You seem to be laboring under the notion that players leave the game based on poor PTQ prize structures, and that changing this structure will lessen the amount of players leaving the game. While both are undoubtedly true (if only because there is an extremely likely chance that one guy, somewhere, quit Magic based on this) it does not appear that this is a major, or even minor, reason why players leave Magic. I would contend that the number of players leaving Magic based on PTQ prizes is insignificant, compared to the number of players leaving and entering for other reasons. Therefore, the Risk/reward is extremely weighted against reform.
Regarding your response to Riki, yes, it will eventually work its way out to a better market, assuming the game survives the transition. Chances the game will survive the time in-between? Wizards of the Coast will not accept any answer other than 100%. Can you guarantee that number?
You are putting forward your opinions as an expert on economics, and as such your understanding of the topic is relevant. You've also asked me to say why Flores, myself, etc. have suggested we think you have no idea what you are talking about. This is one such example.
While the events don't directly compete (althoguh they do in some extent given the fact that people have limited wallets and time), that doesn't mean that the TOs aren't competing against each other for Wizards to award them PTQs. The TOs that over time provides the best service, prize support, value, etc would prove it by attendance, etc.
Have you switched arguments again without telling us? The relation between this and TOs being evil for taking so much money seems pretty tenuous.
How would you like Wizards to measure these factors to determine the best TOs? Do you think they aren't looking at these factors now in determining who to give tournaments to?
Isn't it possible that there is an economy of scale and the benefits of repetition (giving the same TO multiple tournaments) outweigh the potential competitive signaling Wizards gains from having multiple TO data points?
Players have a finite amount of resources and ability to travel. For example, you are a PTQer in Cinncinnatti, you may only be able to attend one of those events in Columbus, given your budget. In that regard, these events DO directly compete. They are, in that case, and similar cases, fungible, and the player has to choose one or the other.
And you think prize support for 20th place and cost of entry are the determining factor in which tournament a player chooses to attend? If you were to model the player decision making, what would it look like?
P can afford to travel to 1 of 2 PTQs in his area. P[Tx] = A * Ride + B * Work Schedule + C * Family Schedule + D * Prize Support + E *Cost
Competition isn't a binary: it's actually a matter of degree. For example, a PTQ in Columbus and a PTQ in Philadelphia are probably not in competition for most players, but they may be for a few. They may be mildly competing against each other.
Even so, events are different days can still be competing against each other for the limited amount of resources that players can put towards their PTQ budget, and which event they'll go to will definitely be affected by things like cost of entry, prize support, amenities, and the like.
Isn't this entire line of thinking a red herring? If player P is going to go to a PTQ, does Wizards really care which one? The only person that matters is the marginal PTQer. You are arguing about the wrong thing entirely. I was waiting for you to pick up on this yourself, but I guess that isn't going to happen.
I don't understand how you can't recognize that PTQ TOs are competing against eaach otehr for the support of PTQers (and their budget) in that system, even though events are on different days, and competing against each other for Wizards to continue to award them events, as opposed to other PTQ TOs in the region. For example, Wizards could set up a system where it awards the two Columbus PTQs to different TOs, and then the worst performing of the two loses one of the next PTQs, which goes to a third TO, and so on.
I don't have the necessary data to determine the level of indirect competition going on in the PTQ market. And I know for a fact that you do not either. The party with the most data? Wizards. And you know what Wizards wants to do? Keep people playing the game.
Wizards certainly could choose to set up that system. And they don't. Do you think they are stupid and lazy or could they possibly be making a smart choice?
This entire discussion began with you ranting about TOs being greedy and damaging the community for keeping too much money. You wanted them to give out more prizes.
Along the way, I do not think you have, at ANY TIME, conceded any portion of any one of your arguments.
However, thousands of words later, you are now discussing how Wizards should be working to increase competition among TOs and how TOs are acting logically by keeping prize support low.
I
4) The OP claims that it is "undeniable" that PTQ demand is elastic with regard to prize support. This is an assumption of the model, not a conclusion. With no data whatsoever, it's just an assumption.
In fact, Flores says the opposite is true on Twitter this evening. He said:
For one thing it is quite clear that increasing prize payout has a minimal effect on attendance. This is easily proved.
Yet, a simple counterfactual disproves it.
To show that demand is elastic, all that we have to do is show a very, very extreme example where a huge prize would result in greater attenance. Once you have that plot point on the graph, the curve slopes, making it an elastic curve.
To be more pragmatic, I think it's a fair assumption that if the prize payout to top 8 were $50,000 we would see an increase in attendance quite substantial. In fact, I think if the Top 8 each got $1,000, we would also see a substantial increase in attendance.
1) Modelling an MtG:PTQ as a single monopolized good/service like that is based on the assumption that it cannot be substituted. Otherwise we would be modelling it as "Crap related to hobby gaming I could do with my weekend." I could be playing Warhammer, I could go to FNM instead, I could play YuGiOh, whatever. Any model of a PTQ as some kind of monopoly is based entirely on there being no substitute good for the blue envelope. If you talk about altering it in ways other than the supply of blue envelopes, I don't think the monopoly model is valid anymore. If you're offering me something other than a better shot at a blue envelope for my time, you're now entering into competition with everything else I could do with my time.
This nails it on the head. If I was playing in PTQs, the LAST thing I would want is for TOs to turn the tournaments into free for alls for other prizes. I don't want to be playing against some guy who is only there to win $1,000 for making top8.
There are other tournaments for those people to go play in. Conflating arguments between the two scenarios is not helpful.
In fact, Flores says the opposite is true on Twitter this evening. He said:
Yet, a simple counterfactual disproves it.
To show that demand is elastic, all that we have to do is show a very, very extreme example where a huge prize would result in greater attenance. Once you have that plot point on the graph, the curve slopes, making it an elastic curve.
To be more pragmatic, I think it's a fair assumption that if the prize payout to top 8 were $50,000 we would see an increase in attendance quite substantial. In fact, I think if the Top 8 each got $1,000, we would also see a substantial increase in attendance.
Absurdum ad infinitum. I just made that up, but that should be what we start calling arguments that take arguments to their illogical extremes to disprove them.
Flores is obviously talking about marginal changes in tournament prize support. PTQs are about blue envelopes. That is the prize. Within the context of having the PTQ still be about the envelope, increases in prize support DONT have any material impact.
Similarly, if you were to award a lifetime Pro Tour invite to anyone who finished at the final table of the WSOP main event, I don't think you'd see a surge in entries to that event.
Merged. Again. Really, use the Edit function in the future.
-Memnarch
This entire discussion began with you ranting about TOs being greedy and damaging the community for keeping too much money.
You wanted them to give out more prizes.
Along the way, I do not think you have, at ANY TIME, conceded any portion of any one of your arguments.
However, thousands of words later, you are now discussing how Wizards should be working to increase competition among TOs and how TOs are acting logically by keeping prize support low.
You've taken quite the intellectual road trip.
On the contrary, read my original post on this topic in response to Glenn:
Sure, your point might be true from the perspective of a potential host: if I increase prize payouts, will I make more money? The answer, in the short run, may very well be ‘no.’ But that completely ignores the fact that that doesn’t mean they are doing what’s best for the game.
Simple economic theory shows that monopolies can engage in greater profiteering at the expense of consumers. That’s exactly what’s going on here. Wizards divvies up PTQs to regional TOs, who then gouge players and make exorbitant profits. Economic theory also shows that competition is better for consumers.
Also, you are ignoring a big, big issue. While it may be true that in the short run increasing prizes won’t result in an increase in players, I have no doubt that in the long run it would. That’s true for a very simple reason: people quit competing in PTQs when the costs outweigh the benefits. At some point, people with limited time and increasing responsibilities find the PTQ experience less attractive because of the dismal payouts. Going 8-0, making top 8, and walking away with half a box is not acceptable.
Increase the prize support, make it more in line with what’s fair and what other companies like SCG do, and you will increase the player base in the long run.
Wizards needs to stop letting these regional monopolies gouge players.
The only reason TOs can gouge players is because of the lack of real competition thanks to the Wizards system, and because, as Sam describes, PTQ players will do anything to get an invite.
But, this system is hurting magic, and people just don't realize it yet, because we haven't hit a real crisis yet. Magic could be twice as big as it is now. But when and if Magic sees a real downturn, then the flawed system will become apparent.
