|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 6:26AM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2003
|
Who do you think Wizards cares more about; someone who plays 20 events per week or someone who plays one.
That depends. If the person playing 20 events per week is using prize payout to play and the person that plays 1 event per week paid full entry using their credit card, I'd imagine Wizards cares more about the latter. The former's transactions doesn't show up on their income statement.
The problem with these theories, and why they dont make sense. I have heard similar views espoused by game shop owners. It doesnt hold water though. SOMEONE has to win the prizes offered in said tournaments. Whether its the same guy twenty times, or twenty guys one time makes no real change in the bottom line. Also, the idea that prize packs are somehow a "cost" is somewhat true, BUT you pay for that cost with your entry fee. So yeah this idea that "good players are leeches" is clearly wrong. If you remove the top tier of players, the next tier will become your "good players taking all the prizes", so on and so forth.
It's not a theory. Those that pay with real money are the only ones that show up on Hasbro's financial statements as income. When deciding whether or not MTGO is successful, the "bean counters" are only going to look at that bottom line (net income). You can safely bet the farm that any changes in prize payout/redemption/game play in general are determined by that one thing.
It doesn't matter if consumers think the "good players are leeches" or not. It's every player's dream to win enough to play for free but if you're not spending real money, you don't exist as far as the bean counters are concerned. If there's some kind of positive (or negative) relationship between them and those that spend real money, the tweaks will ferret that out (income from MTGO will either increase or decrease).
You're still not getting it. And you're also just wrong that the bean counters don't think about those who exist outside of their revenue stream. Look at Zynga for an example. They are purveyors of "free" internet games and apps and things. Do you think that they don't care about the millions of people who play their games without ever buying anything? Of course they do. These games become popular by friends telling friends telling friends about them. Some of those friends spend money and some don't, but every customer is valuable because the very act of playing makes the game more enticing to future customers - some of whom will pay. Magic Online is the same thing.
Those people who manage to "go infinite" benefit Wizards in multiple ways. The most obvious benefit is that other people aspire to reach that level, and spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in their attempt to reach that point. Players who win enough also tend to be more invested in the game, which means talking about the game more and getting more people to play. I'm living proof that this sort of thing happens. I've been largely "gone infinite" for many years. I still spend some at the store every now and then, but it's typically just to buy singles for playing Commander. My drafting habit is taken care of by itself. However, my girlfriend plays a lot of drafts and isn't anywhere near infinite. She's pretty much the exact opposite and is precisely the kind of customer the bean counters want. She plays maybe four or five drafts a week and wins maybe one in ten of them (she's getting better, I swear). If it wasn't for me and my habit - which in itself does not make Wizards any money - she'd never have started playing in the first place. She watched what I was doing and wanted a piece of the action. She's not the first, either. I've gotten dozens of people I know to try Magic Online. Some of them have stuck with it, some of them haven't. But they've all spent money.
People, their attention spans, and their word of mouth are all commodities just as much as packs and event tickets. Companies like Zynga and Facebook and Myspace and many others are proof that the new paradigm of treating users as commodities is very profitable. Ignoring this fact and focusing only on the bottom line of individual users is a sure fire way to stumble along blindly in business. (hey Wizards, see how well I understand this stuff? give me a job already).
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 7:18AM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2005
|
And you're also just wrong that the bean counters don't think about those who exist outside of their revenue stream.
I don't think that, but success in business is measured by profitability. One can only assume that all these changes are being made to increase profitability. And if that's the case, it may also be a safe assumption that the group most adversely hit by these changes, rightly or wrongly, may have been deemed least profitable.
I'm just trying to decipher the tea leaves.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 9:00AM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2009
|
Those people who manage to "go infinite" benefit Wizards in multiple ways. The most obvious benefit is that other people aspire to reach that level, and spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in their attempt to reach that point.
I consider this pure speculation based on minimum anecdotal evidence. This way of thinking is one of the reasons for why a lot of people get the wrong ideas about companies. You should be very careful with how you make logical jumps.
By the same logic anyone could say that most people who go infinite are grinders and tend to be be multiple queuers and are annoying to play with and make wizards lose thousands of customers who are annoyed by having to play against them. While this has some base on reality, its obviously an exageration but its not far away from saying that people will spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in an attempt to go infinite.
Oh, and regarding pro players in paper magic. I definitely don't think they are leeches, quite the opposite, and that's why wizards supports them. People who take advantage of MTGO to make money on the other hand, and then complain if there are any changes to the system, I consider that very different.
For a great source of information on the Pauper format check out Pauper's Cage!
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 12:43PM
#64
|
|
|
found this interview with wizo's CEO from 2011:
www.icv2.com/articles/news/21062.html
Tell us a little about the digital side of gaming at Wizards of the Coast.
