General MTG is turning into an eSport. Can it succeed?
- Thread starter CML
- Start date
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
There used to be a World of Warcraft tcg that was pretty successful in its own right, though it was eclipsed easily by MtG. Blizzard used a lot of the concepts of that tcg when creating Hearthstone, made the succesful leap to e-sports, and has since abandoned the tcg. I don't see why Magic couldn't do the same. Like Blizzard, WotC could have Magic Digital Next and MtG offline coexist initially, and then, if it turns out MDN is hugely more profitable, they might abandon physical MtG, just like Blizzard axed the WoW tcg. Magic does have a very profitable physical game already, so it could be that both can exist next to each other.
Tear it down and rebuild it. I like competitive card games, but loathe competitive MTG events.
Well, if losing the physical card part of the game is what would come out of a successful e-sport, I'm completely against it personally. To me, that's the fun of the game - getting together with friends and playing face to face. This mindset comes from years of table top roleplaying I think. And it's admittedly a bit dated.
So I say leave the game casual and kill the competitive part of the game completely. Probably not a popular opinion, but that aspect of the game drives up secondary prices to unreasonable levels and it brings with it an elitist element to the community I personally feel we'd be better off without (in much the same way hard core raiders made the WOW community unbearable).
It's also probably worth noting that these two ideas "make money" and "make a good game" are going to be at odds with one another more times than they will be in sync. That's just the nature of the beast. So you really have to decide which is more important to you as a company. Though I think we all know where Hasbro/Wizards stands on that debate (hint: it's green and has pictures of presidents and important historical people on it).
So I say leave the game casual and kill the competitive part of the game completely. Probably not a popular opinion, but that aspect of the game drives up secondary prices to unreasonable levels and it brings with it an elitist element to the community I personally feel we'd be better off without (in much the same way hard core raiders made the WOW community unbearable).
It's also probably worth noting that these two ideas "make money" and "make a good game" are going to be at odds with one another more times than they will be in sync. That's just the nature of the beast. So you really have to decide which is more important to you as a company. Though I think we all know where Hasbro/Wizards stands on that debate (hint: it's green and has pictures of presidents and important historical people on it).
If Magic got replaced with a simpler electronic game, I would hold onto my cubes, and spend more heavily on Fantasy Flight games. I'm never moving away from physical card games. I love playing with other people in person and shuffling up physical cards far too much. I'm never going to bother with Hearthstone because I'm not looking for a casual side game, I'm looking for a hobby with a strong social aspect. I probably wouldn't even pay attention to a Hearthstone MtG.
Aoret
Developer
Mixed feelings on hearthstone MtG vs paper. I really like paper for all the reasons listed. Digital MtG is problematic for all the reasons CML has written about in the past. If they got a really, really damn good UX team, it's possible they could make a fairly undiluted experience, and then I'd be all about it. I don't see it happening though.
CML
Contributor
Thank you guys for the feedback!
PAPER:
—Magic's history (i.e. sustainability, longevity) is a unique asset related to cards retaining value and playability
—Paper cards also enable Magic as a social activity as well as very-high per-capita spending and brand loyalty based on having neither the time nor money to do other things
—Everyone is already a paper player and Magic players are the most change-averse gamers in the universe (true?) But the paper game being in-person is a social boon only for people that already play; for anyone looking to get into it, it's net intimidating if not outright repellent (true?)
We need to keep paper. What's the best way to do it?
Ahada, "make money" and "make a good game" are often at odds, but "Don't make money" and "have a horrible community" are correlated 100 percent—or are they?
Killing the competitive aspect altogether would throttle growth rates through lack of outside investment, market penetration, incentivizing new players to "work their way up to Diamond," etc. in addition to the game-design issues that would inevitably arise. Or wouldn't it?
Wadds, why do you "loathe competitive Magic events" (me too)? What would a good paper competitive Magic event look like to you? What would an ideal Magic Digital Next product look like for you?
PAPER:
—Magic's history (i.e. sustainability, longevity) is a unique asset related to cards retaining value and playability
—Paper cards also enable Magic as a social activity as well as very-high per-capita spending and brand loyalty based on having neither the time nor money to do other things
—Everyone is already a paper player and Magic players are the most change-averse gamers in the universe (true?) But the paper game being in-person is a social boon only for people that already play; for anyone looking to get into it, it's net intimidating if not outright repellent (true?)
We need to keep paper. What's the best way to do it?
Ahada, "make money" and "make a good game" are often at odds, but "Don't make money" and "have a horrible community" are correlated 100 percent—or are they?
Killing the competitive aspect altogether would throttle growth rates through lack of outside investment, market penetration, incentivizing new players to "work their way up to Diamond," etc. in addition to the game-design issues that would inevitably arise. Or wouldn't it?
Wadds, why do you "loathe competitive Magic events" (me too)? What would a good paper competitive Magic event look like to you? What would an ideal Magic Digital Next product look like for you?
