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

[Smmenen]

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

That's an important point, but the way I see it is that as good as things are, they could be better still.   As I say in the article, why couldn't we have 5000 player GPs within a decade?  We went from 500 average player GPs to 2000 player GPs in a decade.  

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.  

I think this may be a case of mistaking cause for effect.   That is, does the Vintage community focus more on prize support because Vintage players -- as a species - care more about that, or is it because Vintage players are older, and older players care more about that?  I think it's the latter.  It's not that older players need great prizes; but they don't want to feel ripped off.   In this article, I argue that PTQs are basically ripping players off, and they get away with it for the reasons I cite.   I think the Vintage player, being the oldest segment of the Magic community, is the canary in the coal mine.  

There is a market ga, and I try to marshal all of the available evidence to make this case, by comparing various data points. 

[Smmenen]

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.

I've sort of backed away from that, after having reviewed the BDM study in this article.   I think that the older demographic pervades Magic more generally than is known or acknowledged, but Eternal seems to capture a disproportionate share.   

[Smmenen]

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.

But isn't there?   What about classic, enduring games like Chess or monopoly?   

I don't see why the game mechanics of Magic don't lend itself to retention.  In fact, i would argue the precise opposite.   The infinite variability and every changing, slowly evolving card pool lend itself very well to retention, renewed, repeated, enjoyable experiences. 

What doesn't is business decisions based upon demographic models that assume the opposite.   In particular, I think Wizards, the community and TOs ultimately drive players away, despite the best efforts of the game itself.   

[Delha]

But isn't there?   What about classic, enduring games like Chess or monopoly?   

I don't see why the game mechanics of Magic don't lend itself to retention.  In fact, i would argue the precise opposite.   The infinite variability and every changing, slowly evolving card pool lend itself very well to retention, renewed, repeated, enjoyable experiences. 

What doesn't is business decisions based upon demographic models that assume the opposite.   In particular, I think Wizards, the community and TOs ultimately drive players away, despite the best efforts of the game itself.

This is what I was getting at with my post a page or two back. I think that the model of collectible games makes it inherently more difficult to maintain a consistent customer base. The demand for a constant influx of new capital is motivation for many players to quit, new or old.

If you're not playing regularly, there's little motivation to keep your collection up to date. Falling behind the times reinstitutes the barrier to entry, even to veteran players. Chess on the other hand, is still the same game it was when I learned it over two decades ago.

[Smmenen]

But isn't there?   What about classic, enduring games like Chess or monopoly?  

I don't see why the game mechanics of Magic don't lend itself to retention.  In fact, i would argue the precise opposite.   The infinite variability and every changing, slowly evolving card pool lend itself very well to retention, renewed, repeated, enjoyable experiences.  

What doesn't is business decisions based upon demographic models that assume the opposite.   In particular, I think Wizards, the community and TOs ultimately drive players away, despite the best efforts of the game itself.

This is what I was getting at with my post a page or two back. I think that the model of collectible games makes it inherently more difficult to maintain a consistent customer base. The demand for a constant influx of new capital is motivation for many players to quit, new or old.

If you're not playing regularly, there's little motivation to keep your collection up to date. Falling behind the times reinstitutes the barrier to entry, even to veteran players. Chess on the other hand, is still the same game it was when I learned it over two decades ago.

But isn't that an argument *against* player retention in Chess, one that cuts in favor of Magic?   Super Mario Bros 1 for my NES is still the same game it was 25 years ago, when I first played it.   yes, I still enjoy playing it, but it's identical.   The reason games like Chess and Super Mario Bros endure is because 1)they are truly great games, and 2) there is some variety.   Few Chess games are identical.   Similarly, you can do many different things with Super Mario Bros.  

Magic is the same core game: same rules, same structure, same strategies, except in an evolving card pool.    The principles of drafting are largely the same from block to block, and the more basic principles remain identical (i.e. build 40 card decks, enough mana to cast spells, etc).   The variety, new cards, etc, is a reason to keep playing.  It keeps things exciting.  

Every game/widget has barriers to entry, barriers to retention, and reasons to enter and continue playing.   Those reasons differ from game to game, product to product.  

Is purchasing new cards a barrier to entry?  of course.   All monetary costs are barriers to some players.   But I think they are exaggerated in the larger scheme of things.  The costs are a contributing factor to players quitting, but they aren't the only one, and perhaps not the major ones.

There are plenty of products that require continual expenditures:  For example, cars require continual costs: fuel and maintenance.   Coke, again, is drunk, and needs to be replaced or quit.   Cigarettes are another example.  

More to the point: the costs of 'keeping up' or purchasing new cards are not so much a barrier to *retention* so much as they are a barrier to playing Magic in the first place.  If you've invested 2 years in Magic, I would imagine it would be much easier to continue to play it than a new player trying it out.   The problem, and the reason I believe people are getting confused is what I explained in the article:

At some point, the player says: this is no longer fun, or it’s just not worth it. More likely, it’s a combination of both.

Thus, the costs are worth it if the fun level is sufficiently high, but if the fun level drops, for whatever reason, and the costs remain as high, then people will quit.   It's not a simple they quit because of X, but because of the interaction of X, Y, and Z.   Thus, I believe that 'costs' are really often the expression of different problem, or more accurately, only part of the problem.

Think about Video Games.   You invest in a console, then buy new games.  Then, the next gen console comes out.  You invest, and buy new games.  Often, they are recycled old games, like Zelda or Mario.  Nintendo may actually have a demographic approach like Magic: assume that most players quit and are replaced by new ones.  But what I'm saying is that Magic need not make that assumption.  

One of the great strengths of Magic is that there are so many market segments that can be met.   The variety not only of tournament formats, but of niches, of products, makes Magic super consumer friendly.   You can buy booster packs, or you can play duel decks, you can play tournaments or you can play multiplayer (T4, etc).   Wizards even sells products and creates rules for these various options: Archenemy, etc.  

Magic players are persisting in playing this game despite assumptions about when they should quit.   They just aren't doing in the dominant/traditional outlets.   Thus, eternal formats, GPs, niche products, MTGO, are serving the market gap as well as the traditional market.  

This has been done accidentally or fortuitously.  I'm saying it should be done more purposefully.   If it is, Magic will grow far beyond what it is now, and reach its full potential.    

Doing so will also create a positive feedback loop; as WOTC's assumptions and demographic profile changes, so to will the players.   Imagine going to a tournament hall and seeing 12 year olds and 60 year olds, and having that be common, where the average age of the magic player is the average age of the population.    No one would then assume that Magic is a fad, going to die, etc.  And no one would also assume that Magic players quit after a few years.  