The problem is that you glossed over my orignial posts, were amused by Sperling original response, assumed that you understood my original arguments (which, frankly, your posts have demonstrated you did not -- as you thought my arguments were non-economic in nature, and merely moral).
Had you more carefully read my original post in the first place instead of trying to just troll me, you would have seen that I've been saying the same thing all along.
On the contrary, read my original post on this topic in response to Glenn:
The problem is that you glossed over my orignial posts, were amused by Sperling original response, assumed that you understood my original arguments (which, frankly, your posts have demonstrated you did not -- as you thought my arguments were non-economic in nature, and merely moral).
Had you more carefully read my original post in the first place instead of trying to just troll me, you would have seen that I've been saying the same thing all along.
Sorry that I missed those 2 lines in the 30,000 words you've thrown at this topic. Can everything you've written be summarized as "Monopolies are bad" or is that an over simplification?
Absurdum ad infinitum. I just made that up, but that should be what we start calling arguments that take arguments to their illogical extremes to disprove them.
Flores is obviously talking about marginal changes in tournament prize support.
Then he shouldn't make such broad generalizations.
Moreover, the issue is, frankly, a binary one: the claim is that the demand curve is perfectly inelastic, or nearly so. It's not, and simple hypotheticals can show this to be true.
PTQs are about blue envelopes. That is the prize. Within the context of having the PTQ still be about the envelope, increases in prize support DONT have any material impact.
Again, provably false. If that were true, PTQ TOs would not award other prizes. Yet they do, and they aren't stupid. You are being too reductionist. Of the hundreds of players that attend a PTQ, they go for many different reasons. And, in fact, individual players also go for multiple (not just one) reason. While many might be there primarily for the invite, the decision is a matrix decision, and the other factors might actually, in the end, make it worth it. Factors such as spending time with friends, other prizes, and enjoyability of hte partiuclar format all play a role. Stop trying to reduce, falsely (provably so), PTQ attendance to a single factor. It's just untrue. In fact, the presence, again, of a single player who doesn't go primarily for the invite makes my point true, and we've already seen people in this thread who've described themselves in that way.
Sorry that I missed those 2 lines in the 30,000 words you've thrown at this topic. Can everything you've written be summarized as "Monopolies are bad" or is that an over simplification?
It was more than just those two lines. It was all of hte paragraphs I quoted, and the entire thrust of my reasoning both in my initial post and my response to Sperling.
yet, you clearly (as you've just tacitly admited) had no actual idea what I was talking about because you didn't actually read my posts, but just decided to troll them. What's most amazing is that you stated that I was clearly wrong and ignorant when you didn't even understand my arguments or bother to understand them. After many, many words, it finally comes out. I was consistent all along, when you, my friend, have actually come around to understand an argument you never actually understood when first presented.
And yes, that is an oversimplification. I wanted to do more than say 'monopolies are bad.' I wanted to show the exact harm they caused here, and how that harm was structural, not simply the result of 'greedy' TOs.
If you had read my original posts, you would have realized that I wasn't actually criticizing the TOs for being 'greedy,' but the system. In fact, I *specifically and repeatedly* stated that I did not blame individual TOs for engaging in profit maximizing behavior.
Had you read my posts instead of just trolling me, you would have understood this, and you would have understood that your characterization of my posts (see page 2 of this thread) as me simply saying that TOs are greedy was just wrong. Their exploitative behavior was the result of a system that incentivizes it, not because they are 'bad.' And I've been saying that all along.
What happen to the original discussion about helping PTQ grinders? That had my attention. Prolly cause I have been to 6 PTQs since I started playing (best finish was 5-3 36 out of 167 I know what a scrub anyways) in March of this year. I would actually be in favor of lowering prize support if say enough points or top 8 finishes for a location also got you a ticket. My only complaint about TO's would be gamestores that host PTQs, paying $4 for a single pyroclasm is highway robbery lol.
Gas Costs=$30
Hotel=$40
Entry Fee=$25
Hearing the only female in our magic PTQing group tell us she rapped face Round1=Priceless!!!!!!
= I don't think the goal should be to maximize prizes or even to maximize attendance as I don't think these are suitable proxies for ensuring the on going success of competitive magic.
This is distortion of my goal. I never said maximizing attendance was a necessary condition to the sucess of Magic as a game. Again, you completely misread what I wrote.
My goal is the growth of Magic as a game. Growth and ongoing success are not the same thing. Magic can continue to succeed without achieving its growth potential. You've distorted one position for the other.
Unfortunately, PTQs are an important part of this goal, since they are the primary system of organized play open to all players year round. Until Wizards starts doing series like SCG, that's the reality.
I believe that maximizing attendance by focusing more on retention of players, rather than treating them as disposable, would generate maximum growth for the game over the long run, resulting in larger GPs, ancillary tournaments, more demand for other tournaments, more card sales, etc.
Since the PTQ system does not try to maximize attendance, I believe Magic is being hurt in the long run. Again, it's a simple stock and flows issue. Currently, we have a bathtub model where we simply drain out players and replace them. If we increased the retention rate by making PTQs more attractive, we would increase the player base, and maximize Magic's growth potential.
As I said in the orginal post:
. By not maximizing tournament attendance, we are actually hurting retention into the game. Competition would not only mean price competition, but also service competition, and allow the market to do its magic. Over time, new player replace old ones. But what if those old ones didn’t go away, at least not at current rates? Simple stock and flows shows you that you’d increase the number of players playing. It’s like filling up a bathtub, but slowing the drainage rate. You increase the water level in the tub. This would produce many positive feedback loops. You increase the number of players, increase the demand for other tournaments, increase card sales, etc, etc. Everyone wins, except for, perhaps PTQ TOs, who actually maximize profits, since they aren’t interested in maximizing attendance.
This is distortion of my goal. I never said maximizing attendance was a necessary condition to the sucess of Magic as a game. Again, you completely misread what I wrote.
My goal is the growth of Magic as a game. Growth and ongoing success are not the same thing. Magic can continue to succeed without achieving its growth potential. You've distorted one position for the other.
Quote from Smmenen »
My ultimate goal for a new system is to create competition between PTQ TOs.
Or your writing is not logically consistent and coherent.
Quote from Smmenen »
My goal is the growth of Magic as a game.
Quote from Smmenen »
Unfortunately, PTQs are an important part of this goal, since they are the primary system of organized play open to all players year round. Until Wizards starts doing series like SCG, that's the reality.
So Wizards is the only source of tournaments that can serve to grow the game? They cannot allow other individuals who are profiting from the game to help fill the gap (ie SCG)?
Quote from smmenen »
I believe that maximizing attendance by focusing more on retention of players, rather than treating them as disposable, would generate maximum growth for the game over the long run, resulting in larger GPs, ancillary tournaments, more demand for other tournaments, more card sales, etc.
So flooding PTQs with players who don't actually want to qualify is going to help retain the grinders who are trying to hard to get there?
Quote from smmenen »
I never said maximizing attendance was a necessary condition
Quote from smmenen »
Since the PTQ system does not try to maximize attendance, I believe Magic is being hurt in the long run.
Yeah, it is crazy that I've ever struggled to pin you down to a position. These quotes are within the same post...
Quote from smmenen »
If we increased the retention rate by making PTQs more attractive, we would increase the player base, and maximize Magic's growth potential.
PTQs aren't supposed to be an end destination. They are transitionary tournaments designed for one purpose - to let players try to make the leap to pro level play. 1,000 person PTQs with 100 people who actually want to go to the pro tour don't help anyone.
-------------------------------
Apparently I have to edit my existing posts to respond to multiple of your posts at once. This seems ridiculous but so it goes.
Quote from "smennen" »
If you had read my original posts, you would have realized that I wasn't actually criticizing the TOs for being 'greedy,' but the system. In fact, I *specifically and repeatedly* stated that I did not blame individual TOs for engaging in profit maximizing behavior.
Had you read my posts instead of just trolling me, you would have understood this, and you would have understood that your characterization of my posts (see page 2 of this thread) as me simply saying that TOs are greedy was just wrong. Their exploitative behavior was the result of a system that incentivizes it, not because they are 'bad.' And I've been saying that all along.
And where did your epic accounting investigation of TO finances fit into this logical argument? Why is that relevant to your claimed sole and unwavering focus on attacking the system?
