SCG Premium Whining goes here

[Smmenen]

From now on, this is the thread for any comments on SCG premium. Do not bring it up in article discussion threads.
-Jacob

Anyone can get premium accounts.  They are pretty damned cheap.

[UR]

Anyone can get premium accounts.  They are pretty damned cheap.

Although it is a different discussion, I know quite a few people who cannot justify the cost. Most of them just wait 90 days and enjoy your articles then...

[xrobx]

Anyone can get premium accounts.  They are pretty damned cheap.

Obviously your paid to write for SCG, so you can't say anything bad about it.

The fact of the matter is that the internet exists solely due to, and for the purpose of, sharing information.  This sharing of information is on a large scale, free, and publicly available.

Why then, would you pay to read information??  Not only does it seem retarded to do so, arguing that it is better to pay for information than not to pay is redundant.

[Klep]

Anyone can get premium accounts.  They are pretty damned cheap.

Obviously your paid to write for SCG, so you can't say anything bad about it.

That is grossly offensive, not to mention untrue.  Besides which, he's right.  $30 for an entire year is peanuts.

The fact of the matter is that the internet exists solely due to, and for the purpose of, sharing information.  This sharing of information is on a large scale, free, and publicly available.

Why then, would you pay to read information??  Not only does it seem retarded to do so, arguing that it is better to pay for information than not to pay is redundant.

    People would pay for information because they think that information has some value.  Would you suggest that the information contained in premium articles on SCG are worthless?  I'm sure a large number of people would contest that idea. 
    Information is a commodity like any other.  Its price will be what the market can bear, and if the market can bear $30 per year (as it has), then it will.  Nevertheless, SCG only moved to premium access so that they could afford to keep up articles at all.  Would you rather SCG.com have closed down entirely(except for the store)?  I can think of a number of excellent articles published in the past year that we would otherwise never have had access to, for they would never have been written.  You would not expect to get the information contained within a book for free, I do not see why it becomes any different when the storage medium is electronic in nature rather than papery.

[Hi-Val]

Anyone can get premium accounts.  They are pretty damned cheap.

Obviously your paid to write for SCG, so you can't say anything bad about it.

The fact of the matter is that the internet exists solely due to, and for the purpose of, sharing information.  This sharing of information is on a large scale, free, and publicly available.

Why then, would you pay to read information??  Not only does it seem retarded to do so, arguing that it is better to pay for information than not to pay is redundant.

$5 is what you'd pay to get in on a FNM tournament. You don't get any tech there, you see little kids with pet decks duking it out. For $5 on SCG, you get to read Flores, infinity pros, Rizzo, etc. and actually improve your game. And you get that for a whole month.

[Komatteru]

Let me fix that.

For $5 on SCG, you get to read Flores, infinity pros, Rizzo, etc. and actually improve your game.  You also get to read Rizzo to read 100 pages of nonsense and get such advice as "don't play against swamps"...

Sometimes you even get to read articles by Japanese players.  No one in our format has the skill to sit in the same room as any of the Japanese nationals players.

[xrobx]

The fact of the matter is that the internet exists solely due to, and for the purpose of, sharing information.  This sharing of information is on a large scale, free, and publicly available.

Why then, would you pay to read information??  Not only does it seem retarded to do so, arguing that it is better to pay for information than not to pay is redundant.

People would pay for information because they think that information has some value. 

Granted, information has a value.  However, the internet has negated this to an extremity unheard of; the free sharing of literally any form of data has become popular.

Would you suggest that the information contained in premium articles on SCG are worthless?  I'm sure a large number of people would contest that idea. 

I never claimed anything of the sort, nor is it logical to infer that I did.

Information is a commodity like any other.  Its price will be what the market can bear, and if the market can bear $30 per year (as it has), then it will.

The point I'm trying to make is that it is senseless to pay for information that is available free elsewhere. There may exist a "market" or select group of people whom choose to pay for this service, but the fact of the matter remains; large spread information is freely available.  This falls into the category of information, since it is data, and as others have mentioned, some people don't mind waiting months for it to be released.  The very idea of information being owned/possessed/privatized in general is silly, but it does exist, and as such, SCG is a good example of this.  They are a productive company with a great following and great articles.

Nevertheless, SCG only moved to premium access so that they could afford to keep up articles at all.  Would you rather SCG.com have closed down entirely(except for the store)? 

Understandable, I do realize they must make money in order to perform their day to day operations.

I can think of a number of excellent articles published in the past year that we would otherwise never have had access to, for they would never have been written.  You would not expect to get the information contained within a book for free, I do not see why it becomes any different when the storage medium is electronic in nature rather than papery.

