LeStryfe79
President Spartacus
The Game Analists is a horrible poster. Low brofist ratio and out of touch with reality. SAD!
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Wizards of the Coast, D&D and Magic: The Gathering - are they failing?
- Thread starter Coma White
- Start date
Telengard
Arcane
Forbes, Market Watch, the demographics and investment reports released by Hasbro (as well as related interviews). And they are normally discussing tabletop demographics since that's the golden goose, as well as wondering if online versions will eat into the $500-$750 that average hardcore enthusiast spends every year.
Those aren't a good way for the layman to start analyzing trends, though. Better to start at places like here: https://superdataresearch.com/content/uploads/2009/08/TCG2010.pdf, where you don't need to spreche the lingo.
Dying: Audience numbers falling into one of a number of unwanted trends. A common version discussed on this site exists in the mmo market, where a company can have directly falling audience numbers, but can pull ever more funds from the whales through various means of wallet-mining.
The goal of business to to grow, yes. Which is why it is best to at least break even. Certain rare items are a thing called Evergreen. Evergreens are like Monopoly, where the product keeps itself afloat with a constant inflow of new recruits without having to put out to new editions to make all the current Monopoly players buy new versions of Monopoly. (Which isn't to say that they don't make things like HALO Monopoly; they just don't have to.) Non-evergreen titles can boost sales in a number of different ways, such as wallet-mining whales through various means, releasing a new edition with new rules that every existing player "must" buy, and offering discounts, amongst many other means.
It does indeed make bank. Especially from whales, which it has been mining for years. It also has expanded into Asia and South America, which has kept its general audience numbers about the same, even as core markets have faded a bit.
Fine. Baby talk time. When an individual chooses to join a (just about any) hobby, they need to buy certain equipment so that they can actually do the hobby. As a person, they don't need to buy anything, yes, but by their choice of entering the hobby, they need to buy the accoutrements of the hobby.
Now, an evergreen hobby will have enough new recruits every year buying original equipment to effectively sustain the existing format. For instance, no need for AD&D 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e, or no need to put yearly tournament packs out, since you already have an existing product that is sustaining itself on its own. This is, of course, separate from a clarification edition, which just straightens up any of the rules that have proven confusing to the public. It is, rather, the idea of new versioning, to make people buy the same product. People who already have an edition of D&D don't need a new edition of D&D in order to play D&D, because they already have the essential equipment. They're just "outdated" and "square" if they don't "upgrade", and thus spend more money buying the same shit they already own.
In short, start reading Financial News people. Publicly traded companies release a lot of information about themselves, because they are required to. And they do interviews on them. Sure, they're a lot more boring than infotainment interviews, but it's the venue in which companies talk about what's really going on in grown-up voices.
Telengard
Arcane
To be more specific to the new Post Title. They aren't failing financially. The question on the table was - why do they produce so much shit? Answer: to wallet-mine whales.
Overall, they haven't been able to capture the interest of Generation Zed in the same way they did the Millennials, which has led to a demographics hump in the college-age category. Which is somewhat problematic as the hump should instead be in the teen category that the game is pitched at. That is a long-term issue, as if the company can't find a way to engage Generation Zed, eventually the Millennials hump will age up into the next age bracket, which is the bracket when lots of people stop playing teen-oriented games. And that would mean a sharp drop-off in players.
Of course, lots of ginormous corporations operate in just that way, wallet-mining the existing crowd until they age out of the hobby, and when the audience numbers drop off too much, putting the line to rest for a generation or two, before rising up again with a reboot.
Overall, they haven't been able to capture the interest of Generation Zed in the same way they did the Millennials, which has led to a demographics hump in the college-age category. Which is somewhat problematic as the hump should instead be in the teen category that the game is pitched at. That is a long-term issue, as if the company can't find a way to engage Generation Zed, eventually the Millennials hump will age up into the next age bracket, which is the bracket when lots of people stop playing teen-oriented games. And that would mean a sharp drop-off in players.
Of course, lots of ginormous corporations operate in just that way, wallet-mining the existing crowd until they age out of the hobby, and when the audience numbers drop off too much, putting the line to rest for a generation or two, before rising up again with a reboot.
D&D is certainly failing spectacularly (even though 5E is actually a pretty good game), but Magic's basically never been better, and it's doing well too.
They release like what, one D&D product which is not a box of shit miniatures or another drizzt novel in a year? Even a nameless nerd shitting out crappy OGL pdfs to sell on drivethrurpg for $0.99 is more productive than WOTC D&D direction now.
Jesus, I miss TSR and 2nd edition
Like I Said, D&D is failing spectacularly. Their digital strategy is especially horrid.
Coma White
Educated
Everything you posted which doesn't amount to being a thinly-veiled ad hominem jab is essentially just obfuscating every issue I raised with your original post. As opposed to addressing my specific objective criticisms of your personal opinions (and they ARE opinions) you have instead wasted your time trying to dazzle us with B-grade business school lingo and one single post to a single financial study conducted almost SEVEN years ago -- with no accounting for what are almost certainly drastic changes in TCG marketing approach and style of consumption. Not to mention the creative and design decisions Wizards has made with the game itself, with a mind towards product health and longevity.
