Magic Online Vintage Scene

[youhavenogame]

The price point is EXTREMELY high for a video game (a fact), and quality in my opinion is about an average video game (The awesomeness of the game of magic balances out the horrid interface).  If the two are ever equal, which sadly I doubt, I would be willing to buy into MTGO vintage.

I do play pauper online because: The quality of MTGO Pauper > $20 spent elsewhere

The thing is that you don't play a single video game for ten thousands of hours, but you would easily do that with Modo.

Anyway, if you abhor the interface then the whole discussion is pointless anyway. You made it clear that Modo is nothing for you, no point in arguing much about the positive aspects here if one aspect is a knockout criteria for you.

[enderfall]

Well, I want to play Vintage. I have two avenues to do it. I can get a divorce and spend my entire life savings on paper cards, or I can stay (somewhat) happily married and play Vintage for what amounts to what I can sell off in a yard sale and some birthday/Christmas gifts. MTGO might appear expensive, but for god's sake, let's not pretend that paper is accessible even in the slightest bit.

I think paper is very accessible when basically every tournament have a proxy limit of 15 or higher actually. Obviously, this is in spite of WOTC, not because of them. Of course, that opens up a slew of other problems that I won't get into, but I think you are exaggerating the cost of being able to play Vintage in person. I only started playing MTG last year and I have been playing Vintage every 2 weeks in paper events. If I didn't decide to buy power, I spent less on paper than I did on my MTGO collection to play Vintage online. But this doesn't really matter, does it?

I am aware that I was a huge outliner in joining MTG in order to play Vintage. Most people are not like that. Shouldn't we be making Vintage attractive enough for people to want to give it a try? Price seems to be the logical first step. People who already play Vintage on paper don't really have a reason to buy in online for the most part (some still do, of course). It's people who don't actively play the format already who need to get in to grow the format, right? If WOTC believes the reserved list makes it so Vintage's future is on MTGO, shouldn't they be attempting to make prices incredibly low? Not try to suck every last dollar out of existing Vintage players?

Even at 15 proxies, many Vintage decks require you to still have to buy Underground Sea's, Forces, Drains, etc. That would exceed MTGO prices just right there. You also are limited to that one tournament each week, or maybe even each month. You would then need to spend money traveling, and maybe even pay for a hotel. The cost of MTGO is stagnant, and you can play any time of the day in the Tournament Practice room.

[Hrishi]

Well, I want to play Vintage. I have two avenues to do it. I can get a divorce and spend my entire life savings on paper cards, or I can stay (somewhat) happily married and play Vintage for what amounts to what I can sell off in a yard sale and some birthday/Christmas gifts. MTGO might appear expensive, but for god's sake, let's not pretend that paper is accessible even in the slightest bit.

I think paper is very accessible when basically every tournament have a proxy limit of 15 or higher actually. Obviously, this is in spite of WOTC, not because of them. Of course, that opens up a slew of other problems that I won't get into, but I think you are exaggerating the cost of being able to play Vintage in person. I only started playing MTG last year and I have been playing Vintage every 2 weeks in paper events. If I didn't decide to buy power, I spent less on paper than I did on my MTGO collection to play Vintage online. But this doesn't really matter, does it?

I am aware that I was a huge outliner in joining MTG in order to play Vintage. Most people are not like that. Shouldn't we be making Vintage attractive enough for people to want to give it a try? Price seems to be the logical first step. People who already play Vintage on paper don't really have a reason to buy in online for the most part (some still do, of course). It's people who don't actively play the format already who need to get in to grow the format, right? If WOTC believes the reserved list makes it so Vintage's future is on MTGO, shouldn't they be attempting to make prices incredibly low? Not try to suck every last dollar out of existing Vintage players?