Our philosophy on digital gaming is to make sure that everything we do enhances the analog side of gaming. If you look at what we have done with Duels of the Planeswalkers, we have made sure that anyone who gets into our brand, with Duels of the Planeswalkers, let’s say on X-box, then gets driven back to the stores where they can be a part of the gaming community that’s so important to their experience. For us, digital gaming is never an end in itself, and is never an experience in itself. What makes gaming great is the fact that you can get together with your friends and have that experience that goes well beyond whether you have won or lost on this particular evening.
I don't see anything in this statement about people playing to win money, people developing an addiction to gaming, people developing an addiction to gambling. Wizo's is a corporation, their decisions are financially motivated like all corporations. I think the changes are to re-shape the culture/behavior of online players?
Prizes aren't a tool to make money for players, even if some people treat them that way. What they are is a price discount that only applies if the customer chooses to play more. This is solid thinking on Wizard's part. Cutting prizes reduces the incentive to play more. This seems like poor thinking on Wizards part.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 12:54PM
#65
|
|
|
Those people who manage to "go infinite" benefit Wizards in multiple ways. The most obvious benefit is that other people aspire to reach that level, and spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in their attempt to reach that point.
I consider this pure speculation based on minimum anecdotal evidence. This way of thinking is one of the reasons for why a lot of people get the wrong ideas about companies. You should be very careful with how you make logical jumps.
By the same logic anyone could say that most people who go infinite are grinders and tend to be be multiple queuers and are annoying to play with and make wizards lose thousands of customers who are annoyed by having to play against them. While this has some base on reality, its obviously an exageration but its not far away from saying that people will spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in an attempt to go infinite.
Oh, and regarding pro players in paper magic. I definitely don't think they are leeches, quite the opposite, and that's why wizards supports them. People who take advantage of MTGO to make money on the other hand, and then complain if there are any changes to the system, I consider that very different.
You're just wrong. People do aspire to go infinite, and spend quite a bit of money to do so. Go to any of the magic writing websites, and you'll see tons of primers on "how to go infinite" on MTGO. Watch any stream of a good player, and you'll see tons of people on the chat stream asking the best way to go infinite. It may be anecdotal evidence, but it's certainly not minimal.
It's the same dynamic as trying to become a "professional" magic player. Even though it's not a financially lucrative, or even remotely possible to attain goal, people drive hundreds of miles to PTQs multiple times per season to try to get on the Pro Tour.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 1:05PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2004
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Prizes aren't a tool to make money for players, even if some people treat them that way. What they are is a price discount that only applies if the customer chooses to play more. This is solid thinking on Wizard's part. Cutting prizes reduces the incentive to play more. This seems like poor thinking on Wizards part.
Aren't you forgetting about the whole redemption/cash out thing? I think some players turn their DOs back into Euro, this reducing their cost of playing. It's getting harder and less profitable all the time, but at least in principle, it can be done.
Unless you were thinking about taking out more Euro than you put in in the first place? Because that is practically imposiible.
50. Doesn't hurt. Yet.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 1:31PM
#67
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Prizes aren't a tool to make money for players, even if some people treat them that way. What they are is a price discount that only applies if the customer chooses to play more. This is solid thinking on Wizard's part. Cutting prizes reduces the incentive to play more. This seems like poor thinking on Wizards part.
Aren't you forgetting about the whole redemption/cash out thing? I think some players turn their DOs back into Euro, this reducing their cost of playing. It's getting harder and less profitable all the time, but at least in principle, it can be done.
Unless you were thinking about taking out more Euro than you put in in the first place? Because that is practically imposiible.
I'm not sure what you're responding to.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 23, 2013 - 7:25AM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2003
|
Those people who manage to "go infinite" benefit Wizards in multiple ways. The most obvious benefit is that other people aspire to reach that level, and spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in their attempt to reach that point.
I consider this pure speculation based on minimum anecdotal evidence. This way of thinking is one of the reasons for why a lot of people get the wrong ideas about companies. You should be very careful with how you make logical jumps.
And what wrong idea would that be? That Wizards is an intelligent company that sees customers as more than just sponges that can be squeezed until they run out of money? I don't think that's the wrong idea at all. Wizards has demonstrated time and time again that it understands the value of a happy player base, even if they have to give something away for free to get there.
The unwillingness to make this fairly simply logical jump is why some companies seem to be stuck in the 20th century and others are not. There are millions and mllions of people out there whose job it is to analyze human behavior when it comes to spending money. Their evidence is largely anecdotal as well. All they can do is observe and predict. And yet that's basically the foundation of the world economy.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 23, 2013 - 1:03PM
#69
|
|
|
Those people who manage to "go infinite" benefit Wizards in multiple ways. The most obvious benefit is that other people aspire to reach that level, and spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in their attempt to reach that point.
I consider this pure speculation based on minimum anecdotal evidence. This way of thinking is one of the reasons for why a lot of people get the wrong ideas about companies. You should be very careful with how you make logical jumps.
By the same logic anyone could say that most people who go infinite are grinders and tend to be be multiple queuers and are annoying to play with and make wizards lose thousands of customers who are annoyed by having to play against them. While this has some base on reality, its obviously an exageration but its not far away from saying that people will spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in an attempt to go infinite.
