There is no denying that Magic: The Gathering is the behemoth of card games.
My question is: will there ever be anything to dethrone it or has it exhausted the mechanics of a card game whilst keeping it simple yet deep? (apparently Netrunner's mechanics are hitting roadblocks with new sets)
It has been the gargantuan for over a decade.
>>46411201
i want to discuss pls ;_;
>>46411201
Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh! overwhelmed it during the early 2000s and it nearly died during the mid 2000s. It only recovered from its near-collapse from Alara onwards.
>>46411201
MtG is to CCG what World of Warcraft is to MMO's. It's the core game with the best mechanics and rules and, like WoW, isn't going anywhere soon. There will be other CCG's that have and will try to compete with it, but will always be fads and die out, while MTG keeps growing.
>>46411373
I hate this meme.
There's no proof that magic was in any mind if trouble. You are either making money or losing money.
I kept hearing rumors that zendikar was supposed to be the last set and they went full art/treasures to save magic.
So stupid. No doubt pokemon and yugioh stole some of its thunder, but pokemon died after wizards already made money off it and yugioh is an afterthought.
Magic is bigger now than ever, but I don't think it's never been NOT profitable and therefore never "dying"
>>46411201
>My question is: will there ever be anything to dethrone it
Yes ofcourse. Either by being dethroned, or just dying and something else filling the gap.
>has it exhausted the mechanics of a card game whilst keeping it simple yet deep?
Heavens no. There is a huge issue with the current designers retreading the same or near same ground over and over but there is still plenty of simple design space.
>It has been the gargantuan for over a decade.
Two decades.
>apparently Netrunner's mechanics are hitting roadblocks with new sets
I haven't heard that. Are they?
>>46411420
>>46411373
Magic did hit a decline during the (cover your ears lovers) Kamigawa era. In which many players did leave but that allowed magic to attempt to branch off in new directions and produce Ravnica, Timespiral in quick succession afterwards. Which in turn brought many back.
It never declined due to pokemon, it was competing against it however. Which is something magic as a company hadn't had to do for 7-5 years until that point.
>>46411201
>>46411400
>>46411420
You don't really appreciate how big Yu-gi-oh is.
It's bigger than Magic. More players, more cards sold, it has a firm grasp over the actual target demographic for card games. It is crack to children, and while there are fewer adult Yu-gi-oh players then there are adult Magic players, the overwhelming amount of children who prefer Yu-gi-oh, especially when talking in a global sense that includes Asian countries, have made it the more popular and successful game.
Magic may remain more popular with adults, but without a tv show, robot dragons in every set, and a business model that says "fuck the secondary market," Yu-gi-oh will remain the "Behemoth" to beat among children.
Hearthstone has beaten it.
>>46411571
I think this is true.
Hearthstone's success is really only attributed to the fact that it used Warcraft as its setting and that they actually made a good functioning program. Also the fact that they continually update and release expansions - there is more development commitment.
Many online card games came before it but used boring/unlikeable themes and had bad development commitment (and most of the time shitty software).
>>46411602
>>46411571
If anything, Hearthstone is an entry drug. People try it, enjoy it thoroughly, go deep into it until they get bored when they realize how shallow it is and then turn to MtG.
>>46411521
>It's bigger than Magic. More players, more cards sold,
Source?
>>46411571
My friend who used to be big into MtG plays Hearthstone exclusively now because it's more convenient than meeting up with people IRL.
>>46411477
Kamigawa was based tho
>>46411571
Hearthstone is also a video game
>>46411610
Hardly, it takes more MtG players than it creates because it's easier to play, easier to find players, cheaper, and available wherever you are.
>>46411477
I can vouch. I took a hiatus during kamigawa. Still not "not profitable"
Wizards owned pokemon from 98 to 03. It wasent really competition.
>>46411521
You may have a point. I think once the current generation of magic players retire from the game. Most younger kids will be on hearthstone. (Which is gay) but whatever.
In the end nobody takes yugioh seriously becuase it dosent take itself seriously.
I'd also like to point out how many people go from yugioh/hearthstone to magic. But almost never magic to yugioh.
It is the "Wow Effect" people only really have enough time, energy and money to play one card game maybe two.
People who have already invested are going to be unwilling to jump ship, there are people who have spent thousands on their decks, that is one heck of a sunk cost.
New players are going to go with whatever their friends are playing, so the smaller niche games are never going to get all that many new players.
The card games that are co-existing are the ones that don't directly compete, but try for a different niche:
Yu-gi-oh makes it's money from way more than just the cards, the show and it's merchandise are also income sources, so even if the card game began losing money Konami (it is still owned by Konami right, if not whoever owns it now) may keep it around if the other parts are still making mad bank.
Pokémon is aimed at a much younger audience (as is Yu-gi-oh) and is built upon the franchise in the world, even if the game was shit, people (mostly young kids) would still buy the cards to collect them.
