Constructive Conversation about Cockatrice.
TappedOut forum
Posted on Feb. 27, 2013, 2:45 p.m. by yeaGO
So Cockatrice is down for the count and we'll see where that count ends up. I have some thoughts I want to deposit into everyone's head.
I want to move beyond the discussion the rest of the internet seems to be having. I think its a knee-jerk reaction to come down on Wizards because they seem to be coming down on their own community or acting out of greed. Guys, look, copyright holders have a legal burden to defend their works, or else those works risk being released into the public domain. When a free alternate to MTGO becomes widespread, whether its MWS or Cockatrice or OCTGN, you can bet its going to get similarly stomped out. Its just a matter of time. Hasbro/Wizard's invest and develop their products, namely MTGO, and they do it so they get a return and can forge on.
I did some market research last year about this problem because I was curious. Specifically, I wanted to know what effect the various tools on TappedOut have on players. I wanted to know if any aspect of TappedOut was causing people to buy less MTG cards and, in effect, crippling the hobby that we all love and that keeps this site going. I wouldn't want to run a site or a service if I thought it was taking anything away from the hobby. After collecting 1,000 surveys, here's what I found:
Playtester: Why do people use it?
- About 97% report this tool helps them play their own decks better at live event and 83% of people playtest decks that they already physically own. 82% said they use it in order to make card purchasing decisions.
DraftSim: Why do people use it?
- 91% of people draft the same amount or more, or use it because they can't reach a local store that holds drafts
- Only 6% disagreed that it helps them draft for live events and conversely 94% agree that it helps them improve their skills.
- 92% said that they felt the live drafter helped them make better spending decisions.
MTGO: Who's not using it and why not?
I talk to a lot of users. About 60,000 visit every day! I got curious about what people thought of MTGO. Only about 27% of people used it in the past 3 months of the survey and the primary reason they give for not using it (52%) is costing money. And perhaps its no surprise that only 36% of people really care to physically own the cards they live-draft. And a majority report that, if they could, they would sell the cards they draft online in order to continue drafting. I think this reveals something about this particular market of players and their behavior.
Conclusion
I don't necessarily think that Cockatrice is taking money out of Wizards' pocket, either causing people to own less physical cards or causing people to use MTGO less. However, I do think that MTGO could fill in the gap and become more attractive this particular demographic that keeps seeking out solutions like Cockatrice.
I've heard a lot of belly-aching about how MWS sucks or how Cockatrice, as a product, isn't as feature-full and developed as people would like (I have been in contact with Bruker, the main developer and I have lots of respect for him, his skills, his project). That said, MTGO seems to be built around a flawed assumption when it comes to what I call the "Draft Crowd"--these people don't care to own the cards in packs the rip open. They want to rip open virtual packs, draft them, then play them against the people they drafted with, and then get back in line and ride the ride again. Throw a monthly subscription on it, beef it up with features, and call it a day? Maybe its that easy, or maybe I'm missing something. I, as a site owner, would love to be able to integrate with such a product.
That's my rant/brainstorm. Thanks for reading.
PS: Everyone who ever asked me to make the play tester support two people playing against each other. Now you know why I can't do that. =). I want to keep this community of enthusiasts alive and I can't risk the greater project just for a hot feature.
The thing is that Cockatrice doesn't ship with copyrighted images. It downloads them from the gatherer. There is no legitimate case for shutting down Cockatrice.
February 27, 2013 3:08 p.m.
Eh, everyone's a lawyer today. MTGSalvation for that debate.
February 27, 2013 3:10 p.m.
OutspokenFerret says... #5
That is exactly what deters me from using mtgo. I want to draft more often. I used Cockatrice for live playtesting as to whether to buy the cards or not. I would love a feature that would allow me to playtest a deck i want to buy on mtgo against other players. I would even pay say $5.00 a month for that as it would be very beneficial to me and I would spend my money playing magic because it would make my decisions less hesitant, therefore I would build and buy more decks. I want to express my graditude for T.O. right now and its community. Without out guys I wouldn't have evolved into the player I am today. You guys are like the Gyre Sage to my Cloudfin Raptor. Keep up the great work @yeaGO! + friends and try not to get sued in the process.
February 27, 2013 4:06 p.m.
MasterFlinter says... #6
Do you think Hasbro could come after Tappedout due to the draftsim and playtester?