You seem to be laboring under the notion that players leave the game based on poor PTQ prize structures, and that changing this structure will lessen the amount of players leaving the game. While both are undoubtedly true (if only because there is an extremely likely chance that one guy, somewhere, quit Magic based on this) it does not appear that this is a major, or even minor, reason why players leave Magic. I would contend that the number of players leaving Magic based on PTQ prizes is insignificant, compared to the number of players leaving and entering for other reasons. Therefore, the Risk/reward is extremely weighted against reform.
I disagree, but this leads to an even more contentious, less certain area of debate that isn't quite related to the main topic, but more directly related to an article I wrote on SCG about long-term retention of Magic players here
While even more contentious and only tangentially related, it gets to a very different vision/understanding I have of Magic's possible future. Again, recall that in that article I spent alot of time talking about Wizards demographc profile. I believe that their business model or at least many business practices have been built upon that model. The consequenes are profound and widespread, such that they are even difficult to trace, or, more importantly, to imagine the alternative.
I primarily play vintage, and from that vantage point, I've had the opportunity to watch people come and go from this game. What I say in that article is, I believe, directly responsive to your point:
These factors, individually and in concert, cause burnout, and are a major reason why players cycle in and out of Magic. At some point, the player says: this is no longer fun, or it’s just not worth it. More likely, it’s a combination of both.
The motivation to participate in PTQs, either at a high level or just periodically, wanes if the tournament isn’t fun. If the prize support is poor, even players who performed well will come to feel that it’s just not worth it. If the tournament site is unpleasant and inconvenient, lacking in nearby amenities such as food, water, and clean restrooms, then the experience becomes less enjoyable and the trip seems more like a hassle. If there aren’t supports such as worthwhile side events or other fun extras, then the costs of performing badly in the main event are greater, a disincentive to participate. These extras also help create a positive, memorable experience. If the experience is less memorable, then players are less likely to repeat it.
Not enough PTQ TOs strive to create a positive, enjoyable experience that most players seek, and that makes a repeat experience likely, even for players that didn’t perform up to their expectations. These TOs often don’t appropriately coordinate food and lodging. They treat PTQ players as disposable. Over time, these factors will generate the feeling that the tournament organizer doesn’t care about them. And if players feel disrespected, they are less likely to repeat the experience.
And then later on:
The key to maximizing Magic’s potential is to figure out how to keep people playing Magic longer, and how to re-engage players who quit. It’s retainment and re-entry. If my analysis of how PTQs cause burnout is accurate, then there are two immediate challenges for the future of Magic that should address both.
One is to renovate the qualifier tournament experience, to engender greater long-term participation. It’s not at all surprising to me that Regionals (now called Nationals Qualifier) can have an abysmal turnout, when GPs and SCG $5Ks are thriving. Like Peter Jahn said recently, the Prize Supports at States were just better. In fact, I can’t even find Nationals Qualifier prize payouts information for the Ohio Valley Nationals Qualifier.
There is no reason we couldn’t hit 5000 player GPs within a decade, if Magic markets itself well. If Wizards demands a reformulation of the PTQ experience. If Wizards demands and imposes more attractive prize payouts for tournaments the size of PTQs. If it implements standards for TOs beyond whether TOs are following the rules and are being fair, but whether they are creating an experience that will bring back players, or whether they are treating players as disposable. If Wizards punishes TOs that rip-off players for a big payday but don’t grow their player base, and rewards TOs that do those things right.
*snip*
Let’s assume that 60- 80% of all Magic players quit Magic at some point, which is a reasonable assumption. If you renovate the PTQ experience and if you support players who don’t PTQ, but aren’t casual, then you can dramatically reduce that number.
And even when people quit for other reasons, relating to major life changes, such as getting married, having kids, or graduating from college, many of those players, if not most, will once again encounter Magic at some point, and have an opportunity to re-enter the game. The question is simple: will they? If they have a PTQ experience like the one they had that drove them from the game, I would submit to you that the answer is: "no." But if they have a GP or SCG Open experience, I would submit to you that the answer is probably: "yes."
I’ve tried to tell this to the Vintage community for years, but it’s a simple stocks and flows issue. There are only three ways to grow the player base and increase tournament attendance:
1) Recruit New Players
2) Retain Existing Players
3) Re-Engage Players who Quit
If you increase the number of new players, you can increase the player base. If you slow down the number of players leaving Magic, you can increase the player base. Or, if you someone attract players that quit the game to become active players again, you grow the player base. There is no reason that all three shouldn’t be given maximum effort.
Magic for too long has seemed hellbent on recruitment, and ignored (2) and (3), assuming that players are replaceable. That’s an awful way to run a business. Only pyramid schemes and Halloween stores operate that way.
Which do you think is harder to do? If done right, you should have a much easier time retaining existing players or re-attracting players who quit. Yet, we place far too much emphasis on recruiting new players when we should be trying to keep players in the game from quitting, or, barring that, making sure that at that moment of possible re-entry, players have a positive, enjoyable experience, win, lose, or draw. Only then will Magic truly reach its full potential, and the player base will grow far beyond what is even imaginable today.
Magic is a game with a long future, yet too many of the folks involved in the game think short-term. It’s time to change that. The demographic profile, with its assumption about player turnover, may actually be inadvertently driving player turnover. The casual versus competitive player binary has created a market gap that is only partially being satisfied, but remains misunderstood even by the people who make Magic.
The Magic player is getting older, and the day won’t be far off when the average Magic player is 30. That won’t mean the end of the Magic. On the contrary, it should mark its outward expansion. But it will mean a different understanding of how to market Magic and how to serve Magic players, resulting in a more positive experience for everyone.
In that article, I also shared surveys on the age of hte Magic player.
But the main points are:
1) yes people quit, but the decision is usually expressed in over simplfied terms like: I had kids. That alone doesn't mean that people would quit, but that, combined with (I contend) the other factors I listed in the article does.
2) And, even though people quit, most people have an opportunity to reenter the game. The PTQ experience does not engender this reentry for all of the myriad reasons I've stated here and in that article.
Unfortunately, PTQs are an important part of this goal, since they are the primary system of organized play open to all players year round. Until Wizards starts doing series like SCG, that's the reality.
The underlined part is simply untrue, FNMs are designed to have the largest availability and acessability, and thus are the primary system of MTG organized play.
PTQs aren't supposed to be an end destination. They are transitionary tournaments designed for one purpose - to let players try to make the leap to pro level play. 1,000 person PTQs with 100 people who actually want to go to the pro tour don't help anyone.
Oh how wrong you are! And how wrong you've been!
That's nonsense, and Wizards knows it!
The PT exists to serve PTQs, not vice versa. More specificaly, the PT exists to sell cards, and one of the key ways to generate card sales is PTQs. It also gives magic more visibility, which also sells cards, but it, again, does this primarily by drawing more people into ptqs, which generates more card sales.
Sam Stoddard last week wrote:
The Pro Tour is about winning money, but PTQs are really about competition for competition's sake. Yes, there's a trip on the line. Yes, if you make it to the Pro Tour you can make money. But the expected value on your time and effort just isn't there. You'd do better with a minimum-wage job than grinding PTQs.
Sam is exactly right.
You've got it backwards because of your experience. If you thought about it from Wizards perspective, you'd see that you are wrong. Only a tiny fraction of the players who play on PTQs can actually make it to the PT Level. Most people who want to compete at the highest level will have to do it at the GP/PTQ level, and the PTQ is the most accessible and widely played form of this for most people. Sure, people *hope* to win and get to the PT, but the PT exists to promote PTQs, which generates card sales.
Originally Posted by Smmenen My ultimate goal for a new system is to create competition between PTQ TOs.
[/quote]
Or your writing is not logically consistent and coherent.
[/quote]
Did you forget that I was filling out YOUR form when I said that? Yes, the ultimate goal is the growth of magic, and competition between PTQ TOs is the primary end towards the goal. But my ultimate goal in terms of CHANGING the System (i.e. filling out your form) was to create competition between PTQ Tos.
So Wizards is the only source of tournaments that can serve to grow the game? They cannot allow other individuals who are profiting from the game to help fill the gap (ie SCG)?
No, they aren't the ultimate source. But they are the major driver, and until the SCG Series, we'd never had anything even remotely comparable to what Wizards sponsors.
In any case, this is a departure from the main point which is that PTQs are central to the ways in which many tournament going players experience Magic, and the current structure is not maximmizing Magic's growth potential.
So flooding PTQs with players who don't actually want to qualify is going to help retain the grinders who are trying to hard to get there?
