[Free Article] The Ages of Magic and the Future of the Game

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/19411_So_Many_Insane_Plays_The_Ages_of_Magic_and_the_Future_of_the_Game.html

I ran polls in the Vintage and Legacy communities, surveying the age demographic of players in those communities.   The results -- and the implications -- are here.    

I talk about the demographic model that Wizards uses, why it's wrong, and, more importantly, why it's a self-fulfilling prophesy, how it's holding back Magic and what to do about it.

[Troy_Costisick]

Great Article, Stephen.  Making the game and the tournament scene more adult-focussed would attract the older demographic without really offending the younger.  I definately think there is a sizable portion of magic players who crave competition more rigorous than the local FNM but not with all the crap that comes with PTQ's.  I am happy for SCG in that it's found itself a great niche to hold a tournament circuit all over the US, but I agree WotC could do more.  In their defense, though, that have done a few things to keep older players and re-attract dormant players in the past few years:

-Time Spiral Block
-The "From the Vault" series of products
-The Still-born Foil Loophole for the Reserve List
-Top-down Design of M10
-Hidden Treasures of Zendikar
-2 Legacy Grand Prix's in the same year

So that is something.  But in addition to what you mentioned, I'd also like to see:

-Further reduction of the Vintage B/R List
-FNM Promos that target Legacy players instead of Standard/Extended
-Shrinking the Reserve List to Alpha/Beta/Unlm + the old 6 Standalone Sets
-WotC's return to Origins and Dragoncon

[TheShop]

How about not templating cards and rules to dumb down the game(aiming marketing at 12 year old comming off pokemon and needing a new cartoon). 

The only way to retain players is to create an environment where young and old can play together- ie reprint real fucking cards and not 500 mana sorcery speed trash. 

Insightful article steve.  I agree that they are not catering to the majority of players already playing...just new 10 year olds.  If you understand stack operations- you are 90% of the way to retired already.

[vassago]

If you understand stack operations- you are 90% of the way to retired already.

I am amused by this.

[tezzajw]

How about not templating cards and rules to dumb down the game(aiming marketing at 12 year old comming off pokemon and needing a new cartoon). 

I think that the present set of rules is the best that Magic has had.  To me, there has been a lot of effort put into developing rules that make the most logical sense.  The card templating seems ok to me.  Given the vast array of effects, most cards make sense when read from the cardboard, without needing a degree in Oracle reading.

Although, I do entirely disagree with the loss of manaburn.  That did dumb down the game, for sure.  Manaburn was always an important factor to consider when tapping Workshops, Tolarian Academy or Draining Mana.  Now - meh...  tap away, whatever, you won't need to think or die from it.

[CorwinB]

A small quote from your article (I hope you don't mind) :

I’ve tried to tell this to the Vintage community for years, but it’s a simple stocks and flows issue. There are only three ways to grow the player base and increase tournament attendance:

1) Recruit New Players
2) Retain Existing Players
3) Re-Engage Players who Quit

It seems to me they have been doing a couple good steps to get back the retired customer base, though. Magic 2010 was a brilliant top-down design, very focused and flavorful, and the XBox game was a terrific idea.

While I agree with your framework, there is an important factor that affects the equilibrium between 1), 2) and 3) : existing customers are often hard to please, and sometimes pleasing them will have negative effects on recruitment. It's not uncommon when a new MtG set is being spoiled (a process carefully orchestrated by WotC to generate hype for its upcoming products) to have existing old-timers come and explain at forum's length how much the new set sucks, has so few cards useful for their favorite format, how old timers are all but forgotten... In the end, said player won't buy anything from the new set but a couple of singles (thus making very little money for WotC), while at the same time generating a lot of negative hype. I know there are many reasonable old timers who understand this and know not every single set can contain 10+ Vintage/Legacy playable cards, but it only takes a couple haters in a public forum to kill the buzz.

Market research will almost always focus on the potential customers with the most reward, and recruiting a new player has much more short term rewards for WotC than keeping an old one. Re-engaging players who quit long ago is a bit different, because those people have to rebuild their collection, and have a larger budget than they used to (sue me, I buy a lot of sealed product because I love cracking packs, especially in amounts I could only dream of when I stopped).

Game-wise, pleasing older customers requires decisions that are at odds with pleasing (or just not intimidating) newer customers. Any simplification of the rules is instantly decried as "dumbing down the game", and progressively moving the interactions from the stack to the red zone had a similar effect. That's the eternal curse of popular products.