I hope you do now see why it is different when the form of the media is electronic, rather than written or published.  The point I'm trying to make is that it is quite arrogant, and ignorant to simply assume people are "too cheap" not to pay for this service, when they may have valid reasons beyond your comprehension as to why they choose not to pay.

[Klep]

Would you suggest that the information contained in premium articles on SCG are worthless?  I'm sure a large number of people would contest that idea. 

I never claimed anything of the sort, nor is it logical to infer that I did.

Well if you don't think that there is any amount worth paying for those articles, then clearly you must think they're worthless.

Information is a commodity like any other.  Its price will be what the market can bear, and if the market can bear $30 per year (as it has), then it will.

The point I'm trying to make is that it is senseless to pay for information that is available free elsewhere.

I'm sorry, is there some place else where the premium SCG articles are legitimately available for free?

Understandable, I do realize they must make money in order to perform their day to day operations.

Then why are you complaining about it?

You would not expect to get the information contained within a book for free, I do not see why it becomes any different when the storage medium is electronic in nature rather than papery.

I hope you do now see why it is different when the form of the media is electronic, rather than written or published.  The point I'm trying to make is that it is quite arrogant, and ignorant to simply assume people are "too cheap" not to pay for this service, when they may have valid reasons beyond your comprehension as to why they choose not to pay.

There is no difference.  It is true that some people really may not be able to justify the cost of spending $30 on a premium subscription, just as some are unable to justify spending a similar amount on a magazine subscription.  That is their problem.  People don't complain because they aren't being sent Time magazine for free, why should they complain about this?

What it boils down to is that for the content you get, the price you pay is quite fair, if not meager.  If you do not choose to pay the fee then that is your problem, and it is not your place to bitch about it.  It simply means you don't place enough of an importance on this hobby to pay for anything beyond the actual cards.  That's fine, but it doesn't give you the right to expect anything else.

[Dozer]

The point I'm trying to make is that it is senseless to pay for information that is available free elsewhere. There may exist a "market" or select group of people whom choose to pay for this service, but the fact of the matter remains; large spread information is freely available. [...] The very idea of information being owned/possessed/privatized in general is silly, but it does exist, and as such, SCG is a good example of this.

But the information contained in premium articles isn't available elsewhere. That's the whole point, isn't it? Lots of information is available for free on the internet. But for quality information, you have to pay more often than you seem to acknowledge. Online newspaper archives are a good example. You can read any dickhead's blog for free, but not the NYT archive. You can get free porn video samples for free, but not the 45-minute high resolution video.

Like on SCG, you are not paying for the information itself, but for the service of making it accessible to you. If you disagree with restricted access to information, that's fine, but then you have to accept the consequences that certain information will never be accessible to you. One reason is because you are not willing to fulfill the requirement for access, be it payment or just registering online or whatever. The second reason is that if information is not paid for, it will never be created/ published in the first place. Do you think newspapermen and -women work for nothing? Do you think Mike Flores would write as much as he does for free?

Sure, the society created by that is a two-fold one: The ones who can afford access to information, and those who cannot. It is important to keep this development in check! But not in a luxury hobby like Magic is. Some information can save lives, like health and hygiene precautions, bomb warnings, public immunization dates etc. But Magic: The Gathering tech is pure luxury, so don't complain when people try to make money with it. And 30$ a year is much less than any magazine or newspaper subscription, so it is cheap. If you can afford two friggin' Ravlands for 30$, you should be able to afford an SCG subscription as well. It's worth it.

Dozer

/edit: Sarnath'd.

[Smmenen]

People forget that without premium, scg would not have written content. 

[Jacob Orlove]

From now on, this is the thread for any comments on SCG premium. Do not bring it up in article discussion threads.

[xrizzo]

The vintage content (aside from Steve who has been doing an amazing job) has been severely lacking.  When the original move is over a year old, I expect the number of accounts to drop as people decide not to renew.

Having said that, Steve is arguably worthing paying for on his own!

[Klep]

With all due respect to Steve, far more people pay to read Flores than him.  Type 1 players don't make up anywhere near the most substantial portion of the SCG reader base.

[Smmenen]

I want to warn the readers that I will not have much content in Feb (becuase of personal related stuff), but I will probably have four articles in March. 

It's basically not worth it to write articles simply becuase it takes so much time even for what I earn now with premium.  But without premium pay rates, I definately would not be writing anything - maybe an article every six months or so. 