Anyone with half a mind for common sense and any experience with post-2009 Magic design and marketing will see through this self-serious tripe in a heartbeat. Get real and present us with a sensible thesis on why Magic as a product is in decline, or get out.
Coma White
Educated
Exactly. Telengard seems to think the people buying Planechase to play at their kitchen tables are the same players who have been grinding PTQs for over a decade. Fucking ludicrous.
Telengard
Arcane
I could inundate you with articles like this, if you want, from people in the industry.
There's also links on this site (from me) from ex-VPs of D&D. Or, if you think you're ready, you could just go to Hasbro and start reading the demographics they release. EDIT: As I said, starting off small and getting used to the language is good, though. Then go to Hasbro and start listening to them. Their demographics releases aren't any different, even if the language is a bit more technical.
What Games Are: Generation Gygax
Posted Jan 26, 2014 by Tadhg Kelly (@tiedtiger), Columnist
Editor’s note: Tadhg Kelly is a veteran game designer and creator of leading game design blog What Games Are. He manages developer relations at OUYA. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Although I haven’t played a tabletop roleplaying game since I emigrated from Ireland in 2002, it’s no exaggeration to say that I owe my entire career to Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Between them they created probably the most influential game for an entire generation of game makers, Dungeons and Dragons. D&D turns 40 today. 40 years of rolling dice, leveling up, scoring critical hits and making saving throws.
Much as the early activities of the Homebrew Computing Club led to the technology industry, D&D grew out of innocuous beginnings. Gygax was just a wargame nerd from Wisconsin who liked making medieval battle games. His early games were mostly about fighting, whether in sieges or one-on-one combats, rolling dice and assessing damage to armor and that kind of thing. The actual idea forD&D grew out of those roots, beginning life when its designers had the idea that some combats needed a moderator (a “dungeon master”) to hide information and lay out encounters.
It’s unlikely that either Arneson or Gygax knew just how influential their game would be. It was the first of what we would later look back on and recognize was not just a genre, but a medium. D&D would lead to a proliferation of games, far beyond just clones or imitators. Games like Call of Cthulhu, Traveler, Shadowrun and Vampire: The Masquerade branched out from the fantasy-war trope and expanded on the core philosophy of the medium. Some of them even became culturally influential in their own right.
The central innovations of D&D were (1) the bringing of games and stories together, (2) the idea that a game’s action could happen in an imaginary space rather than needing a board or map, and (3) the idea of creating and developing a character as an outward persona of the player, one with which they would develop a kind of kinship. Those three ideas inspired a generation of geeks to sit around tables at four o’clock in the morning hyped up on cola and pizza while living out sagas. Outwardly roleplaying looked pretty weird to anyone who didn’t know what the hell they were doing (up to and including D&D being accused of encouraging satanism), but within the group environment the result was magical.
D&D is a primary influence for today’s video game designers. While the tabletop hobby was (and still is) a niche publishing industry, the foundations of its thought have inspired much greater effect in the digital realm. World of Warcraft, DOTA, League of Legends, Final Fantasy, Mass Effect and countless computer roleplaying games are all descendants of D&D. So are many social games. The whole levels-experience mechanism that sits at the heart of nearly all free-to-play games? That’s from D&D. The idea of games and storytelling, branched narrative and player-driven choice? Also from D&D.
D&D also continues to inspire cutting edge video game design thinking. Although video games tend not to have a dungeon master to moderate their action and drive their story, for many digital game designers that kind of player-game relationship is the goal. Designers foresee a point when AI will perhaps be smart enough to be the player’s personal dungeon master, to create elaborate narratives that respond to the player’s contextual mood as well as just being systems of rules. The idea that video games are supposed to cross a gap at some point and be able to bring meaningful play into the player’s life? It comes from playingD&D.
It’s hard not to see the game’s influence in most digital games and yet – perhaps sadly –Dungeons and Dragons itself has struggled to remain relevant. After going through several versions over the decades (alternately as Dungeons and Dragons and the later Advanced Dungeons and Dragons), the current fourth edition of the game proved something of a dud.
The third edition had pioneered the idea of licensing out its rule set in an open-source-ish sort of way (called D20) that led to many games being developed and published under a collective banner. But the fourth edition tried to lock things down once more. It also tried to simplify many signature aspects of the game, often interpreted as a response to the World of Warcraft generation. Why? Well because the kids of today just didn’t seem to want to play tabletop roleplaying games any more.
The net impact of the 4th edition was to alienate many core fans of the franchise while the kids continued to not care. Another game calledPathfinder effectively took over (through the D20 license) and to many core fans represented what D&D 4th edition should have been. This has left Wizards of the Coast (owners of D&D) stuck. It now has the job of trying to recapture its old audience, which it’s doing by engaging a fan community to help build a 5th edition (an initiative called D&D Next) but that likely doesn’t solve the long-term generational problem.
Despite reminding me of my age as many geek milestones do (I also recently hit the big 4-0), I often wonder about the real legacy of our generation. Like any generation I suppose we’re arrogant enough to assume that the things we care about are the ones that will resonate for all time, but history tends to disagree. Will the contribution of Gygax and Arneson endure for another 40 years?
