More from Forsythe about Workshop

[Jhaggs]

Here is another small tibit from Forsythe regarding Mishra's Workshop:

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af65

Why not the Workshop? In essence, I believe the DCI and a significant portion of the Vintage community like what it does. Yes, it is crazy powerful, but that is what the format is about. It allows a whole swath of cards that might otherwise be unplayable exist in the tournament environment. In a way, it helps define the format as one where crazy things happen.

We knew Mirrodin block was going to super-charge the power level of the Workshop, but we wanted to see what happened before we did anything rash. After the entire block had hit the streets and the dust settled, what were the real problems? There were over 180 artifacts that cost 3 or more released in that block, and if all but one or two of them were okay, why not just take care of those and leave the Workshop alone? Trinisphere was a problem in our eyes (and arguably not even a big problem if you listen to the players), so we restricted it. Crucible of Worlds may eventually reach that status as well, but certainly not yet. And that's about it, really. Yes, the card powers out Juggernauts and Smokestacks, but this is a format built around Moxes, Black Lotus, Sol Ring, and Dark Ritual. It isn't that far off the “norm.”

[Bram]

While we're at it, might as well post the rest of what he said on the subject, too.

Personally, I don't buy the argument that Workshop is keeping more expensive colored creatures (like, say, Juzam Djinn) out of the environment. The format as a whole has passed those cards by. You can play creatures, but merely being efficient is not enough anymore. You need your creatures to be able to win the game on their own, like Psychatog, Goblin Welder, or Akroma.

Lastly, will the continued allowance of four Workshops hurt future design? Not a bit. We have lots of formats to worry about, and we've already shown that we're willing to restrict cards in Vintage that haven't proven problematic in any other format. So if, down the road, we want to make another expensive artifact that is only ridiculous in Vintage, I'm sure we'll print it and then discuss restricting it.

Or maybe we'd re-restrict the Workshop. Anything is fair game. Just not any time soon, that's for sure.

Not any time soon. OK, Aaron, you just made me a happy man.

[Zombie Shakespeare]

I had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Forsythe back in March on the last day of Pro Tour Atlanta regarding Mishra's Workshop and the recent restriction of Trinisphere. He stated that "We wanted people to still be able to play prison decks."

Yes, it is crazy powerful, but that is what the format is about. It allows a whole swath of cards that might otherwise be unplayable exist in the tournament environment. In a way, it helps define the format as one where crazy things happen.

I think this statement from today's article could also be applied to cards like Mana Drain and Intuition which many also think are too powerful to be unrestricted.

[Komatteru]

I think this statement from today's article could also be applied to cards like Mana Drain and Intuition which many also think are too powerful to be unrestricted.

Or Dark Ritual. 

[forests failed you]

The key difference between Trinisphere and Dark Ritual, Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain and Intiution is that scrubs don't get quite so pissy about losing to the later four;  i.e. they are not "unfun," as they say...  Anyways, I think it is great that the DCI is at least letting Vintage players know that there is no intention of restricting Workshop in the future.  Now if only there was some objective list of criteria for the DCI to decide causality for further restrictions and unrestrictions in the future, we'd be all set.  But knowing that Workshop is at least safe for now, and that there can be at least in theory a varried metagame is good news to me.

[molson]

 Now if only there was some objective list of criteria for the DCI to decide causality for further restrictions and unrestrictions in the future, we'd be all set. 

Many players have posted elaborate criteria for restriction.  Wizards posted quite clearly what their criteria for restriction is.  The objective criteria for restriction is tournament attendence.  When tournament attendence drops, the DCI will restrict stuff to get attendece back up.  If only restricting trinisphere is the best way to raise attendence, that makes trinisphere the correct card to restrict based on the criteria for restriction.

If you disagree with this criteria for restriction, that is your business.  However, these constant posts about trinisphere being restricted without objective criteria are ignorant in light of the candid disclosure the DCI has had about its restriction.

[epeeguy]

Many players have posted elaborate criteria for restriction.  Wizards posted quite clearly what their criteria for restriction is.  The objective criteria for restriction is tournament attendence.  When tournament attendence drops, the DCI will restrict stuff to get attendece back up.  If only restricting trinisphere is the best way to raise attendence, that makes trinisphere the correct card to restrict based on the criteria for restriction.

Except that wasn't the criteria that was cited by Aaron in either this article or the article where Trinisphere was actually restricted; there was no discussion of tournament attendance drops in Vintage events.  While there are a number of Vintage events held, which WotC could have tapped into the numbers for, they are unsanctioned event; and has been suggested before, perhaps there is a taboo against using that kind of data without the "official" sanctioning.  Regardless, Aaron's comments regarding Trinisphere was with regards to the lack of interactiveness and "unfun" nature of the card; there was no mention of tournament attendance.

[molson]

there was no mention of tournament attendance.

