impact on their stock price.

They know Commander is a very popular format. Because it's an Eternal format with mostly kitchen table players, most players use cards already in their collection, cards leftover from expired decks from other formats, or cards bought cheap in the secondary market (either way, no $$ for Wizards). They're tapping into that market by making more product that appeals to the large number of players who are currently not buying much product from WOTC.

They're not aiming for the "whales" who buy foil playsets of the tier 1 Constructed cards. They target whales with other products, like Masterpieces and special releases like From the Vault.

Barook

10-31-2019, 07:41 AM

bruizar

10-31-2019, 07:45 AM

It justifies impact on their stock price.

They know Commander is a very popular format. Because it's an Eternal format with mostly kitchen table players, most players use cards already in their collection, cards leftover from expired decks from other formats, or cards bought cheap in the secondary market (either way, no $$ for Wizards). They're tapping into that market by making more product that appeals to the large number of players who are currently not buying much product from WOTC.

They're not aiming for the "whales" who buy foil playsets of the tier 1 Constructed cards. They target whales with other products, like Masterpieces and special releases like From the Vault.

Except whales don't collect products that are purposely branded 'collectible'. If a product reads limited edition, that's the biggest red flag for any collector. Whales come in a variety of forms, there's the completionist (wants every deck building choice and is OCD about set completion), there's the concentrator (fewest # of cards, highest total value), specialist (collector of planeswalkers, collector of angels, collector of 7th edition foils, collector of Japanese cards) and the speculator (purely in it for the money, buys out reserved list cards and relists them for a higher price). Virtually all collectors want cards in their original printing.

The more concerning thing is that pushed Commander cards (aka the set sellers) aimed at Commander are going to be broken, at least in Commander.

I'm not surprised they're milking Commander - the more surprising thing is that it took them so long to milk it more, given how popular it is. Although they're going straight for the overkill, oversaturating the market until they've run things into the ground (as always).

Sengir, Castle Baron is confirmed. You can bet this card is going to be very good.

10-31-2019, 09:19 AM

The more concerning thing is that pushed Commander cards (aka the set sellers) aimed at Commander are going to be broken, at least in Commander.

I'm not surprised they're milking Commander - the more surprising thing is that it took them so long to milk it more, given how popular it is. Although they're going straight for the overkill, oversaturating the market until they've run things into the ground (as always).

Wizards is somewhat "conservative" when it comes to changing their general marketing strategy. They were in the past, seemingly, "pathologically" afraid to do much that signaled any wavering from the official line of "Standard and Limited are the formats we support." The obvious market segmentation that existed and still exists (so obvious that even I could identify it from this armchair) eventually spurred them to open up to the notion of "Commander" a few years ago, along with Modern. When the sky didn't fall, they opened up more, Eternal Masters and the like and doubled down on Modern.

Now, the shift has shifted again. They are doubling down on Commander next year and we might see a double-down on Pioneer. Even SCG has just "thrown down the gauntlet" (http://www.starcitygames.com/articles/39271_SCG-CON-Winter-Season-Two-Invitational-Updates.html) with respect to Standard support, at least in the short term.

I had, for years, said that Standard's failure's were Legacy's "salvation." It's proven to have held a modicum of "truth." The issue, of course, is that the "salvation" isn't what we might have wanted, in a (bad) Meister Eckhart fashion, through Jacob's Ladder: "If you're frightened of dying and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. If you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels freeing you from the earth."

Playables were sparse, then come in droves. The complaints come either way. So, might as well sell some product in the meantime. That, I think, is what Wizards is starting to realize. It's not about having some notion of "happy" players, or "content" players, they will never be either of those things. What you want is players who will buy. Sell to them. That is what this move toward "segmentation" is about. And it makes a lot of sense.

Except whales don't collect products that are purposely branded 'collectible'. If a product reads limited edition, that's the biggest red flag for any collector. Whales come in a variety of forms, there's the completionist (wants every deck building choice and is OCD about set completion), there's the concentrator (fewest # of cards, highest total value), specialist (collector of planeswalkers, collector of angels, collector of 7th edition foils, collector of Japanese cards) and the speculator (purely in it for the money, buys out reserved list cards and relists them for a higher price). Virtually all collectors want cards in their original printing.

The issue at hand is that the central assumption of your "thesis" is that these "whales" are vital and a key to the games success.

We have no data to support this notion, besides the sort of knee-jerk assumption that people who "spend more" are who the product should be catered toward. That doesn't stand to many notions of scale-effects. It's a "forced subjective" look that doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of psychological sales profiles.

Think, one person spends $1,000 per set. Or 1,000 people spend $10 per set. Who is the "best customer?" Obviously, if every individual person is the unit "customer" than the answer is clearly the one "high roller." But, if those 1,000 are a "unit" of say, casual Limited players, then they, collectively at the "best customer."

Never mind the "Second order effect" of possibly cating to those 1,000 "low-spenders" and expanding them to $15 spenders, or $20. That is your market growth. The $1,000 spender is likely capped anyway, there is no growth to be had there. I've mentioned this in the past (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?31394-Modern-Masters-2017&p=993545&highlight=organic#post993545), how "organic growth" is likely the "way of the future." It's not some great intellectual concept. I'm an idiot and even I can see it's likely trivially true. I think Wizard's has finally gotten past some of the fear that a changing model holds and is working with this idea.

There will be "growing pains" but they show the game isn't dead. It isn't dying. It's living.

PirateKing

10-31-2019, 09:31 AM

https://www.channelfireball.com/all-strategy/articles/news-wizards-announces-2020-slate-of-commander-products-including-draftable-release/

shoving 3 commander releases down our throats where it used to be 1 each year

Am I reading the release right, that the new sets will be more like old set precon decks? 5 decks build around that set's themes seems like these will be low powered in line with the traditional precon deck.
Then the commander draft product is an enigma, but just another odd Conspiracy style set that will have a handful of cards worth paying attention to.
Then, what, some green Commander's Arsenal set that has foil Sylvan Library and Green Sun's Zenith?

None of what's listed seem at all like the original Commander products with gaudy build-around mechanics that were off the wall like "permanents you own controlled by other players"

Ronald Deuce

10-31-2019, 10:17 AM

ITT: "I hate cards. They shouldn't print new cards. I just want to play my 2/1s, and they should ban everything else because 2/1s are the only legitimate creatures in My Legacy."