I'd like to see Andy Probasco step up and write more - same with Mat Endress.  Hell, I think DeMars should write some too.  Peter (diceman) could write some good stuff I think as well. 

If you are hesitant about buying premium, my advice is this: wait until you see an article you really want to read, then pay the $5 month thing then read it and then go back into the archive and see what else you missed from the previous three months that's not yet free. 

[Dozer]

If you are hesitant about buying premium, my advice is this: wait until you see an article you really want to read, then pay the $5 month thing then read it and then go back into the archive and see what else you missed from the previous three months that's not yet free. 

If there are six or more articles on SCG Premium that you are interested in per year, then you are better off to pay 30$ upfront to read those six articles, or maybe more. The yearly rate is half of what 12 monthly rates would cost you. I can't imagine that anyone in this game is interested in only six premium articles over 52 weeks, though. Even if you only want to read Smmenen without the 90 days wait, getting a yearly account makes much more sense.

Dozer

[Jacob Orlove]

Smmenen's point was that you can try premium for $5 when you know you'll get at least one article out of it, and then if you think it's worthwhile, you can put in the $30 in a month.

[Komatteru]

$5 for one article really isn't bad at all.  You do get to go back and read everything you missed.  I know I've bought magazines from time to time because I really wanted to read the cover article.  Usually, the rest of the magazine makes me get my $5 out of it, but with Premium, you will likely get a lot more than that $5 worth.

[Methuselahn]

Tampons are also pretty damned cheap.  But I don't need those either. 

For me, I only play Vintage because I only have time to fully commit to one format.  I have a spectacular team and can honestly say that I am the luckiest person to be a part of it.  So I get good advice for free.

I fully endorse SCG for having premium rates and articles.  Whatever it takes for them to succeed as a business I will endorse.  I hope they continue to be a force in the magic community.

My only issue is with the Vintage stats that steve has recently taken over.  Why this is premium, I don't understand.  First, I have to make a few assumptions, because there is no real description as to what these actually are.  Pretend you are new to the format and saw this Premium Article description.  I read it here and put myself in the place of a neophyte Vintage player. 

I would have to ask some or all of the following:

Is this a listing of Top 8s or what?  a combonation of comments and Top8s?  Comments, no matter how enlightened are subjective.
 
How are these compiled lists going to help me determine what to play in my own meta? (I guess my whining here is that the premium article descriptions are lacking)

Did the author have to pay to get the decklists from the tournaments?  Surely he wasn't at all of them and wrote them all down and typed them all up.  The author must have gotten ahold of these lists somehow.  It seems easy enough to me that someone could just write a perl script to tabulate the data. 

If I was a tournament organizer and I were to announce tournaments and then type up results, could I charge a fee for distribution of said lists?  If I did give up these lists to the author don't I deserve a piece of the pie for making SCG money by directly contributing to SCG premium articles? (I'm just assuming that TO's are not getting compensated.)

Above all else, I just don't see the logic in making these stats premium anyway.  I would argue that people who don't have premium would be less willing to type up lists and contribute to Steve's breakdown based on the sole fact that it no longer does them any good.  Why hand over a set of Top 8 lists when you don't get to see how it affects the entire global metagame.  You are just typing up lists for your own finger excercise. 

Why type up lists for free and post them when other people are also producing 'lists' and getting paid for it? It seems to me that there would be more Top8 lists available in general (which is better for the community, right?) if this article was free.

If your sample size decreases, which is what I believe will happen because it is premium, the information becomes less relevant.  Is this not accurate? (as an aside and IMO, 50+ is just way to high anyway (35-40 seems much more reasonable for vintage))

Vintage stats are the sole reason I might get premium.  I wont as of now though because of everything mentioned above.

[Hi-Val]

SCG doesn't pay for results AFAIK. I think there are two advantages to writing up decklists anyway, even if SCG uses them in paid articles. That is, it's fun for players to read what T8ed and it also serves to pump people up for the next tournament. SCG has a different audience than TMD, so if someone is reading that there was a Vintage tournament in Rhode Island last month in a stats article and it mentions the store, the host of the event might benefit from a little free advertising.

The stats are pretty useful to me at least-- things like knowing how successful Choke is on the board of Oath or seeing how many Wastelands are appearing in the US can be useful for preparing for large-scale events as well as gauging the metagame direction. My only issue with the stats right now is that there's a lot of numbers and seemingly insufficient analysis of them, given all the information.

[jpmeyer]

SCG needs to pay good money for someone to do it because those stats articles take a lot of work.