When I was a teenager awkwardly trying to find my way in the world I found the imagined worlds of games like D&D to be a great creative outlet. Like many designers working in video games today, I would spend many hours poring over the creation of imaginary landscapes and forming a whole world view via a gaming lens. All I really had was those books, a lot of time and some dice. I had computer games too, but they were much less convenient compared to today.
Does the Snapchat generation have the same sort of attention span or interest in games? Do tomorrow’s game designers have the inclination to sit and delve through thick books describing fantastical worlds when they can simply boot up any number of games on numerous devices and play them directly? Will it care about the cultural tropes of the older generation (such as alignment systems and whatnot)? Will it engage in theological debates about gameplay versus story versus simulation versus behavior? Or will that all seem irrelevant?
Levels and experience points have made their way into everything from gamification to bingo, but much of their context has already been left behind by a digitally native generation. While my generation of game designers owes an enormous debt to the ideas that drove D&D, it isn’t necessarily the case that our successors will be inspired by those ideas in the same way. D&D was a formative influence for many of us, but one that grew as much out of a context as of what it was. In a sense we’re Gary Gygax’s generation.
Perhaps the next generation will find games like Minecraft to be the equivalent influence for them, but if so I wonder how that will shift their perspective over what games are and what they might be.
Posted Jan 26, 2014 by Tadhg Kelly (@tiedtiger), Columnist
Editor’s note: Tadhg Kelly is a veteran game designer and creator of leading game design blog What Games Are. He manages developer relations at OUYA. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Although I haven’t played a tabletop roleplaying game since I emigrated from Ireland in 2002, it’s no exaggeration to say that I owe my entire career to Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Between them they created probably the most influential game for an entire generation of game makers, Dungeons and Dragons. D&D turns 40 today. 40 years of rolling dice, leveling up, scoring critical hits and making saving throws.
Much as the early activities of the Homebrew Computing Club led to the technology industry, D&D grew out of innocuous beginnings. Gygax was just a wargame nerd from Wisconsin who liked making medieval battle games. His early games were mostly about fighting, whether in sieges or one-on-one combats, rolling dice and assessing damage to armor and that kind of thing. The actual idea forD&D grew out of those roots, beginning life when its designers had the idea that some combats needed a moderator (a “dungeon master”) to hide information and lay out encounters.
It’s unlikely that either Arneson or Gygax knew just how influential their game would be. It was the first of what we would later look back on and recognize was not just a genre, but a medium. D&D would lead to a proliferation of games, far beyond just clones or imitators. Games like Call of Cthulhu, Traveler, Shadowrun and Vampire: The Masquerade branched out from the fantasy-war trope and expanded on the core philosophy of the medium. Some of them even became culturally influential in their own right.
The central innovations of D&D were (1) the bringing of games and stories together, (2) the idea that a game’s action could happen in an imaginary space rather than needing a board or map, and (3) the idea of creating and developing a character as an outward persona of the player, one with which they would develop a kind of kinship. Those three ideas inspired a generation of geeks to sit around tables at four o’clock in the morning hyped up on cola and pizza while living out sagas. Outwardly roleplaying looked pretty weird to anyone who didn’t know what the hell they were doing (up to and including D&D being accused of encouraging satanism), but within the group environment the result was magical.
D&D is a primary influence for today’s video game designers. While the tabletop hobby was (and still is) a niche publishing industry, the foundations of its thought have inspired much greater effect in the digital realm. World of Warcraft, DOTA, League of Legends, Final Fantasy, Mass Effect and countless computer roleplaying games are all descendants of D&D. So are many social games. The whole levels-experience mechanism that sits at the heart of nearly all free-to-play games? That’s from D&D. The idea of games and storytelling, branched narrative and player-driven choice? Also from D&D.
D&D also continues to inspire cutting edge video game design thinking. Although video games tend not to have a dungeon master to moderate their action and drive their story, for many digital game designers that kind of player-game relationship is the goal. Designers foresee a point when AI will perhaps be smart enough to be the player’s personal dungeon master, to create elaborate narratives that respond to the player’s contextual mood as well as just being systems of rules. The idea that video games are supposed to cross a gap at some point and be able to bring meaningful play into the player’s life? It comes from playingD&D.
It’s hard not to see the game’s influence in most digital games and yet – perhaps sadly –Dungeons and Dragons itself has struggled to remain relevant. After going through several versions over the decades (alternately as Dungeons and Dragons and the later Advanced Dungeons and Dragons), the current fourth edition of the game proved something of a dud.
The third edition had pioneered the idea of licensing out its rule set in an open-source-ish sort of way (called D20) that led to many games being developed and published under a collective banner. But the fourth edition tried to lock things down once more. It also tried to simplify many signature aspects of the game, often interpreted as a response to the World of Warcraft generation. Why? Well because the kids of today just didn’t seem to want to play tabletop roleplaying games any more.