Do you think dropping either of those features would cripple Tappedout?
I know I am primarily here for the deckbuilder so it wouldn't affect me as a user, but that's not how it started. I got started here almost entirely for the draft sim and only started using the deckbuilder much later, after the sleek redesign of the site.
February 27, 2013 4:22 p.m.
I think the case concerns the program as a whole, not the program's use of card images.
Cockatrice is, for the most part, exactly the same as MTGO in that people can create decks, play against other people, and participate in drafts. Why pay for the ability to play with virtual cards (MTGO) when there's a similar service that's totally free (Cockatrice)?
This is similar to the physical print versus online content problem that newspapers are facing. Newspapers are seeing a general drop in sales because people are able to find the exact same articles online FOR FREE. Of course, a newspaper can't sue a website for distributing news, but the situation is similar.
What Wizards/Hasbro should do is make some kind of deal with Bruker. Maybe hire Bruker as a consultant for MTGO to give insight on how to improve the product, or compromise and make Cockatrice LAN-only instead of playable over the internet.
February 27, 2013 4:56 p.m.
MasterFlinter says... #8
There is nothing anyone can do to police a LAN-only version of MTGO
February 27, 2013 6:13 p.m.
keilahmartin says... #9
"these people don't care to own the cards in packs the rip open. They want to rip open virtual packs, draft them, then play them against the people they drafted with, and then get back in line and ride the ride again. Throw a monthly subscription on it, beef it up with features, and call it a day?"
Amen brother. This is all I want. Although, a lot of games these days are free-to-play with optional purchases and those games crush subscription-based services from what I hear.
February 28, 2013 1:32 a.m.
KrazyCaley says... #10
@nebetsu & yeaGO! - Believe me, as an actual lawyer, albeit one who doesn't practice in that area, nor in Germany, I can tell you that it's quite probable that there is a case for shutting down Cockatrice.
My thoughts:
1 - I don't think Cockatrice being open hurts MTGO or MTG generally. I understand why Hasbro feels they need to do it, and I respect their right to do so, but I regret the very plausible case that they won't profit much by this, as well as the inevitable fact that they will hurt the game by closing it down. Cockatrice was great for MTG!
2 - I love MTGO and play frequently, but it is not nearly as cool as it COULD be. The reason is not anything to do with the software, which works quite well most of the time (things occasionally get messed up like the current Pillar of Flame bug, but they are quickly fixed and they compensate anyone who loses a competition because of it). The problem is the fact that most MTG players don't even consider playing there. The reason for THAT is the business model - it's hard enough to pay for real cards, let alone virtual ones. I think MTGO could rope in a LOT more people by just making MTGO subscription-based and then giving free access to any card for constructed variants once you pay your fee. Price point similar to X-Box Live, maybe require slight additional fees for unlimited drafting privileges or fees for entry into tournaments with prizes
I am certainly not in their position and don't have anywhere near the information they do, but here amidst the masses, it sure seems like they would drastically increase their player base, and perhaps even their short-term profits. I think something like that could really excite old, lapsed, and new MTG fans to get online, give Wizards some cash, and start playing.
February 28, 2013 3:21 a.m.
If MTGO had some option to play with any card in a non-prize setting, I would be all over it. I'd probably be willing to shell out $10 or so each new set for a play-set of gold bordered (unusable in ranked or prize events) cards to test with and play against friends with. This is a basic need the community has that MTGO does not provide. Cockatrice filled that hole, (seeking no gain or damages to MTGO as it caters to a different crowd and need) and is now paying for it. I really think that they are not thinking this through. It truly does nothing but help the community to have a program like Cockatrice around.
As I said before, if 20% of the people that played on Cockatrice were to go to MTGO, then it was probably a smart move; however, I highly doubt that many people will do so. The people that are going to play competitively online are already playing on MTGO. Money really is a huge issue for many.
February 28, 2013 4:47 a.m.
I don't use MTGO, and I never will - especially after bullshit like this. I'm a university student, and while I try to play a lot of magic, a lot of the time I'm simply hindered by the fact that MTG costs a lot to play competitively. I don't earn enough to even consider having a digital copy of my deck that actually costs money. I used Cockatrice almost daily to playtest with mates who live a minimum of an hour away from my house (which is the same distance I travel each week to be able to play paper magic in a game store). As a matter if fact, the only reason I found this site was because Wizards got a deckbuilder that I also used every day taken off the Android store, and the one they put up was buggy and a complete pile of shit (Hell, I would have paid to have the damn thing on my phone, even though I'd already paid to have the other one, as long as the thing actually did what it said it would).
