Yes but Bolas has walked the talk so to speak.
He put down a Demonic Leviathan and Ugin.
Teferi and Lesherac as well.
Mizzet is top 3 on Ravnica with I guess Rakdos and Ma'at
It's all relative. Niv is the head of one of the 10 guilds, he's not someone you usually mess with 1v1 as a Ravnican unless you're a Nephilim, and he's a genius. Bolas is leagues above all that, but that (to me) doesn't really diminish Niv-Mizzet's accomplishments.
I agree I just disagree with the argument that Mizzet is on Bolas Level.
Mizzet would be a match or more than a match for most Post Mending Oldwalkers. But that doesn't make him anything close to even match for Bolas in a 1 v 1.
I agree I just disagree with the argument that Mizzet is on Bolas Level.
Mizzet would be a match or more than a match for most Post Mending Oldwalkers. But that doesn't make him anything close to even match for Bolas in a 1 v 1.
Sure, but Niv Mizzet isn't really aware of what's out in the greater multiverse; he's not a planeswalker, and Ral Zarek has concealed his planeswalker nature from the Dragon. He may know other planes exist due to Jace, but he doesn't know much about them or what's in them.
Niv Mizzet is justified in considering himself top dog, based on everything he currently knows. Once Bolas shows up on Ravnica, sure, Mizzet will be bested if he tries to fight, but that doesn't mean he isn't justified in his current position.
I agree I just disagree with the argument that Mizzet is on Bolas Level.
Mizzet would be a match or more than a match for most Post Mending Oldwalkers. But that doesn't make him anything close to even match for Bolas in a 1 v 1.
Sure, but Niv Mizzet isn't really aware of what's out in the greater multiverse; he's not a planeswalker, and Ral Zarek has concealed his planeswalker nature from the Dragon. He may know other planes exist due to Jace, but he doesn't know much about them or what's in them.
Niv Mizzet is justified in considering himself top dog, based on everything he currently knows. Once Bolas shows up on Ravnica, sure, Mizzet will be bested if he tries to fight, but that doesn't mean he isn't justified in his current position.
Exactly. And Bolas really doesn’t take direct action until he is confident he can win. Being able to manipulate things into a position you can win is not the same thing as being the biggest fish out there. Both of them are arrogant, but only one of them has been outmatched a couple times that I recall, and that’s Bolas. He’s died, and Ugin has gotten the edge on him at least once. Jace currently has the Vraska thing too. Niv has... running from the Nephilim I guess, but I don’t recall them being mentioned again so I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re not even canon. And that was something new.
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
i'm more worried about what catering to a casual crowd will do for secondary market card prices than where those sets take place honestly.
looking at a lot of whats being reprinted, how frequently, and how, its really no wonder reserve list cards are climbing in value. there's no stability in the market when it comes to new cards. whats worth 50 today, might not be worth more than 10 tomorrow. its moving more toward that chronicles debacle but on a smaller scale.
casual players want access to cards, that means low pricing.
long term that means your cards are worthless.
longer term that means cracking packs outside of a sealed/draft environment is completely pointless, and that taking packs as prizes is just as pointless.
with the reserve list that means you'll really never have those spiffy dual lands you really want because no heaping pile of crap will ever get you there in terms of value to trade up for some, while they keep rising in price.
the price point seems to be the 10-15 dollar range, the trend with reprints (with some exceptions that already fetched high values) reflects this. i dunno, i have trouble having faith in a game where a card can be worth lots of money one day, and next to worthless with a single reprinting just to make it more available to casuals.
They like their master's sets so much that reprints in standard are not likely at all. We do see lands (the same ones again and again) and I'll bet they don't reprint anything worthwhile for other formats but a new land cycle to promote pack sales.
Rumors have it that WotC's division at HASBRO has lost 35% sales in all areas (as Hasbro released it's losses bundling WotC with Monopoly because hiding numbers) even though they're releasing more products than every before each year.
Current prices of top mythics
Karn $64
Teferi $40
Lyra $25
History of Benality $19
The rest of the set lacks value thus can't possibly be promoting sales.
