TheManaDrain.com
December 14, 2019, 05:32:01 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
  Print  
Author Topic: VINTAGE on Magic Online is announced!!!  (Read 46393 times)
AmbivalentDuck
Tournament Organizers
Basic User
**
Posts: 2808

Exile Ancestral and turn Tiago sideways.

ambivalentduck ambivalentduck ambivalentduck
View Profile
« Reply #60 on: October 25, 2013, 07:05:17 pm »

Not sure what you want here, Steve.

I'm not asking for data.  I'm simply illustrating the logical limits and therefore relevance of your point.
When "logic" tells a different story than the available data, check your axioms. Games published by WotC have died before without high value reprint spamming. Similarly, singles and set values for those games are known.
Logged

A link to the GitHub project where I store all of my Cockatrice decks.
Team TMD - If you feel that team secrecy is bad for Vintage put this in your signature
Any interest in putting together/maintaining a Github Git project that hosts proven decks of all major archetypes and documents their changes over time?
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #61 on: October 25, 2013, 11:12:59 pm »

It doesn't tell a different story; that's why your data is irrelevant - it's already incorporated into my argument.  I proceed from the premise that cards would retain a fraction of their value if Magic was discontinued. 

Logged

AmbivalentDuck
Tournament Organizers
Basic User
**
Posts: 2808

Exile Ancestral and turn Tiago sideways.

ambivalentduck ambivalentduck ambivalentduck
View Profile
« Reply #62 on: October 26, 2013, 07:01:47 am »

The data is irrelevant because the word fraction has two meanings? Yes, cards would retain a fraction of their value, and possibly an improper fraction of their value. The most likely fraction is what we see elsewhere: 1/2. Evidence, it works.

It doesn't tell a different story; that's why your data is irrelevant - it's already incorporated into my argument.  I proceed from the premise that cards would retain a fraction of their value if Magic was discontinued.
Let's break your argument down:
1. Any natural number x is a ratio of another natural number y.
2. Therefore y is always a fraction, k, of x: y=kx, k=y/x
--All data reinforces this. Woohoo! Laws of mathematics.
Yes, cards may retain value, but it may be such a small fraction of the original value as to make your argument true, but unpersuasive.  People have often speculated that wizards would reprint high value cards if Magic were dying anyway.
3. A fraction can be a small number. Since my premise is only that data will support the laws of mathematics and find a fraction between the original and post-support value, the data cannot tell us WHICH fraction...because it's not being asked to.
4. Duck's argument is therefore mathematically true, but unpersuasive.

Logged

A link to the GitHub project where I store all of my Cockatrice decks.
Team TMD - If you feel that team secrecy is bad for Vintage put this in your signature
Any interest in putting together/maintaining a Github Git project that hosts proven decks of all major archetypes and documents their changes over time?
Troy_Costisick
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 1804


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #63 on: October 26, 2013, 09:29:41 am »

I'm really shocked that people aren't 100% excited about this.  It's a pretty big deal that WotC can now start supporting Vintage in a bigger way.
Logged

Eastman
Guest
« Reply #64 on: October 27, 2013, 03:05:03 pm »

It doesn't tell a different story; that's why your data is irrelevant - it's already incorporated into my argument.  I proceed from the premise that cards would retain a fraction of their value if Magic was discontinued.  



But you say we don't know what fraction.. That's an empirical question we have some evidence on.  The extant values in other CCGs are a natural experiment not only for the fact that value is retained,  but also to a limited extent for the proportion.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 09:41:45 pm by Eastman » Logged
Klep
OMG I'M KLEP!
Administrator
Basic User
*****
Posts: 1872



View Profile
« Reply #65 on: October 28, 2013, 09:52:56 am »

I'm really shocked that people aren't 100% excited about this.  It's a pretty big deal that WotC can now start supporting Vintage in a bigger way.
The reason for hesitation is largely that many of us put a lot of time, effort, and money into collecting our Vintage collections and we aren't thrilled about having to do so a second time.  We may do so anyway, but we don't have to like it.
Logged

So I suppose I should take The Fringe back out of my sig now...
DubDub
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 1392



View Profile Email
« Reply #66 on: October 28, 2013, 10:12:16 am »

I'm really shocked that people aren't 100% excited about this.  It's a pretty big deal that WotC can now start supporting Vintage in a bigger way.
The reason for hesitation is largely that many of us put a lot of time, effort, and money into collecting our Vintage collections and we aren't thrilled about having to do so a second time.  We may do so anyway, but we don't have to like it.
In addition, it's taking the company line 100% to say that 'WotC can now start supporting Vintage in a bigger way'.  The only thing preventing them from starting to support Vintage for real is the Reserve List, which is their own policy and which they could (should) have disposed of long ago already.