Magic is still young; and many young assumptions about it persist.    It almost has a developmental logic about it; players from stores around the world seem to naturally come to certain conclusions about Magic, that are so common, ideas like:

* Is Magic dying?  When will it die?
* When Magic dies, Wizards will reprint power
* that when people become adults, they'll quit Magic, or move onto other things

Yet, what I'm saying is that these assumptions are not necessarily true.    I'm trying to suggest that one reason they may appear true is because business decisions make them a self-fulfilling prophesy, which makes them seem natural/inevitable.  

I readily concede that many players will quit Magic at some point; but what time and experience has shown is that many, if not most, of those players encounter an opportunity for re-entry.   As I said in the article, creating an experience that retains players will also foster re-entry.  

Unlike video games, I don't think there is anything inherent in the 1) game, the 2) theme of the game, or 3)the costs of the game that are adverse to retainment and reentry.  On the contrary, I think they all cut in support of it.    Video games may actually have a greater difficulty with retention and reentry than Magic.   Magic is, in my view, a universal game that can be enjoyed by all ages and will be.   But it means that we need to move beyond Magic's adolescence, and into it's early adulthood.  

Let me ask a simple question: do you believe that you will eventually stop playing Magic (permanently so)?  

If yes, why?  

I think all of the answers "why" are no longer good enough, and are excuses for other things.   Until recently, Magic players have few options to enjoy the game.  Now there are more than ever before.  

I've heard every reason in the books.  But they are all false reasons.   They all have to do with other things.   Some people say that they don't have time.   Yet, those people have time to play poker, watch sports, or go to the movies.   Some people say that they have too many other financial responsibilities; yet they probably go the movies, etc.   What's really going on is that the demographic model is self-fulfilling.    Change the demographic model, and your business changes in small ways that will promote and increase retention.   It's already happening; just not purposefully.   Once it's more deliberate, then Magic will fully bloom.  

 I'm speaking to the Magic community as a prophet, on the margins of the community because of my embeddedness in Eternal, a vantage point has given me the perspective to see a possible future for this game, since Eternal is the canary in the coal mine.   I'm questioning deeply held assumptions, challenging authority, but sketching a vision for the future.   I'm not just trying to persuade Wizards or the Community that their business model is wrong; I'm trying to trigger a gestalt shift -- a new way of seeing and thinking about the game.    One that isn't simply reduceable to extant facts and figures, but one that is supported by them.   

What's truly amazing is that so many SCG readers are so much more receptive than the Eternal community, and the Vintage community in particular (people on the Source seem to be largely in agreement), when it's a vision that emanates from here.   

[matt_sperling]

I'm with Pikula.  Steve, you're solving a problem that isn't there.  Magic is growing.  Wizards does its homework and focuses on players besides the aspriring pro (XBox, Planechase, FNM, EDH side events at PTs, etc.).  Part of your argument is how great the SCG and other 5k tournaments are.  Great, so we have those.  Based on their success, we'll have more.  Same with States.  Where the demand is sufficient, TOs will organize these events.  Many of the players I played Magic with 10+ years ago still play today.  Those that don't stopped because of other things in their life consuming their free time.  I think Wizards puts out a great product and does a great job promoting it, to many different types of players.  I would advise them to ignore the article that is the subject of this thread. 

[Smmenen]

I'm with Pikula.  Steve, you're solving a problem that isn't there.  Magic is growing.  Wizards does its homework and focuses on players besides the aspriring pro (XBox, Planechase, FNM, EDH side events at PTs, etc.).  Part of your argument is how great the SCG and other 5k tournaments are.  Great, so we have those.  Based on their success, we'll have more.  Same with States.  Where the demand is sufficient, TOs will organize these events.  Many of the players I played Magic with 10+ years ago still play today.  Those that don't stopped because of other things in their life consuming their free time.  I think Wizards puts out a great product and does a great job promoting it, to many different types of players.  I would advise them to ignore the article that is the subject of this thread.  

Why?  If you think that there isn't a problem, then what's the harm of this article?   If I'm wrong, that there isn't a problem, and that Wizards demographic profile isn't actually reducing the potential of magic, then this article is irrelevant.  But if I'm right, that Wizards demographic model is wrong (and the facts support me on this), and is actually inadvertently driving away players, and preventing Magic from reaching its full potential, then why not consider it?   If the qualifier experience is driving burnout, and can  be renovated, why not consider it?  If there isn't enough emphasis on retainment and re-entry, and disproportionate emphasis on recruitment, why not consider these ideas?  If these ideas don't have merit, then they should be argued on that basis, rather than ignored.  

No one is saying that Wizards isn't doing a great job.   I'm just suggesting that it can do better, with positive ramifications for everyone.   When I was at Wizards in January, both Ben and I pointed out that while Magic is doing great, it can do better.   Why settle for great when better is possible?   Why settle for however many players enjoy Magic, when twice that many could be?   That kind of complacency is not good business sense.   That's like a company that dominates a market simply resting on its laurels until a competitor comes in.  Why not try to improve yourself now.   In fact, positive adjustments are often least painful when things are going well. 

Anecdotally, this article has resonated with a number of players, judging by the SCG forums.  If this article is merely misplaced, then why the response?  

Magic is changing.   And we should be attentive to how and why.   I'm attacking Wizards demographic profile, as both factually wrong and self-fulfilling.   The market gap is being served by things that didn't exist five years ago.   The service to that gap is only partially purposeful.   I'm suggesting that they can do better, and suggesting how.   While WOTC is doing a good job making the game, something they excel at, and making products for the game, and managing the game, I'm far less convinced that they are doing as good of a job marketing the game.  

[matt_sperling]

I'm with Pikula.  Steve, you're solving a problem that isn't there.  Magic is growing.  Wizards does its homework and focuses on players besides the aspriring pro (XBox, Planechase, FNM, EDH side events at PTs, etc.).  Part of your argument is how great the SCG and other 5k tournaments are.  Great, so we have those.  Based on their success, we'll have more.  Same with States.  Where the demand is sufficient, TOs will organize these events.  Many of the players I played Magic with 10+ years ago still play today.  Those that don't stopped because of other things in their life consuming their free time.  I think Wizards puts out a great product and does a great job promoting it, to many different types of players.  I would advise them to ignore the article that is the subject of this thread.  

Why?  If you think that there isn't a problem, then what's the harm of this article?   If I'm wrong, that there isn't a problem, and that Wizards demographic profile isn't actually reducing the potential of magic, then this article is irrelevant.  But if I'm right, that Wizards demographic model is wrong (and the facts support me on this), and is actually inadvertently driving away players, and preventing Magic from reaching its full potential, then why not consider it?   If the qualifier experience is driving burnout, and can  be renovated, why not consider it?  If there isn't enough emphasis on retainment and re-entry, and disproportionate emphasis on recruitment, why not consider these ideas?  If these ideas don't have merit, then they should be argued on that basis, rather than ignored.  

