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

[TheShop]

It seems inconcievable that an individual would play for their entire lifetime because the agenda of the company is not(and will likely continue without being) in line with total player enjoyment.  New player enjoyment is the cash cow and renewable.  Old player enjoyment is not monetarily appealing to the company. 

As long as these are true...players will quit.  They mut find a way to keep aging players engaged.  Even those experiencing their first rotation out of standard feel the bite of discontent a little.

[Smmenen]

It seems inconcievable that an individual would play for their entire lifetime because the agenda of the company is not(and will likely continue without being) in line with total player enjoyment.  New player enjoyment is the cash cow and renewable.  Old player enjoyment is not monetarily appealing to the company. 

And, if you read my article, I'm saying that those assumptions are not true. 

[TheShop]

It seems inconcievable that an individual would play for their entire lifetime because the agenda of the company is not(and will likely continue without being) in line with total player enjoyment.  New player enjoyment is the cash cow and renewable.  Old player enjoyment is not monetarily appealing to the company. 

And, if you read my article, I'm saying that those assumptions are not true. 

I read it.  So what are you saying???  That the new legacy events are an attempt to cater to the missing market base???  That they really do care????

I assert that they really don't because eternal events make up so little of actual sanctioned play.  They print more new cards than ever...revenue hikes.  You do realize that they can pay people to create, print, market, and distribute more new sets yearly...but we are supposed to see it as a real outreach for retention when they add legacy???

I get the point...there should be a way to please everyone and still make money.  Problem:  even if it is in the green they are not going to do it because it would require more effort than say...printing a shiny new set.

By the way, qualifiers like "if you read my article" are assanine attempts to discredit the individual instead of the idea.

[Smmenen]

It seems inconcievable that an individual would play for their entire lifetime because the agenda of the company is not(and will likely continue without being) in line with total player enjoyment.  New player enjoyment is the cash cow and renewable.  Old player enjoyment is not monetarily appealing to the company. 

And, if you read my article, I'm saying that those assumptions are not true. 

I read it.  So what are you saying???  That the new legacy events are an attempt to cater to the missing market base???  That they really do care????

I'm saying that I disagree with your assumption that new player enjoyment is the way to maximize profits, for a host of reasons that I explained in the article.

Magic for too long has seemed hellbent on recruitment, and ignored (2) and (3), assuming that players are replaceable. That’s an awful way to run a business. Only pyramid schemes and Halloween stores operate that way.

Which do you think is harder to do? If done right, you should have a much easier time retaining existing players or re-attracting players who quit. Yet, we place far too much emphasis on recruiting new players when we should be trying to keep players in the game from quitting, or, barring that, making sure that at that moment of possible re-entry, players have a positive, enjoyable experience, win, lose, or draw. Only then will Magic truly reach its full potential, and the player base will grow far beyond what is even imaginable today.

That includes PTQ players.  That's why I say that Wizards needs to renovate the PTQ experience. 

[TheShop]

How much money do you really get in booster sales and entry fees at a PTQ?  It can't be as much as walmart selling a new set.  I don't think that organized play helps initial sales nearly as much as art and marketing. 

Steve, I would love to see events worth attending.  I get your point, but I think the situation in my area is typical.  They marketed new product such that other formats cease to exist and they make nearly all profits on sealed product.  I think many store owners prefer this and I hope wiz takes your suggestions under advisement.  I think a more permiating solution that allows all players to play together would be more advantageous than a large event though(ie reprints from my original post...I know it is preaching to the choir because you fought for reprints).  Minimizing travel is always positive.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

Now I can't speak for other areas and people, but in my experience there are only 2 kinds of people that ever truly quit MtG. The first group of people is those with serious life problems that push MtG so far back in their list of priorities that it never regains its foothold. Lets face it, not everyone can afford the time or money to play this game forever. The second group is casual players who never really got grabbed by MtG in the first place. Sure it was fun for them, but MtG needs to really dig in deep to keep you playing. Odds are they leave from either boredom or being overwhelmed by the competative side of MtG that they weren't prepared for or don't want to deal with anymore.