TL;DR - Wizards is lucky that I actually love the paper version of this game, because with all the shit they've pulled with regards to programs/apps lately, I'd have stopped playing all together and they would have lost someone who pours almost $100 a fortnight (which is sometimes half of my pay) into their game.
February 28, 2013 6:12 a.m.
My thoughts on how to improve MTGO to attact more users and ultimately increase the number of users is to cut out all payments for entering events. One thing that keeps me away from playing MTGO is that as a competitive player, it is a very "High risk, low reward" ordeal. You pay the money to get into a 4 man daily event with the hopes of going at least 3-1. If you don't go 3-1, well sucks for you. This makes it really hard for people, even the pros sometimes have trouble, with making any kind of return on mtgo. Why would I spend all of this extra money on mtgo when I could just convert that back to say real life cash events where I can pay 25 dollars to enter a 1k at my local store and all I have to do is go x-2 (given the usual 40 player count) to cash in. The rewards for playing paper magic are much higher in reward than mtgo. Now this brings up issues of expected values and what not, but that is for another time. The point I'm trying to make is that 4 man daily events and such should not have an entry fee nor a reward. Premier events and the such could still have some kind of entry fee and reward, but for the every day events like 2 man, 4 man, and 8 mans, no.
Another thing that should be addressed is that the price of cards online should be cut. I don't know much about the in game economics but I do know that there is no reason why a virtual card should cost as much (sometimes even more) than their real counterpart.
February 28, 2013 8:11 a.m.
dream_cast says... #16
I've not started using Cockatrice yet, I did read that http://www.woogerworks.com/ provide an alternative server to connect to though!
February 28, 2013 8:16 a.m.
Sidneyious says... #17
I used it cause I don't want to waste money.
I hate wasting money!
February 28, 2013 8:58 a.m.
Sweet-Nightmare says... #18
My thought on MTGO is that anything more than a dollar is way too much for a fake card, and I prefer sealed over draft so that's out too. I wish I could play friends online that live too far away, but now that's just wishful thinking. If MTGO allowed free access to all cards outside of playing tournaments, but cost say twenty instead of ten, their sales would go through the roof.
But no. Gotta pay for those imaginary cards.
February 28, 2013 9:08 a.m.
MagnaLynx21 says... #19
Long story short, Cocktraice is great for causal play and important for testing, especially when it's for a deck that's expensive to build and you wouldn't want the cards to be a waste of money (Good old secondary market)
MTGO is fine if your able to go infinite and actually have the time to commit to it, otherwise; it just seems like a waste, physical cards trump (pardon the pun) digital cards easily.
February 28, 2013 9:36 a.m.
My biggest issue with MTGO is purchasing digital cards that you do not "own." This is the main reason I have yet to subscribe to it. I could care less about the initial charge to start an account. I'd probably only do draft and/or sealed events, or just play pauper because it's cheap, competitive, and popular on MTGO. I'd save my money for real cards if I wanted to play Standard, Modern, Legacy, or EDH.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read that they are starting this new thing called "ghost" drafts and sealed events, where you pay five dollars (event tickets, whatever) and get to play in a limited format event. Afterwards, you don't get to keep the cards. If you have a specific record or better after four rounds, you win X amount of packs or more that you get to keep. I think this is a good step towards WotC and MTGO trying to meet the needs of people who just want to play, but don't necessarily want to buy the cards. So the money that you have to invest to play goes towards the prize pool (some stores do this at FNM's, and I rarely hear people complain about that).
February 28, 2013 10:29 a.m.
I just got a laptop and heard to try cockatrice but wondered whyit never connected, I believe its a great help to the magic commumity. The woman who told me about it used it to help decid on the . cards to buy and had people who would help teach her rules and tips. Im sorry to here its no good anymore.