For example the friend I play the most with (we play a couple Standard games at work every day after lunch) is a decent customer for WotC, buying intro packs, Duel Decks and about 10-12 boosters from each new set. I suppose that's a regular customer they want to keep. This friend is an extremely good sport, doesn't mind losing, plays for fun, but I've noticed that each time I'm upping up the game rules-wise (stacking triggers, using tricks) he seems not to enjoy himself anymore, and always gives me the impression that he believes I'm somewhat "cheating" him or at the very least rule-lawyering. The problem is that Standard games where we turn creatures sideways and the trickier interactions are using a Doom Blade or a Giant Growth mid-combat to mess up with damage calculations are sometimes boring for me (not that I've much skill for the higher-level play, but I'm working on that). My friend is the poster child for the recently quoted market research that showed many people saw their spells being countered as "unfair" and "cheap", while getting their stuff destroyed/exiled/disabled upon arrival was A-OK. Getting your Shivan Dragon Cancelled -> bad, bad snotty Blue player. Getting your Shivan Terminated or Oblivion Ringed upon entering play -> hey, good move ! If they have a choice between keeping my friend as a customer or a Legacy player that buys $50 of singles from SCG each year, who do you think they will try to retain ?

I don't know if anyone here is playing Warhammer and other tabletop wargames, but look at Games Workshop as a company that has built-in obsolescence in its customer profile : they prefer to lose their customers than retaining them for a variety of reasons such as their management considering long-time players a nuisance, as they don't buy much product, and often shame the vendors in the shop (either in demonstration games or with tricky rules questions). Those older players also have a tendency to migrate to more complex and less cash-based games than the two sacred cows of Warhammer and Warhammer 40K like Blood Bowl or Epic. So GW took the decision to stop catering about old players at all. I think I remember reading things were pretty bleak for them, BTW... This model of customer obsolescence has its limits.

[Smmenen]

Let me pose a question posed in the article, in answer, Etienne:

Why would a business ever assume, or take it as a given, that a player segment will stop using its product? Does Coca-Cola think that people will stop drinking Coke? Sure, Mattel probably assumes that little girls stop buying Barbie. But is Magic more like Barbie or Coke?

What if Wizards did not assume that their players will inevitably quit, or that those that quit can be brought back into the game? How would that change their business? What would they do differently?

I think that you and Wizards are starting with the assumption that players will quit.  What I'm saying is that -- yes, but it's not inevitable, and it's not inevitable that people will quit at the rates they currently do, and, even if they do, there will be opportunities for re-acquisition. 

[CorwinB]

Let me pose a question posed in the article, in answer, Etienne:

I think that you and Wizards are starting with the assumption that players will quit.  What I'm saying is that -- yes, but it's not inevitable, and it's not inevitable that people will quit at the rates they currently do, and, even if they do, there will be opportunities for re-acquisition. 

I don't think WotC actively tries to push their existing customer base away (unlike Mattel or Games Workshop). It's just that I think that, game design-wise (as opposed to organisation-wise, which was the main point of your article), the steps needed to acquire new customers can often be at odds with the goal of retaining existing ones. The exact same problem exists with video games design, and there are many excellent articles on this (http://www.lostgarden.com/ for one).

Organisation-wise, I totally agree with you, though : there are steps that can be taken to make the "official" tournament experience much more rewarding to the older audience.

[jtwilkins]

I think we forget that Hasbro is a money making enterprise and in general look for the short term monitory gain rather then the very long term heath of the game and the desire of the long term players.

They make more money selling packs from limited and standard games then anything else. They are never going to support Eternal because they are too short sighted to have a plan for profitability in the older formats.  All really think this has been the plan for a long time. From the clamp down and tracking of selling cases, boxes, and packs over the internet and flea markets to the rise in price per pack. Changes in card design to appeal to younger players, simplifying of the rules. Then you have the decision to not only continue the no reprint list but close the foil loophole. I also wonder about the decisions on Time Vault in vintage and if it was not just a large monkey wrench thrown into to discourage players with the format. 

I think the real idea to look at is... When will players, tournament organizers or business entities (such as SSG) take over running the Eternal formats? 10 proxy SSG sanctioned events where player ranking are calculated and stored on SSG servers. Organizers possibly banning time vault? We all ready have vintage events that turn back the clock to better times. Like 10 proxies will other outside rules ever become standard?