Great article, CML. Saw it first via reddit, but that's just how it is.
Tbh, I would love Magic to adopt the look of hearthstone, but obviously concessions have to be made for the stack and so on. But really? MTGO is a piece of trash, with multiple optimisation failures and it's fairly obvious that Hasbro doesn't really have a vision for how they want this game to go in the future.
Really, I'm not too sad. It's a good game and the more this farce of competitive news goes on, the more I'm convinced I will never play competitive MTG.
Tbh, I would love Magic to adopt the look of hearthstone, but obviously concessions have to be made for the stack and so on. But really? MTGO is a piece of trash, with multiple optimisation failures and it's fairly obvious that Hasbro doesn't really have a vision for how they want this game to go in the future.
Really, I'm not too sad. It's a good game and the more this farce of competitive news goes on, the more I'm convinced I will never play competitive MTG.
CML
Contributor
I would be all about an MTG that was exclusively digital, developed from scratch, abandoning the baggage of a 20+ year old rule set, and streamlined. I'm not really a Hearthstone fan, but it's done a lot correctly. I know Rosewater has tons of thoughts about how he would design Magic if he could "do it all again", and a modernized take on MTG would be super refreshing if done properly.
So do we actually know what Magic Digital Next is or is this all speculation?
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Yes... but no?
http://toucharcade.com/2016/03/08/m...-divide-between-magic-online-and-magic-duels/
The plan might be too long term at the moment.
Dom Harvey
Contributor
E S P O R T S
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
So, Arena is pretty succesful, isn't it? Snapshot shows 3.3k viewers, vs. 10.3k for Hearthstone. It's not like they're blowing Hearthstone out of the waters, but I don't think MtGO ever came this "close"?
Wizards is not trying to turn Magic into a better competitive game, they are trying to turn Magic into a more marketable property to sell products.
It may seem obvious when stated like that, but I think it's worth pointing out. After all, what does "success" mean in this context? A better, more competitive, more skillful game? Or making more money by promoting the unregulated gambling at the core of Magic's bussiness model? I feel that the article, like most articles on the subject, accepts the idea that success means popularity, good metrics and money. And, hey, for Hasbro and the consumeristic mindset that dominates gaming that's probably true.
Let's be honest, Hasbro will always put the idea of profit over any concern for quality. They are heavy on cost-cutting and will rather risk the health of their games than spend a bit more to deliver a quality product. Cutting down on minor expenses like event coverage is a good example, but it goes well beyond Magic. In the age of 100$ boardgames and unnecessary miniatures, Hasbro boardgames stick out for their awful component quality. And like cutting coverage, it was not a mistake, they really thought that printing Roborally on small pieces of toilet paper was a the best bussiness decision.
I also can't help but think that all this talk about how the current pros are not the image Wizards wants for Magic is a thinly veiled attack on actual people for not looking marketable. As in, they are too male, too nerdy, too poorly-looking and too old to sell products to Magic's target audience. Let's be honest, the 36-year old Luis Scott Vargas is not the kind of person a marketing team would use to sell a product. If they could, they would exclusively use a demographically relevant group of attractive tweens.
It may seem obvious when stated like that, but I think it's worth pointing out. After all, what does "success" mean in this context? A better, more competitive, more skillful game? Or making more money by promoting the unregulated gambling at the core of Magic's bussiness model? I feel that the article, like most articles on the subject, accepts the idea that success means popularity, good metrics and money. And, hey, for Hasbro and the consumeristic mindset that dominates gaming that's probably true.
Let's be honest, Hasbro will always put the idea of profit over any concern for quality. They are heavy on cost-cutting and will rather risk the health of their games than spend a bit more to deliver a quality product. Cutting down on minor expenses like event coverage is a good example, but it goes well beyond Magic. In the age of 100$ boardgames and unnecessary miniatures, Hasbro boardgames stick out for their awful component quality. And like cutting coverage, it was not a mistake, they really thought that printing Roborally on small pieces of toilet paper was a the best bussiness decision.
I also can't help but think that all this talk about how the current pros are not the image Wizards wants for Magic is a thinly veiled attack on actual people for not looking marketable. As in, they are too male, too nerdy, too poorly-looking and too old to sell products to Magic's target audience. Let's be honest, the 36-year old Luis Scott Vargas is not the kind of person a marketing team would use to sell a product. If they could, they would exclusively use a demographically relevant group of attractive tweens.
and yet in the time I've watched professional Magic, LSV has gone from a schlubby also-ran to MTG's hot dad and chill funny streamer. I was describing MTG personalities to a friend once (he's in the fighting game community) and I described LSV as 'the best brand ambassador MTG could deserve' - i.e. not the best we could possibly have, but he's fit, handsome, looks good, and is living a good life. He's a much better role model / figure for the game than, say, "alleged" drug dealer and murderer Pat Chapin, to pick a random example.