Netrunner is such a different game that it can co-exist by sheer virtue of being a completely different kind of game.
>>46411201
You can't kill/dethrone magic from the outside. The only way mtg will die is if wotc took a wrong step in the future.
Also no, despite what some raging neckbeards will tell you, mtg is actually on it's peak power these last few years.
>>46412050
haha yeah
I like playing my justice league deck and shuffling every two seconds.
>I have no sources but trust me: The thread
>>46411958
I'd agree with you about netrunner. Part of the appeal of it to me was that its not just 'throw my dudes against your dudes.' Also, being able to own the entire game for the cost of making a standard deck was appealing, especially since my magic collection wasn't very large to begin with, there wasnt a whole lot of variety in 'playable' magic decks I could make. I eventually made the switch from magic to netrunner as did the majority of my gaming group.
I think the reason competitive pokemon still exists is that people haven't discovered magic yet
>>46411420
Every set after original Ravnica and before Zendikar had decreasing sales, leading to a lot of shake ups. Zendikar was successful because of a number of gimmicks and advertising. Duels of the planeswalkers is what has primarily induced growth recently. Note that the highest selling set for the longest time was og Mirrodin (before that it was Urza's Saga). That didn't change till Innistrad.
Magic's biggest competition is Hearthstone.
>>46412957
>Duels of the planeswalkers is what has primarily induced growth recently
Even if this wasn't true they'd be foolish not to invest in their digital stuff a bit more. Making Magic Duels free was the best decision they've made in years, imagine how many tourists and curious cheapskates now get that first hit and start wanting more.
Now if only they could fix the buggy piece of shit. I'm still only getting a blank black screen with menu music.
>>46413108
They are. Last investor call outlined 'Magic digital next' and implied a large investment in the next MTGO iteration
>>46411521
Yu-gi-oh is like pokemon, it's not as popular as it was when it was first released, I remember when Yu-Gi-Oh first aired here in France, I could buy japanese booster in my local bookshop and it was in a small town. Now you can't even find french booster.
>>46413192
please oh please be true
>>46411201
>Will there ever be anything to dethrone it.
Oh most defiantly. A game just has to come along that plays similar enough without gimmicky bullshit. Every MTG player I know has tried the other games that get big enough but they always come back because they dont like the way they play.
We are all looking because each of us on some level have been slap in the face. WOTC has spread itself so thin and then fucked over everyone that went to the edges.
>Legacy and vintage plays are upset their format never changes
>Modern players are upset for being ignored
>Standard players are pissed the power level is so low a handful of cards dictates the whole meta nowadays
>Limited players are pissed every other format blames them and then proceed to have a terrible limited experience
>EDH players are pissed they dont ever get new worthwhile commanders and their comander products suck ass
WOTC tried to fix everything with the NWO but instead just pissed many people off with the changes.
If a game popped up fresh with basically the exact same plat style even if they copied basically everything they would be huge.
>>46414143
Actually there have been plenty of games which arguably did MTG better, but they failed because to overthrow MTG they would need to first of all get over the immense inertia, most people don't want to have to learn the new intricacies and put down the money for a new game, next is going to be the problem of player numbers, MTG is more popular so it's easier to find people to play with, and get the cards and whatnot to play, which feeds it's popularity.
Whatever de-thrones MTG will not be a MTG clone, for the same reason that a Pokémon clone will not de-throne Pokémon as the franchise everyone loves; or WoW clone de-throning WoW.
If you want a better example, look at D&D, we all know it's janky and cumbersome and can be improved, yet the improved versions only ever see success if they have D&D in the name.
>>46414618
You make a lot of good points but I think that player retention is whats going to work against them. All of the groups I listed WANT to keep playing MTG. Its the game they love. If they didn't they would just flat stop. If a game came along and inched its way along the grapevine as being a flat better MTG people would take some serious notice.
I haven't seen any games that were better MTG than MTG. Can you name some of them? I'm curious now. I'm wondering why they failed. f it was player climate or quality or whatever.
>>46414143
>standard players are pissed about low powerlevel
they have to lower the powerlevel every once in a while or else powercreep will kill the eternal formats.
KTK was relatively high on the side of powerlevel and that's why certain broken cards were the only played ones.
Jace, as we all know, was a mistake.
>limited players are always blamed and have a shitty limited experience
Draft sets like conspiracy might do some to fix this, but limited is basically WOTC's scapegoat for printing bad cards and
having rarity levels.
>modern players are upset for being ignored
I think they're upset because modern is getting too much attention. Twin was banned because of the PT.
>Legacy and Vintage players are upset their format never changes
A symptom of the fact that their formats are on a much higher power level than any other, so to print any cards that will see play they make mistakes like treasure cruise and the like. The powerlevel bar that legacy itself sets is very close to broken, and vintage doesn't really care anyway.
>EDH players are pissed they don't ever get worthwhile commanders and their products suck ass
I think the commander product needs to do a better job of making interesting commanders that aren't just X/X goodstuff.