February 28, 2013 10:31 a.m.
dream_cast says... #22
As I said, if you use:
Address: play.woogerworks.com
Main Server Port: 4747
You can still use it :)
February 28, 2013 10:45 a.m.
http404error says... #23
I wouldn't be mad if it wasn't for their already poor track record. Hasbro's legal team has shown exactly why our system is broken (hence the defense of previous enforcement). They've displayed both greed and complete disregard for the fans.
Let's have a look, shall we?
Cockatrice
Fighting is Magic
dinobot.org
Nerf Bloggers
Fan Artists
Looking at their corporate building the wrong way
I don't think I can support this company anymore. I always assumed that Hasbro would be the one supercorporation that I could tolerate. Thanks for proving me wrong, Hasbro.
Alright, don't blame the player: blame the game. Intellectual Property and Copyright Law obviously is much more to blame than Hasbro, or any other company or patent troll.
February 28, 2013 12:05 p.m.
killroy726 says... #25
While I completely agree with the data im still bummed about trice being gone. Im a very casual player who like most players do not have a ton of disposable income to spend on cards and the idea of online cards is silly (why purchase non physical cards with physical money?). So A thing like trice is wonderful for having fun especially with players like me who dont have the chance to play very often because of distance and financial reasons. Overall im saddened by this
February 28, 2013 8:40 p.m.
Long post incoming.
This issue is very difficult for me because I want to analyze it somewhat personally or anecdotally, though that paints a skewed portrait of the issue. On one hand, I'm an honest individual who owns 400+ CDs, everyone one of which is legitimate. Whatever music I download is either paid for or freely shared by the artist/label; if I torrent something it's only to obtain a FLAC or ALAC version of a song I rightfully purchased in MP3. Likewise with Magic: I'll happily spend well over a grand a year to keep up with Standard even though I'm not a competitive player. I love the game; the creative aspect of it is perpetually mind blowing, and I want to celebrate that by funding its development. And I know there have to be others like me out there--people who support the game because they love it.
I also keep the Magic Set Editor on my computer, and regularly use it to accurately proxy new deck concepts before I waste $400 building something that doesn't pan out. This is just good sense: if you're on the fence about a $60 video game shouldn't you rent or borrow it first if there's no demo? Would you buy a car you haven't test driven? I also loved and played Magic on Cockatrice because it was the best program I've ever found for play testing decks online in competitive environment.
I've never used MTGO, and from what I've heard I'm not missing much of anything. Even here, all I hear about is drafting--but I'm not a drafter! It's a scene so far removed from the Constructed environment I love that I really don't want much to do with it at all. And if that's what it does best, then it's a wash for me. Moreover, I have hundreds of dollars worth of cards that I cannot use online despite the fact that I've already paid WotC for every single one of them. That's just flat-out stupid. (A point in your favor, Eye of Judgment. Some of us still miss you.) I understand that allowing players to validate collections online would be impractically slow, expensive, and would demand incredible resources, but it would also be fair. Asking me to pay you twice for what I already own is just ludicrous, WotC; I won't do it, and neither will thousands of others. And that's where Cockatrice shined.
Cockatrice allowed players like me to enjoy play testing constructed decks with the full intent of committing ourselves to purchasing singles once we'd found the balance we were striving for. It took nothing away from WotC because we weren't MTGO players in the first place. They could only claim to have lost money through my using Cockatrice if the program had lured me away from spending money online for cards I already own physical copies of. And as I said a moment ago, that was never an option for me. In this sense, Cockatrice provided a valuable, feature-rich service to a large part of WotC's player base that they themselves have dropped the ball on. And it's sad that rather than overhaul their own offering and find a way to match it--or even extend an olive branch and attempt to work out a partnership by which both programs could profit--they killed off a true gem of a program.
Someone on WotC's official forums bitched me out for calling them greedy; he/she said that corporations have intellectual properties to protect, and that by using Cockatrice I was breaking the law. "You have no higher moral ground," was an exact quote. But I disagree: higher moral ground is often claimed by having the ability or right to do something that hurts or offends others, yet choosing not to. WotC had no true obligation to shut down Cockatrice, yet they chose to do so because capitalism has blinded them to how much the program offered the international Magic-playing community--a community that includes individuals like myself, who have spent four, five, six hundred dollars, or even more on the last two sets alone. Just today, even while angry about losing Cockatrice, I purchased another $80 worth of singles from my LGS to finish a deck that I was never given the opportunity to test on Cockatrice. I've bought over three booster boxes of Return to Ravnica and two of Gatecrash so far--and sales indicate that Gatecrash is the fastest-selling set in the history of Magic! WotC isn't bleeding chips here....