Stuff like new card design and B/R decisions may push people away, but odds are that if you stay away forever you fall into one of those two categories. The first category is where most Eternal players fall in my opinion. Most of the people on this planet can't afford to casually drop a wad of money to make a top-notch Vintage or Legacy deck and quit if they don't like it, even if our cards are usually stable in prices.

Everyone I know has "quit" MtG at least half a dozen times and swore they'd never come back. Whether you sell off your collection or just let it rot in the attic odds are you're coming back if you can. Some half-assed marketing campaign isn't going to bring back anyone who wasn't coming back already. The fact of the matter is that WotC honestly doesn't need to care about Eternal players. Its not just that we make them less money than other formats or we're more mature so they can't sell us generic BS. We've all made a significant financial, mental, and emotional investment in this game and if we ever decide to quit they can be damn sure there is a good reason for it. I've never bought the argument that a ton of people quit because the restricted wave came gushing in (sorry about the pun). They were just waiting for an excuse to leave.

[Smmenen]

I think there is another whole category of players who burnout, for reasons I described in the article.   This player is often a PTQ player. 

[jtwilkins]

I think there is another whole category of players who burnout, for reasons I described in the article.   This player is often a PTQ player. 

I think in general people read your article and disagree with your descriptions, theories and reasonings. Just because you write an article and back it up with some opinions and even some facts doesn't make that theory 100% correct. I love reading your articles and I think your a great player and a leader of the format but just because you are good at writing with stats and get published by SSG doesn't make your theories and opinions the gospel. This article is bupkis. Why would they make this premium BTW?

[Smmenen]

I think there is another whole category of players who burnout, for reasons I described in the article.   This player is often a PTQ player. 

I think in general people read your article and disagree with your descriptions, theories and reasonings. Just because you write an article and back it up with some opinions and even some facts doesn't make that theory 100% correct. I love reading your articles and I think your a great player and a leader of the format but just because you are good at writing with stats and get published by SSG doesn't make your theories and opinions the gospel. This article is bupkis. Why would they make this premium BTW?

Well, alot of people disagree with you, judging by the response on the SCG forums.   

I agree that just because it's published doesn't make it true.  But there are a ton of players out there who burn out because the PTQ circuit treats them as disposable.  The prizes suck, and it's no longer fun enough to justify trying to qualify.   You are ignoring their experiences, which are affirmed in the SCG forums. 

[jtwilkins]

I think there is another whole category of players who burnout, for reasons I described in the article.   This player is often a PTQ player. 

I think in general people read your article and disagree with your descriptions, theories and reasonings. Just because you write an article and back it up with some opinions and even some facts doesn't make that theory 100% correct. I love reading your articles and I think your a great player and a leader of the format but just because you are good at writing with stats and get published by SSG doesn't make your theories and opinions the gospel. This article is bupkis. Why would they make this premium BTW?

As I typed in earlier posts. I agree with you about the PTQ problem. I think were we disagree is that Wizards and Hasbro cares. And if they don't care your question and the article are irrelevant.
Well, alot of people disagree with you, judging by the response on the SCG forums.   

I agree that just because it's published doesn't make it true.  But there are a ton of players out there who burn out because the PTQ circuit treats them as disposable.  The prizes suck, and it's no longer fun enough to justify trying to qualify.   You are ignoring their experiences, which are affirmed in the SCG forums. 

[Smmenen]

I think there is another whole category of players who burnout, for reasons I described in the article.   This player is often a PTQ player. 

I think in general people read your article and disagree with your descriptions, theories and reasonings. Just because you write an article and back it up with some opinions and even some facts doesn't make that theory 100% correct. I love reading your articles and I think your a great player and a leader of the format but just because you are good at writing with stats and get published by SSG doesn't make your theories and opinions the gospel. This article is bupkis. Why would they make this premium BTW?

Well, alot of people disagree with you, judging by the response on the SCG forums.   

I agree that just because it's published doesn't make it true.  But there are a ton of players out there who burn out because the PTQ circuit treats them as disposable.  The prizes suck, and it's no longer fun enough to justify trying to qualify.   You are ignoring their experiences, which are affirmed in the SCG forums. 