FourDogsinaHorseSuit

10-31-2019, 10:24 AM

For those of you who didn't read the article:
The three Commander sets are normal Commander
A simple, entry level, Commander designed to bridge the current set to Commander, and a reprint set. So there's nothing really here. It's letting us know next year's Commander anthology is Commander: Green stuff, and that t'heroes is getting a brawl deck.

bruizar

10-31-2019, 01:34 PM

Wizards is somewhat "conservative" when it comes to changing their general marketing strategy. They were in the past, seemingly, "pathologically" afraid to do much that signaled any wavering from the official line of "Standard and Limited are the formats we support." The obvious market segmentation that existed and still exists (so obvious that even I could identify it from this armchair) eventually spurred them to open up to the notion of "Commander" a few years ago, along with Modern. When the sky didn't fall, they opened up more, Eternal Masters and the like and doubled down on Modern.

Now, the shift has shifted again. They are doubling down on Commander next year and we might see a double-down on Pioneer. Even SCG has just "thrown down the gauntlet" (http://www.starcitygames.com/articles/39271_SCG-CON-Winter-Season-Two-Invitational-Updates.html) with respect to Standard support, at least in the short term.

I had, for years, said that Standard's failure's were Legacy's "salvation." It's proven to have held a modicum of "truth." The issue, of course, is that the "salvation" isn't what we might have wanted, in a (bad) Meister Eckhart fashion, through Jacob's Ladder: "If you're frightened of dying and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. If you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels freeing you from the earth."

Playables were sparse, then come in droves. The complaints come either way. So, might as well sell some product in the meantime. That, I think, is what Wizards is starting to realize. It's not about having some notion of "happy" players, or "content" players, they will never be either of those things. What you want is players who will buy. Sell to them. That is what this move toward "segmentation" is about. And it makes a lot of sense.

The issue at hand is that the central assumption of your "thesis" is that these "whales" are vital and a key to the games success.

We have no data to support this notion, besides the sort of knee-jerk assumption that people who "spend more" are who the product should be catered toward. That doesn't stand to many notions of scale-effects. It's a "forced subjective" look that doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of psychological sales profiles.

Think, one person spends $1,000 per set. Or 1,000 people spend $10 per set. Who is the "best customer?" Obviously, if every individual person is the unit "customer" than the answer is clearly the one "high roller." But, if those 1,000 are a "unit" of say, casual Limited players, then they, collectively at the "best customer."

Never mind the "Second order effect" of possibly cating to those 1,000 "low-spenders" and expanding them to $15 spenders, or $20. That is your market growth. The $1,000 spender is likely capped anyway, there is no growth to be had there. I've mentioned this in the past (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?31394-Modern-Masters-2017&p=993545&highlight=organic#post993545), how "organic growth" is likely the "way of the future." It's not some great intellectual concept. I'm an idiot and even I can see it's likely trivially true. I think Wizard's has finally gotten past some of the fear that a changing model holds and is working with this idea.

There will be "growing pains" but they show the game isn't dead. It isn't dying. It's living.

There is a lot of widely publicized data about whales and separately the otaku industry. The whales ARE the ones bringing all the cash. In freemium games, a good performing game is one where 3% of the players pay, and 3% of that 3% is a whale. The rest of the player base is just cannonfodder for the whales

Why It's Scary When 0.15% Mobile Gamers Bring In 50% Of The Revenue

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/03/01/why-its-scary-when-0-15-mobile-gamers-bring-in-50-of-the-revenue/

Transformers players spending $150k grabbed headlines, but Yodo1's GCAP talk raised tough questions about responsible monetisation in mobile
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-10-21-yodo1s-ai-driven-whale-hunt-is-a-bad-look-for-the-games-industry-opinion

There are even laws against digital booster packs in Japan, and they are coming to the west as well in the form of Lootbox regulation

Why Kompu Gacha was banned

https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BetableBlog/20120525/171124/Why_quotKompu_Gachaquot_Was_Banned.php

10-31-2019, 02:53 PM

There is a lot of widely publicized data about whales and separately the otaku industry. The whales ARE the ones bringing all the cash. In freemium games, a good performing game is one where 3% of the players pay, and 3% of that 3% is a whale. The rest of the player base is just cannonfodder for the whales

Fair enough, but overgeneralization is overgeneral. If it is in fact overgeneralization. It could stand to reason that the disparity is more pronounced in "freemium" games, because there, the average user spends so little (that is, nothing, plays for free). Or, maybe not. How do we know? Or should we just assume it's the markets for Magic and freemium mobile games same, for, well, "reasons."

There is, though, no "free" option in paper Magic. (I am going to leave Arena aside, because that is a different can of worms.)

Therefor, how much inference should we draw from the seeming relation of disparate things? Just because they are both "games" means that their markets are the same? Or similar? Even if similar, how similar are similar markets? Identical? To what degree does the fitting fit? What effect does differing distribution models have? And to what degrees, if so?

Sure, we can freely equate apples to oranges. Both are fruits. Both are things you eat. Both are products of plants. At the end of day though, apples aren't oranges. And the market for apples isn't the market for oranges. How many people are out for a fresh baked orange pie, rather than apple? To be tautological, the similarities end where the similarities end.

So, without sales data, market analysis, and the like, for Magic, what logical inference are we to make from digital games to paper Magic? You seem to take the position that it ought to inform us fairly completely. I don't know if it is the case such that this would be the case and so stake out a rather skeptical position on your conclusion. Feel free to consolidate your position, but I think a number of us are "unsold" on your thesis on this sort of basis.

Now, it might be the case that you are 100% right. But again, I simply am skeptical given the nature and substance of your assumptions and inferences. Time will tell, like I said, as to what the end-game is here on Wizard's choices.

bruizar

10-31-2019, 05:13 PM

Fair enough, but overgeneralization is overgeneral. If it is in fact overgeneralization. It could stand to reason that the disparity is more pronounced in "freemium" games, because there, the average user spends so little (that is, nothing, plays for free). Or, maybe not. How do we know? Or should we just assume it's the markets for Magic and freemium mobile games same, for, well, "reasons."

FYI: The annual ARPU is $75 per Magic Arena player. Some people actually read the financial reports and work in the industry. That's 6.25 per month per player and most people don't pay because they are simply against paying for games, which means the distribution is skewed.