Even at 15 proxies, many Vintage decks require you to still have to buy Underground Sea's, Forces, Drains, etc. That would exceed MTGO prices just right there. You also are limited to that one tournament each week, or maybe even each month. You would then need to spend money traveling, and maybe even pay for a hotel. The cost of MTGO is stagnant, and you can play any time of the day in the Tournament Practice room.

So, just in order to bring this to light, the deck I played at the NYSE Open was a TPS variant. Here are the prices for you to compare. Prices are taken from TCGPlayer for paper and MTGGoldfish for MTGO.

The price at 0 proxy on paper is ~$13.5k
The price on MTGO is $1337 (wow lol)
The price at 15 proxy, which is what the NYSE open was is $732

So the price did not actually exceed the cost I paid for my deck on MTGO compared to the cost on paper.

15 proxies allow you to proxy power and duals, which also allows you to switch between decks with ease, since the only different cards are the cheap ones. You'd need drains for control and random storm cards for combo, and maybe caverns and other things for fish decks. You can even switch from blue to shops, since you then get to proxy workshops and only need to pay for wastelands. And if the proxy limit is above 15, well...

EDIT : I have played Ragnarok Online for about 10 years. I don't know how many hours that is but it's probably much more than the tens of thousands.

[vaughnbros]

The price point is EXTREMELY high for a video game (a fact), and quality in my opinion is about an average video game (The awesomeness of the game of magic balances out the horrid interface).  If the two are ever equal, which sadly I doubt, I would be willing to buy into MTGO vintage.

I do play pauper online because: The quality of MTGO Pauper > $20 spent elsewhere

The thing is that you don't play a single video game for ten thousands of hours, but you would easily do that with Modo.

Just FYI ten thousand hours > 1 year.  Me personally? No, I probably haven't played close to that, but I have played a few thousand hours in World of Warcraft and DOTA.  Every online game can be played a lot.

Well, it's clear that your entire premise is based on the fact that you consider MTGO a "video game". If you consider MTGO a video game, then there is no arguing your opinion on that level. However, if you realize that you get to play Magic, which is not a "video game", then you'd start to see why MTGO is also not a "video game". In no world can you dress up like Batman and start fighting crime like you can in Batman: Arkham City. Batman is a video game; MTGO is not. Period.

Dressing up like batman and fighting ACTUAL crime would not be a game at all, and is not comparable.  What I can do is dress up like batman and fight other people who are dressed up like batman villains, its called LARPing and its a game.  

Also by this logic The Sims is definitely not a video game, and many other games depending on the person, like flight simulators and CoD, might also not be video games.

By the definition of a video game from Webster's dictionary, MTGO is a video game.  If you'd like to redefine the word you should probably speak with them.

[TheWhiteDragon]

Well, I want to play Vintage. I have two avenues to do it. I can get a divorce and spend my entire life savings on paper cards, or I can stay (somewhat) happily married and play Vintage for what amounts to what I can sell off in a yard sale and some birthday/Christmas gifts. MTGO might appear expensive, but for god's sake, let's not pretend that paper is accessible even in the slightest bit.

I think paper is very accessible when basically every tournament have a proxy limit of 15 or higher actually. Obviously, this is in spite of WOTC, not because of them. Of course, that opens up a slew of other problems that I won't get into, but I think you are exaggerating the cost of being able to play Vintage in person. I only started playing MTG last year and I have been playing Vintage every 2 weeks in paper events. If I didn't decide to buy power, I spent less on paper than I did on my MTGO collection to play Vintage online. But this doesn't really matter, does it?

I am aware that I was a huge outliner in joining MTG in order to play Vintage. Most people are not like that. Shouldn't we be making Vintage attractive enough for people to want to give it a try? Price seems to be the logical first step. People who already play Vintage on paper don't really have a reason to buy in online for the most part (some still do, of course). It's people who don't actively play the format already who need to get in to grow the format, right? If WOTC believes the reserved list makes it so Vintage's future is on MTGO, shouldn't they be attempting to make prices incredibly low? Not try to suck every last dollar out of existing Vintage players?