Cockatrice offered a social environment that turned Monday afternoon into a casual FNM-like affair. It was a place in which you could learn new tricks, combos, strategies, and learn to overcome your strategic weaknesses. It was not a competitor to MGTO, nor was it likely intended to be; rather, it was the only logical option for many of us. Guess what, WotC: I sure as hell won't be checking out MTGO now--or likely, ever.
There's a difference between a program like this expanding and enhancing the game while it prospers (which is exactly what was happening here), and an act of piracy that floods the market with tangible counterfeits, harming the IP holder. Until large corporations have the integrity to discern the difference between the two and learn valuable lessons from others who improve upon their own offerings, the only ones who will truly suffer are honest consumers like myself.
That said, Fu*k you, Hasbro Germany! I have the higher moral ground here.
February 28, 2013 9:02 p.m.
I tried to sign up for mtgo. It wouldn't take my initial 10 dollars on the website, psn has duel of the planeswalkers and I do own that. Honestly I would throw a hundred a month at mtgo if I felt like it was quality in the first place. My own experience with it says its bad. I'm going to stick with paper and build decks based around the cards I own, both buying and drafting in paper and use tapped outs experience players to help throw ideas at them. I'll draft here to practice for my LGS but playing online is not that important. I do think I'm one of the lucky ones in this regard.
February 28, 2013 9:03 p.m.
If anyone is interested, there is a petition for Hasbro to drop the charges going around. If you feel the same way that I do, you could always sign it. I'm sure it will do no good, but at least your voice will be heard.
https://www.change.org/petitions/hasbro-drop-charges-against-cockatrice?utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition
February 28, 2013 10:41 p.m.
I like to think I'm a fairly competitive player. I've been to several large events (PTQ's, GP's, etc.), and play in my local FNM ever week, where we play for an average of $50 store credit every week. Not only this, but I have a fairly good grasp of the value of MTG cards. I've traded large value cards for other large value cards, traded small value into large, so on and so forth. And recently, I've been trying to get into MTGO.
The reason I've listed this previous experience is because MTGO offers something unique, with a very large downside (In my opinion). The ability to play competitive magic anywhere, at anytime is awesome. Like, I'd probably lose my wife if I were able to do it all the time. However, the biggest downside to playing on MTGO is the fact that I'm paying a large amount of money for a card I don't "actually" own. Yes, it's in my collection on MTGO, and that's great, but cardboard magic has real, tangible value. I have sold ABUR Duals to pay bills, and sold foil fetchlands to take my wife (At the time she was my girlfriend) on a nice date.
I will give MTGO some credit, however, when it comes to the value of cards online. Generally speaking, the virtual cards are cheaper (By 100% sometimes) than their cardboard counterparts. This makes playing constructed formats slightly easier, but still with the same downside I mentioned earlier.
I think if MTGO had a way to convert Tix into cash, say directly to my PayPal account, I would play much more online. Of course there would be a conversion rate of say, a 40% loss (I believe that is the common cut that stores use if you want to take your FNM winnings in cash as opposed to store credit)
=========================================
TL;DR
I think MTGO costs too much money for fake cards and needs to institute some form of physical reimbursement for Tix should we desire that (At a 60% conversion rate)
-BuLLZ3Y3
March 1, 2013 12:24 a.m.
I think meecht is right on the money here. The trouble is that it almost directly mimics the usefulness of the MTGO client, sans rules enforcement, which in a paper game is up to the player anyhow.
I have two thoughts on the matter:
MTGO needs to change. I'm not talking about the client, and their beta client is somehow a more atrocious monster than what's currently running. But what needs to change is the way it plays, and the way your collection works. I don't think KrazyCaley has the right idea personally - a monthly fee forces you to try to play enough to "get your money's worth". I can see how many might take issue with that. I like going in MTGO, plopping down a few bucks when the timing is right, and enjoying a nice draft. (That feels like I'm a bar patron, when I write it out like that.) And the idea that some people want to draft and have no desire whatsoever to keep the cards they pull baffles me - though I can see why some might like it for ease of repetition. But they should allow for both those players, who should be able to do freebie drafts, keep nothing, and just practice, and also for people who want drafts to bolster their collection online just like they would in real life.