No one is saying that Wizards isn't doing a great job.   I'm just suggesting that it can do better, with positive ramifications for everyone.   When I was at Wizards in January, both Ben and I pointed out that while Magic is doing great, it can do better.   Why settle for great when better is possible?   Why settle for however many players enjoy Magic, when twice that many could be?  

Anecdotally, this article has resonated with a number of players, judging by the SCG forums.  If this article is merely misplaced, then why the response?  

A) the same reason you ignore everything that is irrelevant, because you have limited attention to divide among relevant and irrelevant pursuits.  This "Pascal's Wager" type of mistake assumes the burden of proof is on the person doing the ignoring to prove that they shouldn't be paying attention to something when in fact it is the proponents of unsupported claims that bear the burden of proving they are worth considering.  In sum, I shouldn't spend time considering Jesus and Wizards shouldn't spend time considering your proposals to reevaluate their marketing and tournament structure.

B) you just make assertions like "PTQs cause player burnout" without any support.  You conducted a small poll about player ages, riddled with selection bias (is the age of your readership a perfect overlap with the magic playing population?) but where was the poll suggesting PTQs cause burnout?  Even if they do, is this offset by the drive they create in other players who consume so much Magic?  

C) Wizards does market research, presumably so it can rely on said research, and you don't have access to either the research or Wizards' reaction to it.  Your sketch of their "model" is so clearly primitive that it can't be what they actually use, especially given that we know they use market research to inform their decisions.  

EDIT:

Anecdotally, this article has resonated with a number of players, judging by the SCG forums.  If this article is merely misplaced, then why the response?  

The list of bad ideas that have "resonated" with a number of people is probably not much shorter than the list of all bad ideas ever published.

[Smmenen]

I'm with Pikula.  Steve, you're solving a problem that isn't there.  Magic is growing.  Wizards does its homework and focuses on players besides the aspriring pro (XBox, Planechase, FNM, EDH side events at PTs, etc.).  Part of your argument is how great the SCG and other 5k tournaments are.  Great, so we have those.  Based on their success, we'll have more.  Same with States.  Where the demand is sufficient, TOs will organize these events.  Many of the players I played Magic with 10+ years ago still play today.  Those that don't stopped because of other things in their life consuming their free time.  I think Wizards puts out a great product and does a great job promoting it, to many different types of players.  I would advise them to ignore the article that is the subject of this thread.  

Why?  If you think that there isn't a problem, then what's the harm of this article?   If I'm wrong, that there isn't a problem, and that Wizards demographic profile isn't actually reducing the potential of magic, then this article is irrelevant.  But if I'm right, that Wizards demographic model is wrong (and the facts support me on this), and is actually inadvertently driving away players, and preventing Magic from reaching its full potential, then why not consider it?   If the qualifier experience is driving burnout, and can  be renovated, why not consider it?  If there isn't enough emphasis on retainment and re-entry, and disproportionate emphasis on recruitment, why not consider these ideas?  If these ideas don't have merit, then they should be argued on that basis, rather than ignored.  

No one is saying that Wizards isn't doing a great job.   I'm just suggesting that it can do better, with positive ramifications for everyone.   When I was at Wizards in January, both Ben and I pointed out that while Magic is doing great, it can do better.   Why settle for great when better is possible?   Why settle for however many players enjoy Magic, when twice that many could be?  

Anecdotally, this article has resonated with a number of players, judging by the SCG forums.  If this article is merely misplaced, then why the response?  

A) the same reason you ignore everything that is irrelevant, because you have limited attention to divide among relevant and irrelevant pursuits.  This "Pascal's Wager" type of mistake assumes the burden of proof is on the person doing the ignoring to prove that they shouldn't be paying attention to something when in fact it is the proponents of unsupported claims that bear the burden of proving they are worth considering.  In sum, I shouldn't spend time considering Jesus and Wizards shouldn't spend time considering your proposals to reevaluate their marketing and tournament structure.

My claims were not unsupported:

B) you just make assertions like "PTQs cause player burnout" without any support.  

That's not true.  I provided reasons for why PTQs are a contributor to player burnout.   Reasons constitute support.  

Do you not think those reasons contribute to player burn out?  

You conducted a small poll about player ages, riddled with selection bias (is the median age of your readership a perfect overlap with the magic playing population?) but where was the poll suggesting PTQs cause burnout?  Even if they do, is this offset by the drive they create in other players who consume so much Magic?  

I don't doubt that it is; but that's exactly my point.   If the goal is to maximize Magic's potential, then offsetting those losses is not serving that goal as fully as they might.  You should also try to minimize those losses.

C) Wizards does market research, presumably so it can rely on said research, and you don't have access to either the research or Wizards' reaction to it.  Your sketch of their "model" is so clearly primitive that it can't be what they actually use, especially given that we know they use market research to inform their decisions.  

First of all, I fully acknowledge that my sketch of their model is just that, a sketch.   But that doesn't mean it's salient features aren't true of how Wizards approaches the game.   Even if I'm wrong in the details, that doesn't mean that many of the points I make aren't true.valid.   And yes, not having access to Wizards *actual* model or observing how they base decisions on that model may mean that I'm wrong.  But:

Secondly, part of what I'm suggesting can't be answered by conducting market research.   My argument is that their model is a self-fulfilling prophesy.   The research they conduct may affirm their model because their model produces the results they research.   So, for example, the demographic model I sketched would incentivize business decisions that produce the results predicted by the model.   I'm suggesting something of a leap of imagination to see the alternative.  

I'm also suggesting, in a similar vein, that there is a complex causal interaction that is driving players out of Magic.  

Consider the question:
Why did you quit magic?

One of the things I'm suggesting here is that the answers to that kind of question may be misleading for a number of reasons.  First, there is a tendency that lawyers and laymen alike share: to find the main cause, when what is actually described as the main or proximate cause is actually what's salient to the player.  For example, what I'm suggesting is that it's the interaction of factors that may lead players to quit, not a single factor. So, for example, a younger player may have a great time at a PTQ, and an adult may also have a great time, but be less tolerant of the prize payout or the environment.  Yet the adult's internal calculus is ultimately expressed as: I have better things to do with my time, and verbalized as: it's just not worth it, or as much fun, or etc.   Yet, if some of those other factors were tweaked, they may never have quit.

Let me put this in quantifiable terms, and try to show how complex this might be.  Suppose a simple cost/benefit calculus.  Suppose that a player will attend a PTQ if the enjoyment outweighs the costs.   Suppose that Player A, an 18 year old, enjoys playing in magic tournaments at a level 8 on a scale of 1-10.   Suppose player B, a 27 year old, enjoys playing in magic tournaments at a level 8 as well.    Now suppose that the 18 year old finds the costs to be a 6, and the 27 year old finds the costs to be a 8.   The 18 year old will attend the tournament, but the 27 year old won't.

