|
3 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 12:27PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2007
|
You know what's rarely seen in these threads? Comparisons to paper.
When pre-releases came to MTGO, people moaned long and hard (and continue to do so) about how terrible the EV was, despite it being identical to what many pay for their paper pre-release experience. As more events require tickets rather than product, people complain (including me), but rare is the TO that will allow you to use your own product to enter an event. WotC has clearly been pushing MTGO towards the expectations of the paper game in recent years. Now, MTGO is a different animal and some of the practices of the paper world would be detrimental to the digital. But you can't blame WotC for trying to reclaim some of the money they may be "leaving on the table", and you can't make an effective argument against reducing payouts without addressing this elephant in the room.
People have complained about prize reductions since the first one reduced the prizes of leagues from ridiculous to merely generous. It made no difference that the original prize schedule was unsustainable, people still thought they were somehow being "ripped off". While historical levels might have the unfortunate effect of setting expectations, they are not an indicator of what is "correct" for online.
The stores around me I can get packs for $3. I can do a draft for $12. I can take what I win and get packs or get store credit, so if I choose I can use the store credit for another draft.
Stores also provide a place to meet and talk to new players. Interact with other humans. Online offers a chance for my opponent to sit there and never say a word to me and take double, triple, or quadruple the amount of time I do.
The only thing online gives advantage is by being able to play any time and also keeping the collection organized. Well, also easy and hopefully correct rules enforcement.
Also the cards I draft in person are probably worth more than online. I can also count on them always being mine if I want and don't have to worry about what happens if Wizzards ever goes out of business.
I understand that there are costs to run an online business. Though I do think they could have a little less profit margin online and the customers would be more happy.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 3:23PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2012
|
I don't know why there is all this talk about whether or not stores can sell boxes at $80. It doesn't matter. Even if they sell boxes at $140 it is still less than the cost of 36 VIRTUAL boosters online from the MTGO store, which is $144 plus tax.
The point is, we pay more for .png files than the physical cards and then have to pay EVEN MORE to get the physical cards that we already paid more for than we would of if we went out and got the physical card in the first place!
I also put the comparison with buying from bots in there, but that is moot. All of those boosters were bought at some point for $4 a piece, except event wins. That's like saying I could go buy paper boosters from some kid whose parents are making him get rid of the game and pay him only a fraction of what he paid for it. Online is just more efficient at trading. No discussion, no haggling, just log in and click a bot.
Now, however, even the event wins are equivalent to buying from the store. the local shops are not giving out any less in prizes than online events, and in most cases, are giving out better prizes, which of course, you DONT HAVE TO PAY EXTRA TO REDEEM!
So, who cares? $80, $100, $140? As long as it is less than $144, it doesn't matter and even then, you'll have to account for the extra $100 to redeem each playset.
So, the conclusion is when I was asked, "where is the comparison to paper"...Here it is:
As far as I can tell WotC is successful in making it totally nonsensical to play online by driving down event prizes, upping cost, and then slapping us in the face with redemption change. It costs A LOT more to play online....unless you run a bot and take profits on trades.
What online does have going for it is: No drive in traffic, no body odor from greasy gamers, short quick easy to find trades, and no dead cat in the store, and saving me the agonsy of alphabetizing cards in binders, but again, I don't know if that is worth the extra cost anymore.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 19, 2013 - 3:59PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2009
|
Looking at the changes in recent months, it is quite clear (as has been mentioned before) that the substitution of phantom limited events over real limited events has reduced the consumption of boosters without decreasing the supply. This increase in supply is making people (not wizards) want to trade less for boosters and cards and, specifically, fewer tix. So that equates to a lower value of the prizes, even though the prizes remain the same. This, of course, mainly applies to constructed formats where the ticket entry fee is the full entry. In limited events its a much smaller percentage, to the degree that the cheapening of boosters actually makes it more accessible to the average person who uses real money, as opposed to the player who only uses winnings (those going infinite). In fact, even for constructed events its cheaper for the average person, since a large part of the entry fee for constructed is buying the cards for their deck.
In other words, its harder to go infinite, but its cheaper to pay to play. From the point of view of a company this seems pretty good. The percentage of people who are just riding for free is reduced while at the same time the accessibility makes it easier for newer players to enter. Does anyone else see this?