Oh, and regarding pro players in paper magic. I definitely don't think they are leeches, quite the opposite, and that's why wizards supports them. People who take advantage of MTGO to make money on the other hand, and then complain if there are any changes to the system, I consider that very different.
"take advantage of MTGO". You mean play magic? i thought that was the entire point of the product.
And you're also just wrong that the bean counters don't think about those who exist outside of their revenue stream.
I don't think that, but success in business is measured by profitability. One can only assume that all these changes are being made to increase profitability. And if that's the case, it may also be a safe assumption that the group most adversely hit by these changes, rightly or wrongly, may have been deemed least profitable.
I'm just trying to decipher the tea leaves.
See that is the thing. There isnt a "group" most adversely hit by changes. Anything that reduces the "EV" of a good player INCREASES the EC(expected cost) of anyone not infinite. At least as a entire player base. On a individual level you might personally benefit, but there is no way that casual drafters on a per draft basis are impacted differently due to low ev than grinders.
The idea that these are different groups of people with different goals is fine, the idea that a reduction in prize payout doesnt directly affect all the groups is mathematically wrong.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 6:55PM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Feb 27, 2013
|
I've been on Magic Online since Time Spiral block and happily spent thousands of dollars in that time. I've relished the opportunity to draft old forgotten formats like Mirage and Urza's, innovate in unique formats like Classic, Vanguard and 100 card singleton, and of course draft and do sealed events for current format sets.
In the last couple years, however, change after change has been made that has steadily worsened the quality and diversity of my magic online experience. Changes to tournament structure and frequency ended the competitive viability of every format but standard, pauper and modern. Cube was introduced as a fun if negative EV experience, then had its prize support modified so that it is basically throwing money away. Repeated rollbacks to the EV of sealed events and the conversion across the board to large ticket pay-ins and pack payouts have made close to every event available on magic online very negative EV, either directly or through increasingly worthless packs. Now with the changes to redemption cost, collecting redemption sets is no longer financially viable for me either, given international shipping costs.
I'm a good enough player that when the opportunity exists, I'm usually infinite. I happily put in thousands of dollars not because I couldn't play as much competitive magic as I wanted while staying infinite, but because I loved the game and the baseline experience enough that I was willing and interested in putting in more to get more back. I spent money for constructed decks, or to get particular cards quickly, while enjoying the baseline level of draft and sealed play that I was able to maintain with my own play skills. Is the ongoing EV tightening going to result in more money for WotC in the long run? Hard to say, but I doubt it. I do know I was good for tens of thousands of dollars of lifetime Magic Online purchasing in the future if I was allowed to continue meeting day to day baseline success, and I'm good now for exactly zero.
Beyond my individual experience, what I find strange is that WotC appears to be acting as if they have an inelastic good in a market that supports rising prices, when there is every reason to believe the opposite is the case. Five years ago, the $60 10 hour console game was the flagship digital gaming experience, and Magic Online at the time looked pretty competitive with it. Today, $60 games are themselves an increasingly embattled market. Every recent major console launch has been a tepid failure in large measure because of the enormous growth in free to play and $1-$5 iOS/Android gaming competition. Is Magic somehow shielded from the rapid price drops occurring in the rest of gaming? Perhaps in paper, but online, I doubt it very much.
TL:DR - There is no reason why anyone should put up with higher and higher Magic Online (virtual) pricing when many analogous goods are falling sharply in relative pricing, and increasingly, I suspect we won't.
I've played online for a bit more than a year, and I've already spent thousands of dollars buying cards and packs. I couldn't agree more with cseraph regarding the lessened experience of late, especially related to the removal of 4-pack sealed queues. I'm an operational consultant for many businesses, and having read the explanation of why they were axed in favor of phantom events, all I can think about is the ending of The Wizard of Oz. People who play Magic and love Magic aren't typically stupid people. Probability and risk / reward are significant parts of the very game in question, but WotC manages to both insult the community with lines like this one [Second, thirty-card decks are not a standard size and the client does not handle them well. This causes confusion during deck building, as most players who are familiar with Magic Limited play have been trained to use forty-card decks, and quite often this confusion leads to players using forty-card decks in the format, putting them at a serious disadvantage just for building decks the way they have been taught to for years], and seems to think it can noticeably reduce the value of playing in the limited format without concern. The EV of playing 6 pack sealed is comparably awful, and those of us with deep enough pockets not to be financially concerned did not arrive in that position because we're unable to spot a bad deal when presented one. In the year that I've been playing I have bought the client for 5 of my friends. Most of them aren't rich, so I also bought them cards, packs and tickets. Then I told them how much fun and reasonably rewarding the 4 pack sealed events can be. And now they're gone, replaced by queues that are slower and, at least for me and my friends, considerably less intriguing. I'm sitting on 44 packs from a few release events, and I don't even feel like playing anymore. Maybe like some of these folks I'll just find a new hobby, which is a shame because I really do love the game.
|
|
|