Yet, if you ask the 27 year old why they didn't attend the PTQ, I'm sure the answer will be: i have better things to do with my time, etc.  

Yet, this actually obscures what's really going on.

Suppose that the costs for the 18 year old are largely just monetary: i.e. entry fee, cards, and gas.  But suppose the costs for he
27 year old include: stress of travel/bad food, lousy environment, poor aesthetics, poor prize payout, inconvenience, in addition to the other costs.  The monetary costs might not be as significant, but the other costs are more significant.  Younger and older players, I'm suggesting, weight different costs differently.    I think older players concerns make PTQs less attractive, but do not make GPs or SCG $5Ks as unattractive.   And I think the evidence supports my theory, which I've cited, from Eternal GP attendance to comparing States to Regionals.  

It's not that the older player doesn't really enjoy playing Magic; it's often that, in terms of cost/benefit, the poor environment/prize payout makes it just not worth it.  The disrespectful attitude of TOs, treating players as replaceable, is a turn off.   Yet, you wouldn't be able to easily find this out from simple market research.   Instead, the common answer would reinforce the demographic assumptions.  

What I've seen, in the many years I've been playing Magic now, is that this is true.   .  For example, I've seen players quit Magic, yet do things that are not less time intensive or no less fun.   In addition, over and over again, I've seen players consider reentering the game, only to be warded off or kept at a safe distance by the same things that drove them away.   It's not that adults are too busy to play Magic, or that magic is a game for kids.   It's that the magic experience, with notable exceptions, isn't being tweaked to retain these players, and I argue it could, at minimal cost.  

EDIT:
I don't think there is any doubt that magic's business model is based too much on recruitment (which is fine) to the expense/or insufficiently on retention.   I don't think anyone can really disagree that the business model assumes that players quit and new players replace them.   What if that model was tweaked to reduce the number of players who quit and to re-attract players who once quit?   What if Magic was treated more like coke than barbie?  Or, if you don't find the analogy offensive: cigarettes than barbie?

I think the difference would be profound.    A business that assumes that its customer base is disposable and replaceable will treat those players very, very differently than one that expects its players to come back again, and again for years to come.    And, even if those players quit, recognizes that they may come back again some day.  And that's the problem. It's a problem not so much because Magic can't continue to exist or even grow under such a model, but because it's not achieving maximum growth in the player base.   

As I said in the article, it's a simple stock and flows issue.   Wizards current model is too much like running a bathtub with the drain open.   You may keep or even modestly rise the water level, but you aren't maximizing the water level. 

[Suicideking]

I think just saying the game is really popular right now everything is fine doesnt mean that things cant be better. 

A lot of games are hugely popular at one time or another and very few can hold onto it.  Yugioh, pokemon, and VS. were all quite popular in their prime but they're all basically dead.  I dont think there is anything wrong with trying to find ways to keep long term success.  No game as ever been around as long as magic and there were times when magic was close to dying.  I think its great for people like Steve to make suggestions and it doesnt make them irrelevant.  A lot of players find reading tournament reports to be irrelevant to their magic playing experience but yet people still write them. 

[Delha]

...If you're not playing regularly, there's little motivation to keep your collection up to date. Falling behind the times reinstitutes the barrier to entry, even to veteran players. Chess on the other hand, is still the same game it was when I learned it over two decades ago.

But isn't that an argument *against* player retention in Chess, one that cuts in favor of Magic?   Super Mario Bros 1 for my NES is still the same game it was 25 years ago, when I first played it.   yes, I still enjoy playing it, but it's identical.   The reason games like Chess and Super Mario Bros endure is because 1)they are truly great games, and 2) there is some variety.   Few Chess games are identical.   Similarly, you can do many different things with Super Mario Bros.

Sorry for the brevity of response, I've got somewhere else to be, and I'm already running a bit late. I'll try to respond in more detail tomorrow.

I'd argue here that people inherently avoid extra work. If I took a 10 year hiatus from both Chess and Magic, I can pick up the former and get started immediately. I may be rusty, but that's only from lack of memory, not from new knowledge I need to acquire. In contrast, playing Magic requires a great of reorientation. Even if that break was only a single year long, there is an entirely new metagame, and a new block's worth of mechanics to learn. The dynamic nature of Magic compounds this effect over the course of a player's break.

I play many tabletop games outside of Magic, and even as an experienced gamer, I am instinctively turned off when presented with complex rules to learn at the outset. As a long time gamer, I've learned to push past that reflex and get to the real meat of a game. Not everybody is willing to make that commitment though, and I can't fault them for that decision.

At the end of the day, let's say I'm visit my hometown and have half a day to spend with an old friend (who has kept up with Magic over the decade where I didn't). My inclination is to choose Chess, if only for the reason that we can start playing right now. The additional time and effort required to learn new cards and mechanics does not lend itself to a limited gaming window, which is increasingly likely to be what an older player has available.

[chrispikula]

Once people have real jobs and/or children, the factors that affect whether or not they play Magic are almost completely beyond WOTC's control. There is one thing and one thing only that prevents me from going to a Magic tourney on every single Saturday- my wife and child.  It doesn't matter how great the prizes are, it doesn't matter how great the new set it is, it doesn't matter how great the venue is. I'm going to one tourney a month in most cases, and that's that.  I think this is the case for many older players. Magic is HUGE right now, and instead of focusing on that, you are implying that WOTC should do more to gain the favor of 1) older players who have a million non-Magic reasons for not playing Magic and 2) vintage players, who are not only a small set of all Magic players, but also spend less money on new cards than most other players.

[Smmenen]

...If you're not playing regularly, there's little motivation to keep your collection up to date. Falling behind the times reinstitutes the barrier to entry, even to veteran players. Chess on the other hand, is still the same game it was when I learned it over two decades ago.

But isn't that an argument *against* player retention in Chess, one that cuts in favor of Magic?   Super Mario Bros 1 for my NES is still the same game it was 25 years ago, when I first played it.   yes, I still enjoy playing it, but it's identical.   The reason games like Chess and Super Mario Bros endure is because 1)they are truly great games, and 2) there is some variety.   Few Chess games are identical.   Similarly, you can do many different things with Super Mario Bros.

Sorry for the brevity of response, I've got somewhere else to be, and I'm already running a bit late. I'll try to respond in more detail tomorrow.