"The past year has seen several ups and downs as MTG Arena continues its open beta run toward the game’s likely release in the fall of 2019. The War of the Spark release was a big win for MTG, increasing overall interest in both digital and tabletop formats. Growth also took place on MTG Arena with an average of eight hours of weekly play per person and $75 annually spent on gems, according to Hasbro and KeyBanc Capital Markets."

You can try to talk your way out of this but industry facts are industry facts. The whole business model is about milking whales, it's been a widely known secret in the industry for years.

FourDogsinaHorseSuit

10-31-2019, 05:24 PM

FYI: The annual ARPU is $75 per Magic Arena player. Some people actually read the financial reports and work in the industry. That's 6.25 per month per player and most people don't pay because they are simply against paying for games, which means the distribution is skewed.

"The past year has seen several ups and downs as MTG Arena continues its open beta run toward the game’s likely release in the fall of 2019. The War of the Spark release was a big win for MTG, increasing overall interest in both digital and tabletop formats. Growth also took place on MTG Arena with an average of eight hours of weekly play per person and $75 annually spent on gems, according to Hasbro and KeyBanc Capital Markets."

You can try to talk your way out of this but industry facts are industry facts. The whole business model is about milking whales, it's been a widely known secret in the industry for years.

For a guy who keeps talking about whales you should really look into what the difference between average and median are.

bruizar

10-31-2019, 05:32 PM

For a guy who keeps talking about whales you should really look into what the difference between average and median are.

You sound pretty dumb considering I mentioned skewed distribution and the fact that this relates to the mean, median and mode. Here's a reminder of what that was, maybe they skipped it in your statistics 101 course:
https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/probability-and-statistics/skewed-distribution/

BirdsOfParadise

10-31-2019, 06:09 PM

For a guy who keeps talking about whales you should really look into what the difference between average and median are.
If the average Arena player spends $75/year and most players spend nothing, it follows that a few players spend a great deal more than $75/year. That, I think, is bruizar’s point. If you need to add or correct something please do so, and you may assume I know the difference between an average and a median. I have not read the report except for the quoted paragraph.

Edit: Unrelated: I agree with H that equating the economics of paper Magic and Arena may not be valid.

10-31-2019, 06:11 PM

You can try to talk your way out of this but industry facts are industry facts. The whole business model is about milking whales, it's been a widely known secret in the industry for years.

I already noted in my previous post that Arena would, necessarily, be different.

But you predict the demise of paper Magic and your spending was on paper Magic.

So, again, you are comparing a paper card game to a "freemium" digital game? That doesn't appear to you as akin to comparing apples and oranges?

Now though, you move the goalposts and surmise that what we are talking about is Magic Arena. Fact: I don't know or care what could, should, or would happen to Magic Arena. It might just die. I "invested" $5 on a whim in over 6 months of having the program. I could not possibly care any less if it dies today, tomorrow, or next year.

Back to the original matter at hand though, paper Magic. Can you point me to anything that proves your thesis here that this "industry fact" is in fact a fact for paper Magic? Again, Ill point you back to my previous post, where I went over why this might not be the case. It is heavily unlikely that paper Magic has such a skewed distribution of spending. Again, because there is no "free" option with paper cards, except the option to simply print your own at home. In which case, you are literally not a customer by very definition and so not part of the market at all.

You can, again, make all your cases as to why apples and oranges are both fruits. But you won't get me to eat that orange pie you just baked, thanks.

FourDogsinaHorseSuit

10-31-2019, 07:07 PM

You sound pretty dumb considering I mentioned skewed distribution and the fact that this relates to the mean, median and mode. Here's a reminder of what that was, maybe they skipped it in your statistics 101 course:
https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/probability-and-statistics/skewed-distribution/
Do you have a point here other than you made one post about how only the top end are paying and then another one about how the average player is paying 75 and are too dumb to understand why that's a bad look?

FourDogsinaHorseSuit

10-31-2019, 07:10 PM

If the average Arena player spends $75/year and most players spend nothing, it follows that a few players spend a great deal more than $75/year. That, I think, is bruizar’s point. If you need to add or correct something please do so, and you may assume I know the difference between an average and a median. I have not read the report except for the quoted paragraph..
So then should I also assume that you know why bringing up the average in a distribution that's already admitted to be heavily skewed is a waste of time?

bruizar

11-01-2019, 12:42 AM

I already noted in my previous post that Arena would, necessarily, be different.

But you predict the demise of paper Magic and your spending was on paper Magic.

So, again, you are comparing a paper card game to a "freemium" digital game? That doesn't appear to you as akin to comparing apples and oranges?

Now though, you move the goalposts and surmise that what we are talking about is Magic Arena. Fact: I don't know or care what could, should, or would happen to Magic Arena. It might just die. I "invested" $5 on a whim in over 6 months of having the program. I could not possibly care any less if it dies today, tomorrow, or next year.

Back to the original matter at hand though, paper Magic. Can you point me to anything that proves your thesis here that this "industry fact" is in fact a fact for paper Magic? Again, Ill point you back to my previous post, where I went over why this might not be the case. It is heavily unlikely that paper Magic has such a skewed distribution of spending. Again, because there is no "free" option with paper cards, except the option to simply print your own at home. In which case, you are literally not a customer by very definition and so not part of the market at all.

You can, again, make all your cases as to why apples and oranges are both fruits. But you won't get me to eat that orange pie you just baked, thanks.

There are plenty of examples of games and toys that earn a disproportionate amount on whales. From Warhammer to the entire Japanese otaku industry. Yes, there are differences between Arena and paper, I used Arena data because that data was released by the company. Paper MTG metrics are kept secret for the most part. However, there are still plenty of reasons to arrive at that conclusion.

For one, MTG has always struggled to add new players. It is why Guru lands exist. Mark Rosewater wrote an article about the new player onboarding process, which is basically the primary design thesis for Core sets. https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/getting-core-2018-06-18. This means that Magic is hostile to new players and MTG is out of necessity forced to monetize entrenched paper players. Magic Arena is perhaps the first 'easy' way to quickly scale the player base,, because it is free. This is not possible for paper magic, but the "free" or "near free" players are mostly a large sub-segment of eternal players and newcomers that hardly add new cards to their collection. That's why there's historically been emphasis on standard and draft. (This is also why WOTC is trying to nudge eternal players into spending more money by making stuff like Modern Horizons that is guaranteed to shake up the meta and force eternal players to part with their cash, essentially turning eternal into standard++.)