Yay!  They figured out how to sell pixelated Moxen that won't draw the fake ire of the shadowy cabal of collectors who have nutured Magic from its infancy in the '90s to the gaming mega-powerhouse it is today.  Thanks Wizards for adding a row to your spreadsheet and affixing a $100 price tag!  Spare me.

(This post isn't meant to indicate my frustration with any player who wants to play Magic any way they want to play.  By all means, kick the crap out of each other with digital cards, proxy cards, or real cards, if that's your thing.  I just want to express my continued dissatisfaction that the company that makes the game has been bullied into... not making the game where the reserve list and high-value cards are concerned.

If they came out and said that they weren't going to reprint Power/Duals/Forces/etc. because high barriers to entry for Legacy and Vintage preserve the masses willing to throw money away on Standard, then at least I could feel better about their honesty, if not their decision.)
Logged

Vintage is a lovely format, it's too bad so few people can play because the supply of power is so small.

Chess really changed when they decided to stop making Queens and Bishops.  I'm just glad I got my copies before the prices went crazy.
MaximumCDawg
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 2172


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: October 28, 2013, 11:43:15 am »

I like how everyone in this thread is basically friendzoning Vintage Masters.

"Wow, you're awesome!  It's really cool to see that you're getting into the best format!  You're gonna be a blast to play... for someone else.  I'm not going out with you.  But hey you've got a great personality!"
Logged
Craft
Basic User
**
Posts: 10


View Profile Email
« Reply #68 on: October 28, 2013, 12:25:24 pm »

My only sore spot with MTGO is the inability to demonstrate an infinite loop. It makes iterative combo decks like Dragon nearly unplayable.
Logged
Greg
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 341



View Profile
« Reply #69 on: October 28, 2013, 12:52:10 pm »

I like how everyone in this thread is basically friendzoning Vintage Masters.

"Wow, you're awesome!  It's really cool to see that you're getting into the best format!  You're gonna be a blast to play... for someone else.  I'm not going out with you.  But hey you've got a great personality!"

That was amazing. Thank you.
Logged
AmbivalentDuck
Tournament Organizers
Basic User
**
Posts: 2808

Exile Ancestral and turn Tiago sideways.

ambivalentduck ambivalentduck ambivalentduck
View Profile
« Reply #70 on: October 28, 2013, 01:55:15 pm »

I like how everyone in this thread is basically friendzoning Vintage Masters.

"Wow, you're awesome!  It's really cool to see that you're getting into the best format!  You're gonna be a blast to play... for someone else.  I'm not going out with you.  But hey you've got a great personality!"
It's not quite that bad. It's just that people who've invested in cardboard Vintage are way less likely to throw money at SQL Vintage. Also, Cockatrice.

It'll be interesting to see if there's a sudden influx of people to this site or not.
Logged

A link to the GitHub project where I store all of my Cockatrice decks.
Team TMD - If you feel that team secrecy is bad for Vintage put this in your signature
Any interest in putting together/maintaining a Github Git project that hosts proven decks of all major archetypes and documents their changes over time?
dangerlinto
Basic User
**
Posts: 243



View Profile
« Reply #71 on: October 28, 2013, 02:44:01 pm »

I like how everyone in this thread is basically friendzoning Vintage Masters.

"Wow, you're awesome!  It's really cool to see that you're getting into the best format!  You're gonna be a blast to play... for someone else.  I'm not going out with you.  But hey you've got a great personality!"

Better than the thread devolving into a childlike tantrum over the reserved list...  at least people on this forum, whether they will get online or not, are being fairly reasonable in "not going there".  Refreshing really, over at least one other forum I can think of.
Logged
DubDub
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 1392



View Profile Email
« Reply #72 on: October 28, 2013, 02:49:05 pm »

I like how everyone in this thread is basically friendzoning Vintage Masters.

"Wow, you're awesome!  It's really cool to see that you're getting into the best format!  You're gonna be a blast to play... for someone else.  I'm not going out with you.  But hey you've got a great personality!"
It's not quite that bad. It's just that people who've invested in cardboard Vintage are way less likely to throw money at SQL Vintage. Also, Cockatrice.