The other thought I have is the common complaint: Who wants to pay twice for their cards? I sure don't. I'm very glad that if you are a persistent digital collector, you can convert digital cards into physical ones. Why isn't there a way for persistent physical collectors to convert physical purchases into digital ones? I would be an avid user of MTGO if every booster, precon and fat pack I purchased contained codes for relevant packs to open in MTGO. I don't expect a card-for-card conversion, I just want a purchased pack to equal a purchased pack. Or at least a ticket or something.
And frankly, for as complex a game as MtG actually is, I'm rather impressed with their 90's-era-lookin' client. I just hope they improve the outlying systems!
March 1, 2013 12:44 a.m.
KrazyCaley says... #31
@TridenT - It might not be the best idea. People are notoriously resistant to subscriptions. But it's the only way I can think of to make it accessible to MTG players that don't have a ton of money while still making a profit for them. I admit, I'm skeptical that even that would work. There has to be SOMETHING to do here.
March 1, 2013 2:52 a.m.
Like I said. Charge 10$ per set, for a playset of every card in gold bordered form to use in casual games with friends. I'd be happy to pay it. It would generate interest, and likely get people interested in the competitive aspect of the game. It would also fill the void caused by the lawsuit and do so profitably.
March 1, 2013 3:12 a.m.
EleshBlade says... #34
I don't think that the shutdown of Cockatrice is about mtgo at all. I also don't think that this is a wizard's decision. It is just Hasbro's lawyers trying to get as much money as possible, which is perfectly acceptable because it's their company. I think that the percentages for Cockatrice are radically different than the ones that yeaGO! shared for tappedout. This is because Tappedout is a forum and a place to share ideas, with a little bit of practice with the draft simulator. Cockatrice is the complete opposite because users don't even have to buy cards. They can actually just not even buy paper cards and just play it on Cockatrice. This of course gives no money to Hasbro or Wizards so it made complete sense to shut it down.
March 1, 2013 7:35 a.m.
I'd be willing to bet that over 90% of cockatrice users simply used it as a tool to playtest before they bought cards. I'd also wager that it generated more sales for Hasbro than it took from them. The people that played on it, and only on it, were likely never going to play MTGO anyway, It is most likely a money issue for those people.
MTGO does not offer a realistic way to playtest as you have to buy the cards on the program, and that is where Cockatrice shined. I also have a problem paying for something that I technically do not even own. Seems like a true money-sink to me. At least with paper magic I have something tangible that I can easily sell if I need to pay the bills.
I'd be willing to sink a small amount of money at each set to play online, but, that is not really an option if I want to have enough cards to play-test. It's paper magic or digital magic, and when faced with that option, MTGO will not get any money from me.
March 1, 2013 8:51 a.m.
poprocksncoke says... #36
I really would like to play MTGO, but I haven't even been able to see if it's good or not because it costs $10 just to get an account. Call me frugal or cheap, but I won't buy something unless I know what it has to offer. Hell, that's why I playtest decks before I buy them in paper form anyways. I love MTG and Wizards has done a lot for me to be happy with, but if they want me (and many like me I'm sure) to play MTGO as well as paper Magic it needs to be at least free to sign up. Not draft, play, or really do anything except see what it has to offer at it's bare bones.
From what I understand of MTGO, the online economy almost mirrors the offline economy when it comes to cards. So that would mean to build the exact same deck online and offline you're paying twice the price which is just absurd. My solution would be to someway put a tracking number on each card that's printed so you can input that number from the paper copy to MTGO and have it in there. There are obviously problems that come with trading in that case, much like buying/selling used video games, but I think it's something relatively possible that makes the game cheaper and easier for the more casual fan to use.
March 1, 2013 9:46 a.m.
I figured I'd pitch in my two cents:
I used cockatrice to test new strategies, test the balance of cards in a format, and probe for new interactions in standard. Prior to using Cockatrice I had no desire to play on MTGO. After playing on Cockatrice I also have no desire to play on MTGO. The reason why is simple: If you buy into cards online, and something happens (you get banned, servers shutdown, your computer dies, etc) then there is zero (as in no) compensation to you, the end user.