I do believe many of the people working at Wizards have the games best interest in mind but they are not in charge. We can no longer depend on Hasbro to do what is best for the game and the eternal formats.

[Smmenen]

Let me pose a question posed in the article, in answer, Etienne:

I think that you and Wizards are starting with the assumption that players will quit.  What I'm saying is that -- yes, but it's not inevitable, and it's not inevitable that people will quit at the rates they currently do, and, even if they do, there will be opportunities for re-acquisition. 

I don't think WotC actively tries to push their existing customer base away (unlike Mattel or Games Workshop).

Neither do I.   What I'm saying, though, is that the way they manage the game makes it more likely that people will quit.   that's why I call their demographic model a self-fulfilling prophesy.    It may not be purposeful, but it's reckless if not negligent.

It's just that I think that, game design-wise (as opposed to organisation-wise, which was the main point of your article), the steps needed to acquire new customers can often be at odds with the goal of retaining existing ones. The exact same problem exists with video games design, and there are many excellent articles on this (http://www.lostgarden.com/ for one).

It's true -- there can be a tension between recruitment and retention -- but i don't think there is.  That's why I said: Is Magic more like Barbie or Coke?  I think it's more like Coke.  It's a great product that can be enjoyed over and over again by all ages.   

Organisation-wise, I totally agree with you, though : there are steps that can be taken to make the "official" tournament experience much more rewarding to the older audience.

Not just more rewarding, but more enjoyable.   That doesn't always mean more prize payout. 

I think we forget that Hasbro is a money making enterprise and in general look for the short term monitory gain rather then the very long term heath of the game and the desire of the long term players.

They make more money selling packs from limited and standard games then anything else. They are never going to support Eternal because they are too short sighted to have a plan for profitability in the older formats. 

This is a powerful misconception.  Older formats actually generate lots of money for Wizards, directly and indirectly.   Every time a retailer sells an eternal staple, like Flooded Strand of Lion's Eye Diamond, whose price is set by the demand for eternal tournaments, those sales generate money for dealers, which both keeps them in business (generating more sales for Wizards) and which in turn is reinvested back into the business, which is used to buy more boxes and more magic products.   

Also, my article isn't just about Eternal.  I'm saying that the market gap is met by a variety of sources, of which eternal formats are one.  They need to be cognizant of the market gap, not just how it is served. 

[jtwilkins]

I think we forget that Hasbro is a money making enterprise and in general look for the short term monitory gain rather then the very long term heath of the game and the desire of the long term players.

They make more money selling packs from limited and standard games then anything else. They are never going to support Eternal because they are too short sighted to have a plan for profitability in the older formats. 

This is a powerful misconception.  Older formats actually generate lots of money for Wizards, directly and indirectly.   Every time a retailer sells an eternal staple, like Flooded Strand of Lion's Eye Diamond, whose price is set by the demand for eternal tournaments, those sales generate money for dealers, which both keeps them in business (generating more sales for Wizards) and which in turn is reinvested back into the business, which is used to buy more boxes and more magic products.   

Also, my article isn't just about Eternal.  I'm saying that the market gap is met by a variety of sources, of which eternal formats are one.  They need to be cognizant of the market gap, not just how it is served. 

[/quote]

That is a large chain of causal relationships to put money in Hasbro's pockets and I highly doubt they worry about the sales of eternal cards in the secondary market to help business get the capital needed to purchase cases of new product. Your example may be how it works for some retail shops but in many areas the singles market is nonexistent or a joke. I think as limited and standard decline in popularity Hasbro will get more desperate to discourage Eternal formats.

I do agree 100%, eternal aside, that Hasbro's events and cycles are self defeating. You can only treat your consumer base so bad for so long before they find something else to do. I think if you interviewed a lot of Eternal players they would enjoy playing limited and standard environments but cost and the large list of BS they have to deal with are very discouraging. MTGO is another blatant example of this ridiculous money grab. I think when MTGO came out using there experience with prior software a lot of people were excited that they were going to get to play magic at home and on there own time. This turned into a joke for many of us with more brains then money to spend 100% MSRP on packs to play with virtual cards. I also do not miss the days of buying 3 boxes of a set at release then driving all over to spend a day in a cramped costly environment playing against arrogant teens.

[CorwinB]

It's true -- there can be a tension between recruitment and retention -- but i don't think there is.  That's why I said: Is Magic more like Barbie or Coke?  I think it's more like Coke.  It's a great product that can be enjoyed over and over again by all ages.  