No, but that's not my goal. I want the PTQ to be a broader experience, since it's centrality to magic is so important. People go to GPs both to qualify, to win points, and to make money. Why shouldn't winning money or good prizes be important/relevant, although not primary, to the PTQ experience? Because it's then harder for PTQ grinders to qualify? It's far more important in the long run for more people to be playing magic.
Yeah, it is crazy that I've ever struggled to pin you down to a position. These quotes are within the same post...
I never said maximizing attendance was a necessary condition
Quote:
Originally Posted by smmenen Since the PTQ system does not try to maximize attendance, I believe Magic is being hurt in the long run.
Those quotes are not mutually inconsistent. As I said, and you would understand had you actually *read* my SCG posts, that the failure to maximize attendance is hurting Magic's growth potential in the long run. magic could be twice as big as it is now, in theory. That's a harm we are experiencing.
That doesn't mean that maximizing growth is a *necessary condition* to the success of the game. If the game continued as it is for the next few years, I doubt many people would complain. It's as large as its ever been. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be doing better.
I want to see 5000 player GPs in 5 years. We went from 500 to 2000 player GPs in less than a decade. We should be able to double that number again in ten years if we maximize growth potential.
I never said taht Magic would die if we didn't imlpement these reforms. As I said on the second post of the SCG forums:
Magic could be twice as big as it is now.
And on page 3:
I care quite a bit about Magic. I want to see it succeed and grow. I've been playing Magic a long while, and I have a long perspective. I hope magic is here for years to come. I take the long view of the game.
Magic is doing phenomenally well right now. And that's great. But that's also a curse. Succeed breeds complacency ...
While Magic is currently very successful, there are two important points to keep in mind. 1) There is always room to do better, and 2) There are alot of problems within the system that could be addressed to make Magic more successful.
Again, had you read my posts instead of just trolling me, you'd see that this is what I've been saying all along.
@ Parnioid: Conceded. I meant at that high level of competition.
First off, a troll is not someone who disagrees with you, or makes fun of you and/or your arguments. This is the definition of troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Sound like anyone we know? Maybe someone who took a forum about how to improve PTQs through communiy building and made it about how TOs are screwing over players? Hmm?
I have a few major problems with your arguments.
1) You provide us some very rudamentary numbers and at best guestimate. As someone earlier pointed out $30 is the price for a limited PTQ, so we have to add quite a bit of cost for that product. If we instead take $25 for a constructed PTQ and say 25 * 200 = 5000, take out $1275 for prizes and $1000 for the hall, you are already down to $2725 profit. The staff takes money, overhead, etc. While your estimiates could be fairly accurate in terms of what it would cost for YOU to run a PTQ, it does not mean they are accurate for what it would cost to run a TO business.
If you want to prove that TOs are raking in big bucks, then you need to provide some actual data from TOs, or run a PTQ level event yourself and tell me what it costs. As with any business, there are a lot of hidden costs that eat up profit. Until you have REAL DATA on how much a TO makes, you can't say that as a group they are exploiting players.
If you have some particular TOs that you have proof are raking in huge profits and treating players poorly, use real examples. Don't expect us to take your whole argument that we are being exploited simply on your authority as a cume sum laude degree holder in an economics field. Running out the "Look at my degree!" response is bush league, and I would've hoped beneth you. Apparently not.
2) What is the amount of prizes that will make you happy, exactly? Doubling the prizes? Tripling them? You haven't seemed to make any claims as to what an actual solution is. You provide no actual solutions on how to get other TOs up to the level to run PTQs and create the competition. You just say "let the free market decide." WotC uses PTQs to promote the game, and the tournament experiance is far more important than the number of packs that are given out. You can walk away with nothing and have a much better experiance than someone who walked away with two boxes at an event run by a TO who consistantly ran over time, whose judge staff is incompetant, and who treated the players like chattle.
If I understand your original argument, it is that the PTQ system is being held back by monopolistic practices that reward TOs for making money, and not for serving their customers. Is there a reason you needed to state this in 3,000 words instead of 30? Did you need to appeal to player's emotions by claiming they were being exploited? If your goal is to persuade a group of forum posters that the are being taken avantage of, you may consider taking the tactic of simply stating your case and providing evidence instead of writing a few thousand words in the form of an opening argument in court.
1) You provide us some very rudamentary numbers and at best guestimate.
As I already stated:
One of the criticisms that was leveled against me is that these are all just guesses. Yes, some of these factors are guesses, but they are educated guesses. They are reasonable guesses. They are estimates based upon research, experience, and common sense. I couldn’t tell you the exact cost of hamburger, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t give you a ballpark of the cost inputs. To ignore these facts simply because they may not be true in every case or be *exact* figures is simply an attempt to dismiss the arguments here out of hand, rather than to consider their actual merit. Below, I put actual numerical estimates to each of these variables.
If you want to prove that TOs are raking in big bucks, then you need to provide some actual data from TOs, or run a PTQ level event yourself and tell me what it costs. As with any business, there are a lot of hidden costs that eat up profit. Until you have REAL DATA on how much a TO makes, you can't say that as a group they are exploiting players.
Again, that's why at east cost measure, I overestimated the costs and even added in additioanl $1000 per PTQ of overhead cost!
If you have some particular TOs that you have proof are raking in huge profits and treating players poorly, use real examples. Don't expect us to take your whole argument that we are being exploited simply on your authority as a cume sum laude degree holder in an economics field. Running out the "Look at my degree!" response is bush league, and I would've hoped beneth you. Apparently not.
You actually completely misrepresented, like Tom did, why I even mentioned I had a degree in economics. Tom stated that I had absolutely no understanding of basic economic princples. I pointed out that I had a degree in economics, and asked him if he did. You all have -- emotionally -- interpreted what was a quite literal statement as being an attempt to 'call him out.'
moreover, I've already explained, ad nauseam, why players are being exploited: monopoly pricing. Go read the first post if you still don't get that.
2) What is the amount of prizes that will make you happy, exactly? Doubling the prizes? Tripling them? You haven't seemed to make any claims as to what an actual solution is.
Because you haven't been reading carefully. As I said several times already:
an answer to a question like this [the one you just asked] is determined by the market, and by competition. In any other environment, we would compare the price or value of a service by looking at what a competitor is offering. Unfortunately, that’s not how PTQ’s work. Wizards awards regional monopolies to certain TOs, barring very substandard service.
And:
In the absence of a competitive market and in the presence of monopoly power, I would argue that our current system is presumptively unfair, and the burden of proof would be on those to establish otherwise.
Also, this was the same question Tom posed on page 3, and I already answered it there:
The model is to create competition and let the market sort out the answers. Let the market -- through competition -- determine what the proper pricing, prize support, etc is.
There were otehr answers, but I'll let you find them, since I'm repeating myself.
If I understand your original argument, it is that the PTQ system is being held back by monopolistic practices that reward TOs for making money, and not for serving their customers. Is there a reason you needed to state this in 3,000 words instead of 30? Did you need to appeal to player's emotions by claiming they were being exploited? If your goal is to persuade a group of forum posters that the are being taken avantage of, you may consider taking the tactic of simply stating your case and providing evidence instead of writing a few thousand words in the form of an opening argument in court.
because that's a gross oversimplification. If I put it in 30 words instead of the full argument, I would be dealing with all of the arguments I addressed in the opening post, and all of the straw men.
Ok Steve, I just don't think you are getting it. You are the only person in the room that has your point of a view, and all of the other posts that have been made by a large group of people have been against you. Haven't got the hint yet?
You think that the game of magic rides on PTQs and PTs? Your statement of PTs being the driving force behind singles sales is laughable to the point that it is just absurd.
Casual magic is the driving force of the game, hence FNM is far more important than any PTQ or PT. If the pro circuit was gotten rid of, this game would still exist in people's rooms and kitchens because that is who it is made for. Why else would a card like Sliver Queen or Doubling Season have more value some a tournament playable like a Fetchland?
So a TO makes $4k on a tournament. They also have other bills they have to pay for throughout the year that they might need that money for. Your suggestions of them lowering their profit for the "good of the game" would probably end most TOs businesses.
Why is it ok for say, you to make money running Meandeck Opens and some one like PES can't make money to keep them sustainable and profitable?
I play PTQs because those are PRO TOUR QUALIFIERS and I want that invite. I play in Starcity 5Ks to play for money. I play in FNMS to win packs.
EDIT: This is just getting embarrassing for you now too Steve.