My concern about a 3 large set 'block' (because that's what it is) lies in their recent trend to overpower just a few cards per set leaving the rest mostly worthless in conjunction with plot. They're going to want to build to something so are we going to get another spaghetti monster type 'we went too far' and more bans? More crappy format that people don't want to buy into?
Standard needs help, so on the bright side... if going to a popular world that was a very successful and good standard environment fixes things and gets people back into standard that is GOOD.
I'm just waiting for their faceplant.
The confusion and bad speculation around here w/r/t Magic, WotC's profitability, and secondary market prices is incredible.
You can go look at Hasbro's earnings reports for yourself. They're on the website. It's not a "rumor;" the "gaming" division had a pretty normal growth in profitability last year but a sharp dip in Q1 of this year. Gaming includes WotC but also a ton of tabletop game brands from the family/casual market (Monopoly) to stuff like Avalon HIll. Enfranchised Magic players have tunnel vision so they love to read into those numbers as confirmation that WotC is killing magic by not appeasing their particular pet issue (Art on new sets is bad! Pack value is too low! Standard is broken!), but most of those numbers are probably accounted for by the demise of Toys R Us and its impact not on domestic sales per se for Hasbro, but on things like retail stock overhang. I wouldn't be surprised if Rivals of Ixalan underperformed (Dominaria sales wouldn't show up on Q1 numbers) but looking at Hasbro-wide numbers and singles prices and making WILD-ASS GUESSES is really really not contributing to any kinda discussion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On average, Magic players are worse at new card evaluation than almost every other skill, except perhaps sideboarding.
The confusion and bad speculation around here w/r/t Magic, WotC's profitability, and secondary market prices is incredible.
You can go look at Hasbro's earnings reports for yourself. They're on the website. It's not a "rumor;" the "gaming" division had a pretty normal growth in profitability last year but a sharp dip in Q1 of this year. Gaming includes WotC but also a ton of tabletop game brands from the family/casual market (Monopoly) to stuff like Avalon HIll. Enfranchised Magic players have tunnel vision so they love to read into those numbers as confirmation that WotC is killing magic by not appeasing their particular pet issue (Art on new sets is bad! Pack value is too low! Standard is broken!), but most of those numbers are probably accounted for by the demise of Toys R Us and its impact not on domestic sales per se for Hasbro, but on things like retail stock overhang. I wouldn't be surprised if Rivals of Ixalan underperformed (Dominaria sales wouldn't show up on Q1 numbers) but looking at Hasbro-wide numbers and singles prices and making WILD-ASS GUESSES is really really not contributing to any kinda discussion.
I always find it refreshing when someone who's actually familiar with the industry and knows what they're talking about chimes in.
Point of fact. Franchise Brands for HASBRO include LITTLEST PET SHOP, MAGIC: THE GATHERING, MONOPOLY, MY LITTLE PONY, NERF, PLAY-DOH and TRANSFORMERS.
Gaming division is separate and is reported separately and took its own loss of 22%.
Franchise brands are down Q1 19% across all listed. There is no way to determine individual brand losses because they are not reported.
Emperical evidence shows that LGS play has been down and continues to waffle in the Standard segment of the game for the past 2 years. Modern and Legacy are up and healthy. How much product do Modern and Legacy players buy? Not much; standard drives box/pack sales. If people aren't playing as much (WotC has observed and admitted attendance at big events is down) they aren't buying as much. If people aren't buying as much prices for singles get worse because supply is low (oh look at the chase mythic prices for Dom).
RTR was when things were good and if they're smart, they'll stick to the block's strong points and balance across color combos help bounce back.
I'm more than fine going back to Ravnica but they need to get back to the balance and design choices they used in the past to make Ravnica just as good or better.
No wonder Dominaria was a win then forcing those Modern and Legacy Players to shell out for the latest and greatest in Planewalkers? Teferi, Hero of Control and Karn, Artifice's Scion.
Point of fact. Franchise Brands for HASBRO include LITTLEST PET SHOP, MAGIC: THE GATHERING, MONOPOLY, MY LITTLE PONY, NERF, PLAY-DOH and TRANSFORMERS.
Gaming division is separate and is reported separately and took its own loss of 22%.