However, there is a limit to how much someone can draft because people with money usually don't have a lot of time, and people with time usually don't have a lot of money. You want people with a lot of money and a little bit of time, so they just buy their entire collection and most likely in a premium version. This is for the financial health of the game. On the other hand you want active players because a game that is not played is a dead game, and dead games will not create new whales. The fact that they are catering to whales more and more indicates they know this and are playing into this. Whether it is Zendikar Expeditions, Kaladesh Inventions, or Amonkhet Invocations, Mythic Edition Planeswalker bundles, Box Toppers, or Throne of Eldraine Collector's Boosters or the Throne of Eldraine Deluxe Collection. These are all evidence of the fact that WOTC is targeting whales in paper Magic, which suggests there is a power distribution in paper as well, the personas are slightly different but the numbers are probably similar because WOTCs behavior is similar (digital historic boosterpacks were twice as expensive and you needed to buy them in bundles, until they rolled this back after community outrage.).

The demise of Magic comes from those whales getting tired with the way the game is operated. It's nice to collect, it's not nice to feel milked. Once the whales fatigue from the game, it will significantly impact Magic. Perhaps they will learn and steer away, but this is probably not the case because the CEO comes from a digital games background so that means monetizing the player base to death to the detriment of the IP, and then parachuting out right before the collapse.

Please don't think the empire (Hasbro/WOTC) won't be able to fall

It happened to Blizzard
https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/08/14/why-did-activision-blizzard-stock-fall-35-since-june-2018/

It happened a few days ago with Ubisoft
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/ubisoft-stock-dives-after-games-underperform-and-titles-delayed/

It happens in toys
Mattel had it's worst day in decades, -20% in a day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WriiQnLxUk

BirdsOfParadise

11-01-2019, 01:38 AM

So then should I also assume that you know why bringing up the average in a distribution that's already admitted to be heavily skewed is a waste of time?
If you can safely make assumptions about the left side of a distribution, e.g. that it’s all zeros, then knowing the overall average actually is informative about the right side of that distribution.

The heavier the skew, the more info you have. If 99% of players are known to be free-to-play, then the average tells you a lot about the last 1%.

FTW

11-01-2019, 08:00 AM

For a guy who keeps talking about whales you should really look into what the difference between average and median are.

He explicitly said it was skewed.. based on his other comments, the implication is the average is $75 while the median is $0.

The average tells you a lot about the total. (average * # of players) If you guesstimate only 3% are paying, you get an idea of how much more those 3% are paying.

11-01-2019, 09:03 AM

There are plenty of examples of games and toys that earn a disproportionate amount on whales. From Warhammer to the entire Japanese otaku industry. Yes, there are differences between Arena and paper, I used Arena data because that data was released by the company. Paper MTG metrics are kept secret for the most part. However, there are still plenty of reasons to arrive at that conclusion.

For one, MTG has always struggled to add new players. It is why Guru lands exist. Mark Rosewater wrote an article about the new player onboarding process, which is basically the primary design thesis for Core sets. https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/getting-core-2018-06-18. This means that Magic is hostile to new players and MTG is out of necessity forced to monetize entrenched paper players. Magic Arena is perhaps the first 'easy' way to quickly scale the player base,, because it is free. This is not possible for paper magic, but the "free" or "near free" players are mostly a large sub-segment of eternal players and newcomers that hardly add new cards to their collection. That's why there's historically been emphasis on standard and draft. (This is also why WOTC is trying to nudge eternal players into spending more money by making stuff like Modern Horizons that is guaranteed to shake up the meta and force eternal players to part with their cash, essentially turning eternal into standard++.)

Sure, we do know that it is difficult to add new players. This is pretty likely why the "move" was made toward an "organic growth" model more than a "expansive growth" model. And, yes, in the past, it was "known" that Eternal or non-rotating formats were "cheaper" than Standard, since you had to buy less to remain "competitive." But, then look at what happened once they moved toward the "organic growth" model, moved toward market segmentation and less sole-focus. Now Legacy's meta shifts quite often, the effect of Wrenn and Six and the rest of Modern Horizons, look how Oko is Legacy playable. Look how fast Vintage has shifted over the last few set, even inciting bans. Look at how Modern has shifted as well. Where these formats had a comparatively "glacial" pace of accumulating new playables, the velocity now is break-neck.

So, yes, I agree, the new model is set to capitalize on "entrenched players." Here is where you fail to understand my point though. What I point out is not that this is a "good" thing or a "bad" thing, rather, it's a currently indeterminate thing with respect to how it will impact the future of the game. Again, your assumption is that "whales" are not "buying" this. What data, besides your anecdotal personal experience, do we have to support this? What "whale focused" product do you surmise, has failed to sell recently? You might not be buying, but what is the evidence that no one is?

However, there is a limit to how much someone can draft because people with money usually don't have a lot of time, and people with time usually don't have a lot of money. You want people with a lot of money and a little bit of time, so they just buy their entire collection and most likely in a premium version. This is for the financial health of the game. On the other hand you want active players because a game that is not played is a dead game, and dead games will not create new whales. The fact that they are catering to whales more and more indicates they know this and are playing into this. Whether it is Zendikar Expeditions, Kaladesh Inventions, or Amonkhet Invocations, Mythic Edition Planeswalker bundles, Box Toppers, or Throne of Eldraine Collector's Boosters or the Throne of Eldraine Deluxe Collection. These are all evidence of the fact that WOTC is targeting whales in paper Magic, which suggests there is a power distribution in paper as well, the personas are slightly different but the numbers are probably similar because WOTCs behavior is similar (digital historic boosterpacks were twice as expensive and you needed to buy them in bundles, until they rolled this back after community outrage.).

The demise of Magic comes from those whales getting tired with the way the game is operated. It's nice to collect, it's not nice to feel milked. Once the whales fatigue from the game, it will significantly impact Magic. Perhaps they will learn and steer away, but this is probably not the case because the CEO comes from a digital games background so that means monetizing the player base to death to the detriment of the IP, and then parachuting out right before the collapse.

Please don't think the empire (Hasbro/WOTC) won't be able to fall

Again, you are not understanding my point. I am not saying it is impossible that this current marketing strategy from Wizards fail. It might. In fact, as I layed out in previous posts, I do think the velocity is "too high" to be sustainable, at the moment. The actual eschaton lurks always just beyond the current paradigmatic horizon. But as we step toward it, if we are actually cognizant and aware, that eschaton stays just over the horizon. Is Wizards that aware? We'll see. But the failure of this particular paradigmatic marketing strategy is not the eschaton, what they do after it fails, if it fails, is what the future is made of.