As I typed in earlier posts. I agree with you about the PTQ problem. I think were we disagree is that Wizards and Hasbro cares. And if they don't care your question and the article are irrelevant.

Of course they care.   I can confirm that in fact.  There are people at Wizards that do care.   

[yorrich]

As an old player that has come back to the game after a ten year hiatus I must say I've enjoyed the article.  I think Smemmen brings up some very valid points about how the game could be viewed by Wizards.  I have always preferred Type 1, for me it will always be Type 1 and not vintage, and multi-player and I wish that there would be more support for these.

I hope that Wizards will review the way they focus on the short term players.  They could  improve the support for the fan base that is in it for the long haul. For me they need to focus on the following:
1) Providing a viable format(s) where all cards are playable.  I would not enjoy the game if I came back to it and all my cards were deemed "unusable". I don't think that any of the current formats meet this criteria as their barrier to entry is too high.
2) Providing rewards and incentives for the "older player".  I believe the DCI player rewards are a step in the good direction but that other steps should be taken for the "older players".
3) Reviving the fun for the "older player".  Players will stop for any number of reasons but this does not mean that they will not come back to the game.  When I decided to play again I brought along two new players (my children).

For me MTG is more of a Coke than a Barbie.  At one point in your life you decide what your priorities are and sometimes the games you enjoy fall to the side (you stop drinking the *new coke*).  At some point in your life you may find you can come back to these things and still enjoy them (oh wow, classic coke exists now!).

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I think there is another whole category of players who burnout, for reasons I described in the article.   This player is often a PTQ player. 

Well that sort of falls under my second category though I may have been to broad in my description.

The second group is casual players who never really got grabbed by MtG in the first place. Sure it was fun for them, but MtG needs to really dig in deep to keep you playing. Odds are they leave from either boredom or being overwhelmed by the competative side of MtG that they weren't prepared for or don't want to deal with anymore.

I definitely chose the wrong word "casual" but my theory is the same. PTQ burnouts are the type of players who are not playing MtG because they enjoy it, they are playing it for rewards. Thus MtG never really grabs a hold of them just like with the player who finds MtG boring or the player who isn't ready to deal with the real rules and competative decks. I don't know if it is truly beneficial to try and pull these people back because while they will invest money they will never be long-term players. Thus it goes back to my opinion that you can try to pull people who quit back but it is a losing battle overall. Even though I hate most of the decisions made to bring new players in they're making the right decisions as a company to focus on bringing in new blood in my opinion.

[jtwilkins]

I think there is another whole category of players who burnout, for reasons I described in the article.   This player is often a PTQ player. 

I think in general people read your article and disagree with your descriptions, theories and reasonings. Just because you write an article and back it up with some opinions and even some facts doesn't make that theory 100% correct. I love reading your articles and I think your a great player and a leader of the format but just because you are good at writing with stats and get published by SSG doesn't make your theories and opinions the gospel. This article is bupkis. Why would they make this premium BTW?

Well, alot of people disagree with you, judging by the response on the SCG forums.   

I agree that just because it's published doesn't make it true.  But there are a ton of players out there who burn out because the PTQ circuit treats them as disposable.  The prizes suck, and it's no longer fun enough to justify trying to qualify.   You are ignoring their experiences, which are affirmed in the SCG forums. 

As I typed in earlier posts. I agree with you about the PTQ problem. I think were we disagree is that Wizards and Hasbro cares. And if they don't care your question and the article are irrelevant.

Of course they care.   I can confirm that in fact.  There are people at Wizards that do care.   

I read the replies at SSG most are agreeing and sharing stores of being treated like shit at PTQs and other events. I think we all agree on this, but they are not answering the questions you posed above.

I am sure there are people that care but, they are lacking the power to do anything. If they had any power how did magic get in the state it is currently in?  I think the people at wizards who do care do what they can by trying to make good product come out of the company. I stress the word TRY because some stuff is crap money grabs other products are great for new and old players. Other then some power with design (where the money men can not over rule them) they are powerless. If they weren't powerless then they really suck at doing their jobs.