I may not be that understanding of the economics that you are trying to push into our faces, but TOs, especially those who run LGSs, have to make a profit to make up for everything you mentioned plus to pay their bills and such. Monoplies exsist every where and to argue about it is fruitless. PTQs are enter level events into the Pro Tour world for those who don't have the Pro Points and don't have the time to grind through GPs to get the Points just to recieve an invite. You've already have the fine folks from Wizards and SCGs and some here not agreeing with you on your points, so you would do best to not continue this struggle. Basically you feel like you are being scammed and feel like you have to voice your opinion, which you have on a few occasion it would seem and that is fine, but it doesn't help to throw around fancy economic facts.
Main point being: People will still attend PTQs because of the invite and not the huge prizes. That's what they are for pure and simple.
Do you even play in PTQs Steve? The prize payout is the absolute last thing on most players' minds. They're there to win an invite or to have a fun, competitive day of Magic.
You say that the practice of assigning monopolistic regions to TOs allows them to exploit players, but you ignore the benefits that come from the PTO system. Players know who is going to be running the events in their area and they know what to expect from them. It is *drastically* more important to the health of Magic and the success of the PTQ system that players know that they can expect a clean, fair, well-organized event, and that is far better served by having a network of professional tournament organizers who make a business out of running events than it is by letting anyone bid for a PTQ slot for some economic ideal of competition.
If a new player comes to an event, which is more likely to make him stay away from PTQs (or organized play in general) in the future - the top finishing players in the tournament receiving some marginal percentage less of the entry fees in product, or coming to an event run by a novice organizer that starts late, runs late, and has a poor and inexperienced judging staff?
The PTO system exists to ensure that there is quality and consistency in the program. I'm happy to pay a premium to play in well run events, if that's what it takes.
I don't know the details of the current PTO system, but wouldn't the TOs that Wizards chooses for this likely be the ones that stand out in their region?
Is there someplace where a TO really wants to run PTQs but has been turned away?
You actually completely misrepresented, like Tom did, why I even mentioned I had a degree in economics. Tom stated that I had absolutely no understanding of basic economic princples. I pointed out that I had a degree in economics, and asked him if he did. You all have -- emotionally -- interpreted what was a quite literal statement as being an attempt to 'call him out.'
I'm sorry that I mistook "you?" as a method of trying to invalidate his whole argument instead of you providing your credentials. This isn't an ad hominem to your whole argumnet, just pointing out that it was real classy.
moreover, I've already explained, ad nauseam, why players are being exploited: monopoly pricing. Go read the first post if you still don't get that.
I get that you've tried to explain that, I just say that you haven't proven it because you don't have hard data. If you found out that a TO makes $5/head on a 200 person PTQ, would that prove your argument incorrect? You can say that there is monopoly pricing but you can't prove that players are being expolited until you know exactly how much the TO is making.
because that's a gross oversimplification. If I put it in 30 words instead of the full argument, I would be dealing with all of the arguments I addressed in the opening post, and all of the straw men.
[/quote]
The issue is that you had an argument that you've tried to prove through telling people they are being exploited, and how competition would help them out, without providing any real data. A monopoloy (or at least a virtual monopoly) doesn't mean they are being exploited, just that they MIGHT be. If you want to make this argument, you need to PROVE where TOs are raking in big bucks and exploiting players. Simple supposition isn't going to prove it to anyone. If you can't get this data off hand, then get it from someone. I'm sure some TO would be willing to give you an idea.
I don't think that every TO is wonderful. I know that there are TOs that take advantage of the fact that they are the only game in town. In many of those instances, I'm sure nobody else wants the job. "Breaking the monopoly" isn't a solution there - incentizing people to run tourneys is. If you want to claim explotation, you need to actually prove that it is there, not just that the potentional is there.
If you wanted to make your whole point in a more productive manner, you should have come out and said "PTQs are a virtual monopoly by TOs in a region. TOs do not need to provide a good service or fair support because they have no realistic competition. If we are going to have the PTQ scene expand, then we need to create an open market where regions are given PTQs and multiple TOs can bid on it. The ones who are able to best serve their customers will eventually suceed."
The issue with that argument is that it isn't necssiarily true, at least not for the short run. If we had two PTQs in Columbus, one run by PES and one run by Bob And Jim's Magic Tournaments every season, we could see one good PES one and one bad Bob and Jim. They could have very similar attenance, but Bob and Jim could give out 1/4 of the support an run it the minimum support staff possible at a horrible venue. The next season, Bob and Jim have made more money and outbid PES because their costs are so much lower. For there to be real competition, the TOs need to be having their events on the same date. Otherwise all you've done is lessened the quality of events in the region.
At the very least, WotC would have to closely monitor the competition and shut out TOs who do not provide the quality of events that they wish the Pro Tour brand to be represented by. Simply looking at the numbers doesn't do anything - what if one week there were no PTQs within 5 hours so more players showed up. What if one week there was a large sporting event in town that kept players away? What if people just got tired with the format? Simple numbers don't tell you that.
Finally, the fact that the overwhelming majority of players disagree with you should tell you something. Magic players are quick to jump on the "we want MORE" bandwagon, but here are all supporting the events the way they are. Wizards can't release a single product without a few dozen people claiming it is the end of the game as we know it. If players felt they were being exploited, they would be saying so. If players feel that the prize support they are getting is sufficent and the tournaments are being run well, then maybe shaking up the system isn't the best idea.
I don't know the details of the current PTO system, but wouldn't the TOs that Wizards chooses for this likely be the ones that stand out in their region?
Is there someplace where a TO really wants to run PTQs but has been turned away?
I know of two TOs that have lost their ability to run PTQs.
NewWaveGames (I believe was the name) was using their status as a TO to buy the maximum number of boxes for prize support and giving out a laughable amount of older sets to the top8 finishers. They would then sell the new set at a markup.
SimplyMagic out of Indiana had numerous complaints from players about an untrained and unprepared staff, and favoritism. Pastimes out of Illinois now runs events there.
There are also a few in Ohio that used to compete with PES, but I don't know if they lost the ability, or weren't making enough money to keep doing it.
$70 per box, 36 packs per box, ~$12 per sealed pool, multiple by 200 and that's $2400. Assuming the TO makes $2700 in profit as you say, then subtract that cost and it's now $300.
You also are only targeting some PTO's. There have been premier tournaments organized that I have been to where other prizes are awarded as cash, larger product payouts, or deals like "first 32 amateurs to drop may enter a free draft" sort of deals(or whatever yourmovegames usually does) which if you're playing a sealed PTQ might be a nice incentive if you end up with a weak pool and go 0-2 drop so that your whole day isn't over except for trading and hanging out.
Also PTQ prices seem to be pretty universal, at least in US. If you go to an SCG or YMG PTQ, you're going to pay the same price to enter. Actually, i'm pretty sure there's a wizards policy that sets the price for PTQ's, how else do you explain that all PTQ's cost the same price? No one magically dreamed that $25-30 for the event was a good idea and suddenly every organizer in the country followed suit. In other markets for goods and services prices won't always be exact from one place to another like most TCG events are.
Wizards might also do what other companies have done and have a contract where they pay for the hall, prizing, and product and such things needed with an agreement that you pay back the costs following the PTQ. After all that wizards might take a cut, which may either cover their airfare expenses for US PTQ winners or other OP costs. I can't say specifics as i don't have any expertise in their business strategies, but it's a possibility to maintain control over PTQ's.
It may seem like it when you try to number crunch like you do in this article, but given the nature of these events, variables such as attendance, and most likely costs you are unaware of, i don't think the organizers are laughing all the way to the bank. Hosting these events wouldn't have a large profit margin, and are often times done for the sake of the game rather than any stable business plan.
Giving TOs all the PTQs in different seasons would be pointless. There are wide seasonal fluctuations based on the format. Heck. There are fluctuations within the season based on how the format turns out. Attendance in Extended events fell as the season went on, and the abysmal numbers and the vocal discontent over the state of the format probably led to the format revamp. Comparing the performance of TOs in terms of attendance across two seasons would not yield the most accurate results.
- I'm not from USA, in fact, English is not my native, I'm sorry about my future grammar errors
- This is my point of view, and I think it is similar to Steven's one:
a- Constructed PTQs cost around $25
b- Flight and judges compensation are subsidized by Wizards
c- TO has to pay for hall, minor tools (couple of days of PC use, paper, ink), some marketing, booster prizes (those were at least partially subsidizeds by Wizards too, I don't know in present days), opportunity costs, and maybe something else I could be missing.
d- TO gets some more money from a dealer table. Either renting the space, or working it out.