Franchise brands are down Q1 19% across all listed. There is no way to determine individual brand losses because they are not reported.
Emperical evidence shows that LGS play has been down and continues to waffle in the Standard segment of the game for the past 2 years. Modern and Legacy are up and healthy. How much product do Modern and Legacy players buy? Not much; standard drives box/pack sales. If people aren't playing as much (WotC has observed and admitted attendance at big events is down) they aren't buying as much. If people aren't buying as much prices for singles get worse because supply is low (oh look at the chase mythic prices for Dom).
RTR was when things were good and if they're smart, they'll stick to the block's strong points and balance across color combos help bounce back.
I'm more than fine going back to Ravnica but they need to get back to the balance and design choices they used in the past to make Ravnica just as good or better.
Sigh.
Okay, to quote the earnings report:
*Hasbro’s total gaming category, including all gaming revenue, most notably MAGIC: THE GATHERING and MONOPOLY, which are included in Franchise Brands in the table above, totaled $203.5 million for the first quarter 2018, down 20%, versus $253.3 million for the first quarter 2017. Hasbro believes its gaming portfolio is a competitive differentiator and views it in its entirety.
That is: Magic falls under both "franchise brands" and the broader umbrella category of "gaming," but not "Hasbro Gaming," which is a specific segment of the brand portfolio. I get that this is confusing. "Gaming" had a slightly bigger drop than "franchise brands," but Hasbro as a whole took a hit across all of its portfolio categories in Q1 2018, which the latest results report attributes to Toys R Us' death.
The constant mtgs narrative of Magic failing isn't supported by Hasbro earnings, as revenue was growing above the overall economy in both of those segments last year; it's only Q1 of 2018 that has this sharp drop. Also, the cited value is relative to Q1 2017 revenue. It's entirely plausible that WotC hasn't done as well in 2017 as it did in prior years, but nothing about the earnings report numbers people keep citing actually supports that conclusion.
One data point that DOES mean something is the assertion that BfZ is the best-selling set of all time - indicating that Magic sales are on a dip from that peak which hasn't been reached yet. But there's a difference between doing poorly and not doing unprecedentedly well like BfZ did; and without real marketing data, you might as well be cutting pigeons open and reading their entrails to make guesses about what causes Magic sales to ebb and flow.
Also, while singles prices are very perceptible for enfranchised players, they are not the only driver of pack sales. A lot of Magic packs are sold to people who don't really know or care about singles values and just want cards to play with in casual settings. A lot of packs are sold to people who want to draft them. And as Magic packs are sold in different kinds of businesses in different places, anecdotal reports from LGS about tournament activity aren't indicative of sales either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On average, Magic players are worse at new card evaluation than almost every other skill, except perhaps sideboarding.
Point of fact. Franchise Brands for HASBRO include LITTLEST PET SHOP, MAGIC: THE GATHERING, MONOPOLY, MY LITTLE PONY, NERF, PLAY-DOH and TRANSFORMERS.
Gaming division is separate and is reported separately and took its own loss of 22%.
Franchise brands are down Q1 19% across all listed. There is no way to determine individual brand losses because they are not reported.
Emperical evidence shows that LGS play has been down and continues to waffle in the Standard segment of the game for the past 2 years. Modern and Legacy are up and healthy. How much product do Modern and Legacy players buy? Not much; standard drives box/pack sales. If people aren't playing as much (WotC has observed and admitted attendance at big events is down) they aren't buying as much. If people aren't buying as much prices for singles get worse because supply is low (oh look at the chase mythic prices for Dom).
RTR was when things were good and if they're smart, they'll stick to the block's strong points and balance across color combos help bounce back.
I'm more than fine going back to Ravnica but they need to get back to the balance and design choices they used in the past to make Ravnica just as good or better.
Sigh.
Okay, to quote the earnings report:
*Hasbro’s total gaming category, including all gaming revenue, most notably MAGIC: THE GATHERING and MONOPOLY, which are included in Franchise Brands in the table above, totaled $203.5 million for the first quarter 2018, down 20%, versus $253.3 million for the first quarter 2017. Hasbro believes its gaming portfolio is a competitive differentiator and views it in its entirety.