First reread 'Eight Plus One'
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af56

The portion regarding standard is about low tournament attendence being the reason for restrictions.  Perhaps you skipped this part because you don't play standard.  Because he lead with this portion of the argument in the standard section, Aaron doesn't specifically get into it with trinisphere.

Now read Aaron's column 'Mail on the Stack':
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af61

Tournament attendence is specifically mentioned with regards to trinisphere. 

While most players latched onto 'Not Fun' as subjective, Aaron states "the evidence of the general public's disdain for what the format looks like has gone from anecdotal to measurable."  The measure is tournament attendence.

Again, you are free to disagree with the policy, but it is clearly stated in these articles.

[Matt]

I don't even agree that there should be objective criteria, except for the tournament attendance. If players are perfectly fine with letting one card or deck (Mana Drain) run rampant, then who is to say no? When you make a list of criteria like the ones bandied about, you run the risk of handcuffing yourself too much - maybe there's some card that is dominating but doesn't fit your criteria because you forgot one criterion, or maybe some card fits the criteria but obviously shouldn't be restricted for other reasons (Force of Will comes to mind as a card that is utterly dominant, and yet should never be touched). That leads you down a horrible road of exceptions and exceptions to exceptions.

The dangers of establishing an official list of restrictable offenses are twofold: first, the tendency of most people is to come to rely on that list as a crutch, checking with authority first instead of appraising the situation with an open mind, and in this way you might end up restricting a card that does not deserve it. Second, you might end up not restricting a deserving card because it distorts in a way not proscribed by your canon.

[epeeguy]

The portion regarding standard is about low tournament attendence being the reason for restrictions.  Perhaps you skipped this part because you don't play standard.  Because he lead with this portion of the argument in the standard section, Aaron doesn't specifically get into it with trinisphere.

Actually, I do play Standard (there are very few formats I don't play to be honest), but that's not what is being talking about with regards to the restriction of Trinisphere in Vintage.  What is happening in Standard is one thing; what is happening in Vintage is another.  Comparing the two is comparing apples to oranges.

Tournament attendence is specifically mentioned with regards to trinisphere. 

While most players latched onto 'Not Fun' as subjective, Aaron states "the evidence of the general public's disdain for what the format looks like has gone from anecdotal to measurable."  The measure is tournament attendence.

I will have to reread the initial comments made on the restriction of Trinisphere, and the specific criteria that Aaron mentioned for that, as I do not recall any mention being made about a drop in attendance at Vintage events being related to a restriction of Trinisphere.  My recollection, which I'll admit may not be 100% accurate, only recalls a drop in attendance being mentioned with regards to the restrictions in Standard (which clearly are not applicable to Trinisphere's restriction).  The reasons, that I recall, being mentioned by Aaron had to do with "interactivity" and the "unfun" nature of the card; not a drop in attendance at Vintage events.

Besides, if you want to look at the numbers on attendance to Vintage events, I don't seem to think there was any "drop" in attendance at all in Vintage events when Trinisphere came out; in fact, I think that attendance at Vintage events had been, and still is, on the rise.  Pre or post restriction.

Again, you are free to disagree with the policy, but it is clearly stated in these articles.

I don't recall saying another about whether I agreed with, or disagreed with, the reasons for restricting Trinisphere.  All I mentioned was the criteria that Aaron talked about in his article.  Heck, I didn't even mention whether I felt they were "objective" or not; in fact, it doesn't matter.  Whatever reason for them restricting the card, it doesn't change anything.  The card's been restricted, and that's fine by me.  While it's nice to read Aaron's explanation, if only to gauge it and see how it applies to future changes to the list, it's not required to "justify" the restriction.

Edit: In fact, going to the thread on TMD when the announcement was made, the only time attendance data was mentioned was with regards to the bannings in Standard.  They saw a noticeable drop in attendance at FNMs and similar events, got feedback from shop owners and looked at the environment and made the bannings in Standard based on that.  But, this was not mentioned with regards to the restriction of Trinisphere in Vintage; a big point that was hit on in the prior thread, as "reducing interactivity" or "being unfun" was not deemed reasonable.  But, tournament attendance in Vintage was definitely not discussed.

[molson]

In 'Eight plus one' Aaron begins his discussion of Trinisphere by staying "I could repeat many of the paragraphs above with some of the words changed to cover the Vintage changes" so clearly the whole part about standard was not intended to be seperate from the discussion of trinisphere.

Further, Aaron chose to run a letter which states: "They view the restricting as unnecessary and if anything most believe it [Trinisphere] made Vintage healthier. In the end though, I believe it will be a good thing, as Trinisphere was lowering the turnout for our Type 1 events. Thanks for continuing to support Type 1."

Aaron is clearly pointing to the underlying restriction philosophy.  It is true Aaron tried to convince people who fell in the camp that trinisphere promoted a healthy metagame that the card is unfun.  That was an important part of the message.  The reason is important is because the issue that is vague here is not restriction criteria but what 'healthy' means.  Good players see the value of trinisphere.  Most players don't.  To good players, trinishere is a healthy part of the metagame.  To most players, it is unfun so they don't play the game at all.  To Wizards, a healthy metagame is one with many attendees.