Mizzix, Meren, Newzuri, basically all the C15 commanders revolve around goodstuff. The experience counter stuff is bullshit, it just encourages shitty deckbuilding. The old Commander precons also lend themselves to being broken.
>>46414850
The standard argument want just about power level. Have low power is perfectly fine but when its so low what should have been just a sightly good to good card completely dominates the whole meta its a serious problem.
There are only two options, get the power level up or do more play testing. We wont get the play testing with how fast card sets come out nowadays. There's just to many variations and board states to properly test everything.
Standard is fine so long as they have 5-10 different deck archetypes all viable. Even if the power level is low people wont mind much. Its when they see a few cards just steal it all away that it becomes a problem. Power level in of itself doesn't create much friction but it does amplify it. It becomes a "reason" the other problems exist and thus makes people even more mad.
>>46414143
>>Legacy and vintage plays are upset their format never changes
>continual bitching and moaning how new shit is OP, but maybe adds 1 or 2 cards a set to any deck
>constant bed wetting that their favorite cards are banned because "It's not OP"
Maybe I know different people than you, but my vintage friends are salty fucks who look through rose colored glasses in a mirror echo chamber.
>EDH players are pissed they dont ever get new worthwhile commanders and their comander products suck ass
Maybe on the internet. My FLGS has the commander sets fly off the shelves in the first month. Half of us still want the Original runs reprinted to grab some shwifty synergy with the new guys.
>>46415020
I think we do all the vintage people at my store just want the meta to change. They are tired of seeing the exact same decks do the exact same thing over and over.
As for EDH my store had a fairly big crowd but it kinda died out quickly. We were always building new decks for new commanders and having a good time but then god new legendary creatures stopped coming out. It was like a wall. Just suddenly the fun was gone. Everyone already had 6 to 12 decks that they built and played. We all hungered for new legends to build around but nothing came. Now we dont even have a dedicated play day at my LGS since everyone just stopped caring.
>>>46414143 WOTC tried to fix everything with the NWO but instead just pissed many people off with the changes.
WotC's marketing research showed that good sales happened in proportion to good tournament attendance.
They assume that good tournament attendance /caused/ and made the Time Spiral block to appeal to tournament goers.
Tournament attendance skyrocketed and sales plummeted.
NWO was made right afterwords, to make sure sets have as little in common with Time Spiral as possible.
>Vintage and Legacy
WotC does not care about these formats. At all.
>Modern
WotC act like they care about it to appeal to the secondary market.
But even for that, they barely care about this format.
>EDH and Pauper
Faux casual formats to bring in new players.
WotC likes them for requiring almost no effort on their own part.
Beyond that WotC doesn't care about them. At all.
>Limited
WotC's bread and butter.
Power level barely effects the format, so they keep it low to help their goals for Standard.
>Standard
WotC's main appeal to the secondary market. (There way of saying "please sell our boosters".)
Low power helps keep the variety of chase rares low, to drive up prices.
>>46414143
>Legacy never changes
Eldrazi is shaking up everything in the meta, this is plain false.
>Modern players
Who cares about memedern?
>Standard players are pissed the power level is so low a handful of cards dictates the whole meta nowadays
Power level is relative in Standard, it being 'low' doesn't mean anything. What you're talking about is heterogeneity.
>Limited players are pissed every other format blames them and then proceed to have a terrible limited experience
No one in Limited cares about what other people have to say about them.
>EDH
Commander products are hot shit here. They're full of value relative to their price.
>>46411477
I was around that era and I am not so sure if it was Kamigawa's (which yeah, it sucked in a lot of places) fault as much as it was affinity making people drop. Or a mix of two.
It's a pity these were years of declining sales, because Time Spiral is my favorite block ever. And they are never going to repeat something like that.
>>46411602
That the interface is not awful crap like MTGO it also helps. I tried both and yes, Hearthstone may not be that complex, but at least if I want to play I can just play and not fight a very bad (and buggy) piece of software.
>>46414143
>>Legacy and vintage plays are upset their format never changes
but that's why we like it you plonker.
>>46414618
>Actually there have been plenty of games which arguably did MTG better
Confession time: I was a huge fan of Shadowfist back in the day. I may still have my Architect deck somewhere at my parent's house. Pity no one in my area play it anymore.
May not be better, but loved it.
>>46411420
You mean apart from the total crash of fnm and tournaments that magic faced right as a result of affinity right?
If yugioh hadn't fucked up with its chaos era banlists wizards might very well have dumped the mtg ip.
>>46411201
>Mtg dethroned
Maybe, it's a pretty fun game and there's huge amounts of cards for it so there's very little chance of it not being played soon.
>>46413290
You're just old now, yugioh makes more money now than it ever has.