You do not own the cards you purchase online. I can not, in good faith or conscience, support or purchase a product I can not do what I please with. This is also the reason I haven't purchased Diablo 3.
WotC will not get a single cent of mine for online purchases unless there's a method of compensating players who decide they want to leave the service. The "ghost draft" seems like a slightly better option to me, but again, is not incentive enough to lure me into MTGO.
March 1, 2013 10:28 a.m.
@poprocksncoke: There is a free trial of MTGO that you can play when you download it. It's what I have been using in order to make a decision as to whether or not I'm going to purchase it.
March 1, 2013 11:03 a.m.
Online playtesting is what primarily determines which cards I buy. I don't buy/sell/trade online and I just pick specific cards that fit in EDH decks I use that I can find at a local game store (there is at least one really good one that promotes a great active gaming community near me). If I didn't have the online playtesters, I would instead rely on borrowing cards from friends to pick out cards I think are worth buying. Online playtesters have led to me buying some particular cards that I wouldn't have otherwise bought because the people I play with don't have them. I would not have bought those cards in any other case, even if I resorted to borrowing cards from friends to try them out to decide what to buy.
If there were no online playtesters, I would probably revert to just not buying any cards or even thinking about buying them or knowing or caring what was going on in MTG, a position I had held towards MTG between Tempest and Mirrodin.
I am transitioning from school to work right now and buying cards is at the bottom of my priority list as I start a new entry level job. During this dry spell, online playtesting is keeping me aware of the MTG community, new keywords, and new deck possibilities and keeping me interested in the game while I figure out which cards are worth buying for me.
If a card is consistently good in playtesting then the player will want to buy it to use it in their decks. That is probably why such a large percent of players don't rely solely on online platforms to play cards. MTG is inherently social and the only way to fully be involved is to eventually buy cards and use them in real life games. No simulator, not even MTGO, can fully recreate that social aspect of the game.
Not every retail market allows the option of trying before buying, but in the case of MTG, the online MTG community seems to drive the value of certain cards up and promote the buying of cards as a form of free advertising by word of mouth.
March 1, 2013 11:48 a.m.
We should all keep in mind that Hasbro makes no money, anyways, from people buying singles. The only money they get is from people throwing away cash for fake cards on MTGO and people tearing packs.
March 1, 2013 1:55 p.m.
Look at the example of WOW. It is tremendously popular and largely so because it maintains a community that draws people in and keeps them coming back. I think MTG has a similar community and that this makes both games un-dethronable as the top games in their genres. There are video games with better graphics, based on a more popular mythos, and/or involving more intricate and advanced game mechanics but they never seem to catch on. Blizzard is famous for its ability to keep that community in love with them and happy. I think that if that stopped happening, then all those other competing games would be able to stop offering free-to-play options in order to compete and still not overthrow WOW.
But as a business, I guess that it makes sense to attempt to capture more money wherever there might be potential for it. So instead of paying just for the one card, I could have paid for boxes upon boxes from that set to get that card. And instead of using a free online playtester, I could have used MTGO. I get it. I guess I am just trying to play the game on the budget that I have. If that becomes impossible then there are other things I can do with my time as I have done in the past.
Is it worth it to make a little bit more money off of a high income player base at the cost of free advertising and potential future players and returning players? Maybe it is. That is not for me to decide.
March 1, 2013 2:25 p.m.
Cockatrice is also VERY helpful/important for the FNM standard crowd. Now the playtest here does not work for me, I just don't know how to start it, or its because internet explorer doesn't support the play test. What I do know is that if Hasbro wants to keep try to stamp out the free MTG then not only would they see a drop in MTGO, but also a drop in FNM's
Before Cockatrice was shutdown there was hardly a day when there was 1,000 people playing across the world(all numbers are on my speculation, not official). Of course this doesn't account for people leaving and dead time (when pacific goes to sleep and Europe wakes up), but even then there is 400-600 people playing. I don't know about you guys but that is a lot of people playing MTG. I'm sure the other free MTG places see activity like this as well.
If Hasbro had any brains and there was any legal breach (because there is none, all of the .card files are public) they would work with the free places to work on a monthly fee. Ofc there would be the natural drop because of having to pay 5-10 bucks a month, but the highlight is people are paying a small amount of money to test decks, have a leisurely duel, or draft and Cockatrice is still open for all.