Wizards customers are store owners and TOs.  In order to help their customers, Wizards needs to do what they can to get people into the stores.  Not showing up to play the game doesn't help people sell cards.  I can promise you that if Wizards told Pete at StarCity they could restrict 10 cards (doesn't matter which ones) and they could double his attendence, he would gladly tell them to do it.  He doesn't care about a 'healthy' metagame as proposed by the games' best theorists.  He cares about making enough money off the SCG Power 9 events to make them worth running.  A 'healthy' metagame that can't get people to show up to events really isn't 'healthy'.

[forests failed you]

I think that epeeguy has got it right on this one.  The standard bannings were a result of less people wanting to attend FNM events, whereas the criterium discussed for the restriction of Trinisphere was that it created an "unfun" game state.  In the past, the trend for restricting cards in Vintage was that once one specific deck became overly powered and format dominating, the DCI would step in and bring that deck back down to the power level of the rest of the format; or, the DCI would restrict cards that clearly would have had an insane and overpowered effect in Vintage. 

My main concern with the matter is that I would like to be able to play a format that looks and feels like the Vintage format of the past.  To be honest, as long as there isn't one specific deck that is utterly unbeatable I really don't care how many powerful cards and effects are available to Vintage deckbuilders.  The reason that Trinisphere's restriction is annoying and problematic is that it wasn't part of a deck that was dominating the format; rather, it was part of one of the three or four best, but balanced decks in Vintage.  My greatest fear is that Trinisphere's restriction will create a slippery slope where other key or important cards will eventually see restriction in the future, mainly Mana Drain and Dark Ritual; Two of the cards that define and keep Vintage feeling like Vintage.

My intent in sarcastically saying at the end of my first quote that it would be nice if the DCI would set up  some sort of criteria for when cards should become restricted was not to make random newbie scrubs think that I am ignorant, but rather to express a general dissatisfaction with DCI policy regarding Vintage policy.  In the past I have always been extremely happy with the choices the DCI has made when choosing which cards should stay, and which cards should go.  However, as a fan of Vintage in general, I think that taking away a key part of one archetype's tools, has actually watered down the format.  It must be even more frustrating for people who paid more than $30 a piece for Workshops, and actually enjoyed playing that type of deck.  My sentiment is that most Vintage players want to play with broken cards and have as many options open to them as possible, and that the DCI should respect that.  For people who want to play with old cards but not against brokeness, there is always the Legacy format. 

That major gripe aside, I think that it is very good that Aaron has the foresight to see that 4 Mishra's Workshop is a good thing in Vintage and that other Archetypes besides combo and Mana Drain decks should be allowed to exist.  Also, I commend him for being an all around nice guy and at least acknowledging the Vintage community and letting us know what the DCI's motives regarding the latest restrictions were.  Whether those motives were right or wrong, healthy or unhealthy, good or bad, is of course completely a matter of opinion; which is why it is important for those of us who disagree to make our cases known.  (so that the Vintage format we all enjoy stays fun, balanced, and most importantly not watered down).

[Machinus]

It must be even more frustrating for people who paid more than $30 a piece for Workshops, and actually enjoyed playing that type of deck.

If you or anyone you know feels like they wasted their money by buying workshops for $30, I will happly buy as many of them as you can find and make sure they make a profit. What are you saying???

[epeeguy]

Further, Aaron chose to run a letter which states: "They view the restricting as unnecessary and if anything most believe it [Trinisphere] made Vintage healthier. In the end though, I believe it will be a good thing, as Trinisphere was lowering the turnout for our Type 1 events. Thanks for continuing to support Type 1."

I went back and reread both articles, and you are really inappropriately contributing the quotes to the wrong people here and placing them out of context.  As I said, and you falsely claimed, Aaron never mentioned attendance in Vintage as being the reason for the restriction.  The letter he ran (for any number of reasons) was from someone else who mentioned it; but Aaron, himself, never said "Yeap, we saw attendance dropping as well in Vintage events" or anything like that at all.  Sure, Ian mentioned that, but in no way did Aaron himself talk about it himself other than to acknowledge that if it was a problem locally, then it was good to hear that the Restriction helped with that.  I don't see that as being anything more than someone acknowledging a compliment, and glad to see that a WotC/DCI action was taken positively.

Edit: Aaron's response was "I@n's comments on Trinisphere are telling—his experience with the card's effect on his local community is a mirror of what we saw happening in Standard with Ravager Affinity. Experienced players could process the card for what it was, but that doesn't mean it wasn't ruining the experiences of other players. A balanced environment means nothing if there's no one to play in it."  Aaron only acknowledges the effect on the "local community".  There's no evidence that it means anything more than that.