If yugioh hadn't thought up ghost rares and the like we wouldn't have mythic rarity in mtg though
>>46415315
It was the one-two punch of affinity driving everyone away and Kamigawa's low power level doing nothing to stop it (and apparently most people didn't understand Kamigawa at all)
>>46411373
Pokemon had its boom in the late 90's nearly 2000's, but never really competed with MtG. And no matter how much Yu-Ge-Ho fans pushed Yu-Gi-Oh, it never really held it's ground and died out in only a handful of years.
But, even at MtG's lowest point, they were still making a bang load of money from boosters and from tournaments. And it's never actually died down. Some of the casual "play at home in kitchen" players have teedered back & forth, off & on whether of not if they were playing or quitting the game. But, tournaments have never died down.
And over the years it's only grown in the local, national, and world communities.
>>46415517
>If yugioh hadn't thought up ghost rares and the like we wouldn't have mythic rarity in mtg though
>>46411400
Except Everquest was the original MMO.
While MtG was the original CCG. So, more like MtG is to CCGs as LoZ is to dungeon scrollers.
>>46411201
>has it exhausted the mechanics of a card game
obviously not since it keeps introducing new meme mechanics and card types every few sets
>>46411201
No other card game can come even close to the complexity and depth of MTG, and I don't think they will run out of mechanics to make anytime soon.
>>46411635
> Source:
His mom.
>>46411571
I think it's still got a way to go yet but it's getting there.
The real question is if the game will stand the test of time like Magic has. Being tied to the Warcraft IP is a huge boon in that regard, but markets are unpredictable.
>>46412050
It would take a multitude of missteps for Wizards to crash MtG into the ground. And lately they have been playing it safe and taking very few risks. Maybe a single risk every two or three sets.
Other than that, they try and keep it on the straight and narrow. They try not to making things that will piss people off, and when they do they hop on the hate banwagon and ban the cards.
>>46414618
>games which arguably did MTG better
Source?
>>46411571
AIDStone
Autistone
Babystone
Casualstone
Retardstone
RNGstone
>>46416159
> Source:
Because he said so.
I don't think you understand where you are, this is the Internet buddy. And people don't tell lies on the World Wide Web.
>>46411635
I wouldn't be surprised if YGO is bigger than MTG, it's very big in Asian countries. I doubt it's bigger than MTG in the West though
I really like modern Pokemon card designs. I'm convinced they have the coolest foils out there.
The main problem with MTG is its godawful online presence. I mean MTGO is a horrible piece of shit with crashes and bugs all over the place, no Mac or Linux compatibility and a retarded business model, the wizards website is still broken and browsing it is a major pain in the ass, every link points to 404 and webpages are so fucking incredibly bloated. On top of that they have the gall of suing developers that want to provide non-shit alternatives like Cockatrice.
>>46416005
The last time it introduced an actual new card type was back in Lorwyn, which was what...nine years ago at this point?
>>46416592
It's really really awful. To the point I wonder if they are heavily understaffed. Because I can understand it's a big piece of legacy code that has a lot of years and making a new UI takes time. But damn, not even what they have now completely works (lol panglacial wurm)
Current story team looks also in the understaffed/not a lot of time side of things, by the way. Not art, mind you, but story.
>>46411420
>I hate this meme.
"I don't like it so its a meme"
magic was and still is in trouble as are most tcg as of right now in terms of sales
pokemon is number one with yugioh at a close second and magic just behind that. they vary a lot every month so 3rd and 2nd switch occasionally.
in popularity pokemon is at the top with magic and yugioh more or less tied for second.
and as for a source on popularity ask anyone who's not a tcg player to name a tcg. they aren't going to even know magic exists.
children don't play it, nor do teenagers, and with nerdy things are cool trend going out the majority of its current player base will drop it.
pokemon and yugioh have other media to keep them around magic has a few video games that don't translate well to the tcg for most everyday people.
and don't even get me started on all the shitty practices wizards has done and justified with different formats as a scapegoat
>>46415955
>died out in only a handful of years.
if your going to make shit up it would be wise to not make it easily fact checked last few years YGO has been increasing in sales. magic not so much which is why they are going back to innastrad it was a popular set and sold better
>>46416005
>>46416006
except all those reskined ones from the last 4 blocks
>>46416852
Magic has never been so popular than now and every set has sold better than the last since Lorwyn. Hell, it's become so mainstream that girls make up 38% of the playerbase. I'm not sure what you're trying to say but WotC is definitely not dying.
>>46416852
>pokemon is number one with yugioh at a close second and magic just behind that
>>46416852
what the fuck am I reading right now
source anything you said
>>46416947
This is also true. MTG went from being sold only in LGSs to being in every major supermarket, and they're usually the only game with anti-theft casing in the card section. It's pretty fucking big right now.