This is where we will sharply depart. I don't think this particular paradigm, if unsuccessful, "kills the game." The model has changed before and it will, with almost perfect certainty, change again. And again. It will be the paradigm only until it is not. Sales don't currently seem bad, by what little metic we can see, so your whole thesis, that this is The End, fails any empirical test we can currently give it.

Does it mean this paradigm is a good 5/10/15 year plan? No idea. Probably not. Which is why, I think, time will show is that this is a hyper-organic-growth period and post-this-particular-paradigm, we will see what they do. If they fail with this and fail with the successor paradigm, then we well may be on the road to an End. But we are nowhere near there at this moment.

bruizar

11-01-2019, 12:53 PM

Again, you are not understanding my point. I am not saying it is impossible that this current marketing strategy from Wizards fail. It might. In fact, as I layed out in previous posts, I do think the velocity is "too high" to be sustainable, at the moment. The actual eschaton lurks always just beyond the current paradigmatic horizon. But as we step toward it, if we are actually cognizant and aware, that eschaton stays just over the horizon. Is Wizards that aware? We'll see. But the failure of this particular paradigmatic marketing strategy is not the eschaton, what they do after it fails, if it fails, is what the future is made of.

This is where we will sharply depart. I don't think this particular paradigm, if unsuccessful, "kills the game." The model has changed before and it will, with almost perfect certainty, change again. And again. It will be the paradigm only until it is not. Sales don't currently seem bad, by what little metic we can see, so your whole thesis, that this is The End, fails any empirical test we can currently give it.

Does it mean this paradigm is a good 5/10/15 year plan? No idea. Probably not. Which is why, I think, time will show is that this is a hyper-organic-growth period and post-this-particular-paradigm, we will see what they do. If they fail with this and fail with the successor paradigm, then we well may be on the road to an End. But we are nowhere near there at this moment.

I do actually agree with you on this. WOTC is a very resilient and responsive company willing to iterate and make mistakes to find answers. Perhaps I should say, WOTC is currently killing the game, if they proceed in this direction the way they are. They will probably figure this out at some point and adjust, and we can happily shuffle our cards, play more games and buy more product. However, WOTC will continue to proceed in the current direction for as long as the players do not revolt. I guess this thread is my way of revolting against the emphasis on over-monetizing. It COULD be that this was all sort of a one-off event connected to the 25 year anniversary, and that the next year will be more balanced and less over the top, but I guess if it performs well financially they have no reason to throttle it down if they are managing purely from a financial POV. I'm happy that SCG stopped their Standard events which is a clear signal to WOTC, although that decision is probably influenced more by the price spikes they can push for rotated product when they support the new format Pioneer.

11-01-2019, 03:01 PM

I do actually agree with you on this. WOTC is a very resilient and responsive company willing to iterate and make mistakes to find answers. Perhaps I should say, WOTC is currently killing the game, if they proceed in this direction the way they are. They will probably figure this out at some point and adjust, and we can happily shuffle our cards, play more games and buy more product. However, WOTC will continue to proceed in the current direction for as long as the players do not revolt. I guess this thread is my way of revolting against the emphasis on over-monetizing. It COULD be that this was all sort of a one-off event connected to the 25 year anniversary, and that the next year will be more balanced and less over the top, but I guess if it performs well financially they have no reason to throttle it down if they are managing purely from a financial POV. I'm happy that SCG stopped their Standard events which is a clear signal to WOTC, although that decision is probably influenced more by the price spikes they can push for rotated product when they support the new format Pioneer.

Well, I think it is likely more the pressure from the Hasbro overlords, who are beholden to the share-holders. That paradigm is not one readily focused on long-term growth strategy, because "cash now" is the general sentiment, I think. Most of the sort that want to leverage the company can use P&L statements as leverage toward some notion of a Shangri-La of infinite growth. Beholden to them and with it's other properties not doing well, Hasbro is "forced" to enact plans to show significant short-term gains.

I actually think, due to this, there is a fair chance that we seeing hyper-expansive rate of releases to offset the "losses" incurred by the development of Arena. I don't know that Arena actually is necessarily profitable itself, it might be, but the issue at hand is not just that Wizards needs to "balance" it's own books, rather, Wizards needs to "balance" Hasbro's entire operation. A modest yield is not going to do that for Hasbro. (Note, this is likely also why there is no "Pro Tour" any more, moved toward "Mythic Championship" and other recent changes (card stock, foil process, etc.).)

So, I think we see this paradigm for a while, until Hasbro actually has another profit driver outside Wizards. That, or Hasbro fails. Unfortunately, since Wizards is Hasbro's money maker, there is pretty much zero chance that anyone could pry it from anything but Hasbro's cold, dead hands.

We will have to wait and see. The worst case is where Hasbro decides to "play hard ball" and takes everything down with it. It's not impossible. But I think there are plenty of other ways it can go. If Hasbro, aside Wizard's division, can get it's shit together, there is lots of chance for contraction of releases and a more sustainable model. If not, well, then there are going to be some tougher decisions ahead.

The "good news" though, if there is any, is actually the same as this "bad news" above. Hasbro does not likely want to run Magic into the ground, because that means running Hasbro itself into the ground. So, while they might be "cashing in" right now, if sales data does in fact sour, I think there will then be an impetus, if not from Hasbro then from vested Hasbro share-hodlers that are going to demand some change. We can just hope that change is for the better.

I think Magic has too much interia on "it's own" to actually die at this point. It might suffer. It might get "unhealthy." It might even suffer significant loss. But I don't think it will die without a great deal of work done to do so. Now, that isn't impossible, but I think it is relative far off, if it is at all.