It'll be interesting to see if there's a sudden influx of people to this site or not.
Well, the Source thread is pretty similar to the conversation here, probably because re-buying duals and Forces isn't appealling either.  Wading through the Salvation thread there's a lot of noise about related topics ('why isn't this a paper release?' 'the reserve list exists' 'now there's a rarity beyond mythic rare, y so greedy wotc' etc.).

I still think the fundamental issue is cost.  If it cost ~$60 to fully buy into Vintage online, y'know, the cost of pretty much any videogame, then probably everyone here would do it in a heartbeat.  But if the real cost of buying in comes out to purchasing the next ~30+ video games I might ever want to play at $60 each, or more than a decade of a subscription game like WoW (which I've never played, and who's cost I think is $15 a month, but I could be wrong about that).  It's not just the sunk cost that most of us have in our paper collections.
Logged

Vintage is a lovely format, it's too bad so few people can play because the supply of power is so small.

Chess really changed when they decided to stop making Queens and Bishops.  I'm just glad I got my copies before the prices went crazy.
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #73 on: October 28, 2013, 05:13:11 pm »

It doesn't tell a different story; that's why your data is irrelevant - it's already incorporated into my argument.  I proceed from the premise that cards would retain a fraction of their value if Magic was discontinued.  



But you say we don't know what fraction.. That's an empirical question we have some evidence on.  The extant values in other CCGs are a natural experiment not only for the fact that value is retained,  but also to a limited extent for the proportion.

I didn't say we don't need to know what fraction, but the fact that it is a fraction suggests the limits to the argument.

I agree that what happened to other CCGs are natural experiment, but disagree that the percentage is accurate.  20 years of inflation has not been calculated into the cost.  What appears to be only a 50% drop in price is much, much greater.  taking the Vader example, $40 in 2013 dollars is $61.39, so that's actually more than 66% devaluation.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

I remember when Juzam Djinn was the most expensive card in Magic in 1995-6.  Black Lotus was like $150 and Juzam was about $200.  I remember when applying to law schools in 2001-2, Juzam had fallen to $100.  At around $125 today, it is actually less valuable than in 2001.   Collectors are now a larger part of the demand market, so Juzam is actually less

$200 in 1995 dollars is over $300 today, using the CPI calculator.

I would assume a 50-95% drop in value for most cards.  Cards that like Jace, I would expect towards the top end of that devaluation.  

Let's not even forget the fact that someday, when the copyright expires, these cards can be reprinted in mass.  So there is a limit to their value anyway.

EDIT:

This reminds of the twilight zone episode where three criminals create a caper to steal gold from fort knox, and put themselves to sleep for a century.  when they awake, gold is worthless.  

The point here is that the fact that 'real cards' have value even if the game ends, whereas digital cards don't, is not a compelling reason to not buy into Magic online.  If magic ends, every with paper or electronic cards will see most of their value wiped out anyway.  That there is some fraction that can be recouped is small consolation.  Good luck selling your tarmogoyfs when the magic market crashes (if that ever happened, god forbid). 

This line of argument (advanced by AD) is insignificant to the point of triviality. 
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 05:35:51 pm by Smmenen » Logged

MaximumCDawg
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 2172


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: October 28, 2013, 11:19:37 pm »

Nah, real life Magic cards will retain value (of some sort) even after the game is no longer played like it is today.  Like people have already said (here or elsewhere, I dunno) things like Vintage GI Joe cards or baseball cards or Barbies or whatever still retain SOME value for old-school collectors.

Meanwhile when MTGO goes the way of City of Heroes, your collection just goes POOF.
Logged
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #75 on: October 29, 2013, 12:58:11 am »

Nah, real life Magic cards will retain value (of some sort) even after the game is no longer played like it is today. 

No one said they wouldn't.  I'm just saying that isn't really a good reason to not buy into MTGO.  If Magic goes out, the value of all collections will be decimated; it's just a matter of relative loss. 
Logged

yugular
Basic User
**
Posts: 69


View Profile Email
« Reply #76 on: October 29, 2013, 01:24:39 am »

I'm really shocked that people aren't 100% excited about this.  It's a pretty big deal that WotC can now start supporting Vintage in a bigger way.
The reason for hesitation is largely that many of us put a lot of time, effort, and money into collecting our Vintage collections and we aren't thrilled about having to do so a second time.  We may do so anyway, but we don't have to like it.