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4HKHxNB.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>46411521
>magic will never have a business model that says fuck the secondary market
Hearthstone is bigger
>>46416716
They made an article promoting streaming mtgo, so I thought maybe they'd be working to make it better, but it doesn't seem that way. Theres still a bug to get your entrance fee back in tournaments. You'd think they'd want that fixed ASAP
>>46417211
Well no shit but were talking about actual TCGs here not whatever you want to call hs.
If wotc was any smart they would be trying to copy how hs works, they almost did it with that origins game but still managed to fuck it up.
I know people love physical mtg
The thing is a touchscreen tablet or anything similar is just the future for card games. Hasbro is fucking terrible with anything digital so MTG has already lost the digital space to hearthstone.
Keep in mind, The Elder Scrolls (bethseda skyrim) is also launching a digital card game product this year and they are far better at digital than Hasbro / WOTC.
MTG will continue the ownership of the paper space but the biggest market share is all digital.
>>46416159
Not him, but right now it sounds like Force of Will (the tcg not the card). Pretty much every discussion about it inevitably throws in the line 'like mtg, but better / with the stupid shit fixed.' It's big selling point is that it's similar enough to mtg that there's very little new to memorize in terms of rules, but it 'fixes' a lot of the complaints people have about mtg.
The problem with this 'mtg clone that will dethrone mtg' talk is pointed out by anon up here >>46414618, namely, inertia and sunk costs gives mtg a massive advantage, and whether you agree with their ideas or not, they have a huge advantage in tcg designing and developing experience. Going off /tg/ threads at least, it looks like FoW is already slowing down rapidly, and I think the 'wait for the next set after this shitty meta rotates' killed a lot of interest right when the word of mouth was spreading the fastest. A new game can't really afford a slip up like that, while mtg can, to a much greater extent, shrug off the occasional bad format (as an example, the current 4 colour cancer in standard and the Eldrazi dominance in modern right now).
>>46417291
The thing is playing on a tablet with touch controls is far more enjoyable than the physical game.
Shuffling, huge amounts of downtime, etc just kills physical card games.
At an average tournament you will be waiting between rounds like 60% of the time.
>>46417291
Hearthstone is still a tcg despite not having physical cards.
>>46417325
>Shuffling, huge amounts of downtime, etc just kills physical card games.
have you tried not being an obese fucker with sausage fingers and no friends?
>>46417369
nice argument friend
Which is going to have a bigger market?
A digital, no wait, touchscreen card game using the internet
or
A physical card game
Physical Card Games are just relics of the past.
>>46417326
>tcg
>trading card game
Please tell me how many times youve actually traded a single card for another one with another person. I'll wait.
BRIAN KIBLER's POST
------------------------------------
..... I am one of the leading money winners in Magic tournament history, and in 2010 I was inducted into the Magic Pro Tour Hall of Fame.
And yet when I sit down to play a card game today, it isn’t going to be Magic. It’s going to be Hearthstone.
>MTG players think hearthstone isn't bigger
>>46417556
Literally only because of the streaming market.
>>46417471
Which is why MTG has never been so big and keeps growing.
What's next, paper and pencils are obsolete because of Word?
>>46417577
lel
If MTG is bigger, shouldn't he want to stream MODO?
MTG Is literally fucking dead unless they come out with a good digital offering in the next 1-2 years.
>>46417595
>so big and keeps growing.
But it's had bad quarters recently and stagnant playerbase for a while now. It's not on the same trajectory and hasn't been for like 3 quarters.
All revenue gain is jus
>>46417325
I suppose so. But i'll tell you right now that the whole shuffling, actually being able to talk to the person infront of you, see their reactions, make bluffs based on tendencies or something as simple as putting aside 1 blue mana to try and sell that you have a counterspell in your hand when you dont have shit.
All of that is lost in online. The whole thing is pretty cool/fun. Even if sometimes I finish my round in 20 minutes and I have to sit there and wait 30+ minutes to play again I can simply walk over and talk to those who are still playing their game, see different strategies, help new players out. Bro youre missing out.
>>46417617
source
Sales of Magic: The Gathering fell in Q3, according to Hasbro’s quarterly earnings announcement, contributing to an 8% decline in the games category for the company. This is the second consecutive quarterly decline in sales of Magic: The Gathering; in Q2, Magic declines were part of a 6% decline in Hasbro’s games sales (see "'Magic' Up in Hasbro’s First Half").
Heartstone fags seem to underestimate the one thing where Magic sells more than anything else: the social, casual market. You know, the kitchen table players. The audience where the 38% of girls are. The filthy plebs who play to havefun. Think of them what you will, but they vastly outnumber LGS customers and they aren't satisfied with a WoW-tier level of human interaction such as what you experience on Hearthstone.
>>46417619
I've played physical MTG
The market is still massively larger for a digital CG. The future is digital products.
Physical MTG isn't going to actually die out, but the future is absolutely in digital products. It's also impossible to predict how VR will affect it as well.
Right now, the hearthstone market, playerbase, and general interest is orders of magnitude bigger than MTG's.