The classification between products for a certain age range with built-in obsolescence and eternal products is a good one, and I agree MtG can fall in the second category especially as gaming is becoming more and more an acceptable behavior for adults in our societies. But I believe a key difference between a product like Coke and Magic is that the basic business model for Magic is selling new stuff, whereas Coke can retain its old customers by keeping the exact same product. Any change for Magic (rules, card frames, emphasis on stack or red zone in cards design) has the potential to turn into a New Coke disaster, but at the same time change is necessary to the game in order to sell product.

Not just more rewarding, but more enjoyable.   That doesn't always mean more prize payout.  

Of course. I meant "rewarding" in a more general sense than just prizes : spending a quality afternoon/day slinging cards in an enjoyable venue with pleasant people is something I consider "rewarding" even if I end up without a prize.

[Delha]

I think we can all agree that it's a major contributing factor to difficulties in both player recruitment and retention. Below is something I said in a thread regarding the cost of staples in Standard. I'm curious to know whether or not people agree with my below perception of the CCGs in general. Apologies in advance if this was specifically addressed in the article, I don't have premium access.

I completely understand the fact that WOTC needs to make profit to continue their development cycle. The model of a collectible game however is inherently impaired in that the merits of the game need to be that much greater in order to overcome the "money sink" aspect. I certainly wouldn't call it an insurmountable challenge, but I strongly feel that it is a difficulty that ought to be recognized.

[jtwilkins]

It's true -- there can be a tension between recruitment and retention -- but i don't think there is.  That's why I said: Is Magic more like Barbie or Coke?  I think it's more like Coke.  It's a great product that can be enjoyed over and over again by all ages.  

The classification between products for a certain age range with built-in obsolescence and eternal products is a good one, and I agree MtG can fall in the second category especially as gaming is becoming more and more an acceptable behavior for adults in our societies. But I believe a key difference between a product like Coke and Magic is that the basic business model for Magic is selling new stuff, whereas Coke can retain its old customers by keeping the exact same product. Any change for Magic (rules, card frames, emphasis on stack or red zone in cards design) has the potential to turn into a New Coke disaster, but at the same time change is necessary to the game in order to sell product.

I also agree that MtG is more like Barbie then Coke. Coke is a commodity that is used depleted by it's purchaser. People must purchases more bottles of Coke to use Coke again. This is what Hasbro wishes Magic would be, Magic is only like this in say booster drafts. Magic is like Barbie because the product is a collectible doll. People could buy and collect barbies for several years then put them up and stop purchasing barbies. Despite new fancy models that come out a person can always go back to there old barbie collect and get them out, look at them and play with them. They may even occasionally purchase a new barbie that is released that catches their eye. Much like magic.

I think the magic business model of throwing newly developed cycles and cards at the consumer one is what is harming it. The product release rate is fast and they want you to buy buy buy all a lot of all the newest stuff. In a different less profitable (but with a much longer life span) model they could better support old product by reprints, events, accessories and formats. Start supporting Magic as a whole not just limited and standard. They use eternal cards as icons of the game but they treat them like red headed step children.

[Smmenen]

It's true -- there can be a tension between recruitment and retention -- but i don't think there is.  That's why I said: Is Magic more like Barbie or Coke?  I think it's more like Coke.  It's a great product that can be enjoyed over and over again by all ages.  

The classification between products for a certain age range with built-in obsolescence and eternal products is a good one, and I agree MtG can fall in the second category especially as gaming is becoming more and more an acceptable behavior for adults in our societies. But I believe a key difference between a product like Coke and Magic is that the basic business model for Magic is selling new stuff, whereas Coke can retain its old customers by keeping the exact same product. Any change for Magic (rules, card frames, emphasis on stack or red zone in cards design) has the potential to turn into a New Coke disaster, but at the same time change is necessary to the game in order to sell product.

I also agree that MtG is more like Barbie then Coke. Coke is a commodity that is used depleted by it's purchaser. People must purchases more bottles of Coke to use Coke again. This is what Hasbro wishes Magic would be, Magic is only like this in say booster drafts. Magic is like Barbie because the product is a collectible doll. People could buy and collect barbies for several years then put them up and stop purchasing barbies. Despite new fancy models that come out a person can always go back to there old barbie collect and get them out, look at them and play with them. They may even occasionally purchase a new barbie that is released that catches their eye. Much like magic.