[Smmenen]

I think there is another whole category of players who burnout, for reasons I described in the article.   This player is often a PTQ player. 

Well that sort of falls under my second category though I may have been to broad in my description.

The second group is casual players who never really got grabbed by MtG in the first place. Sure it was fun for them, but MtG needs to really dig in deep to keep you playing. Odds are they leave from either boredom or being overwhelmed by the competative side of MtG that they weren't prepared for or don't want to deal with anymore.

I definitely chose the wrong word "casual" but my theory is the same. PTQ burnouts are the type of players who are not playing MtG because they enjoy it, they are playing it for rewards. Thus MtG never really grabs a hold of them just like with the player who finds MtG boring or the player who isn't ready to deal with the real rules and competative decks. I don't know if it is truly beneficial to try and pull these people back because while they will invest money they will never be long-term players. Thus it goes back to my opinion that you can try to pull people who quit back but it is a losing battle overall. Even though I hate most of the decisions made to bring new players in they're making the right decisions as a company to focus on bringing in new blood in my opinion.

I couldn't disagree more.

Let's pretend you sell a game called widgets.    You spent alot of money manufacturing these widgets, and you have a marketing budget.  Your goal is simple: maximize the sale of widgets.   Which is more expensive, trying to recruit new players, whom you have to familiarize with your brand, teach the game, with all its intricate rules, or trying to keep people currently playing, people who know the rules, who are familiar with the game, to buy your game?  

Obviously the latter is less expensive.  

Magic spends BLOADS Of money on trying to recruit new players.  what I'm saying is that they should spend at least some of their energies on trying to retain and on re-entry of players who will, at some point, encounter the game again.   It's massively imbalanced, and it's hurting their profits.  

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I think there is another whole category of players who burnout, for reasons I described in the article.   This player is often a PTQ player. 

Well that sort of falls under my second category though I may have been to broad in my description.

The second group is casual players who never really got grabbed by MtG in the first place. Sure it was fun for them, but MtG needs to really dig in deep to keep you playing. Odds are they leave from either boredom or being overwhelmed by the competative side of MtG that they weren't prepared for or don't want to deal with anymore.

I definitely chose the wrong word "casual" but my theory is the same. PTQ burnouts are the type of players who are not playing MtG because they enjoy it, they are playing it for rewards. Thus MtG never really grabs a hold of them just like with the player who finds MtG boring or the player who isn't ready to deal with the real rules and competative decks. I don't know if it is truly beneficial to try and pull these people back because while they will invest money they will never be long-term players. Thus it goes back to my opinion that you can try to pull people who quit back but it is a losing battle overall. Even though I hate most of the decisions made to bring new players in they're making the right decisions as a company to focus on bringing in new blood in my opinion.

I couldn't disagree more.

Let's pretend you sell a game called widgets.    You spent alot of money manufacturing these widgets, and you have a marketing budget.  Your goal is simple: maximize the sale of widgets.   Which is more expensive, trying to recruit new players, whom you have to familiarize with your brand, teach the game, with all its intricate rules, or trying to keep people currently playing, people who know the rules, who are familiar with the game, to buy your game?   

Obviously the latter is less expensive.   

Magic spends BLOADS Of money on trying to recruit new players.  what I'm saying is that they should spend at least some of their energies on trying to retain and on re-entry of players who will, at some point, encounter the game again.   It's massively imbalanced, and it's hurting their profits. 

I think that marketing to new players is only more expensive in a vacuum. Trying to pull back old players is significantly harder than bringing in a fresh face. They also have informational sources online and purchasable in real life such as intro packs that would exist whether or not they have a campaign aimed at new players because it is a necessity. Not to mention that there are far fewer people who quit MtG than there are potential new players. If you have to pick an advertisement that appeals to 1000 people or to 100,000 people it is pretty clear which is the correct choice.