Its well known (or it should be) that most gaming companies don't just blatantly milk people for their money. They will always strive to make for a better experience, and then charge for it (which is not the same as just uping expenses). However, most of the time, they have to target a specific percentage of the user base since changes most often affect some people positively while others negatively. Phantom events make limited events cheaper for average players, since there is a lower cost of entry and a flatter payout, compared to non-phantom events. This is a good thing for a certain percentage of people, and I imagine that wizards believes its a large enough percentage to be worth it.
Even with the reduced value of the in-game credits you get for winning (boosters), I don't know how people aren't finding it cheaper to play online. In the comments I saw above nobody included the ease with which you can convert cards themselves into credits or into other cards online. I don't know anybody who is constantly selling their paper cards in order to play more (though I know it is done), therefore paying for their hobby. On the other hand, I know plenty of people who are going infinite on MTGO... playing for free. This is key to making it cheaper to play MTGO but it also the reason for why the cards, boosters and therefore prizes in MTGO are worth less.
And this, by the way, is without including the fact that MTGO supports pauper and block, which are relatively cheap ways to play competitively and there are many player run events which are totally free, or that its incredibly easy to take a look at a few graphs, buy some cards at certain moment and then sell them for profit a few weeks later.
So in terms of cost of playing, I can't really say that MTGO is a bad deal or that its going against the current. It seems like a great deal to me, maybe not compared to many free games that you can access online, but definitely compared to paper magic. Where I personally think its going agains the current is in the quality of the software. The new client is a big let down to me, regardless of many of its new capabilities, and I think its missing many key elements that modern software should have. That's my grudge.
For a great source of information on the Pauper format check out Pauper's Cage!
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 19, 2013 - 5:12PM
#34
|
|
|
Here is some radical and unorthadox "outside the box" thoughts for EV moaners I mean players.
Magic the Gathering is a hobby I know who would of thunk it a trading card game a hobby OMG Mind = Blown, many many many times professinal Magic players have told you over the years "Do not play Magic for Money" you know why they do??? Because even the guys who are doing this hobby professinonally understand that this hobby should not be played as a "job" or EV and should be enjoyed as a game and a hobby that you can play competitively and possibly make a bit of money here and there at.
I find it amusing as I do this very thread that the people that tryed to play Magic like a job and use poker terms like EV to justify them keep playing have made the biggest -EV decision ever. Yes it sucks that WoTC aren't paying out packs like the used too, yeah it sucks that WoTC are moving towards Phantom events, do you know why? Because the "entry level" and attendence level to these events was "too much" for the average MTG guy and you know what WoTC wants to appeal to those average MTG guys why? Because average MTG guys are playing Magic Online and are having a blast and not moaning about loss of EV from a hobby because they understand like the pro understands Magic is not a game that should be played for any EV other than the Expected Value of having fun...
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 19, 2013 - 5:54PM
#35
|
|
|
Actually, Mise, many Magic pros do play Magic for a living - that's sort of the point of the Pro Tour.
And gabochidillo, the only people who could conceivably see higher returns with reduced pack value are people markedly worse than the average player on Magic Online. Not the average player, who can expect to win packs in at least half the events they enter - players who have to pay full price for almost every event they do. That's by definition a minority group - and they still may end up paying more in the end, due to the lower value of the rares they open under the new system. The player economy as a whole is hemorrhaging value, in favour of the company.
In the long-run, even the company will only benefit if participation remains high enough that increasing returns per event are not offset by reduced number of events firing - which is very much in doubt.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 19, 2013 - 9:01PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2004
|
Actually, Mise, many Magic pros do play Magic for a living - that's sort of the point of the Pro Tour.
And gabochidillo, the only people who could conceivably see higher returns with reduced pack value are people markedly worse than the average player on Magic Online. Not the average player, who can expect to win packs in at least half the events they enter - players who have to pay full price for almost every event they do. That's by definition a minority group - and they still may end up paying more in the end, due to the lower value of the rares they open under the new system. The player economy as a whole is hemorrhaging value, in favour of the company.
In the long-run, even the company will only benefit if participation remains high enough that increasing returns per event are not offset by reduced number of events firing - which is very much in doubt.
It's also important to remember, we are still in the middle of block with a strange set structure, the fact that RTR and GTC are not drafted together with probably help some to keep the prices of RTR cards higher, but what would have happened in a normal Large-Small-Small set rotation? If pack prices go down due to increased supply, and that increased supply causes card prices to go down, which in turn drives pack prices down more, how much are these cards going to be worth toward the end of a season when the new block comes out? Especially with the increased redemption cost having some effect on the supply of standard cards in the system.