BirdsOfParadise

11-01-2019, 06:27 PM

I enjoy Magic and spend more time reading and watching Magic things than I should, but I've given up buying the cards. The demise of Magic for me has not been about economics, but about set design. World building has followed the same formula for a decade, all cards are named things like Veteran Gearslasher or Curator of Wildcraft, the same planes and planeswalkers are reused even though they're threadbare, and worst in my eyes is that the whole industry has forgotten what illustrations used to look like before they were made using computers. In Alpha, Jesper Myrfors had a vision that different artists would use their own styles and inspirations to create a more vibrant imaginary world. Of course a lot of the early art was amateurish because it was done by amateurs, but the idea was right. Nobody told artists interested in Tolkien's Middle-Earth that they all had to paint and draw in precisely a certain style. The variety contained in the body of Middle-Earth artwork, including Tolkien's own inimitable pieces, adds richness to Middle-Earth rather than detracting from its cohesiveness. If Wizards came up with one decently original setting every six months or even twelve months (more original than "let's do Pirates plus Dinosaurs" and definitely more original than "let's do Vampires" or "let's do Cthulhu"); if they exerted less homogenizing force on artwork; if they made fewer mistakes by intentionally cranking on the lever of power creep and made more mistakes by recapturing the raw, elemental card design of early sets --- then I'd still be having fun cracking packs of each new set. I recently bought two packs of the nineteenth Ravnica expansion so that I could use a restroom at a game store, and opening them was the least fun I've ever had opening packs even though I got a money mythic.

Sagas are brilliant. Sagas are what I'm talking about. There have been other gems of design but not as many gems of art in the vein of the Sagas.

The ship has sailed, of course. Presumably Wizards' market research says I'm in the minority. I'm sure sales are fine, and if they're not, getting me interested again isn't the answer.

I read this in a review of a derivative 1990s fantasy book: "This book shows that readers are looking for another Lord of the Rings and, until it comes, will accept any substitute." I won't compare the early Magic sets with Lord of the Rings, but the analogy between new Magic sets and the derivative 1990s fantasy book holds. To paraphrase another quote: "All players want is fantasy and creativity. Once you have a formula for that, you've got it made." It takes a little while for it to be evident, but there's something wrong with that approach.

Phoenix Ignition

11-02-2019, 01:28 PM

and worst in my eyes is that the whole industry has forgotten what illustrations used to look like before they were made using computers.

Art is subjective but this statement is just wrong:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuptRlhU8AAL8b-.jpg
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56ba660c859fd0d3d3173d5d/1559148461067-EUH6V2GQTEEYB2A9H1TL/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kJ4ceTxQG0uLqGFCKURd340UqsxRUqqbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8N_N4V1vUb5AoIIIbLZhVYxCRW4BPu10St3TBAUQYVKcO6vOoPnweyFpJY6WK43u4D_ERIONTndvU9Tr2oxnlY3aMMGknCJGJN1VtuRMuLDQ/DirgeofDread_web.jpg
https://6d4be195623157e28848-7697ece4918e0a73861de0eb37d08968.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/198818_200w.jpghttps://6d4be195623157e28848-7697ece4918e0a73861de0eb37d08968.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/199303_200w.jpghttps://6d4be195623157e28848-7697ece4918e0a73861de0eb37d08968.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/198403_200w.jpg

The idea of showcase art in general shows that they are focusing on bringing unique art styles back.

Also, can we sticky this "magic is dying" thread? It doesn't change much from year to year.

BirdsOfParadise

11-02-2019, 03:09 PM

Nearly forgotten, then. Nice that they’re branching out for Eldraine. If you look over the past 10 years or more it’s obvious that this is an exception to the rule.

Edit: I did mention the Sagas as a good thing, this is more of that. It’s great but it’s 1% of cards as a special effect.

Ace/Homebrew

11-02-2019, 06:55 PM

Nearly forgotten, then. Nice that they’re branching out for Eldraine. If you look over the past 10 years or more it’s obvious that this is an exception to the rule.
Every time I see that Wizards is holding a survey about a set, I fill it out just to complain about the art. But the most recent one I had to actually praise their movements in the right direction and specifically mentioned how fantastic Growth Spiral looks.

There is lots of room for improvement, but things are getting better (not worse) in the art department.

PirateKing

11-02-2019, 07:12 PM

There will never be another Stasis in terms of art.
Sad to say we peaked in Alpha guys

BirdsOfParadise

11-03-2019, 12:59 AM

There will never be another Stasis in terms of art.
Sad to say we peaked in Alpha guys
I know you’re kidding about Stasis, but how about Dandan or Canyon Drake?

FourDogsinaHorseSuit

11-03-2019, 10:23 AM

I know you’re kidding about Stasis, but how about Dandan or Canyon Drake?

Old art was pretty hit or miss just like modern art. The only difference is no one remembers Retaliation

bruizar

11-03-2019, 10:48 AM

Although the Throne of Eldraine art is nice, it's still over-rendered artwork primarily made digitally. Overrendering clutters the small card frame therefore reducing readability. Something that a card like Lighting Bolt does not suffer from.

BirdsOfParadise

11-03-2019, 01:34 PM

Old art was pretty hit or miss just like modern art. The only difference is no one remembers Retaliation
Yes I agree with the first sentence.

No I don’t agree with the second sentence. My favorite set as a kid was Mirage. The hits were better and more varied in style. Azimaet Drake, Bazaar of Wonders, Unyaro Griffin, Bay Falcon, Teremko Griffin, Zuberi, it’s all very easy on the eye. Already in Stronghold I noticed that computer illustration was taking over and I found it a pity.

Bosque

11-03-2019, 07:54 PM

I know you’re kidding about Stasis, but how about Dandan or Canyon Drake?

I actually really like the art of stasis. The at times abstract art of the older sets was easier to ID across the table and I think had more character.

Fox

11-03-2019, 08:05 PM

I actually really like the art of stasis. The at times abstract art of the older sets was easier to ID across the table and I think had more character.

If we excuse the digital vs manual painting, Hushbringer's art is easily on par with Stasis.

morgan_coke

11-03-2019, 10:47 PM

Forget the art, I miss the good quotes on flavor text. Like the Shakespeare on OG Frozen Shade.

jmlima

11-04-2019, 07:04 AM

Art is subjective but this statement is just wrong:
...

Well, he should have qualified the statement, a large part of magic's art is crap as art goes. Some of it is still quite good. But that is not a new thing, it was always like this. Let's not even try to make a serious case about any of the art in magic being something that will redefine new aesthetic paradigms, it won't. But it never intend to, so that's ok. At least they are moving a bit from the archetypical fantasy illustration buxom ladies.

FourDogsinaHorseSuit

11-04-2019, 11:09 AM

Forget the art, I miss the good quotes on flavor text. Like the Shakespeare on OG Frozen Shade.
Flavor text now is almost as bad as when it was all quotes from the story.