I understand that people who have large Vintage collection available to them, and are able to play the format somewhat often, aren't interested in investing modo Vintage. But still this is good news for the format in general. I don't see any downside for anybody in wotc bringing Vintage to Modo. I think it's a win-win situation for all stakeholders of the format.
Logged
dangerlinto
Basic User
**
Posts: 243



View Profile
« Reply #77 on: October 29, 2013, 08:04:31 am »

The lure here isn't to try and get people who are currently playing vintage online (although they might).

The real tug here is to get people already online to play Vintage, and to a lesser extent people who would like to get into Vintage for the first time to do so online.
Logged
dangerlinto
Basic User
**
Posts: 243



View Profile
« Reply #78 on: October 29, 2013, 08:10:31 am »

I still think the fundamental issue is cost.  If it cost ~$60 to fully buy into Vintage online, y'know, the cost of pretty much any videogame, then probably everyone here would do it in a heartbeat...

Comparing MTGO to a run-of-the-mill $60 video game is ingenious.

Can I also compare the cost of playing Paper Vintage, to say, the cost of a night of poker with friends? 

I don't think your analogy makes your point the way you want it to.
Logged
DubDub
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 1392



View Profile Email
« Reply #79 on: October 29, 2013, 08:27:12 am »

I still think the fundamental issue is cost.  If it cost ~$60 to fully buy into Vintage online, y'know, the cost of pretty much any videogame, then probably everyone here would do it in a heartbeat...

Comparing MTGO to a run-of-the-mill $60 video game is ingenious.

Can I also compare the cost of playing Paper Vintage, to say, the cost of a night of poker with friends? 

I don't think your analogy makes your point the way you want it to.
Well, ideally you could.  Garfield's original vision was that the most expensive cards in Magic would be $20.  That's a far cry from the prices that staples have now (in Vintage and Legacy and Modern...).  And with proxy tournaments the costs are comparable already.  Moreover this ties into what Steve et al. are arguing about with the value retained after 'Magic dies'.  With real cards there will always be some return, and you'll always have the physical cards until you decide to sell.  With digital cards they may simply vanish some day, no return, and not transferable to Cockatrice/MWS etc.

There's no doubt that paper Vintage presents a huge financial obstacle that must be overcome in order to play.  I'm pretty vocal about saying that this is a bad thing.  I wish it were more like poker, cost-wise.
Logged

Vintage is a lovely format, it's too bad so few people can play because the supply of power is so small.

Chess really changed when they decided to stop making Queens and Bishops.  I'm just glad I got my copies before the prices went crazy.
vaughnbros
Basic User
**
Posts: 1574


View Profile Email
« Reply #80 on: October 29, 2013, 08:51:52 am »

I still think the fundamental issue is cost.  If it cost ~$60 to fully buy into Vintage online, y'know, the cost of pretty much any videogame, then probably everyone here would do it in a heartbeat...

Comparing MTGO to a run-of-the-mill $60 video game is ingenious.

Can I also compare the cost of playing Paper Vintage, to say, the cost of a night of poker with friends?  

I don't think your analogy makes your point the way you want it to.

For me personally playing poker with friends is very similar to vintage and the cost is comparable after my initial investment into magic...

In this same manner a "run of the mill" $60 game is comparable to mtgo.  There are far too many similarities to discuss so I think it's more productive to look at the differences:
1.  Mtgo vintage has a significantly higher initial investment (and investment over time due to tournament fees) with possible return of investment when leaving the game.
2.  The $60 games graphics, layout, and many of the other little things are likely to be significantly better.
3.  Mtgo vintage will likely be a more intellectually challenging game.

Some of these are even arguable depending on what game you are comparing it to.  Mtgo does exist though so there is clearly merit to it for some people over $60 games...
Logged
dangerlinto
Basic User
**
Posts: 243



View Profile
« Reply #81 on: October 29, 2013, 10:21:04 am »

I think you are both missing the point.  if the issue is "cost", then the equation must include "benefit". 

I am willing to bet heavily that you've all used the same cost/benefit analysis to justify your own expenditures of paper magic cards over other entertainment pursuits.

Both the arguments in the posts above seem to really stem from the belief that MTGO object hold no real value.  Let me relieve you of that belief.

For example, my lifetime expenditures on MTGO from just after its inception to this January were somewhere between $1500-$2000.  Not all that uncommon to have spent on Magic in a decade. 