>>46417325
Having actual cards is much more satisfying than digital copies. That alone makes it worthwhile.
>>46411521
>and a business model that says "fuck the secondary market,"
What do you mean, I play only play magic casually, but I'm assuming that the Yu-Gi-Oh rules only allow for decks from the newest set? What is the YGO business model?
>>46411602
As someone who plays hearthstone near daily, I had no idea that the cards were based on WoW fiction until very recently. I picked it up because I saw someone playing it on twitch and had played magic casually so I was familiar with the idea of CCGs
>>46417655
I think that is more bad analytics than anything else. 38% of the revenue is not from females.
Didn't they do something like "have you heard of MTG or tried it?" or something like that.
It's not in line at all with who is buying product.
Also those people will find much better experiences playing board games, which right now are in a boom. Also board game experiences are much better than MTG for those type of people imo.
>>46417692
Okay? I wasnt talking about that at all, just that being there physically is better than online. We arent anywhere near to actual VR as well.
>>46417720
For you. There are people who spend $2000 on digital skins. For most people a digital collection is just if not more valuable than physical one.
Mostly because the ease of playing or using a digital collection is far easier. Most professional MTG players specifically recommend digital mtg to improve.
>>46417735
No, they asked: "Do you play Magic?" Of those who answered "yes", 38% were female.
>>46417655
>>46417619
Exactly. Call me old fashioned, or out of touch with the times, or an old faggot (or a regular faggot), but I actually enjoy having a human opponent to play against. Hearthstone and purely digital tcg experiences just seem like solitaire, except the solitaire routine can sometimes fuck up and play sub-optimally. It's a decent way to kill time, but not something worth commuting anything to, and sure as hell not worth putting money towards.
>>46411477
>It never declined due to pokemon
We will probably never have empirical evidence, but it certainly did in the States I frequented. Was only after wotc instituted the age limit at majors that drove adults away.
>>46417766
>>46417692
They are not the same market. The vast majority of people who enjoy MTG (and by that I'm talking about the casuals) want the social experience that comes with the physical card game. They don't care about "managing their collection" or "improving", they care about having fun. The kind of fun a video game will never provide.
>>46417727
You can use cards from any set, newest to oldest. What he means is that if a card is expensive, konami will reprint the shit out of it to move their own product, rather than let all the profit on older, strong cards go to secondary vendors. Also, power creep means older cards are generally pretty useless compared to the new hotness, but that's more bad game design than anything.
>>46417766
>specifically recommend digital mtg to improve
Because it's easier to jam lots of games without getting tunnel visioned by playing against the same players all the time. Not because it's somehow a better experience. Nearly all big tournaments are still paper.
>>46416927
You're really dumb, aren't you? Like the kind of autism only found in the most rural of hillbilly mountain territories.
YGO was at most five years of absolutel popularity where tournaments were actually a full store event. After that it was maybe a small section of a local store that held tournaments. Then the shit just died out. And never once was it ever on the scale of MtG even when it was at its lowest sales.
>>46417855
They are direct competitors.
>>46417932
Erm, no. They are not the same market. The vast majority of people who enjoy MTG (and by that I'm talking about the casuals) want the social experience that comes with the physical card game. They don't care about "managing their collection" or "improving", they care about having fun. The kind of fun a video game will never provide.
>>46412066
>tfw no one to play vs system with my 70 decks and homebrew giant sized encounters
The nightmare never ends
>>46417950
>talks specifically about casual MTG players
>thinks potential casual MTG players aren't just flocking to hearthstone instead.
>>46417727
they reprint cards. there is no major investing / speculating around singles like there is in magic.
>>46417974
There's no "flocking" because HS is free to play. You can invest money in Magic while still playing HS, and a casual will never spend money in HS. And like I said, they provide different kinds of fun: HS provides a "video game" fun while Magic is an actual card game that you play with friends, like bridge or jungle speed or something.
>>46418021
I think boardgames and actual decks of cards provide for most of that market.
either way, the point of this thread is which card game is bigger
Hearthstone is MUCH bigger than mtg, and growing.
There might be a niche market for casual EDG MTG players or "old" mtg players in general.
The future is still digital, and 99% of new card game players are going to hearthstone.
>>46418086
>The future is still digital, and 99% of new card game players are going to hearthstone.
Except HS isn't an actual card game, it's a video game. People interested in card games aren't going to say "what if I downloaded some shit and made an account on the internet?" And where did you pull that 99% figure from? Your ass?
>>46418086
they are definitely competitors, especially on a competitive level. Hearthstone is also riding on the growing wave of eSports and many people know about the pros and tourneys who dont even play the game while Magic is doing its own thing its in own world.
>>46418152
I think the mtg community is using the same sort of thought process people had with League of Legends originally.
>lol cant be a real esport because it's casual
>lol cant take away anything from real games
then LoL becomes a worldwide #1 game.