Now if the focus of your point is that they should work on retention then we are in total agreement. Obviously keeping existing players around is easier than either of the two alternatives. If you put out a product that predictably and constantly evolves as a part of its nature then the only way you’ll controllably lose players is by pushing them away. Due to the infinite amount of ways one can enjoy MtG it is difficult to imagine what they are doing to push people away from Limited+Eternal+Casual+EDH+Stack+Multiplayer, etc. I don’t think they need to strive to pander to people who only play tournaments. Granted it’s a dick move to say “screw you PTQ players” and I absolutely don’t think it is right, but I don’t think it has a significant impact on their sales or they would have done something about it.

Recently it seems that MtG has become more of a hard business rather than a game put out for those who play it. Thus it seems that they are cutting corners like Vintage and certain tournament scenes in favour of promoting other branches like Limited and their online formats. Do I like it? No. Is it bad business overall? I don’t think so.

[Smmenen]

Again, I disagree.

Magic is an enormously complex game.    It's far easier to get someone who's played Magic before to play it again, than to get someone who's never heard of Magic to play it.  

The assumptions that we've always harbored -- as a Magic community -- that people will quit magic at some point, is being refuted by the aging demographics, which *I've* pointed out, but that Wizards hasn't yet realized.  Wizards doesn't get it yet; but they will.  

The average age of the Magic player, per BDM's white paper, is 25. More Vintage players over the age of 25 than younger.   The average age of the Vintage player is over 26.  See the stats in this article.   Vintage is the miner's canary here.  

So many of the assumptions that people have about Magic and the game are being proven wrong.   The whole idea that Magic is just a fad that will die persists, despite being ridiculous.   Magic is going to be around for a VERY long time, and many players will enjoy it for the rest of their lives (like myself).  At some point I stopped saying to myself: I realize that I won't be playing this game someday, and realized that I'll probably play it for the rest of my life, at some level.    

We need to move beyond the model of Magic where players are disposable and where we assume that people will inevitably quit, forever.   People quit, but like I say in the article, there is almost always another opportunity to re-enter, and people sometimes will.   Is it hard to do that?  Yes.   It's hard.  It requires that we reframe how we understand Magic.    It may just require that we age to understand that.    

I'm trying to bring people into the future; to see a glimpse of the future.    I realize that people resist seeing the future.  But the future is nearly here.   And Magic is growing in ways that Wizards did not expect.   The GPs have exploded because they've tapped into the market gap, while Nationals Qualifiers was a flop.   See States, see SCG $5K series -- these have been huge hits because they've tapped into the market gap.  

I've said my peace.   If Wizards wants to maximize profits and player attendance, then it's time to stop the unnecessary bleeding.  And it won't take much.  That's the thing.  It's not like Wizards actually has to spend a ton of money.   They just need to change their demographic assumptions and let their business decisions flow from that.  

[Suicideking]

I think there is another whole category of players who burnout, for reasons I described in the article.   This player is often a PTQ player. 

Well that sort of falls under my second category though I may have been to broad in my description.

The second group is casual players who never really got grabbed by MtG in the first place. Sure it was fun for them, but MtG needs to really dig in deep to keep you playing. Odds are they leave from either boredom or being overwhelmed by the competative side of MtG that they weren't prepared for or don't want to deal with anymore.

I definitely chose the wrong word "casual" but my theory is the same. PTQ burnouts are the type of players who are not playing MtG because they enjoy it, they are playing it for rewards. Thus MtG never really grabs a hold of them just like with the player who finds MtG boring or the player who isn't ready to deal with the real rules and competative decks. I don't know if it is truly beneficial to try and pull these people back because while they will invest money they will never be long-term players. Thus it goes back to my opinion that you can try to pull people who quit back but it is a losing battle overall. Even though I hate most of the decisions made to bring new players in they're making the right decisions as a company to focus on bringing in new blood in my opinion.

I couldn't disagree more.

Let's pretend you sell a game called widgets.    You spent alot of money manufacturing these widgets, and you have a marketing budget.  Your goal is simple: maximize the sale of widgets.   Which is more expensive, trying to recruit new players, whom you have to familiarize with your brand, teach the game, with all its intricate rules, or trying to keep people currently playing, people who know the rules, who are familiar with the game, to buy your game?  

Obviously the latter is less expensive.  