As I said before, the restriction was done was due to Trinisphere reducing "interactivity" and being "unfun" (both those words are lifted from Either Plus One btw).  Not due to attendance.  Yes, they may point out a general reason or philosophy for some of their assessments, which I do not disagree with, but it certainly wasn't that attendance in Vintage was that big of a problem because of Trinisphere.  You are misattributing and misinterpreting what is being said when you apply it to this specific instance of restricting a card.  So, certainly, the Restriction/Banning of cards may, in part, be based on attendance; but it's also going to be based on a lot of other criteria as well.  Some "purely objective", others less so.  But, that's a whole series of reasons and some can be not as significantly part of the decision as others are.  In Trinisphere's case, it was "interactivity" and "unfun", not attendance.

As for the remainder of your claims... I'll have to take a look at that a bit later when I have a little more time.  But, I can say at first glance that I find it hard to believe that the DCI is going to use the bannings in such a pro-active fashion, in order to line any TOs' pocket.

[crazynlazy]

IMO 3sphere in vintage was a lot less fun than affinity in standard. In standard it always took a few turns to win. With 3sphere they could play anything for three turns and that's when crucible wasn't right after it. I used to play affinity in standard the games were still fun, I would still lose sometimes, that wasn't exactly the case with workshop decks. if someone was playing prison given a good draw there was nothing that the other player could do. which is why wizards restrict cards, it's a game it should be fun.

[molson]

I find it hard to believe that the DCI is going to use the bannings in such a pro-active fashion, in order to line any TOs' pocket.

Being a TO isn't exactly a lucrative business.  You won't see the guy who owns SCG on cribs and he's one of the most successful TOs/owners.  If Wizards isn't proactive, like banning 8 cards in standard, then there won't be any TOs.  Magic isn't just a hobby.  It is a business for both Hasbro and TOs.  It is a business that has no problem losing one player to gain three new players especially at the local level.  The core of the business is local communities.  It is most definately not the pro tour or big vintage tournaments.  Wizards policies are primarily geared towards supporting TOs/store owners because without them, there is no Magic.  Without regular players, there aren't TOs/store owners.  The restricting of trinisphere is a direct result of this.  To prevent decreases in tournament attendence, Wizards has to take steps to make the game fun.  Trinisphere is not fun=people don't play.  Hense, the measure for restriction is tournament attendence.  

Mind's Desire was restricted before it was legal.  Just before long.dec could really break out, it was restricted out of existence.  It was already scaring people away from getting into vintage because of its reliable turn 1 kill ability.  The DCI acted in a very proactive way to prevent tournament attendece from dropping.  Once it drops, it is hard to get it back up.  It is far better to stop the drop before it happens.

Wizards policies are fairly easy to understand when you think about it from their point of view.  

[epeeguy]

Being a TO isn't exactly a lucrative business.  

Really?  I've been led to believe just the opposite actually. *shrug*

Regardless, the bannings in Standard were definitely not "proactive", as those cards were in the format for a year and a half before they were banned; even after a large number of people were complaining about them, and tournament attendance had been dropping during that time.  Not just GPTs or PTQs, but FNMs.  That's not exactly the definition of "proactive", at least not as I think about it.  The same is true of cards like Skullclamp; when Darksteel was released, WotC knew the card might be problematic, but had hoped that it would be that problematic.  Surely enough, they banned it in 6 months.  Again, not exactly "proactive".

That's not to say there haven't been instances of them being "proactive"; and I'm certainly not trying to discredit what it is that WotC/DCI does with the Banned/Restricted lists.  But, you're going a bit overboard with your claims of how and why they operate, and basing it purely on what you've been reading.  I don't think it works quite the way you think it does.  Then again, no one here can really claim they know how things work with that thought process; we can only guess.

But, I'll say this, they certainly don't Ban/Restrict cards just so that TOs can turn a profit.  Sure, they might be concerned about attendance in formats, but it's not about increasing attendance; it's about preventing it from decreasing.  They don't meet and say "Oh, attendance hasn't increased by our targeted numbers; we need to restrict more cards in the environment."  That's a silly and facetious claim to make, and certainly does WotC/DCI a disservice when it comes to their decision making process.

Anyhow, you're still conjecturing that "unfun/not interactive" = "less attendance" = Trinisphere's restriction.  As I've repeatedly stated, attendance was not mentioned as a factor in the restriction of Trinisphere; you're simply trying to draw that comparison based on a few snippets of text that've been taken out of context.

Since it's apparent you're insistent on making that connection; feel free to continue doing so.  But, its an unsubstantiated claim, based on the barest shreds of evidence.

[molson]

But, I'll say this, they certainly don't Ban/Restrict cards just so that TOs can turn a profit. 

With all due respect, you must be young/uneducated in business if you don't understand the relationship between Wizards and TOs/Store owners. As a wholesaler, if Wizards doesn't take actions to keep their customers profitable (TOs and storeowners, not you), they themselves will not be profitable. 