JackaBo

11-04-2019, 03:44 PM

You guys know what’s really dying? Forums about Magic.

pettdan

11-04-2019, 05:10 PM

You guys know what’s really dying? Forums about Magic.

Well there have been a couple of threads on that topic, like this one from 2018: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?32795-Why-is-this-forum-being-abandoned-for-discord-threads

sco0ter

11-04-2019, 05:34 PM

https://twitter.com/Jonnymagic00/status/1188918066824011782

intersting view on how planeswalkers destroyed the game.

FourDogsinaHorseSuit

11-04-2019, 05:38 PM

https://twitter.com/Jonnymagic00/status/1188918066824011782

intersting view on how planeswalkers destroyed the game.

It's not interesting so much as "what we intended".
They were advertised as if another player had sat down and played with you. They're also all mythics, which are supposed to be game warping and splashy.

11-04-2019, 06:01 PM

I actually like Planeswalkers, as a way to break up the Creature//Removal paradigm (or whatever Permanent type you like), especially in places where efficient (and hyper-efficient) sweepers/removal exist.

If Planeswalkers didn't exist, the creature power-creep would likely be something like Pokemon level stuff, or something like it. Now, that doesn't mean Planeswalkers need to be busted, of course. Still though, mistakes are mistakes. Pushing to sell product is marketing. Problem is, of course, when you make a mistake pushing, it's bad marketing.

PirateKing

11-05-2019, 09:58 AM

Wow, I didn't know you guys read me with such tone. I wasn't being sarcastic about liking Stasis. It's some of the most art for art the game has. It's great. I mean, most other art was just illustrative there wasn't much difficulty in composition. Need art for Lightning Bolt? Draw a picture of a lightning bolt. Need art for Serra Angel? Draw a picture of an angel holding a sword. Direction is easy when the subject is nounal.

It seemed perfect for abstract art to be paired with abstract concepts. Double so for a children's card game. After all, how do you convey the idea of flight? I mean sure, you could just draw a zebra in the sky. But is that what flight is?
Still even then, opportunities to even demonstrate are all gone, card names are just snippets of a larger passage that is also the art direction. Like some bizzaro word-of-the-day calendar.

"Syr Damon looked at the dragon and saw the faces of every innocent it had devoured. Suddenly, his sword blazed like the sun. For he knew in himself he had RIGHTEOUSNESS"

"Remember all the great heroes who were careful and never did anything risky? Me neither. That's why I live for the THRILL OF POSSIBILITY"

"At least up here I have some peace and quiet. What with being TRAPPED IN THE TOWER and all"

The art all seems uninspired because you can't be inspired when you're basically doing children's learn to read illustrations. Which is a shame really, because at then end of it all, the art doesn't even matter. Getting bent over the most superfluous part of the game only serves to expose one's level on whatever Maslow analog this is. I say fuck it, make the art nonsense, mix abstract with photorealistic, because at the end of the day this is just as valid (https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1503/86/1503861588589.png) a game piece as whatever the nicest Guru/APAC/Euro land you can think of.

And so with that in mind, I enjoy Stasis

bruizar

11-09-2019, 05:27 PM

To win Standard SCGs, just play 4 maindeck Noxious Grasp.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/standard-sultai-walkers#paper

Even in Brainstorm.format, we don't maindeck 4 Red Elemental Blast (excluding Painter decks).

No more winning legacy at SCG. Ben’s announcement puts a lot of strength to the omnious feeling I already had about magic’s future. Maybe you’ve ‘heard the death of magic before’, but with SCG ceasing legacy support, this is not the same as those other times.

The canary in the coal mine is long dead, if SCG has given up hope that means a lot given that they have much more information than we do

jubeininja69

11-10-2019, 01:58 AM

The professor compared the price of the Throne of Eldraine collectors box (and I believe also the Mythic Edition box) to the Nintendo Switch + 2 or 3 games you could buy for that. We can all agree that the value for money of a Nintendo Switch and a game like Zelda and Super Smash Bros Brawl, which required 7 generations of consoles and billions of dollars of collective technology RND, is far higher than a foil Jace that curls up like a pringle. Even the counterfeits don't curl up like that.

this is funny. here's a thumbs up.

JosefK

11-10-2019, 05:49 AM

No more winning legacy at SCG. Ben’s announcement puts a lot of strength to the omnious feeling I already had about magic’s future. Maybe you’ve ‘heard the death of magic before’, but with SCG ceasing legacy support, this is not the same as those other times.

The canary in the coal mine is long dead, if SCG has given up hope that means a lot given that they have much more information than we do

This is such strange logic. SCG exchanging one format for another more popular format means the death of magic is coming... without any explanation.

I get the feeling you want it to be true and see evidence everywhere?

Clabian

11-22-2019, 02:13 AM

I 100% agree. I tell my customers and friends all the time about how ridiculous the product release schedule is. I feel like they're actively trying to ruin the game (I know this isn't likely true) but it feels that way. I think for a couple months ago every magic format was in bad shape and now it's mostly legacy and modern; the two formats other than Vintage with the largest carpool, therefore the most interesting (for me that it is). Now we're getting 'Mystery Packs' with exact replicas of old cards... seems to me they're seeing how far they can push it until they finally violate the Reserve List promissory estoppel... The game is in real bad shape... we have the most qualified R&D team in history and have in one year printed more busted cards than in the entire Urza's Block... That says to me that R&D doesn't have enough time to do their jobs. I'd be happier with half the sets per year... all of Modern Horizons feels like "just wait until someone breaks another card" now that format bannings will allow for more experimentation. I'd be happy if WotC would just announce, "We messed up this year, we messed up bad. We pushed every set and the cards break all the power level standards... we're just going to forget these cards were ever printed and move on." Before this year the product releases were still a little much, but Magic as a whole felt like it was in a better place... As a veteran of Magic for 20 something years I've never been more concerned or as displeased by WotC.

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

the Thin White Duke

11-26-2019, 01:13 PM

bruizar

11-26-2019, 01:17 PM

What do we make of the new Secret Lair release? The main issue I see is that they are placing a certain value on certain cards. Why is the 3 card "pack" with Bloodghast the same price as the 5 cards packs of lands? Shouldn't the cost to produce the individual cards be the same? This is a tacit nod to the fact that their product pricing is linked to the secondary market. Someone smarter than me can figure out how to use this against WoTC!!