The net impact of the 4th edition was to alienate many core fans of the franchise while the kids continued to not care. Another game calledPathfinder effectively took over (through the D20 license) and to many core fans represented what D&D 4th edition should have been. This has left Wizards of the Coast (owners of D&D) stuck. It now has the job of trying to recapture its old audience, which it’s doing by engaging a fan community to help build a 5th edition (an initiative called D&D Next) but that likely doesn’t solve the long-term generational problem.
Despite reminding me of my age as many geek milestones do (I also recently hit the big 4-0), I often wonder about the real legacy of our generation. Like any generation I suppose we’re arrogant enough to assume that the things we care about are the ones that will resonate for all time, but history tends to disagree. Will the contribution of Gygax and Arneson endure for another 40 years?
When I was a teenager awkwardly trying to find my way in the world I found the imagined worlds of games like D&D to be a great creative outlet. Like many designers working in video games today, I would spend many hours poring over the creation of imaginary landscapes and forming a whole world view via a gaming lens. All I really had was those books, a lot of time and some dice. I had computer games too, but they were much less convenient compared to today.
Does the Snapchat generation have the same sort of attention span or interest in games? Do tomorrow’s game designers have the inclination to sit and delve through thick books describing fantastical worlds when they can simply boot up any number of games on numerous devices and play them directly? Will it care about the cultural tropes of the older generation (such as alignment systems and whatnot)? Will it engage in theological debates about gameplay versus story versus simulation versus behavior? Or will that all seem irrelevant?
Levels and experience points have made their way into everything from gamification to bingo, but much of their context has already been left behind by a digitally native generation. While my generation of game designers owes an enormous debt to the ideas that drove D&D, it isn’t necessarily the case that our successors will be inspired by those ideas in the same way. D&D was a formative influence for many of us, but one that grew as much out of a context as of what it was. In a sense we’re Gary Gygax’s generation.
Perhaps the next generation will find games like Minecraft to be the equivalent influence for them, but if so I wonder how that will shift their perspective over what games are and what they might be.
deuxhero
Arcane
I won't beleive it until he lets Tim Cain release the ToEE source code.
says the guy who proclaimed the bestselling edition of dnd ever was dead despite evidence to the contrary. Also learn business history fucko
4e failed so hard that the person in charge was fired for 3 years in a row. So hard that it was cancelled after those years, and it would be years before WotC even tried to release a new D&D product. They stopped making 4e books for a reason - no one was buying them. If you're going to make shit up and assume it's true because you want it to be, you're just going to make yourself look like an idiot.
This is all i could find for raw sales numbers.
https://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html
nikolokolus
Arcane
- Joined
- May 8, 2013
- Messages
- 4,090
4e did one good thing. It nearly killed Goodman Games' third party, adventure module business and forced them to figure out a different business model. As a result Joseph Goodman to went on to read all of the Appendix N literature in the first edition DMG and create a game he thought reflected those pulp fiction sensibilities -- Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG. Hell, the entire OSR probably owes its existence to WotC's bungled handling of 4e as well. So yeah, I guess you could say WotC did something wrong in their management of the brand.
As for 5e I really can't say what the state of the game is financially, since I don't follow it closely and sold my PhB within the first 3 months of owning it. There seems to be plenty of Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds games advertising games and players looking for 5e groups, but that's just anecdotal evidence. But if SCL is WotC's best effort in the 'vidya gaem' space then it doesn't inspire much confidence that anybody over there in a position of authority knows what the hell to do with the property.
As for 5e I really can't say what the state of the game is financially, since I don't follow it closely and sold my PhB within the first 3 months of owning it. There seems to be plenty of Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds games advertising games and players looking for 5e groups, but that's just anecdotal evidence. But if SCL is WotC's best effort in the 'vidya gaem' space then it doesn't inspire much confidence that anybody over there in a position of authority knows what the hell to do with the property.
Coma White
Educated
Telengard, do you actually have any substantial, game-related argument for why Magic has gotten worse?
Speaking from an oldfag perspective, the last few years have presented us with expert-level draft sets like Vintage, Modern and Eternal Masters, and incredibly deep limited experiences in core sets like BFZ and SOI. MTGO tournament package has been revamped so that actually participating in a MOCS is more competitive and accessible than ever. Legacy is thriving and Standard, though still constricted by virtue of a small cardpool, actually has a good number of Tier 1 decks.
Modern is still shit if you're a competitive player because you can't sideboard against the one million played decks, but things that oldfag noobs love - like deck diversity - is incredible in Modern. Show me ANY TCG with a playerbase as vast as Magic and a cardpool as huge that still manages a meta as diverse as modern's, and I'll sell you the fucking Eiffel tower. Hell, Modern's probably more diverse than any TCG format period.
On top of this more product is released than ever before, and getting to actually play the damned game in your local area - even if you're in Denmark - is easier than it's ever been.
Most importantly however, sets are basically always good. Khans of Tarkir was fantastic, BFZ was cool, and even run-of-the-mill noobfriendly sets like Oath were fine draft experiences. Only really mediocre set in new MTG history is Origins, and we knew that wouldn't be great. There's some argument that variance has been bumped a bit and that you play more creatures and less really, really complex decks in constructed, but unless you're a tried and true Grand Prix veteran playing through 10 years, I seriously question your ability to notice that.