Banning cards often has a very negative connotation as everyone who writes for Wizards has said.  Banning cards leads to people quitting.  They have to make sure more people will play than not based on bannings.  That is directly tied to tournament attendence-make sure more people play.  They don't ban and restrict things lightly.  I am not implying that they do.  It is a very serious part of their job.

With regards to timing in standard vs vintage, they aren't done the same way because banning cards in standard sends the signal that wizards messed up.  Everyone knows they don't test vintage so it doesn't matter if there are errors there.  You can't expect as quick action in standard as in vintage.  The company reputation isn't on the line like it is in standard.  Regardless, at the heart of the matter is that Wizards wants to make as much money as possible.  It does that by maximizing the profits of TOs. 

I am basically saying that the decision to ban/restrict cards isn't made with the top tier of players in mind.  It is made with lower tiered players in mind who pump the most money into the game.  The reason behind the decision is to make sure these players have fun and show up to tournaments.

For most people, see crazynlazy's comments in this thread & I@n's in the 'mail on the stack' article, Magic is just a game which is above all else supposed to be fun.  If it is not fun, they don't play the game.  I am arguing the policy is based on economics more so than what is in Aaron's articles.  The key point in Aaron's articles is that in Wizards view, unfun is measurable by tournament attendence.  His analysis of trinisphere as unacceptably unfun represents a belief that it will hurt attendence.  I@n's comments demonstrate that this is particularly true at the FNM level which is the bread and butter of the business.

[epeeguy]

With all due respect, you must be young/uneducated in business if you don't understand the relationship between Wizards and TOs/Store owners.

*shrug*

That's a pretty big assumption to make.  And, unfortunately, it'd be a bad one to make.

[forests failed you]

Machinus, you have misread what I wrote.  I said people who have paid MORE than $30 for Workshops... My teamates and I bought about 12 Workshops right after they were unrestricted for between $30 and $40 apiece, and then sold off the extras.  So, yes, I personally have no problem with it, as I made out like a bandit.

I was implying that people who spent a lot of money after the card shot up might be frustrated.  Sorry if that was worded confusingly.  Trinisphere's restiction doesn't really effect any of the decks that I play, as I usually don't play with my Workshops.  However, I liked the fact that it was in the metagame and that there was another competitive archetype in the format.

I'm not really sure how much the money arguement applies to Vintage for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, and this is speaking entirely from personal experience, the Vintage players that I play with almost never BUY cards.  Most Vintage players already have what they need to play, and trade, or buy from ebay anything else they might want.  On the whole people who play Vintage do not buy packs in order to get cards for their Vintage decks.  They may buy packs to draft or play other formats, but that really doesn't have much to do with their Vintage deckbuilding. 

Anyways, I can see where you are going with your arguement; however I just wish that you would stop putting your personal philosophy into Aron's mouth.  The official cause of restriction according to the DCI, when 3sphere was axed, was that it was unfun and made for boring games.  Nowhere in that article did they say that tournament attendence was dropping.  If your conclusion is that tournament attendence was down, that is fine and you have every right to say that is your opinion.  However, to outrightly say that Forsythe said so is putting words into his mouth.  I personally haven't been able to find anythign where he specifically said that about Trinisphere specifically, it has always been about Ravager in standard.  My view of the situation has been that Vintage over the past year has been exploding and becoming bigger, more played, and recieving more attention than it ever has.  You might also consider, that it is easier to convince people that your opinions are correct or worth considering by using logical arguements and proof, rather than simply calling everyone who has an opposing opinion from you "uneducated / young / ignorant."

Also, some of you posters  should read J's article about interactivity on SCG, so that you fully understand what the concept entails.  Trinisphere was perhaps the most interactive card in the format, because it does not allow your opponent to ignore you or win through you.  As so many Vintage players have already noted, it says: interact with me or die. 

[molson]

It’s obvious that the people arguing w/ me have not worked in corporate finance.  Of course Aaron isn't going to say that they restricted trinisphere to make more money, but that is the root of the issue.  It doesn't matter how some guy who got an article published on starcitygames says in interactivity.  The definition of profits is universal. 

Trinisphere kills local magic.  It drives down attendance at local events played in by scrubs, and that hurts the bottom line.  They can restrict any 10 cards and TMD players will keep playing.  They do the best with what is available.  They will suffer through the boredom of trinisphere and even argue that it is interactive.  Most players won't.  They say, trinisphere is unfun and they stop showing up.

The asinine reply of eepeguy there proves that he is inexperienced with profit driving concepts.  You are free to assume Magic isn't a for profit venture if you want, but there really isn’t anything else to say so I’ll drop it. 

[epeeguy]

It’s obvious that the people arguing w/ me have not worked in corporate finance.  Of course Aaron isn't going to say that they restricted trinisphere to make more money, but that is the root of the issue.  It doesn't matter how some guy who got an article published on starcitygames says in interactivity.  The definition of profits is universal. 