Magic spends BLOADS Of money on trying to recruit new players.  what I'm saying is that they should spend at least some of their energies on trying to retain and on re-entry of players who will, at some point, encounter the game again.   It's massively imbalanced, and it's hurting their profits.  

Its pretty basic business that its cheaper to keep an existing customer then it is to gain a new one.  It's not even close.

[Smmenen]

I think there is another whole category of players who burnout, for reasons I described in the article.   This player is often a PTQ player. 

Well that sort of falls under my second category though I may have been to broad in my description.

The second group is casual players who never really got grabbed by MtG in the first place. Sure it was fun for them, but MtG needs to really dig in deep to keep you playing. Odds are they leave from either boredom or being overwhelmed by the competative side of MtG that they weren't prepared for or don't want to deal with anymore.

I definitely chose the wrong word "casual" but my theory is the same. PTQ burnouts are the type of players who are not playing MtG because they enjoy it, they are playing it for rewards. Thus MtG never really grabs a hold of them just like with the player who finds MtG boring or the player who isn't ready to deal with the real rules and competative decks. I don't know if it is truly beneficial to try and pull these people back because while they will invest money they will never be long-term players. Thus it goes back to my opinion that you can try to pull people who quit back but it is a losing battle overall. Even though I hate most of the decisions made to bring new players in they're making the right decisions as a company to focus on bringing in new blood in my opinion.

I couldn't disagree more.

Let's pretend you sell a game called widgets.    You spent alot of money manufacturing these widgets, and you have a marketing budget.  Your goal is simple: maximize the sale of widgets.   Which is more expensive, trying to recruit new players, whom you have to familiarize with your brand, teach the game, with all its intricate rules, or trying to keep people currently playing, people who know the rules, who are familiar with the game, to buy your game?  

Obviously the latter is less expensive.  

Magic spends BLOADS Of money on trying to recruit new players.  what I'm saying is that they should spend at least some of their energies on trying to retain and on re-entry of players who will, at some point, encounter the game again.   It's massively imbalanced, and it's hurting their profits.  

Its pretty basic business that its cheaper to keep an existing customer then it is to gain a new one.  It's not even close.

I would have thought so as well -- but people in this thread are arguing the point, for some reason. 

[Suicideking]

I think there is another whole category of players who burnout, for reasons I described in the article.   This player is often a PTQ player.  

Well that sort of falls under my second category though I may have been to broad in my description.

The second group is casual players who never really got grabbed by MtG in the first place. Sure it was fun for them, but MtG needs to really dig in deep to keep you playing. Odds are they leave from either boredom or being overwhelmed by the competative side of MtG that they weren't prepared for or don't want to deal with anymore.

I definitely chose the wrong word "casual" but my theory is the same. PTQ burnouts are the type of players who are not playing MtG because they enjoy it, they are playing it for rewards. Thus MtG never really grabs a hold of them just like with the player who finds MtG boring or the player who isn't ready to deal with the real rules and competative decks. I don't know if it is truly beneficial to try and pull these people back because while they will invest money they will never be long-term players. Thus it goes back to my opinion that you can try to pull people who quit back but it is a losing battle overall. Even though I hate most of the decisions made to bring new players in they're making the right decisions as a company to focus on bringing in new blood in my opinion.

I couldn't disagree more.

Let's pretend you sell a game called widgets.    You spent alot of money manufacturing these widgets, and you have a marketing budget.  Your goal is simple: maximize the sale of widgets.   Which is more expensive, trying to recruit new players, whom you have to familiarize with your brand, teach the game, with all its intricate rules, or trying to keep people currently playing, people who know the rules, who are familiar with the game, to buy your game?  

Obviously the latter is less expensive.  

Magic spends BLOADS Of money on trying to recruit new players.  what I'm saying is that they should spend at least some of their energies on trying to retain and on re-entry of players who will, at some point, encounter the game again.   It's massively imbalanced, and it's hurting their profits.  

Its pretty basic business that its cheaper to keep an existing customer then it is to gain a new one.  It's not even close.

I would have thought so as well -- but people in this thread are arguing the point, for some reason.  