I'd argue here that people inherently avoid extra work. If I took a 10 year hiatus from both Chess and Magic, I can pick up the former and get started immediately. I may be rusty, but that's only from lack of memory, not from new knowledge I need to acquire. In contrast, playing Magic requires a great of reorientation. Even if that break was only a single year long, there is an entirely new metagame, and a new block's worth of mechanics to learn. The dynamic nature of Magic compounds this effect over the course of a player's break.

I play many tabletop games outside of Magic, and even as an experienced gamer, I am instinctively turned off when presented with complex rules to learn at the outset. As a long time gamer, I've learned to push past that reflex and get to the real meat of a game. Not everybody is willing to make that commitment though, and I can't fault them for that decision.

At the end of the day, let's say I'm visit my hometown and have half a day to spend with an old friend (who has kept up with Magic over the decade where I didn't). My inclination is to choose Chess, if only for the reason that we can start playing right now. The additional time and effort required to learn new cards and mechanics does not lend itself to a limited gaming window, which is increasingly likely to be what an older player has available.

The points you more fully develop here, but were introduced earlier, I think really make my point that your arguments aren't so much a case against *retention* so much as recruitment in the first place.   My concern is not with recruitment, but retention.   My argument is that Wizards isn't doing what it can to keep players in the game, and it's hurting the potential growth of Magic.

As I said:

the costs of 'keeping up' or purchasing new cards are not so much a barrier to *retention* so much as they are a barrier to playing Magic in the first place.  If you've invested 2 years in Magic, I would imagine it would be much easier to continue to play it than a new player trying it out.

The same response is true here.  

But I think there is another, equally, important point.   When people have quit Magic and run across it again, after a long hiatus, for whatever reason, it's actually really exciting to see all of the crazy cards that have been printed in the interim.

I can remember when I quit Magic in 1996, and got back into the game in 2000, I couldn't believe they printed cards like Morphling, Lotus Petal, Yawgmoth's Will, etc.   I've observed many players who got back into the game get really excited by the new cards they missed.  

You don't get that with Chess.  

Magic is HUGE right now, and instead of focusing on that, you are implying that WOTC should do more to gain the favor of 1) older players who have a million non-Magic reasons for not playing Magic and 2) vintage players, who are not only a small set of all Magic players, but also spend less money on new cards than most other players.

I really don't want people to get the wrong impression: I'm definitely not saying Wizards should do more to 'gain the favor' of Vintage players, per se.   I don't want people to read this as a veiled argument to get more WOTC support for Vintage.  While I would applaud that; that's not what this article is about.

Once people have real jobs and/or children, the factors that affect whether or not they play Magic are almost completely beyond WOTC's control.

Plenty of adults with children and jobs find time to golf, play poker with the boys, hit the gym, go to sporting events/concerts with friends, go to the club, etc *with* all of those commitments.   The difference is that we have a narrative that people buy into, that once we 'grow' up we have to stop playing Magic.   Yet, it's perfectly fine for plenty of adults to do all of these other things with their time.    I think those other factors make that narrative easier to subscribe to.  

There is one thing and one thing only that prevents me from going to a Magic tourney on every single Saturday- my wife and child.  It doesn't matter how great the prizes are, it doesn't matter how great the new set it is, it doesn't matter how great the venue is. I'm going to one tourney a month in most cases, and that's that.  

And I don't think there is anything unreasonable about trying to get Magic players to play just one tourney a month, as adults.  That's 12 tournaments a year.   If Wizards could get more adults to play 8-12 tournaments a year, that would be a great start.  

[chrispikula]

Plenty of adults with children and jobs find time to golf, play poker with the boys, hit the gym, go to sporting events/concerts with friends, go to the club, etc *with* all of those commitments.   The difference is that we have a narrative that people buy into, that once we 'grow' up we have to stop playing Magic.   Yet, it's perfectly fine for plenty of adults to do all of these other things with their time.    I think those other factors make that narrative easier to subscribe to.  

All this other stuff you are talking about, you can do on your own schedule. The fatal flaw of Magic is that your tourneys are, by default, taking up your whole day on Saturdays and Sundays.  You can golf from 7 AM to 11 AM and be home for lunch and a full day out and about.  You can go to concerts and clubs after your kids are asleep.  There is no schedule flexibility for Magic, except on Magic online. I really think you are underestimating how much MTGO really is a huge way to keep older players involved, because so many people on this list focus on the lack of Vintage support.

[voltron00x]

Plenty of adults with children and jobs find time to golf, play poker with the boys, hit the gym, go to sporting events/concerts with friends, go to the club, etc *with* all of those commitments.   The difference is that we have a narrative that people buy into, that once we 'grow' up we have to stop playing Magic.   Yet, it's perfectly fine for plenty of adults to do all of these other things with their time.    I think those other factors make that narrative easier to subscribe to.  

All this other stuff you are talking about, you can do on your own schedule. The fatal flaw of Magic is that your tourneys are, by default, taking up your whole day on Saturdays and Sundays.  You can golf from 7 AM to 11 AM and be home for lunch and a full day out and about.  You can go to concerts and clubs after your kids are asleep.  There is no schedule flexibility for Magic, except on Magic online. I really think you are underestimating how much MTGO really is a huge way to keep older players involved, because so many people on this list focus on the lack of Vintage support.

This is absolutely true.

Its also why I'm going to be able to attend LESS Grand Prix / $5K events over time; I can always roll into philly for a PTQ and be home at 8 PM unless I top 8, but getting my special lady friend to buy into me playing nerd cards in another state and being gone Friday - Sunday is a much more daunting task.  At least I can write off some of the expenses on my taxes, so I have that working for me.

[Smmenen]

Plenty of adults with children and jobs find time to golf, play poker with the boys, hit the gym, go to sporting events/concerts with friends, go to the club, etc *with* all of those commitments.   The difference is that we have a narrative that people buy into, that once we 'grow' up we have to stop playing Magic.   Yet, it's perfectly fine for plenty of adults to do all of these other things with their time.    I think those other factors make that narrative easier to subscribe to.  

All this other stuff you are talking about, you can do on your own schedule. The fatal flaw of Magic is that your tourneys are, by default, taking up your whole day on Saturdays and Sundays.  You can golf from 7 AM to 11 AM and be home for lunch and a full day out and about.  You can go to concerts and clubs after your kids are asleep.  

I hear you, but I still think its overstated a bit.   If this was such a 'fatal flaw,' managing even one tourney a month wouldn't be doable.   I don't know exactly how many PTQs there are in any given major city, but I wouldn't imagine it's more than 12 a year.  

I also think paper Magic is a little more flexible than you suggest.  FN magic occurs at the same time frame as many concerts.  Once a month FNM wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, as a way to enjoy Magic.   Many adults have a 'night out' with the guys -- no reason that couldn't mean drafting, cubing, etc once a week, or less frequently. 