No offense, but WotC doesn't make money on Vintage/Legacy.  Nor does it make money on events held by TOs.  Furthermore, to say that the restrictions/bannings are driven purely by profits (as you've suggested) is not entirely accurate.  Sure, they have some indirect impact on things (mostly felt through tournament attendance), but that's going to impact Standard and Limited events more.  Even Extended to an extent, though not quite as much.  But sales of boosters and tournament packs are going to be driven by Standard and Limited because players need to practice Limited (either booster draft or sealed deck), or get cards for when each set rotates into Standard.  Vintage/Legacy really isn't going to drive things as much as your argument needs in order to make that big of an impact.  I admit, there's probably going to be some impact, but that's going to be mostly incidental to other factors.

Again, you're simply hypothesizing based on conjecture from some rather weak statements.  The evidence you are drawing from isn't really enough to support what you are suggesting, and honestly I think it's a bit unrealistic an conclusion to try to even make.  So, I keep asking the same question which is, are you right?  And I really don't think you can support your argument.  Again, Aaron's principle, and really only direct, comments were regarding completely different things than attendance when it came to restricting Trinisphere in Vintage.  Trying to make the point that he was even indirectly hinting at attendance is a long shot.

The asinine reply of eepeguy there proves that he is inexperienced with profit driving concepts.  You are free to assume Magic isn't a for profit venture if you want, but there really isn’t anything else to say so I’ll drop it. 

I have a BS in Accounting, halfway towards a CPA and work with governmental financial statements (amongst other things).  I'm getting ready to start working on a Masters in Economics.  Now since I've posted my qualifications, what about yours?  Or are you simply trolling for a response?

[molson]

I work for a reinsurance company.  While we are competitive on our own, we need the insurance companies we work with to be profitable in order for us to be profitable.

Wizards is in the same boat.  They make money because TOs make money.  If a TO is not successful in any given area, then Wizards cannot make money from that area.  They do indeed make a lot of money off vintage/legacy because its one of the most played formats-although it involves unpowered decks and often unglued cards. 

Look at the polls on Aaron's articles.  Of the players who even read Magicthegathering.com, 68% have never been to a PTQ.  40% just read MTG.com.  These are the most serious of the casual people.  Many players read no Magic websites at all.  Most Magic players suck, and they have no interest in playing at a high level.

Stating that Wizards doesn't make money off vintage means they don't make money off competitive Vintage.  Vintage is the oldest format in Magic and is therefore the default format in Magic.  Most players have a vintage deck.  You'll see shadow vs slivers with sol rings or other cheap restricted cards thrown in.  These people buy new cards and play things worse than All Suns Dawn in their vintage decks.

These players couldn't care less what Mike Flores says about interactivity, and whether trinisphere is an interactive card by definition.  They know that when someone plays with it, the game is no fun.  If the game is no fun for long enough, instead of going to FNM, or a casual Sunday gathering, they will go to a movie with their frinds who also play Magic.  This drop in attendence can fuel further drops in attendence.  If the decrease doesn't reverse itself, the area will eventually dry up, and the store will go out of business.  At that point, Wizards can't sell Magic cards to people in that area.

People run tournaments all the time for Vintage where playing top tier decks is discouraged.  The goal is just to set a date to get all the players in an area to come together and have some fun.  A lot of stores sanction these events, and while Aaron didn't do a Dr. Sylvan style table, they have access to statistics that show how often most Magic players are playing.  If they see a downward trend with these numbers, it is important to act.  The best vintage players will play whether trinisphere is restricted or not.  Whether or not the worst vintage players will play or not is greatly dependent on whether trinisphere is restricted or not. 

As an aside, It is also important to note that since you can get a trinisphere in a pack right now, it has a bigger target than mana drain.  Wizards was unhappy about having to restrict chrome mox.  They will take action for the health of the format for the better players at the expense of the bad players as in chrome mox's case, but sometimes cards like trinisphere which aren't that bad in the eyes of good players, will get the axe for the benefit of bad players.  Vintage serves two very different populations, and they have to restrict cards to make both groups happy.  Keeping attendece up for both audiences is the goal of the restricted list.

[Godder]

No offense, but WotC doesn't make money on Vintage/Legacy.  Nor does it make money on events held by TOs.

It depends on what they give away as prizes, but if packs are on offer, Wizards made money off the event somewhere along the line.

[epeeguy]

It depends on what they give away as prizes, but if packs are on offer, Wizards made money off the event somewhere along the line.

I can see your point here.  Even if it is an unsanctioned event, it is still the TO purchasing packs in order to give away, so WotC is making some money off that.  But, I still think that's incidental to where the real meat of sales are.  Which has been mentioned in several circles.  It's commonly held knowledge that the biggest drivers of sales is Limited and Standard.

Wizards is in the same boat.  They make money because TOs make money.  If a TO is not successful in any given area, then Wizards cannot make money from that area.  They do indeed make a lot of money off vintage/legacy because its one of the most played formats-although it involves unpowered decks and often unglued cards.