Even at 15 proxies, many Vintage decks require you to still have to buy Underground Sea's, Forces, Drains, etc. That would exceed MTGO prices just right there. You also are limited to that one tournament each week, or maybe even each month. You would then need to spend money traveling, and maybe even pay for a hotel. The cost of MTGO is stagnant, and you can play any time of the day in the Tournament Practice room.

So, just in order to bring this to light, the deck I played at the NYSE Open was a TPS variant. Here are the prices for you to compare. Prices are taken from TCGPlayer for paper and MTGGoldfish for MTGO.

The price at 0 proxy on paper is ~$13.5k
The price on MTGO is $1337 (wow lol)
The price at 15 proxy, which is what the NYSE open was is $732

So the price did not actually exceed the cost I paid for my deck on MTGO compared to the cost on paper.

15 proxies allow you to proxy power and duals, which also allows you to switch between decks with ease, since the only different cards are the cheap ones. You'd need drains for control and random storm cards for combo, and maybe caverns and other things for fish decks. You can even switch from blue to shops, since you then get to proxy workshops and only need to pay for wastelands. And if the proxy limit is above 15, well...

EDIT : I have played Ragnarok Online for about 10 years. I don't know how many hours that is but it's probably much more than the tens of thousands.

In my area, Vintage is 0 proxy.  That's a barrier (not to me since I own all I need) and tourneys are VERY small and rare.

As for complaints about why a vintage deck can cost $1K+ on MTGO...it's because people are paying it.  Why drive down prices when people keep buying in at $1K?  If prices dropped in half, they wouldn't double the player base.  There's diminishing returns, and right now they have their demand/price curve right where they want it.

[Albarkhane]

Vintage paper cards such as Power are expensive first because of their very low availability. Then, other factors such as "iconic value", hoarders (or whatever) come into play.
OK. Now let's consider virtual cards, namely MTGO.

Development of MTGO (the software) had cost some money. Even if quality and money put inside are not always related, it looks like a fair guess to say they did not put lots of money into it (compared to any other similar product, namely any online software games, they are technically the same kind of product whatever the game they support).
Each virtual card had cost some money to be "made", that's true but a black lotus or a giant growth had cost strictly the same (basically take already existing drawing and text and put them on a frame).
To print more cards ? Very easy it costs a few bytes to store the number and the time needed for someone to change the number somewhere in a database. Compare it to the cost to re-print paper cards ....

My point is first, we should compare what can be compared : economical model for MTG paper card is obviously different than the one for virtual card.

Someone said before, vintage cards could be the lowest of all. Actually i think they should be. With the very low number of vintage players, the ask for vintage-only cards is so low that they should cost less than any other card. Obviously market law does not apply properly which implies it is not a free market. Iconic value or hoarders make the value raise ? Very simple, Wizard re-print more (control of the market). To make it short, if Wizard wanted to have vintage cards very cheap they could do it very easily (and it would cost them nearly nothing). Their economical strategy with vintage MTGO is obviously different.

My guess (and it is only a guess) is twofold :
- it is an easy way for them to make money and since they can't pretend virtual power is rare to justify the price they bet on the iconic value and the fact that if something is expensive people will want it because people just love to have expensive stuff.
- Wizards do not want MTGO vintage to become very popular. They do not want it to die too but let's imagine lots of people playing vintage. Once you got a free turn for U1 , how would you feel if you are told you should pay 5 mana for it ? Got my point ? It tooks years to Wizard to balance card power (cost, creature vs spells, ...). Vintage is a "degenerate" format so from game design point of view so it can"t become too much popular because of that. It should live because it is part of the legend of MTG but legends are always better when they are not too much present. I love vintage and i want it to become more popular but from a game design point of view they are quite right.

From Wizard point of view the strategy looks good. From player point of view, i do not like it and wish it was otherwise since it could have been a nice way to make vintage more popular (we are quite far from the point where there are lots of people playing it). I will put no money into it but it is my personal choice.