The problems that plague Magic - pricing, Legacy inaccesibility, shitty MTGO client - have always been there. Your criticism sounds like the standard for someone who's been playing a bit of Magic for a long time but who has never really been a core veteran.
But worst of all - worst of fucking all - is that your criticism is the vague cop-out of someone who loves bandwagoning the decline-train, but has absolutely zero knowledge of the actual substance of the game he is talking about. All this shit about the new editions not catering to what players "need," Magic "dyring" in terms of players, speaks to an utter, absurd lack of knowledge of how Magic as a product works.
EDIT: Also the argument that Magic is somehow worse for having constant new editions is the most idiotic thing I've ever seen. Magic's finest, most excellent experience is limited. For limited players, the more sets the better, basically. If that also means that Wizards makes money and so can expand the game, then fucking great. Win-win. If you want to make a one-time investment and never look at new sets again, play Commander (uber casual) or Canadian Highlander (uber competitive and expensive) or Legacy.
It makes standard hella expensive, yes, but it's always been like that. I have avoided Standard, or Type 2 as it was once called, since I started playing for that very reason. Acting like it's some new concept is really weird.
Speaking from an oldfag perspective, the last few years have presented us with expert-level draft sets like Vintage, Modern and Eternal Masters, and incredibly deep limited experiences in core sets like BFZ and SOI. MTGO tournament package has been revamped so that actually participating in a MOCS is more competitive and accessible than ever. Legacy is thriving and Standard, though still constricted by virtue of a small cardpool, actually has a good number of Tier 1 decks.
Modern is still shit if you're a competitive player because you can't sideboard against the one million played decks, but things that oldfag noobs love - like deck diversity - is incredible in Modern. Show me ANY TCG with a playerbase as vast as Magic and a cardpool as huge that still manages a meta as diverse as modern's, and I'll sell you the fucking Eiffel tower. Hell, Modern's probably more diverse than any TCG format period.
On top of this more product is released than ever before, and getting to actually play the damned game in your local area - even if you're in Denmark - is easier than it's ever been.
Most importantly however, sets are basically always good. Khans of Tarkir was fantastic, BFZ was cool, and even run-of-the-mill noobfriendly sets like Oath were fine draft experiences. Only really mediocre set in new MTG history is Origins, and we knew that wouldn't be great. There's some argument that variance has been bumped a bit and that you play more creatures and less really, really complex decks in constructed, but unless you're a tried and true Grand Prix veteran playing through 10 years, I seriously question your ability to notice that.
The problems that plague Magic - pricing, Legacy inaccesibility, shitty MTGO client - have always been there. Your criticism sounds like the standard for someone who's been playing a bit of Magic for a long time but who has never really been a core veteran.
But worst of all - worst of fucking all - is that your criticism is the vague cop-out of someone who loves bandwagoning the decline-train, but has absolutely zero knowledge of the actual substance of the game he is talking about. All this shit about the new editions not catering to what players "need," Magic "dyring" in terms of players, speaks to an utter, absurd lack of knowledge of how Magic as a product works.
EDIT: Also the argument that Magic is somehow worse for having constant new editions is the most idiotic thing I've ever seen. Magic's finest, most excellent experience is limited. For limited players, the more sets the better, basically. If that also means that Wizards makes money and so can expand the game, then fucking great. Win-win. If you want to make a one-time investment and never look at new sets again, play Commander (uber casual) or Canadian Highlander (uber competitive and expensive) or Legacy.
It makes standard hella expensive, yes, but it's always been like that. I have avoided Standard, or Type 2 as it was once called, since I started playing for that very reason. Acting like it's some new concept is really weird.
Last edited:
Coma White
Educated
Telengard
Arcane
Grunker. These are not new concepts. But they are also the fundamental concepts of the creation of shit.
There are only so many good ideas out there, and that set is only further limited by setting and style. But if the command directive from the top is Make more and more cards, eventually the development team has to go to its previously rejected second tier ideas. And then the third tier. And while the gameplay remains the same, the core integrity of the ideas suffusing the cards drains away in quality. While this does not affect core players, who simply want MORE, it is a slow turn-off to retaining those with a more casual interest, as well as a turn-off to attracting new teens.
As to gameplay, MORE generates chaos. A tight little game with rules slowly refined over decades generally slowly improves in quality over that period. While chaos, instead, tends to eke out quality over time due to placing development attention on MORE instead of making BETTER what is.
This is also the fundamental nature of splat books and f2p DLC and any number of other things in the entertainment industry.
But the important thing for Magic is it is currently sitting where D&D was not so many years ago, where it was at its zenith, but it had an aging population due to its inability to engage with late Millennials and the upcoming Generation Zed. While it did have new recruits there, the numbers just haven't been there like they were with Gen X and the Boomers. Which led to, at its ultimate, the making of 4e and the attempt to engage a younger population, which attempt backfired most horribly. 5e has put the D&D house back in order, but it was, in essence, also an abandonment of the idea of attracting the young. The core D&D audience says Great, who the fuck needs them? But over the years, as more and more Gen Xs retire from the hobby to take up golf, this has led to a point where investors are starting to talk about the end of D&D. Not now, not tomorrow, but in the next decade or two.