I think the magic business model of throwing newly developed cycles and cards at the consumer one is what is harming it. The product release rate is fast and they want you to buy buy buy all a lot of all the newest stuff. In a different less profitable (but with a much longer life span) model they could better support old product by reprints, events, accessories and formats. Start supporting Magic as a whole not just limited and standard. They use eternal cards as icons of the game but they treat them like red headed step children.

I think Magic is more like Coke than Barbie.   You are buying the same product, over and over again: it's Magic.   It may be a different set, just like the Coke product is a different liquid, but it's the same product.

One of the questions I pose in the article is simple:

What if Wizards did not assume that their players will inevitably quit, or that those that quit can be brought back into the game? How would that change their business? What would they do differently?

[TheShop]

If they did not assume that players would quit the price of boosters would be $1,000,000 each...perfectly inelastic.

They have some idea about players quitting and retention, it is just not far-reaching enough to hit us in the outer reaches of the game.  They want to retain draft and standard players.  My area is a great example- no prize support, store support, nothing for eternal...but draft and standard are everywhere. These are te formats that are making store owners the most money(and wizards).  These are the only 2 formats that even vaguely matter from a business perspective, all other formats are icing on the cake.  Only the initial product really makes the company money, all second hand sales benefit locals...hence the lack of consideration for everything else.

[Smmenen]

If they did not assume that players would quit the price of boosters would be $1,000,000 each...perfectly inelastic.

That's just absurd.

Coke doesn't assume that it's customer's still stop buying coke, yet a bottle of Coke isn't $1,000,000 each. 

[jtwilkins]

One of the questions I pose in the article is simple:

What if Wizards did not assume that their players will inevitably quit, or that those that quit can be brought back into the game? How would that change their business? What would they do differently?

1) What if Wizards did not assume that their players will inevitable quit?
2) What if Wizards did not assume that those what quit can be brought back into the game?
3) How would questions 1 & 2 change their business?
4) What would they do differently?

I guess I am wondering what is the point of asking these questions.

I think that wizards does not uses the strategy of if they will keep players or lose players. I think they have reverted into a toy manufactures mindset. Keep making products new, fresh, flashy and have high profit margins. It is kinda like Star Wars action figures. I'm sure the guys that design the figures love their job and want to make new, more interesting, more detailed toys but in the end the company just wants to keep selling more and more stuff. New skus are needed to keep the shelves updated.

[Smmenen]

One of the questions I pose in the article is simple:

What if Wizards did not assume that their players will inevitably quit, or that those that quit can be brought back into the game? How would that change their business? What would they do differently?

1) What if Wizards did not assume that their players will inevitable quit?
2) What if Wizards  assumed that those that quit can be brought back into the game?
3) How would questions 1 & 2 change their business?
4) What would they do differently?

I guess I am wondering what is the point of asking these questions.

The point is simple:

Magic has not reached its full potential because Wizards treats players as disposable.  If they fostered an experience that generated greater retainment and increased re-entry, then Magic would hit its potential.

As I said in the article:

That’s an awful way to run a business. Only pyramid schemes and Halloween stores operate that way.

Only by asking those questions can we reflect and think about how Magic as it might be, rather than how it is.   

The demographic data I cited in this article make a strong case. 

[Delha]

If they did not assume that players would quit the price of boosters would be $1,000,000 each...perfectly inelastic.

You're answering the wrong question. Smmenen is asking what they would happen if they did treat customer departure as inevitable (with an implication that all else remains equal). You're answering what they would do if customer departure was impossible (and customers had infi disposable income).

...These are the only 2 formats that even vaguely matter from a business perspective, all other formats are icing on the cake.  Only the initial product really makes the company money...

While I feel this is in the right vein, I think it goes a bit too far. Contrary to what people seem to love spewing forth, WOTC obviously does market research. I'd be shocked to see any game company of that size that doesn't. That means that they are aware of several little connections that tie older formats to their own profit (ie. secondary market driving prices). That said, I'd argue that they've considered Vintage, but most likely concluded that the gains from doing so are outweighed by other factors (which they will probably never publicize). Any company worth a damn is going to be constantly looking at potential avenues for expanding/strengthening their position. The only reason to not do so is if the risks/costs are disproportionate to the projected gains.

[jtwilkins]

One of the questions I pose in the article is simple:

What if Wizards did not assume that their players will inevitably quit, or that those that quit can be brought back into the game? How would that change their business? What would they do differently?