Now that is if they were smart. Since they are not there are two other servers available atm. the one I am familiar with is play.woogerworks.com. Port is the same as cockatrice.
March 1, 2013 3:13 p.m.
@zandl: Make no mistake: WotC profits indirectly from the sale of singles. Each single sold came from a booster pack or preconstructed deck of some kind. They don't ship them out loosely. (Note: even if promos come that way, your average rare or mythic does not.) The cost of manufacturing, packaging, and shipping a booster pack has to be well below the $4.00 I pay for it as a consumer (or the $2.30 you can find them for when you buy full boxes.) My guess is that WotC makes and ships boosters for pennies--and the only value affixed to any card over another is set by players, not their company. It's impossible that Bonfire of the Damned should cost WotC more money to print than Dispel does, and they sell them both to you (or a store) for several dollars apiece. And yes, that money was spent somewhere, by someone, in order for that single to end up in my deck.
I bought three copies of Thragtusk yesterday, for $12.50 apiece. These cards were $25 apiece the day Gatecrash launched, but no matter what and when I paid for them, WotC got paid enough in the process not to feel threatened by the secondary singles market. Cockatrice didn't do anything to dissuade me from dropping that cash, which itself fed the "demand" portion of the great capitalist equation. Chances are decent that someone else will want a few Thraggies this week and my store will run dry for a day--and that guy might turn to the booster lottery in the hopes of nailing one. And WotC will profit again.
March 1, 2013 3:56 p.m.
Not to mention WotC makes singles themselves to sell off so that they get that much more cash and they do it in a way so that the market doesn't flood and the value decreases.
March 1, 2013 5:34 p.m.
OutspokenFerret says... #46
WotC is not the culprit it is Hasbro. Like Microsoft to Bungie or Inifinity Ward to Activision. Yes, I specifically cited gaming companies that have had disputes with their parent companies.
March 1, 2013 9:26 p.m.
So your saying the creators of the cards are just getting cash from boosters and holding tournies, but not creating individual cards so they can get a little bit more cash? That would be pretty bad business if they were doing that.
March 2, 2013 2:16 a.m.
I'm pretty sure they just make money on sealed products. The supply and demand factor is huge though. If people want singles, someone pops the packs for them.
March 2, 2013 2:26 a.m.
Oro I think the secondary market is misunderstood a bit. Hasbro sees money from the sealed product. End of story. But if your buying a card for 12.50 from a store individually. None of that 12.50 went to Hasbro. That card has already generated its money for Hasbro, the store pockets that 12.50 ...What you are really doing is keeping your LGS in business and profitable. Which is good for the game. It keeps a nice place to go and play available and mo re product on the shelves. At the end of the day both MTGO and cockatrice hurt them the most. more playing at home, less time at the store, less money spent on secondary items from food to random purchases just cause you are there.
while I do buy singles online, I buy boosters and some singles and most accessories at my LGS and spend 10 dollars almost every time I go to play in a draft. Which we hold almost daily. FNM is just another night, but the points and prizes are there this night.
This I think is the point most ignored in this debate. Long day for me so if I messed up or want me to expand it'll have to wait till tomorrow.
March 2, 2013 3:01 a.m.
euknemarchon says... #50
I think the relevant point on singles versus boosters is that enough valuable singles from a set raises the expected value of a booster pack, which will eventually justify opening the packs to get singles. The most important mechanism for this to happen are large online retailers like SCG, which have access to wholesale prices on the boosters and who therefore have an easier time opening boosters for profit. When you buy a single from a large online retailer, you're usually giving money to them for a card they opened from a booster, which was money in WotC's pocket. If demand in the singles market dried up, e.g. by having less valuable cards in a set, large online retailers would open fewer boosters and WotC would make less money (although there's more involved here to reach equilibrium). I think the online market is the most important part here because LGSs typically use/modify prices set online by tcgplayer, SCG, and eBay, even if they're just reselling and taking a cut.
What does all that mean? If somebody says, "d00d, wotc makes no money on singles, duh," you should respond with something like, "d00d, wotc must not make any money when SCG opens a booster, either, huh? cause their wholesales got the money from SCG. wotc only makes money from wholesalers." That should illustrate how silly it is.
The Doctor says... #2
I wasn't even aware that Cockatrice was shut down. That blows.
February 27, 2013 2:56 p.m.