When I was talking with Dr. Sylvan about possibly replacing him, I realized that it takes about as much time as it would take me to write my (back when I was writing regularly) three articles a month as it would to do one analysis article even though there was about the same amount of original content in one of each.  Analyzing the data takes a while, writing the article takes a while, and there is a lot of legwork involved in finding the tournies in the time period and making sure that you have all the decks in the top 8.

[Methuselahn]

SCG doesn't pay for results AFAIK. I think there are two advantages to writing up decklists anyway, even if SCG uses them in paid articles. That is, it's fun for players to read what T8ed and it also serves to pump people up for the next tournament. SCG has a different audience than TMD, so if someone is reading that there was a Vintage tournament in Rhode Island last month in a stats article and it mentions the store, the host of the event might benefit from a little free advertising.

Hmm, well,  I don't see how 'fun' is advantageous.  I also don't see how it would be advantageous for someone to write up decklists in order to pump people up.  I've always believed that people who play Vintage are pumped up for a tourney anyway.  I don't see how writing up decklists could possibly make them even more super-pumped.  I suppose you're right that a little free advertising isn't bad, but if they are drawing the required 50+ people, then I'm betting that the advertising is pretty well established already.

The stats are pretty useful to me at least-- things like knowing how successful Choke is on the board of Oath or seeing how many Wastelands are appearing in the US can be useful for preparing for large-scale events as well as gauging the metagame direction. My only issue with the stats right now is that there's a lot of numbers and seemingly insufficient analysis of them, given all the information.

I know that you are smart enough to gauge the effectiveness of Choke in a particular Oath sideboard.   I'm just guessing here, because I don't have premium, that there is relatively the same number of tournaments included in Steve's article as there was in Pip's article.  I work in a scientific field where having an accurate sample is paramount and thus know full well the importance of it.  Considering how many tournaments were in these articles, I would have to highly contest the accuracy of the Vintage breakdown sample size in determining such an intricate question like how effective Choke is in an Oath deck.  The case is the same for broader questions such as Wastelands as well, in my opinion.  With as much randomness as there is in Vintage, the need for more data is even more important and I just don't see where all the needed information could be coming from. 

Conversely, I wouldn't want to see any subjective analysis.  This only deters from the cold, hard, numerical facts.  I definitely wouldn't be buying premium for that part.  I can't really whine about (Steve's) analysis at all though as I could choose to ignore it seeing as how the numbers would be there for me to generate my own analysis.

SCG needs to pay good money for someone to do it because those stats articles take a lot of work.

When I was talking with Dr. Sylvan about possibly replacing him, I realized that it takes about as much time as it would take me to write my (back when I was writing regularly) three articles a month as it would to do one analysis article even though there was about the same amount of original content in one of each.  Analyzing the data takes a while, writing the article takes a while, and there is a lot of legwork involved in finding the tournies in the time period and making sure that you have all the decks in the top 8.

If I didn't have a full time job, a kid, and a wife, and knew that TOs would type up the lists and send them in without fail, then I would definitely do it for free.  This is because Vintage is my hobby, it's the game that I play.  I've always felt that hobbies are a labor of love.  I would insist on it not being premium for all of the reasons (they seem logical to me) in my post above.  I don't wish to offend you when I say this, but it's hard to read what you wrote about it being too hard given the fact that it is known that you haven't even played in a Vintage tournament since forever.

I understand that it is probably a nightmare tracking down Top 8 lists.  I have always wished that there could be some sort of reward/punishment system for people who obtain TMD TO status.  Like, if you are going to post an announcement, then you are required to write a followup results thread.  I don't know, this may decrease announcements though, which could be more harmful than good.  That solution would have to be for someone who is more creative in this regard than me.

[jpmeyer]

I don't wish to offend you when I say this, but it's hard to read what you wrote about it being too hard given the fact that it is known that you haven't even played in a Vintage tournament since forever.

That actually is the issue here.  To do those sort of articles, you need to find someone who has both time and zeal.

[Smmenen]

The thing I dont' get is why you are complaining about this all of a sudden as if its new.  Dr. Sylvans' articles were all premium as well. 

I don't actually like the methodology that I've picked up that much.  I would prefer the cut off being either 100+ player tournaments (where the decklists are going to get out no matter what - Waterbury, SCGs, really big European tournaments) or where the the tournament becomes 6 rounds + a top 8 so that people are forced to play at least 4 rounds of magic before drawing into the top 8. 

I use the same data pool that Pip used - I take every top 8 with 50 players or more.  If people stopped producing top 8 data, then what I would do (and am doing) to compensate is simply producing the metagame summary statistics on a longer time frame to include more data.  For example, instead of doing a monthly report or even bimonthly, it's looking like the summary metagame analysis is going ot be quarterly from now on - taking three months at a time so I have a bigger sample size. 