1) What if Wizards did not assume that their players will inevitable quit?
2) What if Wizards  assumed that those that quit can be brought back into the game?
3) How would questions 1 & 2 change their business?
4) What would they do differently?

I guess I am wondering what is the point of asking these questions.

The point is simple:

Magic has not reached its full potential because Wizards treats players as disposable.  If they fostered an experience that generated greater retainment and increased re-entry, then Magic would hit its potential.

As I said in the article:

That’s an awful way to run a business. Only pyramid schemes and Halloween stores operate that way.

Only by asking those questions can we reflect and think about how Magic as it might be, rather than how it is.   

The demographic data I cited in this article make a strong case. 

It's a big company owned by a huge company. Sorry man. but they don't care about you, me and what we think about MtG. (I think the reprinting fiasco demonstrates that.) They are here to increase shareholder profits and aren't worried about a profit making device they purchased years ago reaching it's potential for being a great game. Ask the D&D players how they feel about price hikes and being force feed new versions D&D all the time. They purchased a RPG property and turned it into a toy sales cycle.

[Smmenen]

One of the questions I pose in the article is simple:

What if Wizards did not assume that their players will inevitably quit, or that those that quit can be brought back into the game? How would that change their business? What would they do differently?

1) What if Wizards did not assume that their players will inevitable quit?
2) What if Wizards  assumed that those that quit can be brought back into the game?
3) How would questions 1 & 2 change their business?
4) What would they do differently?

I guess I am wondering what is the point of asking these questions.

The point is simple:

Magic has not reached its full potential because Wizards treats players as disposable.  If they fostered an experience that generated greater retainment and increased re-entry, then Magic would hit its potential.

As I said in the article:

That’s an awful way to run a business. Only pyramid schemes and Halloween stores operate that way.

Only by asking those questions can we reflect and think about how Magic as it might be, rather than how it is.  

The demographic data I cited in this article make a strong case.  

It's a big company owned by a huge company. Sorry man. but they don't care about you, me and what we think about MtG. (I think the reprinting fiasco demonstrates that.) They are here to increase shareholder profits and aren't worried about a profit making device they purchased years ago reaching it's potential for being a great game. Ask the D&D players how they feel about price hikes and being force feed new versions D&D all the time. They purchased a RPG property and turned it into a toy sales cycle.

But that's exactly my point.  

Do you think Coke would make more money if people buys their product for years and years or if they  assume that those customers are disposable, only use the product for a few years, and have to recruit new coke consumers to replace them?

Wizards is not maximizing their profit potential.  

My article discusses this in detail; so I won't recount that all here. 

[Delha]

It's a big company owned by a huge company. Sorry man. but they don't care about you, me and what we think about MtG. (I think the reprinting fiasco demonstrates that.) They are here to increase shareholder profits and aren't worried about a profit making device they purchased years ago reaching it's potential for being a great game. Ask the D&D players how they feel about price hikes and being force feed new versions D&D all the time. They purchased a RPG property and turned it into a toy sales cycle.

It's a very stupid company that doesn't care about it's public image. Brand loyalty is huge. I'd argue that the reprint fiasco is a better example of how they do care than the opposite. If the Eternal community wasn't a factor, why wouldn't they be selling freshly printed sets of power at four digits a pop? The happiness of your clientelle directly impacts whether or not they jump ship (and by extension, your bottom line).

Blizzard is a big company owned by a huge company, and they've moved in the direction of being more open and more accepting of customer feedback as WoW has grown. Their rep as a company that cares about it's image has gained them a loyal fanbase, and the effect of feedback on their product is readily visible.

[jtwilkins]

It's a big company owned by a huge company. Sorry man. but they don't care about you, me and what we think about MtG. (I think the reprinting fiasco demonstrates that.) They are here to increase shareholder profits and aren't worried about a profit making device they purchased years ago reaching it's potential for being a great game. Ask the D&D players how they feel about price hikes and being force feed new versions D&D all the time. They purchased a RPG property and turned it into a toy sales cycle.

It's a very stupid company that doesn't care about it's public image. Brand loyalty is huge. I'd argue that the reprint fiasco is a better example of how they do care than the opposite. If the Eternal community wasn't a factor, why wouldn't they be selling freshly printed sets of power at four digits a pop? The happiness of your clientelle directly impacts whether or not they jump ship (and by extension, your bottom line).

Blizzard is a big company owned by a huge company, and they've moved in the direction of being more open and more accepting of customer feedback as WoW has grown. Their rep as a company that cares about it's image has gained them a loyal fanbase, and the effect of feedback on their product is readily visible.