If I (or Steven, or whomever) do an estimate, I get way more than $100/hour as TO income. I insist, way more.
In my opinion that's plain too much.
If it doesn't seem too much to you, think about any brick and mortar store, charging around $15 for a booster draft. Cost of this one: 3 boosters, and everything else I pointed for a PTQ (some prizes, judge, hall, opportunity costs, ink, paper, PC, etc), of course with the "dealer table" boosting it.
Opening the marketing (at least partially) into more TOs could lower that, and possibly lead into a better service.
Now I partially agree with (almost) everyone else:
- But I know the whole MtG thing is a monopoly, so I just have to live with it, sadly.
From speaking with a handful of TOs that run PTQs, they all seem to say some variation of; "If it weren't for booster drafts and side events, we would likely lose money from PTQs." Most TOs, I think, run PTQs because they love the game just as much as we do.
Glad to see your education, degrees, and titles haven't changed you since I last saw you, Steve.
You seem to be laboring under the notion that players leave the game based on poor PTQ prize structures, and that changing this structure will lessen the amount of players leaving the game. While both are undoubtedly true (if only because there is an extremely likely chance that one guy, somewhere, quit Magic based on this) it does not appear that this is a major, or even minor, reason why players leave Magic. I would contend that the number of players leaving Magic based on PTQ prizes is insignificant, compared to the number of players leaving and entering for other reasons. Therefore, the Risk/reward is extremely weighted against reform.
Regarding your response to Riki, yes, it will eventually work its way out to a better market, assuming the game survives the transition. Chances the game will survive the time in-between? Wizards of the Coast will not accept any answer other than 100%. Can you guarantee that number?
You should read them.
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen"
You are putting forward your opinions as an expert on economics, and as such your understanding of the topic is relevant. You've also asked me to say why Flores, myself, etc. have suggested we think you have no idea what you are talking about. This is one such example.
Have you switched arguments again without telling us? The relation between this and TOs being evil for taking so much money seems pretty tenuous.
How would you like Wizards to measure these factors to determine the best TOs? Do you think they aren't looking at these factors now in determining who to give tournaments to?
Isn't it possible that there is an economy of scale and the benefits of repetition (giving the same TO multiple tournaments) outweigh the potential competitive signaling Wizards gains from having multiple TO data points?
And you think prize support for 20th place and cost of entry are the determining factor in which tournament a player chooses to attend? If you were to model the player decision making, what would it look like?
P can afford to travel to 1 of 2 PTQs in his area. P[Tx] = A * Ride + B * Work Schedule + C * Family Schedule + D * Prize Support + E *Cost
Where:
Tx = Tournament X
and A+B+C+D+E=1
What do you think the relative ratios will be?
Isn't this entire line of thinking a red herring? If player P is going to go to a PTQ, does Wizards really care which one? The only person that matters is the marginal PTQer. You are arguing about the wrong thing entirely. I was waiting for you to pick up on this yourself, but I guess that isn't going to happen.
I don't have the necessary data to determine the level of indirect competition going on in the PTQ market. And I know for a fact that you do not either. The party with the most data? Wizards. And you know what Wizards wants to do? Keep people playing the game.
Wizards certainly could choose to set up that system. And they don't. Do you think they are stupid and lazy or could they possibly be making a smart choice?
This entire discussion began with you ranting about TOs being greedy and damaging the community for keeping too much money. You wanted them to give out more prizes.
Along the way, I do not think you have, at ANY TIME, conceded any portion of any one of your arguments.
However, thousands of words later, you are now discussing how Wizards should be working to increase competition among TOs and how TOs are acting logically by keeping prize support low.
You've taken quite the intellectual road trip.
In fact, Flores says the opposite is true on Twitter this evening. He said:
Yet, a simple counterfactual disproves it.
To show that demand is elastic, all that we have to do is show a very, very extreme example where a huge prize would result in greater attenance. Once you have that plot point on the graph, the curve slopes, making it an elastic curve.
To be more pragmatic, I think it's a fair assumption that if the prize payout to top 8 were $50,000 we would see an increase in attendance quite substantial. In fact, I think if the Top 8 each got $1,000, we would also see a substantial increase in attendance.
This nails it on the head. If I was playing in PTQs, the LAST thing I would want is for TOs to turn the tournaments into free for alls for other prizes. I don't want to be playing against some guy who is only there to win $1,000 for making top8.
There are other tournaments for those people to go play in. Conflating arguments between the two scenarios is not helpful.
Absurdum ad infinitum. I just made that up, but that should be what we start calling arguments that take arguments to their illogical extremes to disprove them.
Flores is obviously talking about marginal changes in tournament prize support. PTQs are about blue envelopes. That is the prize. Within the context of having the PTQ still be about the envelope, increases in prize support DONT have any material impact.
Similarly, if you were to award a lifetime Pro Tour invite to anyone who finished at the final table of the WSOP main event, I don't think you'd see a surge in entries to that event.
Merged. Again. Really, use the Edit function in the future.
-Memnarch
On the contrary, read my original post on this topic in response to Glenn:
The problem is that you glossed over my orignial posts, were amused by Sperling original response, assumed that you understood my original arguments (which, frankly, your posts have demonstrated you did not -- as you thought my arguments were non-economic in nature, and merely moral).
Had you more carefully read my original post in the first place instead of trying to just troll me, you would have seen that I've been saying the same thing all along.
Sorry that I missed those 2 lines in the 30,000 words you've thrown at this topic. Can everything you've written be summarized as "Monopolies are bad" or is that an over simplification?
Then he shouldn't make such broad generalizations.
Moreover, the issue is, frankly, a binary one: the claim is that the demand curve is perfectly inelastic, or nearly so. It's not, and simple hypotheticals can show this to be true.
Again, provably false. If that were true, PTQ TOs would not award other prizes. Yet they do, and they aren't stupid. You are being too reductionist. Of the hundreds of players that attend a PTQ, they go for many different reasons. And, in fact, individual players also go for multiple (not just one) reason. While many might be there primarily for the invite, the decision is a matrix decision, and the other factors might actually, in the end, make it worth it. Factors such as spending time with friends, other prizes, and enjoyability of hte partiuclar format all play a role. Stop trying to reduce, falsely (provably so), PTQ attendance to a single factor. It's just untrue. In fact, the presence, again, of a single player who doesn't go primarily for the invite makes my point true, and we've already seen people in this thread who've described themselves in that way.
It was more than just those two lines. It was all of hte paragraphs I quoted, and the entire thrust of my reasoning both in my initial post and my response to Sperling.
yet, you clearly (as you've just tacitly admited) had no actual idea what I was talking about because you didn't actually read my posts, but just decided to troll them. What's most amazing is that you stated that I was clearly wrong and ignorant when you didn't even understand my arguments or bother to understand them. After many, many words, it finally comes out. I was consistent all along, when you, my friend, have actually come around to understand an argument you never actually understood when first presented.
And yes, that is an oversimplification. I wanted to do more than say 'monopolies are bad.' I wanted to show the exact harm they caused here, and how that harm was structural, not simply the result of 'greedy' TOs.
If you had read my original posts, you would have realized that I wasn't actually criticizing the TOs for being 'greedy,' but the system. In fact, I *specifically and repeatedly* stated that I did not blame individual TOs for engaging in profit maximizing behavior.
Had you read my posts instead of just trolling me, you would have understood this, and you would have understood that your characterization of my posts (see page 2 of this thread) as me simply saying that TOs are greedy was just wrong. Their exploitative behavior was the result of a system that incentivizes it, not because they are 'bad.' And I've been saying that all along.
Gas Costs=$30
Hotel=$40
Entry Fee=$25
Hearing the only female in our magic PTQing group tell us she rapped face Round1=Priceless!!!!!!
I know disturbing but true Lmao!
This is distortion of my goal. I never said maximizing attendance was a necessary condition to the sucess of Magic as a game. Again, you completely misread what I wrote.
My goal is the growth of Magic as a game. Growth and ongoing success are not the same thing. Magic can continue to succeed without achieving its growth potential. You've distorted one position for the other.
Unfortunately, PTQs are an important part of this goal, since they are the primary system of organized play open to all players year round. Until Wizards starts doing series like SCG, that's the reality.