[Methuselahn]

The thing is, you are not really increasing your sample size if you are also increasing your 'time span' size.  Sure, you are getting more numbers, but it's then ruining any meta shift analysis.  The longer you catagorize a trend (4 months of data in one report versus 2 months of data) the more you taint the analysis of metagame shifting.  Metagame shifting happens on a monthly basis, so grouping this data makes it harder to effectively analyze.  It seems to be common sense that the information would become more blurred.

The thing I dont' get is why you are complaining about this all of a sudden as if its new.  Dr. Sylvans' articles were all premium as well.

This one is easy.  Someone started a thread for the sole purpose of whining about SCG Premium.  The outlet was there.  I had questioned as to why these went premium when they originally did, sending Pip PM's asking why and bringing up these very same questions.  We only now have a thread to force the issue.

[The Atog Lord]

The entire matter of SCG Premium is quite simple. If you calculate that a subscription will result in at least $30 in additional winnings over the course of a year, then you'd have to be crazy not to sign up.

[Smmenen]

The thing is, you are not really increasing your sample size if you are also increasing your 'time span' size.  Sure, you are getting more numbers, but it's then ruining any meta shift analysis.  The longer you catagorize a trend (4 months of data in one report versus 2 months of data) the more you taint the analysis of metagame shifting.  Metagame shifting happens on a monthly basis, so grouping this data makes it harder to effectively analyze.  It seems to be common sense that the information would become more blurred.

The thing I dont' get is why you are complaining about this all of a sudden as if its new.  Dr. Sylvans' articles were all premium as well.

This one is easy.  Someone started a thread for the sole purpose of whining about SCG Premium.  The outlet was there.  I had questioned as to why these went premium when they originally did, sending Pip PM's asking why and bringing up these very same questions.  We only now have a thread to force the issue.

I think the meta is shifting more slowly now.  For example, do you think there is any shift from Nov to Jan?  I don't.  There was only one major american event in Nov and Dec - the SCG in Rochester - and including that with the Jan Waterbury makes alot of sense to me. 

There wasn't too much shifting in the Fall report I did last month, I think.  It is a matter of judgment though.  Some months have faster metagame dynamics and some slower.  In the middle of the summer, I may want to do it month by month or bimonthly, but in the winter and fall I can afford a quarterly approach (3 months).

@ Atog Lord
I would also say that there are other reasons to get premium.  One is if you enjoy vintage and enjoy reading about it. 

[Vegeta2711]

The thing is, you are not really increasing your sample size if you are also increasing your 'time span' size.  Sure, you are getting more numbers, but it's then ruining any meta shift analysis.  The longer you catagorize a trend (4 months of data in one report versus 2 months of data) the more you taint the analysis of metagame shifting.  Metagame shifting happens on a monthly basis, so grouping this data makes it harder to effectively analyze.  It seems to be common sense that the information would become more blurred.

The thing I dont' get is why you are complaining about this all of a sudden as if its new.  Dr. Sylvans' articles were all premium as well.

This one is easy.  Someone started a thread for the sole purpose of whining about SCG Premium.  The outlet was there.  I had questioned as to why these went premium when they originally did, sending Pip PM's asking why and bringing up these very same questions.  We only now have a thread to force the issue.

@ Atog Lord
I would also say that there are other reasons to get premium.  One is if you enjoy vintage and enjoy reading about it. 

Considering almost nobody writes premium Vintage articles I can't say you'd be missing much. ;P

[Upinthe]

The big problem I have with their premium BS is that the internet is already expensive enough. Too many sites these days are adding premium sections...in a few years, people aren't going to be able to read about anything without forking over money.

$30 can get you three full months of web hosting with e-mail accounts, etc.., or a years worth of updates on vbulletin software or updates for your virus software. I think those outclass articles on a card game. It's just not worth it.

[Methuselahn]

Oh please.  I thought(hoped) that we established that "It's too expensive" and "It's very cheap" are horrible arguments based on the fact that we all have different sized pocketbooks.  Don't troll this thread with crap like this.

[Upinthe]

LOL this thread is titled "SCG Premium Whining goes here"....I would have thought it was perfectly on topic and reasonable place for me to show my personal discontent.  It has nothing to do with the money, more what you actually get for it. I've already seen plenty of places around the internet that offer nominal services and slap a premium tag on it like SCG has. Stuff like a few extra pictures, newsletters,  special section of their forum for a fee, etc... Maybe TMD is next, eh?