There is no schedule flexibility for Magic, except on Magic online. I really think you are underestimating how much MTGO really is a huge way to keep older players involved, because so many people on this list focus on the lack of Vintage support.

I should have mentioned MTGO in my article as another outlet meeting the market gap.   This was an oversight.

[tezzajw]

I've noticed a couple of references to Chess in this thread.  Magic and Chess can't be compared.  Chess isn't a good game.  Chess is essentially a memory exercise. 

Play enough Chess games, remember the winning/losing strategies, then rinse and repeat.  If/when the day comes that a computer will be able to play out all possible Chess games, then it will probably become a redundant game (like Tic-Tac-Toe), with optimal solutions found.  Luck is not a factor in Chess.  Both players are able to determine their moves, every turn - this is what makes Chess a boring game.  No one plays Tic-Tac-Toe as the optimal plays are known.  Eventually, this may happen to Chess.

Magic is a very good game that involves two sets of skills (deck building and playing) as well as the random aspect of unknown chance.  Your best optimal plays in Magic can fail due to bad luck.  Your worst plays can win you matches, with some favourable luck.

Chess is a static game, that only offers the same ol' same ol' every time you play it.  Magic, on the other hand...  completely different.  Ignore it for six months and a whole block of new cards arrives.



Am I one of the few people who finds spending money on virtual MTGO cards, disturbing?  As an older player, that's one way I don't want to be retained!!!  I paid for a MTGO account a couple of months ago and absolutely disliked what I saw.  It's real cardboard for me, thanks!  I wish there was some way that I could get a $10 refund and void my account.

[Delha]

The points you more fully develop here, but were introduced earlier, I think really make my point that your arguments aren't so much a case against *retention* so much as recruitment in the first place.   My concern is not with recruitment, but retention.   My argument is that Wizards isn't doing what it can to keep players in the game, and it's hurting the potential growth of Magic.

the costs of 'keeping up' or purchasing new cards are not so much a barrier to *retention* so much as they are a barrier to playing Magic in the first place.  If you've invested 2 years in Magic, I would imagine it would be much easier to continue to play it than a new player trying it out.

I agree that the barrier is most relevant to a new player, but that doesn't stop it from impacting returning veterans. It also does not change the fact that there are no comparable barriers in games without a dynamic ruleset (treating cards as rules extensions here). That's why I framed my example as I did. When you have a limited window of time, assuming you draw equal amounts of joy from playing either, the ROI from returning to Chess is greater than that of returning to Magic, if only because of the effort required to bring yourself up to speed on the latter.

But I think there is another, equally, important point.   When people have quit Magic and run across it again, after a long hiatus, for whatever reason, it's actually really exciting to see all of the crazy cards that have been printed in the interim.

Steve, it is apparent to me that you find the exploration of new card and mechanics to be fascinating and derive further enjoyment from that. I can certainly relate, but we must also consider that not all people share that perspective. Consider the following from your blog.

...I thought about my favorite modern sets: Future Sight, Time Spiral and Lorwyn.   Evidently, these sets were all poor sellers.   He explained to me that I like complexity.   That's why I like Vintage and games like Go.   

Then I saw this quote.   Without trying to sound elitist here -- is Vintage too complex for most players?   And do I help promote that perception because that's largely what I like about it?

What you saw as a great boon in those sets ended up being a turnoff to the average player. I suspect that this is another case where your positive view of an aspect of the game is obscuring the fact that the very same aspect is in fact a barrier to retention. I am in no way saying that it is insurmountable, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge its negative potential at all.

Some friends of mine were starting/rejoining hockey in a local league, and I was considering joining them. One of the big concerns for me was the heavy time commitment. These are people I greatly enjoy hanging out with, and so more time with friends seems like an obvious plus. That said, once you consider that the time spent there is taken from my girlfriend or other hobbies (ie. Magic), the cost factor becomes apparent.

Plenty of adults with children and jobs find time to golf, play poker with the boys, hit the gym, go to sporting events/concerts with friends, go to the club, etc *with* all of those commitments.

...I'm going to one tourney a month in most cases, and that's that.

And I don't think there is anything unreasonable about trying to get Magic players to play just one tourney a month, as adults.  That's 12 tournaments a year.   If Wizards could get more adults to play 8-12 tournaments a year, that would be a great start.

The difference here is that you can go to one poker tournament a month and have a reasonable shot at winning. Your time investment is purely involved in going to the venue and playing. If your average player just netdecks a list (ignoring the cost of building) and goes to play at your local FNM, they will scrub out the vast majority of the time.

You might win against the kiddies, but the local players who are actually competitive have a serious edge on you. Their playtesting and knowledge of the meta alone probably put them over the top, assuming their playskill is comparable to yours. In order to even approach competitive levels, you need to invest serious time outside of the event.

I've noticed a couple of references to Chess in this thread.  Magic and Chess can't be compared.  Chess isn't a good game.  Chess is essentially a memory exercise...

...No one plays Tic-Tac-Toe as the optimal plays are known.  Eventually, this may happen to Chess.

Chess is a static game, that only offers the same ol' same ol' every time you play it.

This is idiotic. First, we as humans are incapable of memorizing the roughly 10^43 possible boardstates possible in chess and the optimal paths to take from each, even if they were all neatly compiled for us. Second, memorizing a strategy is not the same thing as perfect execution. Practically any everyone in this room knew what needed to be done at the point where the parries start. The insane crowd reaction comes their understanding of the difficulty in pulling this off under a great deal of pressure.

Chess is not a static game. Even ignoring the fact that you've misused the term, all of your decision trees change depending up on the opponent's action. Tic-Tac-Toe has been solved because the going second is an irrecoverable tempo loss. As the first player, unless you make a mistake, the second player spends the entire game being forced to block you. They never get a chance to make a true decision.

I'm not even going to give your worthless MTGO whine a proper response. If you think it is bad for retention, give us some reasons. If not, your gripe is pointless and has no place in this thread.

[Smmenen]

Plenty of adults with children and jobs find time to golf, play poker with the boys, hit the gym, go to sporting events/concerts with friends, go to the club, etc *with* all of those commitments.

...I'm going to one tourney a month in most cases, and that's that.

And I don't think there is anything unreasonable about trying to get Magic players to play just one tourney a month, as adults.  That's 12 tournaments a year.   If Wizards could get more adults to play 8-12 tournaments a year, that would be a great start.

The difference here is that you can go to one poker tournament a month and have a reasonable shot at winning. Your time investment is purely involved in going to the venue and playing. If your average player just netdecks a list (ignoring the cost of building) and goes to play at your local FNM, they will scrub out the vast majority of the time.

You might win against the kiddies, but the local players who are actually competitive have a serious edge on you. Their playtesting and knowledge of the meta alone probably put them over the top, assuming their playskill is comparable to yours. In order to even approach competitive levels, you need to invest serious time outside of the event.