Magic isn't at that point yet. But it has had an aging population for nigh a decade now. And in a game intended for teens, that can be quick trouble, since people start moving out of the hobby pretty quickly after 25 - as is normal with teen-oriented games. Magic has done wonders for engaging with the Millennials, but the investors are starting to question its future. Hasbro has talked about making moves to re-engage the youth. There's been no big 4e-like moves yet, though, which has caused even more worry. Lots of commentators have recommendations, like making a quick, cheap access deck to get new people competitive at an introductory price, and they keep hoping every time something new gets announced, but Hasbro has never moved in that or any of the suggested directions. And it is questionable what effect those suggestions would have on the youth anyway.
Now, Hasbro doesn't need to engage with the youth, if it doesn't want to. It is a valid business choice to keep doubling down on the current audience. The more you do that, the higher it raises the bar of entry, which will accelerate the drop-off in the target demographic, but it will also increase current revenue. And it will make current core players happy, since it keeps the game as the game they know and love. But it also means that we may be here again one day, talking about the upcoming end of Magic, and with D&D already folded.
There are only so many good ideas out there, and that set is only further limited by setting and style. But if the command directive from the top is Make more and more cards, eventually the development team has to go to its previously rejected second tier ideas. And then the third tier. And while the gameplay remains the same, the core integrity of the ideas suffusing the cards drains away in quality. While this does not affect core players, who simply want MORE, it is a slow turn-off to retaining those with a more casual interest, as well as a turn-off to attracting new teens.
As to gameplay, MORE generates chaos. A tight little game with rules slowly refined over decades generally slowly improves in quality over that period. While chaos, instead, tends to eke out quality over time due to placing development attention on MORE instead of making BETTER what is.
This is also the fundamental nature of splat books and f2p DLC and any number of other things in the entertainment industry.
But the important thing for Magic is it is currently sitting where D&D was not so many years ago, where it was at its zenith, but it had an aging population due to its inability to engage with late Millennials and the upcoming Generation Zed. While it did have new recruits there, the numbers just haven't been there like they were with Gen X and the Boomers. Which led to, at its ultimate, the making of 4e and the attempt to engage a younger population, which attempt backfired most horribly. 5e has put the D&D house back in order, but it was, in essence, also an abandonment of the idea of attracting the young. The core D&D audience says Great, who the fuck needs them? But over the years, as more and more Gen Xs retire from the hobby to take up golf, this has led to a point where investors are starting to talk about the end of D&D. Not now, not tomorrow, but in the next decade or two.
Magic isn't at that point yet. But it has had an aging population for nigh a decade now. And in a game intended for teens, that can be quick trouble, since people start moving out of the hobby pretty quickly after 25 - as is normal with teen-oriented games. Magic has done wonders for engaging with the Millennials, but the investors are starting to question its future. Hasbro has talked about making moves to re-engage the youth. There's been no big 4e-like moves yet, though, which has caused even more worry. Lots of commentators have recommendations, like making a quick, cheap access deck to get new people competitive at an introductory price, and they keep hoping every time something new gets announced, but Hasbro has never moved in that or any of the suggested directions. And it is questionable what effect those suggestions would have on the youth anyway.
Now, Hasbro doesn't need to engage with the youth, if it doesn't want to. It is a valid business choice to keep doubling down on the current audience. The more you do that, the higher it raises the bar of entry, which will accelerate the drop-off in the target demographic, but it will also increase current revenue. And it will make current core players happy, since it keeps the game as the game they know and love. But it also means that we may be here again one day, talking about the upcoming end of Magic, and with D&D already folded.
Telengard
Arcane
I will also add, apropos of nothing, that a card game lasting 20 years, and a boardless board game lasting 40 is already something stunning. And they're going to go on for a while yet, at least. This is a rare event. We are, here, only talking about whether they can take the next step and become icons which entertain future generations - like Monopoly has. And even Monopoly, we don't now if will become an intrinsic part of the culture that lasts a half a millennia, like Bridge has.
Coma White
Educated
You are obfuscating the issue and avoiding the argument by shifting your approach. Yet again.
You STILL have yet to address my criticism of these three original points of yours. And now anyone reading this doesn't even have to go back to the first page to compare-and-contrast. We can clearly see nothing you're saying has anything to do with what you've previously stated. None of this is objective -- it's purely rhetorical.
Stop jerking us around and treating us like we're fucking ingrates you pompous sod. You are the initiator here -- the burden of proof is on YOUR head. Answer our specific criticisms of what you've claimed or kindly submit. Because at this rate, you might as well lock yourself in a fucking echo chamber.
If nothing else, Telengard, I am impressed by your capacity for vagueness. You have managed to type in 3.500 characters without dedicating as much a single syllable to making just one qualitative statement about Magic. It's all just automasturbatory, baseless theorizing about how you perceive the world to be, without a single fact or thing drawn from or about the game itself.
You should run for president. Being unspecific in a political speech doesn't reveal your embarrasing lack of actual knowledge on a subject as it does here.