The price of the Bitterblossom aligns perfectly with its secondary market price. Expect many many releases like this. This is essentially the Nike SNKRS app, Nike saturated the market with limited edition sneakers and designer collabo's over the last few years with many of them dropping (no pun intended) rock bottom. "drops" is Sneaker lingo, and the 'Drops Series' features what are essentially artist collabos. The Japanese War of the Spark planeswalkers seem like they were a market test for Secret Lair.

bruizar

01-12-2020, 05:34 PM

Article that echoes the opening statement of this thread:

https://www.minmaxblog.com/magic/2019/12/31/another-format-warping-spoiler-season

"This year's cards have taken a stranglehold on every Magic format, repeatedly warping them into something that would have been completely unrecognizable a couple months prior. As engaged as I am, I can barely keep up. I'm burnt out and exhausted.

Theros: Beyond Death spoilers have started, and I'm already peeved. Not many cards have been spoiled, but some of these cards are just too strong, and WotC should know better. They have adopted what they're calling the F.I.R.E. philosophy for card design, which stands for fun, inviting, replayable, and exciting. This is great in theory. I like those words. In practice, however, it's been more of a garbage fire"

Ronald Deuce

01-12-2020, 07:17 PM

"This year's cards have taken a stranglehold on every Magic format, repeatedly warping them into something that would have been completely unrecognizable a couple months prior. As engaged as I am, I can barely keep up. I'm burnt out and exhausted.

Theros: Beyond Death spoilers have started, and I'm already peeved. Not many cards have been spoiled, but some of these cards are just too strong, and WotC should know better. They have adopted what they're calling the F.I.R.E. philosophy for card design, which stands for fun, inviting, replayable, and exciting. This is great in theory. I like those words. In practice, however, it's been more of a garbage fire"

I really wish Patrick Sullivan's Deathrite Shaman rant hadn't disappeared from the Interwebs so rapidly. The "I just wanna play my 2/1s" is strong in this one.

The same people complain about flaccid nothing-sets like Kaladesh and interesting sets with good cards like Modern Horizons. I don't get it. What makes matters worse is that there are clear answers for all the new cards people seem to hate so much, and a lot of them have been played in main decks in the not-at-all-distant past. Bruizar, I'm not castigating you for any of this. I just saw that article a while back and couldn't imagine on what planet the author resides.

bruizar

01-13-2020, 03:18 AM

I really wish Patrick Sullivan's Deathrite Shaman rant hadn't disappeared from the Interwebs so rapidly. The "I just wanna play my 2/1s" is strong in this one.

The same people complain about flaccid nothing-sets like Kaladesh and interesting sets with good cards like Modern Horizons. I don't get it. What makes matters worse is that there are clear answers for all the new cards people seem to hate so much, and a lot of them have been played in main decks in the not-at-all-distant past. Bruizar, I'm not castigating you for any of this. I just saw that article a while back and couldn't imagine on what planet the author resides.

It’s not my article, it merely reiterates the points I made. When keeping up with the game feels like a day job, there is simply too much of a good thing. If you combine that with power creep that means every 1 or 2 sets the entire make up of the game changes completely. The fact that so many cards enter formats like legacy and vintage and the fact that modern is dominated by modern horizons cards is very telling. Urza, emry, wrenn and six, astrolabe, coatl, etc etc. War of the spark and Eldraine have also been transformative: oko, karn, teferi, narset, once upon a time, brazen borrower.

Cards like liliana of the veil and jace the mind sculptor have largely been push out of the format. We used to consider Jace the standard of what a card needs to be able to do in terms of power level at 4 mana.

Magic will probably dial it down given enough community push back, but since eternal is such a small portion of the game I believe we don’t have as much of a voice as let’s say pioneer or standard.

I’ll nuance my comments: mtg isn’t dying, it is changing, and so will the players’ relationship to the game. I expect people to skip sets entirely and become much more selective in their engagement with the game, while others’ will become increasingly time trapped by overengaging with an endless stream of new product.

Ronald Deuce

01-13-2020, 10:50 AM

It’s not my article, it merely reiterates the points I made.

Absolutely. I tried to show that you were quoting someone else; sorry if I wasn't clear.

When keeping up with the game feels like a day job, there is simply too much of a good thing. If you combine that with power creep that means every 1 or 2 sets the entire make up of the game changes completely. The fact that so many cards enter formats like legacy and vintage and the fact that modern is dominated by modern horizons cards is very telling. Urza, emry, wrenn and six, astrolabe, coatl, etc etc. War of the spark and Eldraine have also been transformative: oko, karn, teferi, narset, once upon a time, brazen borrower.

That's a fair point. I just prefer it this way to the alternative. The fact that so many brews are putting up results is interesting to me, and I greatly prefer to see stuff that's a surprise over Neapolitan Delver or 50 Flavors of Chalice on 1.

I’ll nuance my comments: mtg isn’t dying, it is changing, and so will the players’ relationship to the game. I expect people to skip sets entirely and become much more selective in their engagement with the game, while others’ will become increasingly time trapped by overengaging with an endless stream of new product.

I'm admittedly too poor for Legacy (though that hasn't stopped me), and I'm interested in seeing whether this happens, too. These days I only purchase singles or, once in a while, split boxes for Sealed with friends. [EDIT: The only reason I actually do the latter is because the new sets have been exciting and worth sifting through.]

I have a somewhat tangential take on the power of new cards. Something that's bothered me for a while about Wizards's approach to the customer is that they've trumpeted the importance of inclusivity in the lore and in their "outreach" strategy (such as it is), but ultimately, competitive constructed Magic requires people to invest a lot of money in singles purchased from third parties—meaning that to do well in an event, you're required to have a high income, and Wizards isn't interested in challenging or ameliorating that because "What secondary market?". Feels hypocritical: it's like they're working really hard to include people of every stripe as long as those people aren't middle-to-lower income. I'm curious as to whether an uptick in the number of powerful cards people can actually expect to pull out of packs (N.B.: a number of the cards you listed are uncommons, as is Veil of Summer) might result in an easier path into non-rotating formats for people who don't own a hedge fund.

And before I get blasted with a "Well, just make more money!" or a "You must be prejudiced!" I've said before that I'm glad the community is getting more inclusive and I definitely don't want that reversed. I also feel I should mention that people have to have fun somehow, and shicka-shicka cardboard is a lot more constructive than any number of hobbies within reach of idle hands.