Again, this is not something I'm going to argue about; I agree with you that WotC wants to see TOs be successful, as they move WotCs product.  What I am not in agreement with you is the extent to which this applies.  One of the arguments you advanced was about a fictional conversation between WotC and SCG, with the idea of restricting cards just to increase attendance.  I can't disagree with that more.  There's no real historical evidence for it having happened in Vintage, nor even too many other environments with.  While WotC did make the recent Standard bannings, in no small way, based on this... It's not exactly been something that's been time and again.

The point I was making with the entire "Vintage/Legacy doesn't make WotC money" is not a new argument; and is certainly not one I originated.  It comes back to where the bulk of the sales are focused, and what market drives those sales.  While Vintage/Legacy to an extent will impact sales, it doesn't drive them like Limited or Standard will.  Simply put, booster and tournament packs are sold in order to run these two events, or they are picked up by newer players.  The Vintage/Legacy community isn't going to drive the sales quite as highly, especially as that community may only want a few of the more choice cards, which they can probably either buy or trade for directly, as opposed to purchasing packs.

I'm speaking hypothetically, but I would imagine that the number of booster or tournament packs bought by the average Vintage/Legacy player is probably about half of what the Standard community would purchase regularly.  And it may even be less than that, if the set really has no cards in it that impact the format.  Sure, casual players will purchase the product, there's no doubt about that, but how much do casual players really care about "format"?  I imagine most play Vintage/Legacy without even realizing that such a format exists.

As an aside, It is also important to note that since you can get a trinisphere in a pack right now, it has a bigger target than mana drain.  Wizards was unhappy about having to restrict chrome mox.  They will take action for the health of the format for the better players at the expense of the bad players as in chrome mox's case, but sometimes cards like trinisphere which aren't that bad in the eyes of good players, will get the axe for the benefit of bad players.  Vintage serves two very different populations, and they have to restrict cards to make both groups happy.  Keeping attendece up for both audiences is the goal of the restricted list.

I won't argue this point either; but banning/restricting a card because it was "unfun" or "reduced interactivity" is certainly going to serve both camps here.  Especially the "unfun" part, which is going to appeal to the more casual player than it is the competitive player, where "fun" is an important distinction in the two groups.  But, "reduced interactivity" is going to impact both groups certainly, especially when this is viewed by competitive players as simply making uninteresting and one sided games.

However, what does "attendance" of an event matter to a casual player?  Like you said, casual players largely don't play in tournaments or care about things like "health of the format" or what the numbers are like.  They play at home, with friends, or perhaps occassionally participate in a local store event.  They might not have fun when certain cards are permitted, but it's been my experience that most casual players institute "informal" restrictions and bannings pretty quickly.  They may not even care quite as much about the Officie list.  However, it's the competitive players, who would attend tournaments regularly, that is going to impact the "attendance" here and are going to care what the Official banned and restricted list is and design there decks accordingly.  The "health" of a format is going to be really critical to the tournament player, who has to worry about how to design his or her deck and to maximize his or her opportunities for actually winning.

The point is, you can advance the argument both ways; the problem is, in order to advance a strictly "attendance"-driven decision on the part of WotC when it came to Trinisphere, you really do have to take a lot of different comments and string them together very loosely.  Which, I think, is not accurately depicting the importance of the stated reasons that were given by Aaron.  Plus, it also counters the entire "concern for the casual players", who probably don't impact the Vintage/Legacy tournament environment as much as it might be claimed.  Is your argument completely off the wall?  No.  But, I don't think it's as strong as you make it out to be.

[molson]

The progression of the average Magic player goes like this:
kitchen table->play in stores for fun->play FNM->play PTQs->play PT. 

The real money maker is PTQs followed by play FNM.  To get here, you need a successful 'play in stores for fun' element.  Some people obviously can skip steps or not progress further depending on who introduces them to the game, or if they don't have an interest in getting better. 

While people who play at the kitchen table can make whatever rules they want, there comes a time for a lot of players when they want to play against people they don't know.  At this point, having a defined set of rules is very important.  The vintage banned/restricted list is often the first set of defined rules that these players will encounter.  Therefore, vintage restrictions are important to this group of players.  In order to get players to the next level, Wizards needs players to have an enjoyable time at this period in their growth as a Magic player.  At this point, having fun win or lose=healthy.  At the PTQ level, winning=fun so the game being fun to play and still lose becomes less important.

It is true that a lot of factors go into deciding what to restrict, but ultimately, what Wizards wants to do is keep tournament attendance at its highest level.  As long as people are playing in tournaments, no matter how bad the metagame is, they are progressing towards playing in PTQs.