That is: Magic falls under both "franchise brands" and the broader umbrella category of "gaming," but not "Hasbro Gaming," which is a specific segment of the brand portfolio. I get that this is confusing. "Gaming" had a slightly bigger drop than "franchise brands," but Hasbro as a whole took a hit across all of its portfolio categories in Q1 2018, which the latest results report attributes to Toys R Us' death.
The constant mtgs narrative of Magic failing isn't supported by Hasbro earnings, as revenue was growing above the overall economy in both of those segments last year; it's only Q1 of 2018 that has this sharp drop. Also, the cited value is relative to Q1 2017 revenue. It's entirely plausible that WotC hasn't done as well in 2017 as it did in prior years, but nothing about the earnings report numbers people keep citing actually supports that conclusion.
One data point that DOES mean something is the assertion that BfZ is the best-selling set of all time - indicating that Magic sales are on a dip from that peak which hasn't been reached yet. But there's a difference between doing poorly and not doing unprecedentedly well like BfZ did; and without real marketing data, you might as well be cutting pigeons open and reading their entrails to make guesses about what causes Magic sales to ebb and flow.
Also, while singles prices are very perceptible for enfranchised players, they are not the only driver of pack sales. A lot of Magic packs are sold to people who don't really know or care about singles values and just want cards to play with in casual settings. A lot of packs are sold to people who want to draft them. And as Magic packs are sold in different kinds of businesses in different places, anecdotal reports from LGS about tournament activity aren't indicative of sales either.
sigh
All you did is quote from a different portion of the earnings report. Why would you look at all gaming when the Franchise Brand number does NOT include all the Hasbro board games and is salient? I get why you're confused but the fact is you can't say WotC's doing great because you also don't have the numbers to back that up.
They do not publish individual brand numbers.
What you have is a sharp drop in Q1 which INCLUDES other properties. WotC's part of the report could be 50% loss or 25% gain or anything else depending on how those other brands have done.
The data point of people NOT PLAYING is more significant that "BfZ is the best selling of all time". Best selling adjusted for inflation? Best selling based on box sales? Free Range is a thing they say too but it doesn't always mean what you want it to.
Selling packs for different reasons is a given and quite obvious. You can read the entrails the way you want but it doesn't make your opinion better than everyone else's nor does it add to any discussion to accuse others of 'wild-ass guessing'.
I was quoting the report from memory and you decided to nitpick instead of arguing the actual point:
1. the sharp drop in Q1 2018 was across the board at Hasbro, and out of trend with 2017 which saw a growth in profits
2. the data we have access to doesn't really evidence anything about wotc or magic specifically
3. it's pretty bad to cite a random headline number from the report (which wasn't even accurate to anything as far as I could tell), add in some random singles prices, and pretend this is an argument about how important it is that Guilds of Ravnica have enough money rares in it.
I am not going to express an opinion on how well WotC is doing financially because I can't make an argument either way. MaRo has stated that BfZ is the best-selling set of all time still today, implying that subsequent sets have sold worse. You can nitpick the details of what "best-selling" means, of course, but all the different metrics you could use are strongly correlated with each other anyway. But this factoid doesn't mean anything in particular other than that we're not at a peak in Magic booster release sales.
I get that competitive and enfranchised players, and particularly Standard players, are pissed off. But tournament attendance isn't a great indicator of sales. Point is: I don't have an opinion here, I just take issue with people making really weak arguments based on misinterpreting data to support their preexisting views that it's really important for the health of the game that wotc print enough money rares in a set (without understanding the systemic reasons why it's not possible to have every rare in a Standard booster set be a $10 card).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On average, Magic players are worse at new card evaluation than almost every other skill, except perhaps sideboarding.
So you have nothing to add to the discussion you just like to attack other people's assertions.
1. Repetitive nothing new
2. I said that as well nothing new
3. You quoted the lesser info from the report. The most relevant is the Franchise Brand info of 19%. If you're going to use a report to throw shade use it properly.
If you don't have an opinion on how well WotC is doing why do you care if other do?
You brought up 'best-selling' and referred to it as a 'significant data point' when in fact it's not data at all. Now you call it a 'factoid' and muddy the water of why you're using it.