MTG's biggest events cant get the same # of viewers as a fucking regular hearthstone streamer
>>46418129
Let's do a history lesson
What caused the huge increase and boom in the MTG community? Was it better cards?
Nope, it was a digital version of MTG called duels of the planeswalkers for xbox 360, ps3, and steam.
So the biggest catalyst for the market, which you says doesn't care about digital, was a digital fucking product.
>>46418197
>>46418197
Because MtG is a paper game first and foremost. I don't know why you guys keep equating a piece of software to play online with and piece of cardboards to use with real life friends. Speaking of real life friends, do you have any?
>>46418232
I'm not saying MTG doesn't care about digital (though you may think otherwise when you see the horrible state of that joke of software they call MTGO), I'm saying the paper audience is its primary market. Just like they care about the story but they are not a publishing company either. Of course they're going to have a boon when they reach to an unexplored market, just like their recent popularity and diversity in demographics coincides with their emphasis on the storyline and character development. That doesn't mean the bulk of their audience isn't first and foremost people who want to play with pieces of cardboard with friends.
>>46418248
of course its not exactly the same. But stop acting like Playboy magazine existed in its own market exempt from the forces of internet porn.
>>46418248
see
>>46418232
I think you are just wrong. Digital products are incredibly important and MTG digital products can be directly linked to paper MTG revenue.
The fact that other digital products are taking MTG's digital market share is very bad for the brand.
Hearthstone is currently the biggest card game, even if you don't like the fact it is digital only.
>>46418321
>their emphasis on the storyline and character dev
MTG story is fucking shit m8, Jace etc probably have a negative effect on the brand overall by being so shit.
Anyone who play MTG and enjoys it does so because of the physical card game. Odds are that's how they got into it and they have a lot of fun going to tournaments or playing with their friends. I love nothing more than getting my MTG shit together (sleeves/deckbox/mat) and gong to my LGS to play in prerelease flights all day or draft all night. I love this physical, human interaction based card game.
But if Magic doesn't get its online presence together, it will not be able to compete with shit like Hearthstone and whatever other online card games pop up in its wake.
The fact is that MTGO sucks ass, and the only reason ANYONE uses it is because it's the most efficient way for pros to practice against each other and it's the only way to stream. MTGO has bugs, is unintuitive, has an shit pricing system (1 pack online = i pack irl?), and even pros and steamers who use this every day to make money are vocal with how shitty it is and how sick they are of having to use an awful program to play their favorite game.
While Hearthstone will never have the breadth of cards that Magic has, and will never have the same casual appeal, it's MTGs biggest competitor right now and if Magic doesn't get an (at least) reasonable online presence soon, it's going to start seeing some losses.
>>46418364
Your analogy doesn't hold because the pleasure derived from fapping to Playboy pictures is pretty much the same as the pleasure you get from fapping to internet porn.
>>46418376
>Digital products are incredibly important and MTG digital products can be directly linked to paper MTG revenue.
Casuals and kitchen table players don't use MTGO.
>>46418393
Look m9 I dislike Jace too but market research doesn't lie, he's still the most popular character to the broader audience.
>>46418422
Okay, this more nuanced post I can agree with.
>>46418422
The Elder Scrolls card game is going to hit very soon.
The producer stated it is going to be a "surprise release". Meaning it will just release one day out of the blue 100% done.
It's not just Blizzard they are competing with now but also Bethseda and a lot of others.
>>46418321
>That doesn't mean the bulk of their audience isn't first and foremost people who want to play with pieces of cardboard with friends.
what you are describing is the traditional tabletop/boardgame market. Most of the consumers of Magic exist outside this market.
>>46418376
That's fine, casuals and those with limited leisure time are going to prefer digital.
Physical and digital are still fundamentally different experiences, but digital is still a useful shipments to the property. Miniatures games are still a thing even with so many alternative formats. The freedom granted by physical games will continue to be a draw until humans change.
>>46417950
>in b4; magic is dead, blah blah shill something, I hate that MeyMeymonaise, or some other stroke like symptom.
This is the truth. As an mtg irregular nowadays, i'm not going to try and play some other bullshit, when I'm familiar enough to be able to jump into a draft once every couple of months with some friends, when theres time. Or on the off chance that I play some kitchen table cube-like shit, it's never with some autist who cares about card origin, current restrictions or whatever.
As far as "competing" games, the audience being patronized relentlessly, the overall unsustainable prices of cardboard, and the availability of high quality fakes, statically it's all headed for a huge crash. Whether or not that's a bad thing for mtg or it's very divided fans is yet to be seen. But right now, buying cards at anything other than material cost is a shitty long term investment.
>>46418503
No, they don't. Over 90% of the MTG audience is kitchen table players who have never set foot into an LGS and have no idea what MTGO is.
>>46418584
I highly doubt that. It is also unlikely because almost all boardgame players know or have played Magic but not the other way around. The main motivation for playing Magic is not its physical nature.