Or, to quote Harry Frankfurt:
In other words, it's not that you're lying. It's just that you have no concern for substance.
You should run for president. Being unspecific in a political speech doesn't reveal your embarrasing lack of actual knowledge on a subject as it does here.
Or, to quote Harry Frankfurt:
Harry Frankfurt said:
In other words, it's not that you're lying. It's just that you have no concern for substance.
Last edited:
Old One
Arcane
Are you saying he jacks-off while looking at cars?
Coma White
Educated
Telengard
Arcane
Work is boring today, so I decided to write up a lecture on probabilities and statistics. Now, I know probabilities and statistics is like a foreign language to millennials, so this is a wasted effort, but into the abyss we go...
Lots and lots of research on the demographics of games has been done over the past several decades. Because of all that research, it is well known what the average demographics are for how people play games and when in their lives they play them. Examining this research, there are bunches of tables and graphs illustrating just what the probable populations are going to be over the lifespan of a game from all of its players - with separate listings for each type of game and its target demographic.
Which is where teen-oriented games come into the discussion. A game made for teens is supposed to be played primarily by teens. I hope that's obvious, but I dunno with you guys... This doesn't mean that other age brackets shouldn't be playing it; it means that the target demographic should be the primary players. In a game in its healthy years, the target is the majority. As it should be. Preferably, then, teens will join at the very early teen years, so that the seller can maximally sell their product to the individual over many years, thus making more money out of them over the course of all those years.
Now, some teens will leave the hobby while they are still teens, but this is a statistically small number. And we aren't caring about what individuals do here. We're caring only about the lumpen mass of humanity, because we're discussing probabilities. And the lumpen mass of teens are likely to continue playing as they age up into the college/early work age bracket (for funsies, let's call this bracket 'Young Adults'). The Young Adult bracket is when players of a teen-oriented game start to leave the hobby in significant, though not serious, numbers. Player numbers in this bracket are still good, but it's on a downwards trajectory. Then comes the next age bracket - let's call them Full Adults. The Adult bracket is when people start to put away teen-oriented things in serious numbers. The drop-off in player percentages here is steep. And then, it levels out in the Middle Age bracket, but that's because there are so few people in that bracket playing a teen game as to be statistically irrelevant. Which doesn't mean they don't exist; it merely means the company could cut them all out tomorrow, and it wouldn't hurt their pocketbook in a way that would make the bean counters care.
Now, though, we come to the hard bit for understanding demographics charts, and that is that these numbers flow. People are always leaving the hobby, yes, but there are also new tweens aging into the teen category, taking up teen hobbies. And in a game's healthy years, the number of these fresh teens is at least equal to the number of oldsters leaving the hobby. Even better, these fresh teens are totally green to the hobby, and thus they have to buy everything in order to play. So, when year-over-year these fresh recruits are equal or better than the number of oldsters leaving, the money is good. A constant source of fresh blood keeps the brand healthy, and income high, and the company doesn't have to look for ways to reinvent itself to extract more money from its existing players.
When the number of fresh teens coming in starts to wane, though, it is a sign of trouble. Magic history time. 2006, a report of a noticeable sign of dropping percentages in the key demographic - Hasbro's answer: it's a statistical blip. 2008 - it's the recession. 2010 - um. 2012 - uh. 2014 - we're going to be taking steps.
This demographics lull can occur even while player numbers are reaching their zenith. How? Things like expansion into foreign markets. Plus, for the core markets, Magic is a Millennials game. Sure some Gen Xers took it up, but we're talking probabilities here, not individuals. And right now, this moment, the Millennials straddle the three most profitable demographic brackets of a teen-oriented game. But even as we speak, the Millennials are leaving their teen years behind. And Magic just has not engaged Generation Zed, and in much the same way that D&D didn't engage the late-term Millennials before it. And as a teen game made for teens, if the company doesn't change this pattern, the bulk of the Millennials are going to soon be moving into the brackets when people start leaving teen games in droves. And since Hasbro is constantly doubling down on extracting money from its existing audience (such as releasing one-time packs, which turn out to sell well, so they make them a full line), this is likely to only accelerate a crash that is already steep. Thus Magic, like so many teen-oriented games before it, could turn into a ghost town seemingly overnight. Leaving all of those cards stranded on eBay, worthless. Should Hasbro choose to or continue to fail to engage Generation Zed.
Now, Hasbro has promised to take further steps in this matter. There are no 4e-like radical changes on the table - for the moment. But don't expect that to continue, if they decide to try to keep the franchise going.
But as to the original question, why does these trends produce so much shit? Because constantly doubling down on the existing audience is a shit practice (which pisses some people off outright), and as a shit practice, it causes garbage-in, garbage-out.
And, well, why did I say all of the above in this and other posts. Because you all asked me to prove what I said in my original post. And then started whining when I did. Which makes me hard. And now you're just insulting me for doing as you asked and answering. Which makes me hard as hell. Excuse me while I go get some tissues.
Lots and lots of research on the demographics of games has been done over the past several decades. Because of all that research, it is well known what the average demographics are for how people play games and when in their lives they play them. Examining this research, there are bunches of tables and graphs illustrating just what the probable populations are going to be over the lifespan of a game from all of its players - with separate listings for each type of game and its target demographic.