Blizzard is a great example I almost brought up. WoW is loosing it's senior players in droves. Things they never said they would ever do are now profit making machines. Paid sex change, paid realm pvp to pvm, faction change, cash for pets, cash for mounts... They are milking the WoW cow for everything they can get out of it before the next big MMORPG comes along.  The cash for mount $20 bucks for a virtual item netted them over 2mil in one day! Blizzard has ditch the great good of the game for the great good of cash.

As for public image I don't really think it matters much these days. People shop at Wal-Mart, people still line up at BP, People still purchased Modern Warfare 2 despite bugs, etc etc. Magic is a great game and highly addictive that is why people play it. Not because they think Wizards is a bad or good company.

[TheShop]

The million dollar booster is absolutely absurd(hyperbole pulled u in), but it proves a valuable point: it's not as simple as wizards considering whether or not you will quit...it is a calculation of at what point you will...if they realize you are not addicted enough to put up with jacked up prices...they are anticipating you quitting at a given time: once you exit standard and progress into other formats(which correlates with age).

I guess the general consensus is that they have decided on a time frame that is too short.  Every company plans for customer loss(it is inevitible...the people eventually die if not leave for other reasons...there are actuarial tables for this).

The more absurd point would be to say that they should think people will stay forever.  In the end, I suspect that their real time horizon is based on your interest in buying boosters.

[DubDub]

But that's exactly my point.  

Do you think Coke would make more money if people buys their product for years and years or if they  assume that those customers are disposable, only use the product for a few years, and have to recruit new coke consumers to replace them?

Wizards is not maximizing their profit potential.  

My article discusses this in detail; so I won't recount that all here. 

What if the Coke consumers become increasingly satiated over time just by looking at the Coke cans and bottles they already own, and purchase less Coke to drink?  I think the Coca-Cola company would in that situation act somewhat like Wizards has: print shiny new versions of older Coke cans (FTV series), while also making Coke for drinking (new sets for draft and a balanced Standard environ).

You keep directly comparing Magic and Coke consumer bases, when they are non-trivially different.  Constructed Magic is split up into different formats, and different players have different preferences for formats.  The demographics show that older players tend toward the Eternal formats, why shouldn't the product be differentiated to appeal in different ways to different players?

As far as I know, Coke that's consumed alone, and Coke that's mixed with Rum isn't any different.  Coke is an interchangeable good (that's why there isn't a natural progression among Coke drinkers to just looking at old cans), while the different formats of Magic clearly aren't interchangeable.

[Smmenen]

All analogies are imperfect.   We can debate it all we want.  I could counter that perhaps the Coke product lines are analogous to magic, with different offerings for different tastes (diet, zero cal, sprite, etc).   

The point is simple though: Magic's demographic model is based upon the idea that Magic players eventually quit.   What if they didn't make that assumption?  How would their business be different?


Why are you all so resistant to the idea that Magic players might not quit the game?  Or, that if they quit the game, they might return?   

That's why I cited the demographic polls I conducted here and in the Legacy community.   Look at what they are telling us.   

Is it really that hard to believe that Magic players might enjoy magic for the rest of their lives?   

[DubDub]

All analogies are imperfect.   We can debate it all we want.  I could counter that perhaps the Coke product lines are analogous to magic, with different offerings for different tastes (diet, zero cal, sprite, etc).   

The point is simple though: Magic's demographic model is based upon the idea that Magic players eventually quit.   What if they didn't make that assumption?  How would their business be different?


Why are you all so resistant to the idea that Magic players might not quit the game?  Or, that if they quit the game, they might return?   

That's why I cited the demographic polls I conducted here and in the Legacy community.   Look at what they are telling us.   

Is it really that hard to believe that Magic players might enjoy magic for the rest of their lives?   

That all Magic players inevitably quit is not my position.  My position is that Magic consumers are different from one another, and that Wizards is clearly giving the most support to those consumers that are most profitable to them (the rotating and limited, not eternal formats).  Retaining additional players is nice, and a likely effect of additional support for eternal formats, but any additional attractiveness of eternal Magic is going to lower the relative attractiveness of the rotating formats.  Evidently any gains to be made by making the (anyone have a better estimate) 500-800 regular Vintage players worldwide happier, and reclaiming their 500-800 friends who have quit is outweighed by the losses incurred by ~2,000 regular Standard players switching to primarily playing Vintage (a result of making Vintage a more attractive format).  If it were the case that Vintage/Legacy were worth supporting (worth it to Wizards, not to eternal players), we would have seen the abolition of the Reserve List, and perhaps different decisions around the M10 rules changes, among other things.