You are purposefully presenting data (from memory) as if it backs up belittling others opinions (weak arguments) and then saying you don't have an opinion. Why are you talking smack then?
What does it have to do with Ravnica and why you like it, or don't like it, or care at all about how the set/block comes out?
I was quoting the report from memory and you decided to nitpick instead of arguing the actual point:
1. the sharp drop in Q1 2018 was across the board at Hasbro, and out of trend with 2017 which saw a growth in profits
2. the data we have access to doesn't really evidence anything about wotc or magic specifically
3. it's pretty bad to cite a random headline number from the report (which wasn't even accurate to anything as far as I could tell), add in some random singles prices, and pretend this is an argument about how important it is that Guilds of Ravnica have enough money rares in it.
I am not going to express an opinion on how well WotC is doing financially because I can't make an argument either way. MaRo has stated that BfZ is the best-selling set of all time still today, implying that subsequent sets have sold worse. You can nitpick the details of what "best-selling" means, of course, but all the different metrics you could use are strongly correlated with each other anyway. But this factoid doesn't mean anything in particular other than that we're not at a peak in Magic booster release sales.
I get that competitive and enfranchised players, and particularly Standard players, are pissed off. But tournament attendance isn't a great indicator of sales. Point is: I don't have an opinion here, I just take issue with people making really weak arguments based on misinterpreting data to support their preexisting views that it's really important for the health of the game that wotc print enough money rares in a set (without understanding the systemic reasons why it's not possible to have every rare in a Standard booster set be a $10 card).
Well, I'm not going to go through the entire discussion again I had with some others online again, but that report isn't the whole story. Besides the obvious cleverness in lumping MTG with Monopoly of all things (seriously, lets lump the 20-30 million dollars composed of an age old game found in bargain bins with MTG), that figure isn't including the fact they ramped up the number of MTG products going from the point BFZ was released to now and lost players. If you ramp up production, but have a shrinking player base and 20% decreased revenue, maybe only 10% decreased revenue, those numbers are much more damning than is readily apparent.
But anyway, that's my two cents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
So you have nothing to add to the discussion you just like to attack other people's assertions.
1. Repetitive nothing new
2. I said that as well nothing new
3. You quoted the lesser info from the report. The most relevant is the Franchise Brand info of 19%. If you're going to use a report to throw shade use it properly.
If you don't have an opinion on how well WotC is doing why do you care if other do?
You brought up 'best-selling' and referred to it as a 'significant data point' when in fact it's not data at all. Now you call it a 'factoid' and muddy the water of why you're using it.
You are purposefully presenting data (from memory) as if it backs up belittling others opinions (weak arguments) and then saying you don't have an opinion. Why are you talking smack then?
What does it have to do with Ravnica and why you like it, or don't like it, or care at all about how the set/block comes out?
Because presenting information in an insincere way to make it look like WotC is failing should be stood against.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
He put down a Demonic Leviathan and Ugin.
Teferi and Lesherac as well.
Mizzet is top 3 on Ravnica with I guess Rakdos and Ma'at
It's all relative. Niv is the head of one of the 10 guilds, he's not someone you usually mess with 1v1 as a Ravnican unless you're a Nephilim, and he's a genius. Bolas is leagues above all that, but that (to me) doesn't really diminish Niv-Mizzet's accomplishments.
Mizzet would be a match or more than a match for most Post Mending Oldwalkers. But that doesn't make him anything close to even match for Bolas in a 1 v 1.
Niv Mizzet is justified in considering himself top dog, based on everything he currently knows. Once Bolas shows up on Ravnica, sure, Mizzet will be bested if he tries to fight, but that doesn't mean he isn't justified in his current position.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Exactly. And Bolas really doesn’t take direct action until he is confident he can win. Being able to manipulate things into a position you can win is not the same thing as being the biggest fish out there. Both of them are arrogant, but only one of them has been outmatched a couple times that I recall, and that’s Bolas. He’s died, and Ugin has gotten the edge on him at least once. Jace currently has the Vraska thing too. Niv has... running from the Nephilim I guess, but I don’t recall them being mentioned again so I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re not even canon. And that was something new.