>>46418668
Market research doesn't lie, Anon. Ask Maro yourself.
>>46418584
I understand your point but I just find board games to be better for that market, not that they can't also play MTG. I find it far easier to get someone to play catan than to play MTG.
>>46418480
There's also stuff like Eternal which was actually designed by MTG hall of famer Luis Scott-Vargas (and I think Patrick Chapin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX0MdD_tt-o
It's basically the same thing as MtG or HS, and I have no doubt the Elder Scrolls card game is going to be yet another clone.
These are all miles better than MTGO and you can essentially just choose your own flavor. There's also SolForge which is substantially different, but another Free to play digital card game.
I think the main issue with MTGO is that mtg is a game that is so large in its bulk of cards and interactions that they have to focus on making sure that works, where for these new games they can take the core of MtG (creature combat and simpler spells), design a UI that's simple and appealing as fuck, and then design around that. MTGO has to deal with too much incoming baggage to be able to be easy to use.
MTGO's other huge flaw is that it is completely pay to play. With all these other games you can at least grind your way to some kind of reasonable deck or try it out for free. MTGO I believe you have to pay to sign up, and pay for any cards you want to get outside of the starter deck they give you.
If MTGO can solve some of these problems, it stands a chance. But currently it is suffering form the same problems that Magic has faced in the past, being really unweildy to actually use and being actively unwelcoming in its complexity, usability and costs for new players to even think about trying.
>>46418696
Go to Magic's website, their focus is showing you FLGS, Friday night magic, and Magic Duelist. That really screams 90% our primary sales are kitchen players who buy boosters at full retail at the big box store.
>>46418896
Look dude, I'm not trying to convince you. Ask Maro and see if I'm right.
>>46418920
just post a link. i am not trying to win an argument here just presenting the gaming market as accurately as I know it.
>>46418839
MTGOs pay to play and 1 irl pack = 1 digital pack pricing is indisputably the biggest barrier to getting people to play it. The game needs to be built to take advantage of it being a digital medium, not fight against it tooth and nail like MTGO does. Mtg is pretty much the only tcg I play (other than Wixoss, which doesn't even have an english release) and I won't touch mtgo. Tried for a while, but the cost is unjustifiable, even for a pretty serious fan.
I feel like a lack of a core set will hurt MtG in the long run. There is no obvious entry point for new payers.
>>46417122
>>46417911
>>46418018
>Listen to the people at my LGS complain about YGO killed the secondary market by reprinting everything
>Listen to them vehemently defend the Reserve List
>Listen to them explain to a newer player that they ONLY have to spend a couple hundred to over thousand dollars to get the essential cards to make a competitive Modern Deck
>Then listen to them complain about not enough people showing up to Modern/Legacy Nights
Every single week.
>>46421200
thats because theyre cucks that thought that speculating on cards was a legitimate job
>>46421100
The problem is, I know of no new players who used core sets for that. It was always 1) Buy starter deck 2) Buy booster from same set as starter to improve starter. Eventually, 3) Start buying boosters from other sets and drafting and all that jazz.
Core sets were never very useful, it's why m10 and later dropping them completely happened.
>>46421200
Speculators for anything are just retarded. Same thing happened to the comic book world a while back, look how that turned out?
>>46421380
I'm not so sure of that. It's good to have a 'standard' to go by - some sort of connection to the core of the game, other than using sets to modify rules, setting, concept - and no there is nothing wrong with that. It SHOULD happen.
But, there still needs to be some sort of 'general' option, especially for new players. Maro claims there is a new player set in development...I look forward to seeing how that works out or if it will even come out.
>>46421401
I think it also comes from that some players enjoy the fact that they have that massive paywall blocking off newer players from reaching their level.
While they'll bitch that not enough people show up for Modern they'll also enjoy crushing people with their Zendikar Fetches, Snapcaster Mages, Goblin Guides, Swords of X and Y and whatever else that they were able to get back in the day for practically a tenth of their going price now.
>>46421465
>It's good to have a 'standard' to go by - some sort of connection to the core of the game
This could well be true, but core sets did not accomplish them. If anything, I think duels of the planeswalkers is fulfilling this function much better than the core sets ever did, or could.
>>46418839
I'm not saying this looks bad (just kinda oversaturated) also it looks that this thing was made with phones in mind.
>>46418839
>Eternal
So is this just literally mtg with a digital reskin? Because that's what it looks like. It feels like there's nothing to really distinguish this game from the others out there.
>people really believe that it's difficult to migrate audiences between card games because of large monetary investments
The truth is only 1 - 2% of people will invest thousands of dollars into one deck.
I remember jumping between MTG, Pokemon, Yu Gi Oh, Duelmasters and many other card games that sprung up. I still would if a good one were to release.
The audience is not as entrenched as people think.
>>46418480
>Bethesda game
>100% done
It will really be about 65% done and the rest is DLC or just broken as shit and doesn't work.
