We've run the simulations.
Less people would play Magic the Gathering if the cards were free.
>>44523419
Understandable, exclusivity has a value of its own.
Fortunately, WoTC doesn't care about the players as much as they do care about collectors.
How so? While I have no doubt the quality of gameplay would be lower, the quantity of players should go up.
>>44523419
Am I the only one horrified by the idea of simulated neckbeards?
How would the cards be free exactly?
We talking Hearthstone "free" where they are obtained in a slow time grind that wears away at your soul? A free game with adds? Free self printable cards with the option to pay for good quality physical cards?
>>44523522
Slightly, though more because it'd be very easy to simulate them.
>>44523464
>How so?
Give the average player an unlimited card pool and take away the thrill of cracking packs or having cards others wish they had and suddenly the game becomes a lot less interesting. Also, a free Magic would likely be "print your own cards" meaning low quality cards.
>>44523522
I imagine they would operate kinda like /tg/.
Or, a more horrifying outcome, they would be more human.
>>44523464
A game as complex as Magic will never be perfectly balanced, so there would be about a dozen optimal decks in use at any given time with no variation if everyone was able to copy the current game breaker.
Sure, that's what happens anyway in major tournaments, but even kitchen table Magic would be affected in that scenario.
>>44523464
>the quantity of players should go up
Ever free to play game I've ever played has taught me the exact opposite would happen.
>>44523742
Considering that /tg/ spends its time fighting against fake hyperbole versions of neckbeards all the time, a simulated one would probably feel more real since the simulation wouldn't be trying to purposely rile up a crowd or suck its own dick to look cool in front on anonymous strangers.
>>44523419
>Less people would play Magic the Gathering if the cards were free.
>Less people
>Less
Do you mean that the players would be smaller on average? I guess that's believable.
>>44523419
How about if they were balanced?
>>44523602
>low quality cards
Who cares? I don't play MtG because the cards are thick and shiny.
>unlimited card pool
This is actually a good thing.
>take away the thrill of cracking packs
Most people who aren't morons buy singles already. The only thrill is for drafting, which you don't need physical sealed cards for.
>having cards others wish they had
This is such a tiny part of the game I'm baffled you bothered typing this.
>>44523583
>Slightly, though more because it'd be very easy to simulate them.
And yet so many /tg/ posters fail in the attempt.
>>44523742
>I imagine they would operate kinda like /tg/.
>Or, a more horrifying outcome, they would be more human.
Simulated neckbeards on /tg/ horrify me too.
>>44523833
>the simulation wouldn't be trying to purposely rile up a crowd or suck its own dick to look cool in front on anonymous strangers.
Simulated stupidity is some of the hardest AI to replicate.
>Trying to suck its own dick to look cool in front on anonymous strangers
That actually sounds like a lot of humanity.
>>44523788
Free to play but pay to win. I assumed here that all players would be on an equal footing.
>>44523742
>>44523833
>>44523522
Wait... What if they're around us already? Studying our responses, learning from our posts, our hatred, our autism... Those bastards, they would be creating the ur-neckbeard, the summation of all grognard, the beta and the omega of cardplayer personified. An abomination against all things /tg/.
>>44525522
I wish I had enough meta-knowledge to post an appropriate image of a possible candidate for this abomination.
IT'S "FEWER" NOT "LESS"
REEEEEEE
>>44523884
>>44523419
>Less people
>using "less" for discrete and countable terms
Fewer people, you filthy illiterate.
>>44530118
>Fewer people, you filthy illiterate.
No, less is not only OK, it's the preferred form.
lrn2english
>>44533143
Thank you anon.
I was wondering what everyone was talking about.