Their most profitable action to take in the face of players quitting would be making Standard and Limited more attractive, not Legacy and Vintage.  I'd argue that that is what they're trying to do (with their primary product at least: new sets).  We keep hearing that the game is growing massively, and is at its most successful point right now, right?  Who are all these people who are quitting?

[Smmenen]

All analogies are imperfect.   We can debate it all we want.  I could counter that perhaps the Coke product lines are analogous to magic, with different offerings for different tastes (diet, zero cal, sprite, etc).  

The point is simple though: Magic's demographic model is based upon the idea that Magic players eventually quit.   What if they didn't make that assumption?  How would their business be different?


Why are you all so resistant to the idea that Magic players might not quit the game?  Or, that if they quit the game, they might return?  

That's why I cited the demographic polls I conducted here and in the Legacy community.   Look at what they are telling us.  

Is it really that hard to believe that Magic players might enjoy magic for the rest of their lives?  

That all Magic players inevitably quit is not my position.  My position is that Magic consumers are different from one another, and that Wizards is clearly giving the most support to those consumers that are most profitable to them (the rotating and limited, not eternal formats).  Retaining additional players is nice, and a likely effect of additional support for eternal formats, but any additional attractiveness of eternal Magic is going to lower the relative attractiveness of the rotating formats.  Evidently any gains to be made by making the (anyone have a better estimate) 500-800 regular Vintage players worldwide happier, and reclaiming their 500-800 friends who have quit is outweighed by the losses incurred by ~2,000 regular Standard players switching to primarily playing Vintage (a result of making Vintage a more attractive format).  If it were the case that Vintage/Legacy were worth supporting (worth it to Wizards, not to eternal players), we would have seen the abolition of the Reserve List, and perhaps different decisions around the M10 rules changes, among other things.

Their most profitable action to take in the face of players quitting would be making Standard and Limited more attractive, not Legacy and Vintage.  I'd argue that that is what they're trying to do (with their primary product at least: new sets).  We keep hearing that the game is growing massively, and is at its most successful point right now, right?  Who are all these people who are quitting?

It's not an either/or, as you're suggesting.   You're repeating the same false binary that my article attacks.    The demographic data I've cited also questions many of your assumptions.  That's why I talk about the "market gap," at length.  

Your also focusing too much on Eternal.  Eternal is merely one way in which the market gap is being served.   I think I made that pretty clear.  

The solutions I propose in the article are apparently not what you think I'm proposing.

[Delha]

Blizzard is a great example I almost brought up. WoW is loosing it's senior players in droves. Things they never said they would ever do are now profit making machines. Paid sex change, paid realm pvp to pvm, faction change, cash for pets, cash for mounts... They are milking the WoW cow for everything they can get out of it before the next big MMORPG comes along.  The cash for mount $20 bucks for a virtual item netted them over 2mil in one day! Blizzard has ditch the great good of the game for the great good of cash.

Do you have any numbers to back that up? I hadn't heard anything about their numbers dropping, and I think you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone here that they aren't doing damn well. I had detailed counterpoints written up, but cleared it out for brevity. The main point is this: Blizzard clearly cares about their customer base, and WoW has been and still is the king of its genre.

I'm saying that their attention to player satisfaction has paid off, and that WOTC is making efforts in the same vein. Whether those efforts have been satisfactory or not is debatable (I think many of us here would agree on the negative), but all my key objection to your earlier post was that I consider it unreasonable to believe that WOTC completely ignores the desires of its customer base.


@TheShop: It wasn't the hyperbole that drew me in, but the non-sequitur. That said, I do agree with your statement that WOTC has settled on too short of a timeframe for their intended customer retention.

It's not an either/or, as you're suggesting.   You're repeating the same false binary that my article attacks.    The demographic data I've cited also questions many of your assumptions.  That's why I talk about the "market gap," at length. 

Your also focusing too much on Eternal.  Eternal is merely one way in which the market gap is being served.   I think I made that pretty clear.   

The solutions I propose in the article are apparently not what you think I'm proposing.

Agreed that the formats are not mutually exclusive. I mostly read/post here, but I draft more often than I play Eternal these days.

Would you mind listing your suggested solutions in brief? I understand completely if you'd rather not.