My 10 cents

[fsecco]

When they revealed P9 would be released on MTGO with a "special rarity", I knew exacly where we were heading.

[Ahab1248]

My guess (and it is only a guess) is twofold :
- it is an easy way for them to make money and since they can't pretend virtual power is rare to justify the price they bet on the iconic value and the fact that if something is expensive people will want it because people just love to have expensive stuff.
- Wizards do not want MTGO vintage to become very popular. They do not want it to die too but let's imagine lots of people playing vintage. Once you got a free turn for U1 , how would you feel if you are told you should pay 5 mana for it ? Got my point ? It tooks years to Wizard to balance card power (cost, creature vs spells, ...). Vintage is a "degenerate" format so from game design point of view so it can"t become too much popular because of that. It should live because it is part of the legend of MTG but legends are always better when they are not too much present. I love vintage and i want it to become more popular but from a game design point of view they are quite right.

I would disagree with they can't pretend virtual power is rare. In fact, as was pointed out they created a mechanism specifically to make it rare. The "Special Rarity" ensured that the Power 9 would be both rarer and in most cases (looking at you Timetwister) more expensive in the secondary market than all other cards in the set. They also used an inflated MSRP to boost the cost of all cards in the set. Wizards has a vested interest in the secondary market not because they participate in it directly, but because without a secondary market no one would pay $4 or $7 for a small back of cardboard or in MTGO's case for the right to use a specific part of a program.  I will say that although I am not particularly happy with the current prices of power, I am glad they didn't release them at merely mythic rarity. While I would have appreciated the greater access it would have allowed, it would have felt wrong for Power to be cheaper than dual lands which would likely have been the case as the prices of all the restricted cards other than Lion's Eye Diamond is next to nothing, and LED's price is driven by Legacy not Vintage.

On you second point I disagree that Wizards doesn't want to Vintage to be popular. But again its for the same business reason as above. If Vintage is popular then Wizards can make significant profits on Vintage Masters flashback drafts, which is nearly all profit now that the set has been designed. If Power was abundant there would be no incentive for players to continue to pay $25 for a draft. 

[Hrishi]

The thing is, they don't have to make money off Vintage players through flashback drafts. If power was cheap enough and events fired frequently, wouldn't they make quite a bit of money simply off the entry in these events?

[diophan]

If Vintage online becomes too popular, fewer people want the cards opened by drafting. Fewer people then draft because the EV is lower, and Wizards loses a ton of money. Additionally, if the EV of packs is lower, vintage players are rewarded with devalued packs from the dailies, making vintage dailies less EV too, likely making people play less frequently. I know I (at least when the dailies fired) did them frequently because it's very hard to lose money in the long run with them if you are halfways decent. While Wizards clearly likes Vintage online, they also like not losing a huge amount of revenue.

[enderfall]

words

Ugh. MTGO is the exact same thing as paper Magic. There are subtle differences, of course, when transferring to a digital medium. But the game is the EXACT same thing. You can play every single relevant card in paper as you can online. The rules are exactly the same. You can call it a "video game" and cite Webster's all you want, but it's completely ignoring the fact that the game is the same.

What next, are you going to tell me that watching a concert is not the same as listening to a song on my computer (especially if I'm watching a recording of the same concert)?

I'm sorry that you don't feel that the value of MTGO is good enough for you. Guess what? It is for me and many more people.

[vaughnbros]

Ugh. MTGO is the exact same thing as paper Magic. There are subtle differences, of course, when transferring to a digital medium. But the game is the EXACT same thing. You can play every single relevant card in paper as you can online. The rules are exactly the same. You can call it a "video game" and cite Webster's all you want, but it's completely ignoring the fact that the game is the same.

To me they aren't just "subtle" changes.