I sold those cards for well north of $6000.  Like, in my bank account dollars - not tickets.  And I still have enough cards to play a pretty good versions of Oath and Shops.  And practically none of that is from winnings because I'm not that good a player. And I can annecdotally give you examples of dozens of people I know who've done this.  I'm not that special.  Other people leave what I've done in the dust, ans their collections are worth many times as much but they've accomplished it through being very good. And cashing out is not hard - it might even be easier than doing so in paper.

I could have done basically the same thing in paper over the same amount of time, probably except of course that I wouldn't have had much fun, because I seriously don't get the time to leave my house just to get gaming in nowadays.  And therein lies the root of the matter: Choosing to play online is mostly about appealing directly to your personal situation.  There is no global argument that exists which makes one choice better than another.
Logged
AmbivalentDuck
Tournament Organizers
Basic User
**
Posts: 2808

Exile Ancestral and turn Tiago sideways.

ambivalentduck ambivalentduck ambivalentduck
View Profile
« Reply #82 on: October 29, 2013, 11:21:49 am »

I am willing to bet heavily that you've all used the same cost/benefit analysis to justify your own expenditures of paper magic cards over other entertainment pursuits.
Yup. In fact some of us even call out people who travel to tournaments as automatic losers simply for tolerating negative expected value.
Logged

A link to the GitHub project where I store all of my Cockatrice decks.
Team TMD - If you feel that team secrecy is bad for Vintage put this in your signature
Any interest in putting together/maintaining a Github Git project that hosts proven decks of all major archetypes and documents their changes over time?
Craft
Basic User
**
Posts: 10


View Profile Email
« Reply #83 on: October 29, 2013, 11:52:47 am »


For example, my lifetime expenditures on MTGO from just after its inception to this January were somewhere between $1500-$2000.  Not all that uncommon to have spent on Magic in a decade. 

I sold those cards for well north of $6000.  Like, in my bank account dollars - not tickets.  And I still have enough cards to play a pretty good versions of Oath and Shops.  And practically none of that is from winnings because I'm not that good a player. And I can annecdotally give you examples of dozens of people I know who've done this.  I'm not that special.  Other people leave what I've done in the dust, ans their collections are worth many times as much but they've accomplished it through being very good. And cashing out is not hard - it might even be easier than doing so in paper.


Same experience here. I had a pretty heavy collection going just after Force of Will was online through the last of the Master's Editions. I sold my collection to an online dealer for much more than what I bought in for (some of the cards were purchased from that same dealer for less) and all I did was write an email and respond to an email. That's it. Compare that to when I sold my paper collection a few times: Hours setting up ebay auctions with scans and listing info, wait time for auctions to close, shipping logistics, and let's not discount the ever looming possibility of fraud. Did I extract the most net profit from my paper cards in the end? Probably. Did I conclude the greater part of that business during the last quarter of a lunch break? No.
Logged
desolutionist
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 1130



View Profile Email
« Reply #84 on: October 30, 2013, 07:52:37 pm »

I'm definitely going to be playing Vintage on MTGO.  Getting my Master of Waves deck geared up now.  Good luck at champs everybody!
Logged

Join the Vintage League!
fsecco
Basic User
**
Posts: 560



View Profile Email
« Reply #85 on: November 01, 2013, 12:10:38 am »

Nah, real life Magic cards will retain value (of some sort) even after the game is no longer played like it is today.

No one said they wouldn't.  I'm just saying that isn't really a good reason to not buy into MTGO.  If Magic goes out, the value of all collections will be decimated; it's just a matter of relative loss.  

I don't think card value is main issue. The thing is that if Magic Online ceases to exist, I won't be able to play with those cards anymore. If paper Magic ceases to exist, I'll still have the cards and be able to play with them, even if my P9 are worth 10 bucks each (which I really wouldn't care). So yeah, if the cards are cheap maybe I'll buy in for the fun. If FoW remains $ 100, I'll stay where I am, since I actually bought my FoW playset for $1 each back in the day.
Logged
GainsBanding
Basic User
**
Posts: 13


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: November 05, 2013, 01:24:39 am »

I understand the resistance to coming online, so I won't try to convince anybody.  You guys have spent thousands on paper cards already.  I have no paper cards, but I've spent thousands on MTGO.  It would take a lot for me to go the other way.

