Printable View
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
https://www.statisticshowto.datascie...-distribution/
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
Edit: Unrelated: I agree with H that equating the economics of paper Magic and Arena may not be valid.
I already noted in my previous post that Arena would, necessarily, be different.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruizar
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by bruizar
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
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/article...ore-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/greatsp...nce-june-2018/
It happened a few days ago with Ubisoft
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/...itles-delayed/
It happens in toys
Mattel had it's worst day in decades, -20% in a day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WriiQnLxUk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
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%.
He explicitly said it was skewed.. based on his other comments, the implication is the average is $75 while the median is $0.Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruizar
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruizar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruizar
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.
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.
Art is subjective but this statement is just wrong:Quote:
Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuptRlhU8AAL8b-.jpg
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...fDread_web.jpg
https://6d4be195623157e28848-7697ece...98818_200w.jpghttps://6d4be195623157e28848-7697ece...99303_200w.jpghttps://6d4be195623157e28848-7697ece...98403_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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise
There is lots of room for improvement, but things are getting better (not worse) in the art department.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by PirateKing
Old art was pretty hit or miss just like modern art. The only difference is no one remembers RetaliationQuote:
Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise
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.
Yes I agree with the first sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
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.