I don't think that's necessarily true at all, and definitely not true of Eternal formats.    I've seen plenty of Legacy and Vintage players play those formats once a month -- or less -- and then top 8 the very next event they play.    Once you've learned Legacy or Vintage, you don't really need to 'relearn' it more than once every couple of months.   

As for drafting, while knowing the card pool is good, you can draft a new set in the first couple weeks after it's released and do as well as anyone based on play skill alone.   

[Killane]

I've noticed a couple of references to Chess in this thread.  Magic and Chess can't be compared.  Chess isn't a good game.  Chess is essentially a memory exercise. 

Play enough Chess games, remember the winning/losing strategies, then rinse and repeat.  If/when the day comes that a computer will be able to play out all possible Chess games, then it will probably become a redundant game (like Tic-Tac-Toe), with optimal solutions found.  Luck is not a factor in Chess.  Both players are able to determine their moves, every turn - this is what makes Chess a boring game.  No one plays Tic-Tac-Toe as the optimal plays are known.  Eventually, this may happen to Chess.

Magic is a very good game that involves two sets of skills (deck building and playing) as well as the random aspect of unknown chance.  Your best optimal plays in Magic can fail due to bad luck.  Your worst plays can win you matches, with some favourable luck.

Chess is a static game, that only offers the same ol' same ol' every time you play it.  Magic, on the other hand...  completely different.  Ignore it for six months and a whole block of new cards arrives.



Am I one of the few people who finds spending money on virtual MTGO cards, disturbing?  As an older player, that's one way I don't want to be retained!!!  I paid for a MTGO account a couple of months ago and absolutely disliked what I saw.  It's real cardboard for me, thanks!  I wish there was some way that I could get a $10 refund and void my account.

i 100% disagree with everything you say about Chess, but yes, I will never play MTGO - spending real money for virtual cards- no thanks!

[Smmenen]

I've noticed a couple of references to Chess in this thread.  Magic and Chess can't be compared.  Chess isn't a good game.  Chess is essentially a memory exercise. 

Play enough Chess games, remember the winning/losing strategies, then rinse and repeat.  If/when the day comes that a computer will be able to play out all possible Chess games, then it will probably become a redundant game (like Tic-Tac-Toe), with optimal solutions found.  Luck is not a factor in Chess.  Both players are able to determine their moves, every turn - this is what makes Chess a boring game.  No one plays Tic-Tac-Toe as the optimal plays are known.  Eventually, this may happen to Chess.

Magic is a very good game that involves two sets of skills (deck building and playing) as well as the random aspect of unknown chance.  Your best optimal plays in Magic can fail due to bad luck.  Your worst plays can win you matches, with some favourable luck.

Chess is a static game, that only offers the same ol' same ol' every time you play it.  Magic, on the other hand...  completely different.  Ignore it for six months and a whole block of new cards arrives.



Am I one of the few people who finds spending money on virtual MTGO cards, disturbing?  As an older player, that's one way I don't want to be retained!!!  I paid for a MTGO account a couple of months ago and absolutely disliked what I saw.  It's real cardboard for me, thanks!  I wish there was some way that I could get a $10 refund and void my account.

i 100% disagree with everything you say about Chess, but yes, I will never play MTGO - spending real money for virtual cards- no thanks!

While I appreciate the convenience and flexibility MTGO offers, it is similarly unappealing for me.    Part of the fun of Magic is social.  And part of the game is psychological.  Those elements are not present on MTGO, or at least, not in the same degree. 

[voltron00x]

I've noticed a couple of references to Chess in this thread.  Magic and Chess can't be compared.  Chess isn't a good game.  Chess is essentially a memory exercise.  

Play enough Chess games, remember the winning/losing strategies, then rinse and repeat.  If/when the day comes that a computer will be able to play out all possible Chess games, then it will probably become a redundant game (like Tic-Tac-Toe), with optimal solutions found.  Luck is not a factor in Chess.  Both players are able to determine their moves, every turn - this is what makes Chess a boring game.  No one plays Tic-Tac-Toe as the optimal plays are known.  Eventually, this may happen to Chess.

Magic is a very good game that involves two sets of skills (deck building and playing) as well as the random aspect of unknown chance.  Your best optimal plays in Magic can fail due to bad luck.  Your worst plays can win you matches, with some favourable luck.

Chess is a static game, that only offers the same ol' same ol' every time you play it.  Magic, on the other hand...  completely different.  Ignore it for six months and a whole block of new cards arrives.



Am I one of the few people who finds spending money on virtual MTGO cards, disturbing?  As an older player, that's one way I don't want to be retained!!!  I paid for a MTGO account a couple of months ago and absolutely disliked what I saw.  It's real cardboard for me, thanks!  I wish there was some way that I could get a $10 refund and void my account.

i 100% disagree with everything you say about Chess, but yes, I will never play MTGO - spending real money for virtual cards- no thanks!

While I appreciate the convenience and flexibility MTGO offers, it is similarly unappealing for me.    Part of the fun of Magic is social.  And part of the game is psychological.  Those elements are not present on MTGO, or at least, not in the same degree.  

MTGO doesn't appeal to me either.  The social reason is a huge part of it.  I'm not really playing to grind out draft packs at this stage of my life, either.  When I feel the need to grind out some bucks, I'll go to AC and get paid cash dollars instead of Wizards fun bucks.  

The interface for MTGO is serviceable but still pretty bad in my opinion.  At the end of the day, I find MTGO fun, but it doesn't feel even remotely close to actually playing the game IRL.

That said - just like with poker, grinding out games online will do wonders for certain aspects of your technical play.  There should be no doubt about that.

[Delha]

The difference here is that you can go to one poker tournament a month and have a reasonable shot at winning. Your time investment is purely involved in going to the venue and playing. If your average player just netdecks a list (ignoring the cost of building) and goes to play at your local FNM, they will scrub out the vast majority of the time...

I don't think that's necessarily true at all, and definitely not true of Eternal formats.    I've seen plenty of Legacy and Vintage players play those formats once a month -- or less -- and then top 8 the very next event they play.    Once you've learned Legacy or Vintage, you don't really need to 'relearn' it more than once every couple of months.   

As for drafting, while knowing the card pool is good, you can draft a new set in the first couple weeks after it's released and do as well as anyone based on play skill alone.

In my experience, FNM is almost always Standard/Limited, though I probably should have explicitly stated that I was focusing on those. I don't dispute that the Eternal formats are much more stable, and the meta is less likely to change from month to month. If we're not just looking at this through the lens of Eternal however, we should consider the format of those events most readily available to a player. That means Standard, where the meta often changes completely on literally the day after a PT or GP.