Which is where teen-oriented games come into the discussion. A game made for teens is supposed to be played primarily by teens. I hope that's obvious, but I dunno with you guys... This doesn't mean that other age brackets shouldn't be playing it; it means that the target demographic should be the primary players. In a game in its healthy years, the target is the majority. As it should be. Preferably, then, teens will join at the very early teen years, so that the seller can maximally sell their product to the individual over many years, thus making more money out of them over the course of all those years.
Now, some teens will leave the hobby while they are still teens, but this is a statistically small number. And we aren't caring about what individuals do here. We're caring only about the lumpen mass of humanity, because we're discussing probabilities. And the lumpen mass of teens are likely to continue playing as they age up into the college/early work age bracket (for funsies, let's call this bracket 'Young Adults'). The Young Adult bracket is when players of a teen-oriented game start to leave the hobby in significant, though not serious, numbers. Player numbers in this bracket are still good, but it's on a downwards trajectory. Then comes the next age bracket - let's call them Full Adults. The Adult bracket is when people start to put away teen-oriented things in serious numbers. The drop-off in player percentages here is steep. And then, it levels out in the Middle Age bracket, but that's because there are so few people in that bracket playing a teen game as to be statistically irrelevant. Which doesn't mean they don't exist; it merely means the company could cut them all out tomorrow, and it wouldn't hurt their pocketbook in a way that would make the bean counters care.
Now, though, we come to the hard bit for understanding demographics charts, and that is that these numbers flow. People are always leaving the hobby, yes, but there are also new tweens aging into the teen category, taking up teen hobbies. And in a game's healthy years, the number of these fresh teens is at least equal to the number of oldsters leaving the hobby. Even better, these fresh teens are totally green to the hobby, and thus they have to buy everything in order to play. So, when year-over-year these fresh recruits are equal or better than the number of oldsters leaving, the money is good. A constant source of fresh blood keeps the brand healthy, and income high, and the company doesn't have to look for ways to reinvent itself to extract more money from its existing players.
When the number of fresh teens coming in starts to wane, though, it is a sign of trouble. Magic history time. 2006, a report of a noticeable sign of dropping percentages in the key demographic - Hasbro's answer: it's a statistical blip. 2008 - it's the recession. 2010 - um. 2012 - uh. 2014 - we're going to be taking steps.
This demographics lull can occur even while player numbers are reaching their zenith. How? Things like expansion into foreign markets. Plus, for the core markets, Magic is a Millennials game. Sure some Gen Xers took it up, but we're talking probabilities here, not individuals. And right now, this moment, the Millennials straddle the three most profitable demographic brackets of a teen-oriented game. But even as we speak, the Millennials are leaving their teen years behind. And Magic just has not engaged Generation Zed, and in much the same way that D&D didn't engage the late-term Millennials before it. And as a teen game made for teens, if the company doesn't change this pattern, the bulk of the Millennials are going to soon be moving into the brackets when people start leaving teen games in droves. And since Hasbro is constantly doubling down on extracting money from its existing audience (such as releasing one-time packs, which turn out to sell well, so they make them a full line), this is likely to only accelerate a crash that is already steep. Thus Magic, like so many teen-oriented games before it, could turn into a ghost town seemingly overnight. Leaving all of those cards stranded on eBay, worthless. Should Hasbro choose to or continue to fail to engage Generation Zed.
Now, Hasbro has promised to take further steps in this matter. There are no 4e-like radical changes on the table - for the moment. But don't expect that to continue, if they decide to try to keep the franchise going.
But as to the original question, why does these trends produce so much shit? Because constantly doubling down on the existing audience is a shit practice (which pisses some people off outright), and as a shit practice, it causes garbage-in, garbage-out.
And, well, why did I say all of the above in this and other posts. Because you all asked me to prove what I said in my original post. And then started whining when I did. Which makes me hard. And now you're just insulting me for doing as you asked and answering. Which makes me hard as hell. Excuse me while I go get some tissues.
Last edited:
Coma White
Educated
We didn't insult you. We asked you to substantiate what you're saying based on qualitative specific statements. You are a fucking retard -- NOW I'm insulting you.
I did my M.P.Adm. thesis in statistics and regression analysis. You know what's important in statistics? Data. Of which you presented none. Somehow you managed to write a post proclaiming the backing of empirical observation rather than the conjecture I accused you of, yet your entire post is precisely that: conjecture. It's like a driver talking about the virtues of turning right while taking a left turn over a cliff. You literally announced your intentions then did the opposite. From the first letter 'till you clicked post, it's just guesswork. It would be criminal to even call it a supposition. Even the shadow of a fact or logical deduction is utterly absent. Similar to listening to the ravings of drunk freshman with performance anxiety. "Let me tell you 'bout them statistics, Carl... *hic*"
I'm genuinely curious at this point: can you provide a single, descriptive fact about Magic and relate it to your argument? It doesn't even have to support your overall conclusion. Just make one qualitative statement about Magic and explain how it's related to your case. Just one.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.