I think a great way for wizards to introduce more power to the community would be to beef up the rewards systems.  Like if you play in 2 FNMs in all 12 months getting a mox or if you've been a dci registered player for X amount of years giving some reprints of higher end cards.  Then they could run more vintage events as extra encouragement to stay active as a player.

I really dislike that this game doesnt really give any benefits to long term players other then the Hall of Fame.  A good new player can just play standard and get to pro tours and whatnot.  A couple of legacy events a year doesn't out weigh the cost of the format.  If wizards started legacy PTQ seasons they could show support for people who keep older cards around.  

Most of my friends are 21+ and lately all I hear about is selling vintage and legacy staples because they're so valuable and barely usable.  The vast majority of the friends I have, that I dont know just from playing magic have quit.

I've been playing this game since the seventh grade and I'm now 26 and I think the only reason I keep playing is because I have for so long.

[Smmenen]

Great suggestions.  Post them in the SCG forums in response to my article so Wizards can see them.   

[DubDub]

Its pretty basic business that its cheaper to keep an existing customer then it is to gain a new one.  It's not even close.

I would have thought so as well -- but people in this thread are arguing the point, for some reason. 

I don't know if this is directed at me.  If it is, then you're still not understanding my argument, so I'll restate for clarification: "Not all Magic players consume alike.  Wizards/Hasbro is profit maximizing as best they see fit, which means spending a majority of their time and effort on the most profitable segments of their consumer/product base, the smaller formats.  Their actions betray their attitude: M10 rule changes, new niche products like FTV, Duel Decks, Planechase and the soon to be released Archenemy, the Reserve List restatement, scheduling two Legacy GP's this year, as well as their handling of the Restricted list in Vintage and the Banned list in Legacy.  If they thought it were more profitable to act in a different way, they would."

Look at the difference between the official big events, and the StarCity $5Ks.  There's no string of official Legacy events like the $5Ks, because that would undermine their support of the lesser formats.  Meanwhile they are holding two banner events for Legacy (Madrid and Columbus) that have far greater reach into the existing Legacy population, but aren't a great reason for current Standard players to permanently convert to Legacy.  SCG on the other hand sells any/all cards, and it's more in their interest to support Legacy, so they do.

Believe me, I would love nothing more than for Legacy and Vintage to get their due, whether that's a Legacy PTQ season, a Legacy Pro Tour, a Vintage Grand Prix, large regional Vintage events all held on the same 'Vintage Day' etc.  I'm just realistic about what Wizards considers worthwhile, as can be deduced from their actions (especially the Reserve List restatement).

[dangerlinto]

Of course they care.   I can confirm that in fact.  There are people at Wizards that do care.   

This point will be lost on most people who've never actually had a conversation with a member of R&D, marketing or one of the the other members who control the outcome of the game and it's market saturation and demographic, Steve.

Reading their articles is one thing, but actually sitting down and talking to them - you can see it in their eyes.  They definitely care.

Its pretty basic business that its cheaper to keep an existing customer then it is to gain a new one.  It's not even close.

I would have thought so as well -- but people in this thread are arguing the point, for some reason. 

Seems most people aren't reaching around to the point that the WoTC model is more or less setup to try and repeatedly lose and replenish their base.

That being said, I'm not convinced the the mechanics of the game itself and it's prior decisions lend itself to retention very well though.  So while it might be nice to consider a morphed model built more around retention, that doesn't mean it will be as effective.  In the end, it's entirely possible replenishing is more cost effective long term even than retention, but only because of the game mechanics itself.  Sadly, WoTC is treading in new territory on CCGs and as a business model, so there isn't a lot of precedent to say whether historically this is the right move.

[chrispikula]

It is really weird to be having this conversation when Magic is more popular than it has ever been.

I want to make two points that I think are valid here:

1) The vintage community in general seems to focus more on prize support than any other group of Magic players I've been around. 

2) The vintage community seems to overlook the insane boon to older players that Magic Online is.  I have a real job and a real kid, and without MTGO I'd be very very sad. 