What next, are you going to tell me that watching a concert is not the same as listening to a song on my computer (especially if I'm watching a recording of the same concert)?

Your analogy shows you clearly just don't get it, and that likely you do not value personal interaction at all.  Watching a concert and listening to a song on your computer are entirely different things... Why do you think people pay hundreds of dollars to watch one when they could spend $0 to listen to it on their computer?

[enderfall]

Ugh. MTGO is the exact same thing as paper Magic. There are subtle differences, of course, when transferring to a digital medium. But the game is the EXACT same thing. You can play every single relevant card in paper as you can online. The rules are exactly the same. You can call it a "video game" and cite Webster's all you want, but it's completely ignoring the fact that the game is the same.

To me they aren't just "subtle" changes.

What next, are you going to tell me that watching a concert is not the same as listening to a song on my computer (especially if I'm watching a recording of the same concert)?

Your analogy shows you clearly just don't get it, and that likely you do not value personal interaction at all.  Watching a concert and listening to a song on your computer are entirely different things... Why do you think people pay hundreds of dollars to watch one when they could spend $0 to listen to it on their computer?

My point is not about the experience; it is strictly about the song itself. The song is the same whether you listen to it live or on the computer. The song doesn't change just because you aren't listening to it live. I know plenty of people that just don't care to go to concerts. Does that mean the way they experience music is any less than concert-goers because they aren't experiencing the music in it's "purest form" (which is basically what you are trying to prove with your paper vs. MTGO arguments)?

Either way, you brought up the personal interaction. I guess I sacrifice that by not having to ever drive some place to play in a tournament, or take an entire day/weekend away from my wife/family to play a couple rounds of Magic. I also get the convenience of not dropping my entire life savings into paper Magic. These are things that prevent me from ever playing paper Magic. I don't have any of those barriers on MTGO.

What is your goal here anyway? Are you trying to make me and others feel bad for spending money on MTGO? Are you actively pinning for MTGO to fail?? I just don't understand what you are trying to prove...

Regardless, I guess we're done talking about this then. You will never see the value of MTGO, which is your prerogative. I see the value in MTGO and will continue to play it.

[vaughnbros]

Calling paper magic purer would imply that I think they are the same game and as I've tried to make clear my point is that MTGO is different from paper magic the similarities are the basic rules and the card pool, but The similarities end there.  The interface turns the game into an entirely different experience.  If wizards put the same resources that other games have put in then maybe they could be similar, but as is they are not and wizards doesn't seem to have any intention of improving on it.

For one infinite combos are significantly more difficult online due to the interface.  Two the chess-like timer causes issues with slower pace decks.  The metagame will be permanently different because of these two differences.

Then as you've discerned paper magic is a more social experience while MTGO is more convenient.  This can affect the game itself as there is no reading your opponent in MTGO, communication with your opponent, play errors, rules questions ect are all handled differently.

Also MTGO is not necessarily cheaper than paper magic.  Proxy paper vintage is actually significantly cheaper than MTGO for particular decks.

If you enjoy the game that's great, but it's definitely different from paper magic and it sounds like those differences is what makes you enjoy MTGO more.

[The Atog Lord]

While similar, the games of Paper Magic and MODO aren't even quite the same games. In MODO, there are no draws, and you can't ID. In MODO, you can't look at your sideboard, making Mindslaver worse. In MODO, you can't demonstrate an infinite loop and so Dragon is a much worse deck. So, no, by any account, Paper Magic and MODO are different, but very similar, games.

[dangerlinto]

While similar, the games of Paper Magic and MODO aren't even quite the same games. In MODO, there are no draws, and you can't ID. In MODO, you can't look at your sideboard, making Mindslaver worse. In MODO, you can't demonstrate an infinite loop and so Dragon is a much worse deck. So, no, by any account, Paper Magic and MODO are different, but very similar, games.

I love how this post only points out the things that are different but which you don't like about MTGO... 