I believe that maximizing attendance by focusing more on retention of players, rather than treating them as disposable, would generate maximum growth for the game over the long run, resulting in larger GPs, ancillary tournaments, more demand for other tournaments, more card sales, etc.
Since the PTQ system does not try to maximize attendance, I believe Magic is being hurt in the long run. Again, it's a simple stock and flows issue. Currently, we have a bathtub model where we simply drain out players and replace them. If we increased the retention rate by making PTQs more attractive, we would increase the player base, and maximize Magic's growth potential.
As I said in the orginal post:
Or your writing is not logically consistent and coherent.
So Wizards is the only source of tournaments that can serve to grow the game? They cannot allow other individuals who are profiting from the game to help fill the gap (ie SCG)?
So flooding PTQs with players who don't actually want to qualify is going to help retain the grinders who are trying to hard to get there?
Yeah, it is crazy that I've ever struggled to pin you down to a position. These quotes are within the same post...
PTQs aren't supposed to be an end destination. They are transitionary tournaments designed for one purpose - to let players try to make the leap to pro level play. 1,000 person PTQs with 100 people who actually want to go to the pro tour don't help anyone.
-------------------------------
Apparently I have to edit my existing posts to respond to multiple of your posts at once. This seems ridiculous but so it goes.
And where did your epic accounting investigation of TO finances fit into this logical argument? Why is that relevant to your claimed sole and unwavering focus on attacking the system?
I disagree, but this leads to an even more contentious, less certain area of debate that isn't quite related to the main topic, but more directly related to an article I wrote on SCG about long-term retention of Magic players here
While even more contentious and only tangentially related, it gets to a very different vision/understanding I have of Magic's possible future. Again, recall that in that article I spent alot of time talking about Wizards demographc profile. I believe that their business model or at least many business practices have been built upon that model. The consequenes are profound and widespread, such that they are even difficult to trace, or, more importantly, to imagine the alternative.
I primarily play vintage, and from that vantage point, I've had the opportunity to watch people come and go from this game. What I say in that article is, I believe, directly responsive to your point:
And then later on:
In that article, I also shared surveys on the age of hte Magic player.
But the main points are:
1) yes people quit, but the decision is usually expressed in over simplfied terms like: I had kids. That alone doesn't mean that people would quit, but that, combined with (I contend) the other factors I listed in the article does.
2) And, even though people quit, most people have an opportunity to reenter the game. The PTQ experience does not engender this reentry for all of the myriad reasons I've stated here and in that article.
The underlined part is simply untrue, FNMs are designed to have the largest availability and acessability, and thus are the primary system of MTG organized play.
Oh how wrong you are! And how wrong you've been!
That's nonsense, and Wizards knows it!
The PT exists to serve PTQs, not vice versa. More specificaly, the PT exists to sell cards, and one of the key ways to generate card sales is PTQs. It also gives magic more visibility, which also sells cards, but it, again, does this primarily by drawing more people into ptqs, which generates more card sales.
Sam Stoddard last week wrote:
Sam is exactly right.
You've got it backwards because of your experience. If you thought about it from Wizards perspective, you'd see that you are wrong. Only a tiny fraction of the players who play on PTQs can actually make it to the PT Level. Most people who want to compete at the highest level will have to do it at the GP/PTQ level, and the PTQ is the most accessible and widely played form of this for most people. Sure, people *hope* to win and get to the PT, but the PT exists to promote PTQs, which generates card sales.
Originally Posted by Smmenen
My ultimate goal for a new system is to create competition between PTQ TOs.
[/quote]
Or your writing is not logically consistent and coherent.
[/quote]
Did you forget that I was filling out YOUR form when I said that? Yes, the ultimate goal is the growth of magic, and competition between PTQ TOs is the primary end towards the goal. But my ultimate goal in terms of CHANGING the System (i.e. filling out your form) was to create competition between PTQ Tos.
No, they aren't the ultimate source. But they are the major driver, and until the SCG Series, we'd never had anything even remotely comparable to what Wizards sponsors.
In any case, this is a departure from the main point which is that PTQs are central to the ways in which many tournament going players experience Magic, and the current structure is not maximmizing Magic's growth potential.
No, but that's not my goal. I want the PTQ to be a broader experience, since it's centrality to magic is so important. People go to GPs both to qualify, to win points, and to make money. Why shouldn't winning money or good prizes be important/relevant, although not primary, to the PTQ experience? Because it's then harder for PTQ grinders to qualify? It's far more important in the long run for more people to be playing magic.
Those quotes are not mutually inconsistent. As I said, and you would understand had you actually *read* my SCG posts, that the failure to maximize attendance is hurting Magic's growth potential in the long run. magic could be twice as big as it is now, in theory. That's a harm we are experiencing.
That doesn't mean that maximizing growth is a *necessary condition* to the success of the game. If the game continued as it is for the next few years, I doubt many people would complain. It's as large as its ever been. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be doing better.
I want to see 5000 player GPs in 5 years. We went from 500 to 2000 player GPs in less than a decade. We should be able to double that number again in ten years if we maximize growth potential.
I never said taht Magic would die if we didn't imlpement these reforms. As I said on the second post of the SCG forums:
And on page 3:
Again, had you read my posts instead of just trolling me, you'd see that this is what I've been saying all along.
@ Parnioid: Conceded. I meant at that high level of competition.
Sound like anyone we know? Maybe someone who took a forum about how to improve PTQs through communiy building and made it about how TOs are screwing over players? Hmm?
I have a few major problems with your arguments.
1) You provide us some very rudamentary numbers and at best guestimate. As someone earlier pointed out $30 is the price for a limited PTQ, so we have to add quite a bit of cost for that product. If we instead take $25 for a constructed PTQ and say 25 * 200 = 5000, take out $1275 for prizes and $1000 for the hall, you are already down to $2725 profit. The staff takes money, overhead, etc. While your estimiates could be fairly accurate in terms of what it would cost for YOU to run a PTQ, it does not mean they are accurate for what it would cost to run a TO business.
If you want to prove that TOs are raking in big bucks, then you need to provide some actual data from TOs, or run a PTQ level event yourself and tell me what it costs. As with any business, there are a lot of hidden costs that eat up profit. Until you have REAL DATA on how much a TO makes, you can't say that as a group they are exploiting players.
If you have some particular TOs that you have proof are raking in huge profits and treating players poorly, use real examples. Don't expect us to take your whole argument that we are being exploited simply on your authority as a cume sum laude degree holder in an economics field. Running out the "Look at my degree!" response is bush league, and I would've hoped beneth you. Apparently not.
2) What is the amount of prizes that will make you happy, exactly? Doubling the prizes? Tripling them? You haven't seemed to make any claims as to what an actual solution is. You provide no actual solutions on how to get other TOs up to the level to run PTQs and create the competition. You just say "let the free market decide." WotC uses PTQs to promote the game, and the tournament experiance is far more important than the number of packs that are given out. You can walk away with nothing and have a much better experiance than someone who walked away with two boxes at an event run by a TO who consistantly ran over time, whose judge staff is incompetant, and who treated the players like chattle.
If I understand your original argument, it is that the PTQ system is being held back by monopolistic practices that reward TOs for making money, and not for serving their customers. Is there a reason you needed to state this in 3,000 words instead of 30? Did you need to appeal to player's emotions by claiming they were being exploited? If your goal is to persuade a group of forum posters that the are being taken avantage of, you may consider taking the tactic of simply stating your case and providing evidence instead of writing a few thousand words in the form of an opening argument in court.
As I already stated:
Again, that's why at east cost measure, I overestimated the costs and even added in additioanl $1000 per PTQ of overhead cost!
You actually completely misrepresented, like Tom did, why I even mentioned I had a degree in economics. Tom stated that I had absolutely no understanding of basic economic princples. I pointed out that I had a degree in economics, and asked him if he did. You all have -- emotionally -- interpreted what was a quite literal statement as being an attempt to 'call him out.'
moreover, I've already explained, ad nauseam, why players are being exploited: monopoly pricing. Go read the first post if you still don't get that.
Because you haven't been reading carefully. As I said several times already:
And:
Also, this was the same question Tom posed on page 3, and I already answered it there:
There were otehr answers, but I'll let you find them, since I'm repeating myself.
because that's a gross oversimplification. If I put it in 30 words instead of the full argument, I would be dealing with all of the arguments I addressed in the opening post, and all of the straw men.