[Delha]

1) The vintage community in general seems to focus more on prize support than any other group of Magic players I've been around. 

2) The vintage community seems to overlook the insane boon to older players that Magic Online is.  I have a real job and a real kid, and without MTGO I'd be very very sad.

1. I'm not sure that's true. I spent a good year or so running FNM, and you'd be amazed how aggravated people get over minor decisions or changes in policy. I'm inclined to agree that Vintage players are often prize focused, but I think that's true of most competitive games.

2. If it were possible to play Vintage on MTGO, I think I'd be much more interested.

[jtwilkins]

It is really weird to be having this conversation when Magic is more popular than it has ever been.

I want to make two points that I think are valid here:

1) The vintage community in general seems to focus more on prize support than any other group of Magic players I've been around. 

2) The vintage community seems to overlook the insane boon to older players that Magic Online is.  I have a real job and a real kid, and without MTGO I'd be very very sad. 

I think the vintage is more focused on prize support because they are spread out and must commute to play in events. I don't see someone driving an hour or two to play in a five dollar dual land event. It is kinda a catch 22, I think that playing sanctioned rewarding to players but then you can not play proxies.

MTGO is just flocked they don't have the full vintage card pool, the vintage singles they do have are crazy outrageous. Many people including myself can't stomach paying full individual pack price for virtual cards. 

[chrispikula]

MTGO is just flocked they don't have the full vintage card pool, the vintage singles they do have are crazy outrageous. Many people including myself can't stomach paying full individual pack price for virtual cards.

2. If it were possible to play Vintage on MTGO, I think I'd be much more interested.

These are arguments about WOTC not supporting vintage, not WOTC not supporting "adult" Magic players.  These aren't the same thing, right?

[DubDub]

MTGO is just flocked they don't have the full vintage card pool, the vintage singles they do have are crazy outrageous. Many people including myself can't stomach paying full individual pack price for virtual cards.

2. If it were possible to play Vintage on MTGO, I think I'd be much more interested.

These are arguments about WOTC not supporting vintage, not WOTC not supporting "adult" Magic players.  These aren't the same thing, right?

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=33669.390

The long post from August 17th, 2009 says in part

Each of the Magic formats create a pipeline into other formats.  Most tournament magic players enter Magic either via limited or Standard.   Standard is a pipeline to Extended.  Players who play Standard, over time, will become familiar with cards and interactions that become the basis for Extended.  And over time, this familiarity extends to Legacy.    Eventually, players come accross Vintage.   However, the pipeline to Vintage is by far the slowest and lightest trickle.

Talking about older demographics is by Steve's own admission talking about the Eternal formats.  The two are linked, at least here on TMD.

[Delha]

MTGO is just flocked they don't have the full vintage card pool, the vintage singles they do have are crazy outrageous. Many people including myself can't stomach paying full individual pack price for virtual cards.

I don't think the "Virtual Card" thing is relevant to this particular argument. People are overly tied to the physical aspect of a purchase in any format, ours or otherwise.

I think that the first of your two points is a much bigger issue. So long as the cardpool does not exist, it is impossible for Vintage to move onto MTGO, even for those few who might be willing to do so.

[Valorale]

Great article

As someone who played religiously from 94-98 and recently came back to the game, I have grown far more appreciative of the smaller tournaments in which youre far more likely to gain greater enjoyment out of the food/drinks you have afterwards with your fellow attendees than the actual tournament itself. In fact my friend Nat Moes said while we were eating diner with our group at an excellent restaurant called The Fire House in Harrisburg Pa after a tournament; "This is why I come to these tournaments". Amusing, I found myself agreeing with him.

On meetup.com there is a magic group in the DC area that plays at an Irish bar in Bethesda Md. The Worldwake prerelease they had was a blast. Most of the guys are very laid back, no deck registration needed, sit where you want, drink beer and play Magic.

As Steve pointed out the older people who play magic are not really interested in playing in crowded halls next to kids (and worse, adults) who havnt bathed in a week. If Wizards of the Coast wants to know how to get their older playerbase interested in either playing more or playing against, they need to take a page out of the playbook that this meetup group is using.