My point about Starcity and restrictions was to illustrate that healthy means different things to different people.  Perhaps that wasn't clear. Using health, fun and interactivity as measures is ultimately too subjective.  If these are your criteria for restriction, you risk needlessly upsetting people with the decision.  Doing what is necessary to keep tournament attendance at its peak ensures the most people are happy.  Wizards is happy, TOs are happy, and the most players are happy because more of them are showing up to play.  It is true you may lose some players because of a restriction.  However, if more people would have left because nothing was done, Wizards made a good decision.

[epeeguy]

The progression of the average Magic player goes like this:
kitchen table->play in stores for fun->play FNM->play PTQs->play PT.

I don't disagree.  Such was my experience.
 

The real money maker is PTQs followed by play FNM.  To get here, you need a successful 'play in stores for fun' element.  Some people obviously can skip steps or not progress further depending on who introduces them to the game, or if they don't have an interest in getting better.

True again.  Though, FNMs are a bit more consistent in terms of money (as they happen every week, and usually get the same draw every week) and are accessible to just about anyone willing to go through the sanctioning process.  Whereas PTQs aren't quite as regular, and only go to Premiere TOs... So, I think that while PTQs probably earn a lot more money for someone than FNM does, the FNMs are a bit more consistent in terms of sales and generating a pretty regular play environment.  But, that's just a hypothesis on my part.
 

It is true that a lot of factors go into deciding what to restrict, but ultimately, what Wizards wants to do is keep tournament attendance at its highest level.  As long as people are playing in tournaments, no matter how bad the metagame is, they are progressing towards playing in PTQs.

Well, to an extent, a bad metagame is going to impact tournament attendance as well.  Which is why I was very cautiously looking at PT Philly; not only was the tournament structure very different than other PTs in the past, but it was also block, and not a block that seemed like it was getting a lot of "good reaction" from players.  Between Jitte and the theme of the block... Well, it seemed as if this may have been one of WotC's worse block seasons, let alone tournament season, in a while.  I think that PT Philly dismissed those concerns though (at least preliminarily).

My point about Starcity and restrictions was to illustrate that healthy means different things to different people.  Perhaps that wasn't clear. Using health, fun and interactivity as measures is ultimately too subjective.  If these are your criteria for restriction, you risk needlessly upsetting people with the decision.  Doing what is necessary to keep tournament attendance at its peak ensures the most people are happy.  Wizards is happy, TOs are happy, and the most players are happy because more of them are showing up to play.  It is true you may lose some players because of a restriction.  However, if more people would have left because nothing was done, Wizards made a good decision.

I think then you probably chose a bit of bad phrasing then when you explained it.  Because, certainly I can agree with what you are saying here.  I think you just probably went a bit too far with what you were saying.

[T1Guy]

Many players have posted elaborate criteria for restriction.  Wizards posted quite clearly what their criteria for restriction is.  The objective criteria for restriction is tournament attendence.  When tournament attendence drops, the DCI will restrict stuff to get attendece back up.  If only restricting trinisphere is the best way to raise attendence, that makes trinisphere the correct card to restrict based on the criteria for restriction.

Except that wasn't the criteria that was cited by Aaron in either this article or the article where Trinisphere was actually restricted; there was no discussion of tournament attendance drops in Vintage events.  While there are a number of Vintage events held, which WotC could have tapped into the numbers for, they are unsanctioned event; and has been suggested before, perhaps there is a taboo against using that kind of data without the "official" sanctioning.  Regardless, Aaron's comments regarding Trinisphere was with regards to the lack of interactiveness and "unfun" nature of the card; there was no mention of tournament attendance.

Epeeguy is completely correct.  Certainly attendance is a factor in banning and it probably is a factor in restrictions as well.  But the critical fact is that wizards did NOT rely on attendance in deciding this particular restriction. 

If anything, T1 tournaments hit their highest attendence with 3sphere legal: 200 people at waterbury, 136 in syracuse, etc.  Record numbers. 

Plus sanctioned tournaments don't count for piss for DCI t1 policy, and they know it. 

[Godder]

The progression of the average Magic player goes like this:
kitchen table->play in stores for fun->play FNM->play PTQs->play PT.

You missed play in Pre-Releases, which is often the first tournament experience for a casual player, and you get a lot more casual players attending those (in some cases, regularly!) than to any other tournament, even including FNM. Pre-Releases aren't designed to make substantial profits for WotC, but the TO usually does reasonably well out of them.

The real money maker is PTQs followed by play FNM.  To get here, you need a successful 'play in stores for fun' element.  Some people obviously can skip steps or not progress further depending on who introduces them to the game, or if they don't have an interest in getting better.

The real money maker for WotC is Limited. Standard and Block make a reasonable amount as well, while Extended, Legacy and Vintage are more useful to the retailers as a way of moving older singles. As such, FNM is a much bigger money-spinner than PTQs. FNM runs weekly, involves mainly Limited and Standard/Block, and is run in hundreds of stores worldwide, whereas PTQs are run once per PT per year in each area. Admittedly, some areas may have more PTQs, depending on the number of Premiere TOs they have, but areas that can support extra TOs can also support extra FNM retailers.