Re: digital objects not being "real:"  Sorry guys, but it's 2013.  My iTunes library is just as real as my vinyl records.  My digital photos are just as real as my negatives.  The software I bought to manipulate those things is just as real as my cameras.

I can't even sell my iTunes or digital photos, but I could sell my MTGO collection for cash if I wanted.  My MTGO collection is the third most expensive thing I own - behind my car and my computer.  The MTGO collection may not always be worth that much, but then neither will the car or the computer.  I guess you don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but digital things are real.  It really is an argument that has been argued and digital has won.

I am glad that everyone here recognizes that Vintage Online is a good thing for Vintage, whether they believe in digital objects or not.  I'm excited to see how it affects paper tournaments, paper prices, if any new paper players come along, how many paper players come online, etc.  The paper and digital metagames will definitely affect each other.  Even if you don't play online in the future, you will have to stay aware of the Vintage Online metagame, because it will show up in paper for sure.  I'm sorry I won't be able to play all of you veterans personally, but somebody will copy my tech and bring it to a paper tournament so I'll be there in spirit.

Oh, and MTGO isn't going anywhere.
Logged
The Atog Lord
Administrator
Basic User
*****
Posts: 3451


The+Atog+Lord
View Profile
« Reply #87 on: November 05, 2013, 03:13:05 pm »

Quote
My iTunes library is just as real as my vinyl records.

Well, it's real. But if there is DRM on it, then it isn't yours. Cards in real life are yours. You can wake up and decide to sell them tomorrow. You can keep them, assured that unless someone steals them, they'll remain yours. Sure, Wizards can make decisions that affect their value. But nothing that Wizards does is going to stop you from playing a kitchen table game of Jace vs Chandra 40 years from now.

Cards on MODO are different. You don't own them. It's right in the EULA. If Wizards decides tomorrow to take down the MODO servers, then your cards will vanish. You're entirely dependent on Wizards' continuing to maintain their servers to be able to use these cards. Now, you can argue that MODO isn't going anywhere any time soon. Probably not. But the cards on MODO, whether they are "real" or not, only persist as long as Wizards of the Coast deems it to be profitable to maintain them. And those virtual cards are never, under any circumstances, yours.
Logged

The Academy: If I'm not dead, I have a Dragonlord Dromoka coming in 4 turns
Mr. Type 4
Creator of Type 4
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 814


Creator of Type 4 - Discoverer of Steve Menendian


View Profile WWW
« Reply #88 on: November 05, 2013, 05:25:46 pm »

Quote
My iTunes library is just as real as my vinyl records.

Well, it's real. But if there is DRM on it, then it isn't yours. Cards in real life are yours. You can wake up and decide to sell them tomorrow. You can keep them, assured that unless someone steals them, they'll remain yours. Sure, Wizards can make decisions that affect their value. But nothing that Wizards does is going to stop you from playing a kitchen table game of Jace vs Chandra 40 years from now.

Cards on MODO are different. You don't own them. It's right in the EULA. If Wizards decides tomorrow to take down the MODO servers, then your cards will vanish. You're entirely dependent on Wizards' continuing to maintain their servers to be able to use these cards. Now, you can argue that MODO isn't going anywhere any time soon. Probably not. But the cards on MODO, whether they are "real" or not, only persist as long as Wizards of the Coast deems it to be profitable to maintain them. And those virtual cards are never, under any circumstances, yours.

The world might end tomorrow, the stock market might crash, aliens could descend on the Earth.  I think these scenarios are about as likely as Hasbro turning off its online money machine.  I don't disagree that tangible objects are different than digital ones, but I dont think anyone has a good reason to think MODO is likely to go away anytime soon and the risk isnt terribly high. Also if Hasbro completely tanks at some point it will probably have a negative impact on the value of our cardboard.   

40 years from now I can play a kitchen table game with proxy Magic cards.  I can probably play proxy Magic long after the Rapture, because I'll still be here. 
Logged

2008 VINTAGE CHAMPION
2013 NYSE OPEN I CHAMPION
Team Meandeck

Mastriano's the only person I know who can pick up chicks and win magic tournaments at the same time.
MaximumCDawg
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 2172


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: November 06, 2013, 06:12:10 am »

Penny Arcade did this awhile back.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/05/13

And, for the record, I'm on board with the old fogeys and the boxes of cards on a shelf.  I want to be able to play this game with my grandkids, dammit.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.073 seconds with 21 queries.