You think that the game of magic rides on PTQs and PTs? Your statement of PTs being the driving force behind singles sales is laughable to the point that it is just absurd.
Casual magic is the driving force of the game, hence FNM is far more important than any PTQ or PT. If the pro circuit was gotten rid of, this game would still exist in people's rooms and kitchens because that is who it is made for. Why else would a card like Sliver Queen or Doubling Season have more value some a tournament playable like a Fetchland?
So a TO makes $4k on a tournament. They also have other bills they have to pay for throughout the year that they might need that money for. Your suggestions of them lowering their profit for the "good of the game" would probably end most TOs businesses.
Why is it ok for say, you to make money running Meandeck Opens and some one like PES can't make money to keep them sustainable and profitable?
I play PTQs because those are PRO TOUR QUALIFIERS and I want that invite. I play in Starcity 5Ks to play for money. I play in FNMS to win packs.
EDIT: This is just getting embarrassing for you now too Steve.
Main point being: People will still attend PTQs because of the invite and not the huge prizes. That's what they are for pure and simple.
You say that the practice of assigning monopolistic regions to TOs allows them to exploit players, but you ignore the benefits that come from the PTO system. Players know who is going to be running the events in their area and they know what to expect from them. It is *drastically* more important to the health of Magic and the success of the PTQ system that players know that they can expect a clean, fair, well-organized event, and that is far better served by having a network of professional tournament organizers who make a business out of running events than it is by letting anyone bid for a PTQ slot for some economic ideal of competition.
If a new player comes to an event, which is more likely to make him stay away from PTQs (or organized play in general) in the future - the top finishing players in the tournament receiving some marginal percentage less of the entry fees in product, or coming to an event run by a novice organizer that starts late, runs late, and has a poor and inexperienced judging staff?
The PTO system exists to ensure that there is quality and consistency in the program. I'm happy to pay a premium to play in well run events, if that's what it takes.
you are attempting to fix something that is not broken.
we all appreciate that you care for the health of the game, but you are completely wrong on this.
time to pack up and move on my man.
thank you for trying to help us, don't give up on us steve.
Is there someplace where a TO really wants to run PTQs but has been turned away?
Doesn't mean it is correct. You also keep using the price of a sealed PTQ and not including the cost of the sealed product.
I'm sorry that I mistook "you?" as a method of trying to invalidate his whole argument instead of you providing your credentials. This isn't an ad hominem to your whole argumnet, just pointing out that it was real classy.
I get that you've tried to explain that, I just say that you haven't proven it because you don't have hard data. If you found out that a TO makes $5/head on a 200 person PTQ, would that prove your argument incorrect? You can say that there is monopoly pricing but you can't prove that players are being expolited until you know exactly how much the TO is making.
[/quote]
The issue is that you had an argument that you've tried to prove through telling people they are being exploited, and how competition would help them out, without providing any real data. A monopoloy (or at least a virtual monopoly) doesn't mean they are being exploited, just that they MIGHT be. If you want to make this argument, you need to PROVE where TOs are raking in big bucks and exploiting players. Simple supposition isn't going to prove it to anyone. If you can't get this data off hand, then get it from someone. I'm sure some TO would be willing to give you an idea.
I don't think that every TO is wonderful. I know that there are TOs that take advantage of the fact that they are the only game in town. In many of those instances, I'm sure nobody else wants the job. "Breaking the monopoly" isn't a solution there - incentizing people to run tourneys is. If you want to claim explotation, you need to actually prove that it is there, not just that the potentional is there.
If you wanted to make your whole point in a more productive manner, you should have come out and said "PTQs are a virtual monopoly by TOs in a region. TOs do not need to provide a good service or fair support because they have no realistic competition. If we are going to have the PTQ scene expand, then we need to create an open market where regions are given PTQs and multiple TOs can bid on it. The ones who are able to best serve their customers will eventually suceed."
The issue with that argument is that it isn't necssiarily true, at least not for the short run. If we had two PTQs in Columbus, one run by PES and one run by Bob And Jim's Magic Tournaments every season, we could see one good PES one and one bad Bob and Jim. They could have very similar attenance, but Bob and Jim could give out 1/4 of the support an run it the minimum support staff possible at a horrible venue. The next season, Bob and Jim have made more money and outbid PES because their costs are so much lower. For there to be real competition, the TOs need to be having their events on the same date. Otherwise all you've done is lessened the quality of events in the region.
At the very least, WotC would have to closely monitor the competition and shut out TOs who do not provide the quality of events that they wish the Pro Tour brand to be represented by. Simply looking at the numbers doesn't do anything - what if one week there were no PTQs within 5 hours so more players showed up. What if one week there was a large sporting event in town that kept players away? What if people just got tired with the format? Simple numbers don't tell you that.
Finally, the fact that the overwhelming majority of players disagree with you should tell you something. Magic players are quick to jump on the "we want MORE" bandwagon, but here are all supporting the events the way they are. Wizards can't release a single product without a few dozen people claiming it is the end of the game as we know it. If players felt they were being exploited, they would be saying so. If players feel that the prize support they are getting is sufficent and the tournaments are being run well, then maybe shaking up the system isn't the best idea.
I know of two TOs that have lost their ability to run PTQs.
NewWaveGames (I believe was the name) was using their status as a TO to buy the maximum number of boxes for prize support and giving out a laughable amount of older sets to the top8 finishers. They would then sell the new set at a markup.
SimplyMagic out of Indiana had numerous complaints from players about an untrained and unprepared staff, and favoritism. Pastimes out of Illinois now runs events there.
There are also a few in Ohio that used to compete with PES, but I don't know if they lost the ability, or weren't making enough money to keep doing it.
Double-post merged.
$70 per box, 36 packs per box, ~$12 per sealed pool, multiple by 200 and that's $2400. Assuming the TO makes $2700 in profit as you say, then subtract that cost and it's now $300.
You also are only targeting some PTO's. There have been premier tournaments organized that I have been to where other prizes are awarded as cash, larger product payouts, or deals like "first 32 amateurs to drop may enter a free draft" sort of deals(or whatever yourmovegames usually does) which if you're playing a sealed PTQ might be a nice incentive if you end up with a weak pool and go 0-2 drop so that your whole day isn't over except for trading and hanging out.
Also PTQ prices seem to be pretty universal, at least in US. If you go to an SCG or YMG PTQ, you're going to pay the same price to enter. Actually, i'm pretty sure there's a wizards policy that sets the price for PTQ's, how else do you explain that all PTQ's cost the same price? No one magically dreamed that $25-30 for the event was a good idea and suddenly every organizer in the country followed suit. In other markets for goods and services prices won't always be exact from one place to another like most TCG events are.
Wizards might also do what other companies have done and have a contract where they pay for the hall, prizing, and product and such things needed with an agreement that you pay back the costs following the PTQ. After all that wizards might take a cut, which may either cover their airfare expenses for US PTQ winners or other OP costs. I can't say specifics as i don't have any expertise in their business strategies, but it's a possibility to maintain control over PTQ's.
It may seem like it when you try to number crunch like you do in this article, but given the nature of these events, variables such as attendance, and most likely costs you are unaware of, i don't think the organizers are laughing all the way to the bank. Hosting these events wouldn't have a large profit margin, and are often times done for the sake of the game rather than any stable business plan.
- This is my point of view, and I think it is similar to Steven's one:
a- Constructed PTQs cost around $25
b- Flight and judges compensation are subsidized by Wizards
c- TO has to pay for hall, minor tools (couple of days of PC use, paper, ink), some marketing, booster prizes (those were at least partially subsidizeds by Wizards too, I don't know in present days), opportunity costs, and maybe something else I could be missing.
d- TO gets some more money from a dealer table. Either renting the space, or working it out.
If I (or Steven, or whomever) do an estimate, I get way more than $100/hour as TO income. I insist, way more.
In my opinion that's plain too much.
If it doesn't seem too much to you, think about any brick and mortar store, charging around $15 for a booster draft. Cost of this one: 3 boosters, and everything else I pointed for a PTQ (some prizes, judge, hall, opportunity costs, ink, paper, PC, etc), of course with the "dealer table" boosting it.
Opening the marketing (at least partially) into more TOs could lower that, and possibly lead into a better service.
Now I partially agree with (almost) everyone else:
- But I know the whole MtG thing is a monopoly, so I just have to live with it, sadly.
Glad to see your education, degrees, and titles haven't changed you since I last saw you, Steve.