But after more than a decade, this argument is so played out and rehashed.  Yes there are differences blah blah blah.    Each one has advantages over the other.

[vaughnbros]

But after more than a decade, this argument is so played out and rehashed.  Yes there are differences blah blah blah.    Each one has advantages over the other.

The fact that's it's been a decade and there are still these problems is kind of an issue no? These problems really shouldn't be difficult to fix if the program was well coded.  Allowing your sideboard to be visible I mean come on what is that one button with a link to the images in your board?  Or how about adding a macro generator to ease the use of combos?  Why are we not allowed to ID?  Is there a real explanation for this?  I mean all they'd need to do is add an offer a draw button, or something along those lines.

[Chubby Rain]

Why are we not allowed to ID?  Is there a real explanation for this?  I mean all they'd need to do is add an offer a draw button, or something along those lines.

This function existed at one point but they got rid of it.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/16012_Yawgmoths_Whimsy_230_Intentional_Draws_and_MTGO.html

Summary: You cannot enforce the no draw policy in real life as both players can choose to slow play. The chess clock eliminates this online.

[Albarkhane]

I would disagree with they can't pretend virtual power is rare. In fact, as was pointed out they created a mechanism specifically to make it rare. The "Special Rarity" ensured that the Power 9 would be both rarer and in most cases (looking at you Timetwister) more expensive in the secondary market than all other cards in the set. They also used an inflated MSRP to boost the cost of all cards in the set. Wizards has a vested interest in the secondary market not because they participate in it directly, but because without a secondary market no one would pay $4 or $7 for a small back of cardboard or in MTGO's case for the right to use a specific part of a program.  I will say that although I am not particularly happy with the current prices of power, I am glad they didn't release them at merely mythic rarity. While I would have appreciated the greater access it would have allowed, it would have felt wrong for Power to be cheaper than dual lands which would likely have been the case as the prices of all the restricted cards other than Lion's Eye Diamond is next to nothing, and LED's price is driven by Legacy not Vintage.

Paper Power cards are objectively rare. On the other hand, Wizard has full control on the availability of virtual cards, they could have made them very available, they chose not to. That was my point.

On you second point I disagree that Wizards doesn't want to Vintage to be popular. But again its for the same business reason as above. If Vintage is popular then Wizards can make significant profits on Vintage Masters flashback drafts, which is nearly all profit now that the set has been designed. If Power was abundant there would be no incentive for players to continue to pay $25 for a draft. 

I said "too much popular" not "popular". By this i meant, Wizard does not want lots (let's say the same number as people playing T2) of people to play Vintage. Of course they want it a bit popular (in a reasonable way) or they would have not made Vintage MTGO at all.

[Hrishi]

I don't even understand why you bring up "MTGO is just like paper magic" here. It's not as if the cost of paper proxyless vintage is a good thing. In fact, the cost is probably one of the biggest hurdles to the format's growth. Why should online Vintage be the same?

[Smmenen]

words

Ugh. MTGO is the exact same thing as paper Magic. There are subtle differences, of course, when transferring to a digital medium. But the game is the EXACT same thing. You can play every single relevant card in paper as you can online. The rules are exactly the same. You can call it a "video game" and cite Webster's all you want, but it's completely ignoring the fact that the game is the same.

The rules are not exactly the same, and the game is not just superficially different, but strategically different.   We discussed this at length in our last podcast.

http://mtgcast.com/mtgcast-podcast-shows/active-podcast-shows/so-many-insane-plays/so-many-insane-plays-episode-38-vintage-on-magic-online

[Albarkhane]

I don't even understand why you bring up "MTGO is just like paper magic" here. It's not as if the cost of paper proxyless vintage is a good thing. In fact, the cost is probably one of the biggest hurdles to the format's growth. Why should online Vintage be the same?

I 100% agree with that. Because of the difference between paper and virtual, they could have make it different so entry price for vintage MTGO was lower but they chose not to.