Drafting is admittedly a good place to find a more level ground, but even there the discrepancy is going to show itself. Your casual once-a-month player probably hasn't been to the prerelease, or heard that LSV thinks UW fliers is the way to go this time around. It's entirely likely that our casual in question will be learning all his cards for the first time, while the PTQ regulars already have 2-3 drafts under their belts, and have reasonable ideas of what archetypes to move in on. Even setting that aside, the casual gets to draft exactly once on even ground per set release. The next time he comes into the store, the regular has drafted four times as much as he has.

[Smmenen]

The difference here is that you can go to one poker tournament a month and have a reasonable shot at winning. Your time investment is purely involved in going to the venue and playing. If your average player just netdecks a list (ignoring the cost of building) and goes to play at your local FNM, they will scrub out the vast majority of the time...

I don't think that's necessarily true at all, and definitely not true of Eternal formats.    I've seen plenty of Legacy and Vintage players play those formats once a month -- or less -- and then top 8 the very next event they play.    Once you've learned Legacy or Vintage, you don't really need to 'relearn' it more than once every couple of months.   

As for drafting, while knowing the card pool is good, you can draft a new set in the first couple weeks after it's released and do as well as anyone based on play skill alone.

In my experience, FNM is almost always Standard/Limited, though I probably should have explicitly stated that I was focusing on those.

Wizards has recently announced that they will be permitting/encouraging multi-format FNMs, so that they can get out of the trap you just mentioned. 

[Delha]

That's really cool, I hadn't heard.

[tezzajw]

I'm not even going to give your worthless MTGO whine a proper response. If you think it is bad for retention, give us some reasons. If not, your gripe is pointless and has no place in this thread.

Seeing that I'm new here, do you normally attack someone's opinion for no good reason?  I'm not prepared to look through your other posts to find out.

Reasons why MTGO does not appeal to me:
I refuse to pay real money for virtual property.
I already own a collection of cards - why should I need to start another collection of the same cards?
I get no social interaction from playing against a computer screen.
I find that the game occasionally locked up on me, when my internet service wasn't optimal.  Imagine being in a cut-throat final and losing your internet connection?  No, thanks.
I found the entire website's user interface to be cluttered.  Wizards could have made it simpler to use.

Other people in this thread have also stated that MTGO will not help to retain them.  My comments are shared by others, so according to you, are our collective gripes all worthless?

[Delha]

Seeing that I'm new here, do you normally attack someone's opinion for no good reason?  I'm not prepared to look through your other posts to find out.

Reasons why MTGO does not appeal to me:
I refuse to pay real money for virtual property.
I already own a collection of cards - why should I need to start another collection of the same cards?
I get no social interaction from playing against a computer screen.
I find that the game occasionally locked up on me, when my internet service wasn't optimal.  Imagine being in a cut-throat final and losing your internet connection?  No, thanks.
I found the entire website's user interface to be cluttered.  Wizards could have made it simpler to use.

Other people in this thread have also stated that MTGO will not help to retain them.  My comments are shared by others, so according to you, are our collective gripes all worthless?

Seeing as you're new here, I would have hoped you had the basic courtesy to read the thread before posting in it. If you had done so, there would be no reason for you to ask if anyone else was opposed to the idea of spending money on virtual cards. You'd know that multiple people here already agree. Regarding my posting style, I've made probably a dozen posts in this thread alone. If you'd just read it before posting, you wouldn't need to ask about that either.

All the reasons you listed for disliking MTGO are perfectly valid. I disagree with half of them and can't comment on the rest because I haven't tried the program, but at least there's something to discuss (although preferrably in a separate thread). I called your earlier complaint a worthless whine because it essentially boiled down to "FUK MTGO ITS SO GAY". Plenty of people have voiced their lack of interest in the program. The difference is that they didn't make a mini-rant of it. Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all a proponent of MTGO. I find it entirely unsurprising that it's been rejected by the majority of the Vintage crowd, and even gave a reason why earlier on in this thread.

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.

It also didn't help that the first part of your post was an uninformed and irrelevant attack on the analogy I was making. I was contrasting the barriers to entry/re-entry of the two games. Nobody said that Chess is good and Magic is bad, or vice versa (until you did). I just said that if you play both, and put them down for a few years, Chess is easier to pick up again. I'll readily admit that I was pissed off and that focusing exclusively on your comments about Chess was a mistake. I should have included this clarification this in my initial response, and for that I apologize.

[tezzajw]

Seeing as you're new here, I would have hoped you had the basic courtesy to read the thread before posting in it.

Yes.  I read the thread before posting in it.

If you had done so, there would be no reason for you to ask if anyone else was opposed to the idea of spending money on virtual cards. You'd know that multiple people here already agree.

Contributing to the thread's purpose, I am within my rights to voice my opinion about how MTGO is not a means that will retain me as a future player.  I am allowed to echo the opinions of other people.  I am also allowed to provide contrary opinions, that may spark discussion.  

Regarding my posting style, I've made probably a dozen posts in this thread alone. If you'd just read it before posting, you wouldn't need to ask about that either.

I read all of your other posts in this thread.  I have not read all of your other posts, in other threads, to see how you communiate with new users.  My question to you was valid.

I called your earlier complaint a worthless whine because it essentially boiled down to "FUK MTGO ITS SO GAY".

Yet, I never typed that.  Again, that's a misconception on your part.  MTGO will not help to retain me, as an older player.  I can see how many people enjoy MTGO and how it fills a vital role for them.  What works for me, personally, may not be generally accepted by the majority of players.

I will be hooked on Magic for as long as I live.  If such time comes where the new sets are too bad to play, then I know that I will have my old sets of cards that I will still be able to use.  For now, I do part with some of my income to continue purchasing Magic cards.

Most of the discussion here has been intelligent, although I fail to see how Magic can be compared to Coke, Barbie or Chess.  Magic is a fairly unique product, with a short sales history.  Magic is charting new territory, where no other gaming genre has gone before.  I suspect that Wizards have been overwhelmed by the popularity and explosion of interest in Magic.  There is more pressure on Wizards to 'get it right', but what's right for some players isn't always right for others.

Personally, I don't want to see Magic 'hit the heights' and then fade away.  A long-term, consistent product is far more desirable for me.

[chrispikula]

Instead of viewing MTGO as "paying real money for virtual cards", I look at it as paying money for entertainment.

[Diakonov]

Just for the record, MTGO currently retains me as a player.  It allows me to keep playing magic even though I am not always able to drive 30 min. to the nearest tournament scene.  If it weren't for MTGO, I pretty much wouldn't be playing Magic at all.  I would certainly rather play IRL, and I imagine that most people share that sentiment, so I don't see how it's a threat, really.