GTC is already pretty sad in the number of cards that are actually worth more than the price of a pack, how much lower can we go?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 12:36AM
#37
|
|
|
Actually, Mise, many Magic pros do play Magic for a living - that's sort of the point of the Pro Tour.
Name ar least 20 pros that make a "living" in other words enough to live off that they have a weekly wage and support there travel, entrance and decks for the tournaments, they cannot use income used from elsewhere because if they are then they aren't making a living off just playing Magic. Go ahead prove to me 20 pros make a solitary income like a job off Magic, because I know for sure most pros have jobs even the really, really good ones like Brian Kibler and LSV both actually have jobs.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 12:42AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
People get a living from ads while streaming. I know of at least two. There are probably many more.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 2:51AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2003
|
Actually, Mise, many Magic pros do play Magic for a living - that's sort of the point of the Pro Tour.
Name ar least 20 pros that make a "living" in other words enough to live off that they have a weekly wage and support there travel, entrance and decks for the tournaments, they cannot use income used from elsewhere because if they are then they aren't making a living off just playing Magic. Go ahead prove to me 20 pros make a solitary income like a job off Magic, because I know for sure most pros have jobs even the really, really good ones like Brian Kibler and LSV both actually have jobs.
It's not just pros - and there are plenty - who make a living off of this game. I lived for about 3 years entirely off money made from Magic (both paper and online). I'm not a pro. I've never been on the pro tour. I've never gotten a big novelty check.
It all depends on what you want to do with your life and how you're comfortable living. I didn't make a great living off of Magic. I survived, and not much besides. That doesn't discount my 3 years though. As for someone like Brian Kibler, he's achieved pretty much the pinnacle of Magic - the hall of fame. He could live off of playing Magic. There's no doubt about that. The reason he doesn't is that he wants to diversify his time. He's got his own games he wants to create. But just because most people don't choose that life doesn't mean it's impossible.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 8:49AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2007
|
Here is some radical and unorthadox "outside the box" thoughts for EV moaners I mean players.
Magic the Gathering is a hobby I know who would of thunk it a trading card game a hobby OMG Mind = Blown, many many many times professinal Magic players have told you over the years "Do not play Magic for Money" you know why they do??? Because even the guys who are doing this hobby professinonally understand that this hobby should not be played as a "job" or EV and should be enjoyed as a game and a hobby that you can play competitively and possibly make a bit of money here and there at.
I find it amusing as I do this very thread that the people that tryed to play Magic like a job and use poker terms like EV to justify them keep playing have made the biggest -EV decision ever. Yes it sucks that WoTC aren't paying out packs like the used too, yeah it sucks that WoTC are moving towards Phantom events, do you know why? Because the "entry level" and attendence level to these events was "too much" for the average MTG guy and you know what WoTC wants to appeal to those average MTG guys why? Because average MTG guys are playing Magic Online and are having a blast and not moaning about loss of EV from a hobby because they understand like the pro understands Magic is not a game that should be played for any EV other than the Expected Value of having fun...
I am in no way trying to make a living off of it. Nor do I have any delusion of going infinite. I might be able to but I tend to play for fun but still have something good enough where I hope to win to reduce the amount of money I need to personally put into the game.
For this hobby I am serving two masters. The paper one and the online one. Though really the online one is more so for convenience and being able to always find a game when i want to. With that said, every player who plays online has a price point at which they decide that doing the Wizards version works for them or if they should switch to something that is more free. Also each person has to decide how much money to put into this system. I am just looking for the biggest bang for my buck. Since there are other expenses in life.
I was simply showing that an online client, which does have competitors, wizzards profits directly from with no middle man, and if anything happens I can lose my entire investment is costing more than the real life when someone was trying to say that the online had advantages to the real life version.
In real life my investment can always be used even if the company goes away. Also my real life version can actually be changed into actual dollars. It seems wizards has gone away from allowing the digital cards and accounts to be sold for real money.
I assume others have the same idea when "moaning" about the value.
I suppose we could all stop trying to give input, give up on ever shrinking prizes and increasing coast, and just switch over to the free online alternatives. Which would actually be a lot smarter and a heck of a lot more economical. For me the thing that keeps me in the client is a feeling of accomplishment and collecting. The free alternatives simply feel too easy and no building of a collection. Also I would like to support the company and make sure they stay around and keep making cards.
Though I am curious as to why you would not be in favor of having to spend less on a hobby or anything in general? Why do you feel the need to insult (name calling) people who pay to play and simply are trying to figure out a way to still pay to play but not pay as much? Do you get some kick back from wizards based on their profit margins?
|
|
|