This should give us a hint as to the upcoming direction of the set.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
looking at a lot of whats being reprinted, how frequently, and how, its really no wonder reserve list cards are climbing in value. there's no stability in the market when it comes to new cards. whats worth 50 today, might not be worth more than 10 tomorrow. its moving more toward that chronicles debacle but on a smaller scale.
casual players want access to cards, that means low pricing.
long term that means your cards are worthless.
longer term that means cracking packs outside of a sealed/draft environment is completely pointless, and that taking packs as prizes is just as pointless.
with the reserve list that means you'll really never have those spiffy dual lands you really want because no heaping pile of crap will ever get you there in terms of value to trade up for some, while they keep rising in price.
the price point seems to be the 10-15 dollar range, the trend with reprints (with some exceptions that already fetched high values) reflects this. i dunno, i have trouble having faith in a game where a card can be worth lots of money one day, and next to worthless with a single reprinting just to make it more available to casuals.
Rumors have it that WotC's division at HASBRO has lost 35% sales in all areas (as Hasbro released it's losses bundling WotC with Monopoly because hiding numbers) even though they're releasing more products than every before each year.
Current prices of top mythics
Karn $64
Teferi $40
Lyra $25
History of Benality $19
The rest of the set lacks value thus can't possibly be promoting sales.
My concern about a 3 large set 'block' (because that's what it is) lies in their recent trend to overpower just a few cards per set leaving the rest mostly worthless in conjunction with plot. They're going to want to build to something so are we going to get another spaghetti monster type 'we went too far' and more bans? More crappy format that people don't want to buy into?
Standard needs help, so on the bright side... if going to a popular world that was a very successful and good standard environment fixes things and gets people back into standard that is GOOD.
I'm just waiting for their faceplant.
You can go look at Hasbro's earnings reports for yourself. They're on the website. It's not a "rumor;" the "gaming" division had a pretty normal growth in profitability last year but a sharp dip in Q1 of this year. Gaming includes WotC but also a ton of tabletop game brands from the family/casual market (Monopoly) to stuff like Avalon HIll. Enfranchised Magic players have tunnel vision so they love to read into those numbers as confirmation that WotC is killing magic by not appeasing their particular pet issue (Art on new sets is bad! Pack value is too low! Standard is broken!), but most of those numbers are probably accounted for by the demise of Toys R Us and its impact not on domestic sales per se for Hasbro, but on things like retail stock overhang. I wouldn't be surprised if Rivals of Ixalan underperformed (Dominaria sales wouldn't show up on Q1 numbers) but looking at Hasbro-wide numbers and singles prices and making WILD-ASS GUESSES is really really not contributing to any kinda discussion.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Gaming division is separate and is reported separately and took its own loss of 22%.
Franchise brands are down Q1 19% across all listed. There is no way to determine individual brand losses because they are not reported.
Emperical evidence shows that LGS play has been down and continues to waffle in the Standard segment of the game for the past 2 years. Modern and Legacy are up and healthy. How much product do Modern and Legacy players buy? Not much; standard drives box/pack sales. If people aren't playing as much (WotC has observed and admitted attendance at big events is down) they aren't buying as much. If people aren't buying as much prices for singles get worse because supply is low (oh look at the chase mythic prices for Dom).
RTR was when things were good and if they're smart, they'll stick to the block's strong points and balance across color combos help bounce back.
I'm more than fine going back to Ravnica but they need to get back to the balance and design choices they used in the past to make Ravnica just as good or better.
Sigh.
Okay, to quote the earnings report:
That is: Magic falls under both "franchise brands" and the broader umbrella category of "gaming," but not "Hasbro Gaming," which is a specific segment of the brand portfolio. I get that this is confusing. "Gaming" had a slightly bigger drop than "franchise brands," but Hasbro as a whole took a hit across all of its portfolio categories in Q1 2018, which the latest results report attributes to Toys R Us' death.
The constant mtgs narrative of Magic failing isn't supported by Hasbro earnings, as revenue was growing above the overall economy in both of those segments last year; it's only Q1 of 2018 that has this sharp drop. Also, the cited value is relative to Q1 2017 revenue. It's entirely plausible that WotC hasn't done as well in 2017 as it did in prior years, but nothing about the earnings report numbers people keep citing actually supports that conclusion.
One data point that DOES mean something is the assertion that BfZ is the best-selling set of all time - indicating that Magic sales are on a dip from that peak which hasn't been reached yet. But there's a difference between doing poorly and not doing unprecedentedly well like BfZ did; and without real marketing data, you might as well be cutting pigeons open and reading their entrails to make guesses about what causes Magic sales to ebb and flow.
Also, while singles prices are very perceptible for enfranchised players, they are not the only driver of pack sales. A lot of Magic packs are sold to people who don't really know or care about singles values and just want cards to play with in casual settings. A lot of packs are sold to people who want to draft them. And as Magic packs are sold in different kinds of businesses in different places, anecdotal reports from LGS about tournament activity aren't indicative of sales either.
sigh
All you did is quote from a different portion of the earnings report. Why would you look at all gaming when the Franchise Brand number does NOT include all the Hasbro board games and is salient? I get why you're confused but the fact is you can't say WotC's doing great because you also don't have the numbers to back that up.
They do not publish individual brand numbers.
What you have is a sharp drop in Q1 which INCLUDES other properties. WotC's part of the report could be 50% loss or 25% gain or anything else depending on how those other brands have done.
The data point of people NOT PLAYING is more significant that "BfZ is the best selling of all time". Best selling adjusted for inflation? Best selling based on box sales? Free Range is a thing they say too but it doesn't always mean what you want it to.
Selling packs for different reasons is a given and quite obvious. You can read the entrails the way you want but it doesn't make your opinion better than everyone else's nor does it add to any discussion to accuse others of 'wild-ass guessing'.
1. the sharp drop in Q1 2018 was across the board at Hasbro, and out of trend with 2017 which saw a growth in profits
2. the data we have access to doesn't really evidence anything about wotc or magic specifically
3. it's pretty bad to cite a random headline number from the report (which wasn't even accurate to anything as far as I could tell), add in some random singles prices, and pretend this is an argument about how important it is that Guilds of Ravnica have enough money rares in it.
I am not going to express an opinion on how well WotC is doing financially because I can't make an argument either way. MaRo has stated that BfZ is the best-selling set of all time still today, implying that subsequent sets have sold worse. You can nitpick the details of what "best-selling" means, of course, but all the different metrics you could use are strongly correlated with each other anyway. But this factoid doesn't mean anything in particular other than that we're not at a peak in Magic booster release sales.
I get that competitive and enfranchised players, and particularly Standard players, are pissed off. But tournament attendance isn't a great indicator of sales. Point is: I don't have an opinion here, I just take issue with people making really weak arguments based on misinterpreting data to support their preexisting views that it's really important for the health of the game that wotc print enough money rares in a set (without understanding the systemic reasons why it's not possible to have every rare in a Standard booster set be a $10 card).
1. Repetitive nothing new
2. I said that as well nothing new
3. You quoted the lesser info from the report. The most relevant is the Franchise Brand info of 19%. If you're going to use a report to throw shade use it properly.
If you don't have an opinion on how well WotC is doing why do you care if other do?
You brought up 'best-selling' and referred to it as a 'significant data point' when in fact it's not data at all. Now you call it a 'factoid' and muddy the water of why you're using it.
You are purposefully presenting data (from memory) as if it backs up belittling others opinions (weak arguments) and then saying you don't have an opinion. Why are you talking smack then?
What does it have to do with Ravnica and why you like it, or don't like it, or care at all about how the set/block comes out?
Well, I'm not going to go through the entire discussion again I had with some others online again, but that report isn't the whole story. Besides the obvious cleverness in lumping MTG with Monopoly of all things (seriously, lets lump the 20-30 million dollars composed of an age old game found in bargain bins with MTG), that figure isn't including the fact they ramped up the number of MTG products going from the point BFZ was released to now and lost players. If you ramp up production, but have a shrinking player base and 20% decreased revenue, maybe only 10% decreased revenue, those numbers are much more damning than is readily apparent.
But anyway, that's my two cents.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Because presenting information in an insincere way to make it look like WotC is failing should be stood against.