Considering there is real cost for people here. I cannot imagine they are able to turn off the lights, without compensation.
Incorrect. Trading card games are discontinued all the time, and online games often eventually lose server access, effectively killing the game. Even if microtransactions are involved, even if there is an economy of items for the playerbase, the terms of service does not protect you from this.
WOTC could, out of the kindness of their hearts, absolutely. But you shouldn't plan on it. It would be a massive cost, and WOTC knows the average player will grumble and play along.
Notes: Talk of Jeremy incident is not allowed on State of modern
Eh, call me crazy but I see a difference between removing access from someone who essentially went for Suicide by Cop, and removing the value from a large number of their players pockets.
Considering there is real cost for people here. I cannot imagine they are able to turn off the lights, without compensation.
Incorrect. Trading card games are discontinued all the time, and online games often eventually lose server access, effectively killing the game. Even if microtransactions are involved, even if there is an economy of items for the playerbase, the terms of service does not protect you from this. At the risk of getting flamed, the fact that WOTC could deactivate Jeremy's account without any sort of compensation for his collection is proof that WOTC is under zero obligation to do so with anyone.
WOTC could, out of the kindness of their hearts, absolutely. But you shouldn't plan on it. It would be a massive cost, and WOTC knows the average player will grumble and play along.
I think you are simply assuming the worst with no real evidence here. What happened with Jeremy is a completely different situation (and better not be discussed here).
WOTC is actually at a completely new and unique position, as no other online card game collection system ever costed as much as MTGO does to the players. Yes, people have previously invested in skins, game time, etc. but this is simply different.
If they would simply turn of the system one day, that would have a large impact not only to the MTGO players but to their whole player base. It will show that it is a company that doesn't care and give no outs to their player base. In addition, if we accept that magic is in a decline (I personally disagree), then getting SUCH a bad publicity would simply be the nail in the coffin.
I don't think wizards will ever stop the support for eternal formats. The market is just too big for them to do that. Maybe it will take time, maybe they will simply restructure how eternal formats work and what cards are allowed, but eventually something will come up, if the company continues to exist.
I don't think we should "plan" on something exactly, as you say. But, I think, we can be certain, that wizards will give some outs to the player base. Whether they will be good or bad remains to be seen, but there won't be a day where servers close with no notification and all players lose everything.
Considering there is real cost for people here. I cannot imagine they are able to turn off the lights, without compensation.
Incorrect. Trading card games are discontinued all the time, and online games often eventually lose server access, effectively killing the game. Even if microtransactions are involved, even if there is an economy of items for the playerbase, the terms of service does not protect you from this. At the risk of getting flamed, the fact that WOTC could deactivate Jeremy's account without any sort of compensation for his collection is proof that WOTC is under zero obligation to do so with anyone.
WOTC could, out of the kindness of their hearts, absolutely. But you shouldn't plan on it. It would be a massive cost, and WOTC knows the average player will grumble and play along.
I think you are simply assuming the worst with no real evidence here. What happened with Jeremy is a completely different situation (and better not be discussed here).
WOTC is actually at a completely new and unique position, as no other online card game collection system ever costed as much as MTGO does to the players. Yes, people have previously invested in skins, game time, etc. but this is simply different.
If they would simply turn of the system one day, that would have a large impact not only to the MTGO players but to their whole player base. It will show that it is a company that doesn't care and give no outs to their player base. In addition, if we accept that magic is in a decline (I personally disagree), then getting SUCH a bad publicity would simply be the nail in the coffin.
I don't think wizards will ever stop the support for eternal formats. The market is just too big for them to do that. Maybe it will take time, maybe they will simply restructure how eternal formats work and what cards are allowed, but eventually something will come up, if the company continues to exist.
I don't think we should "plan" on something exactly, as you say. But, I think, we can be certain, that wizards will give some outs to the player base. Whether they will be good or bad remains to be seen, but there won't be a day where servers close with no notification and all players lose everything.
Always good to keep certain topics taboo, might interrupt someone's "safe space." Companies, especially game companies, make decisions all the time that adversely affect their playerbase. EA isn't bankrupt. As for eternal format support, I am simply referring to MTGO. If WOTC wanted to shut MTGO down in favor of Arena, they could. There is zero legal defense to it. Once it's over, it's over, and if you had $10K in assets when they pull the plug, oh well.
My point? Don't trust WOTC. They don't deserve it.
Considering there is real cost for people here. I cannot imagine they are able to turn off the lights, without compensation.
Incorrect. Trading card games are discontinued all the time, and online games often eventually lose server access, effectively killing the game. Even if microtransactions are involved, even if there is an economy of items for the playerbase, the terms of service does not protect you from this. At the risk of getting flamed, the fact that WOTC could deactivate Jeremy's account without any sort of compensation for his collection is proof that WOTC is under zero obligation to do so with anyone.
WOTC could, out of the kindness of their hearts, absolutely. But you shouldn't plan on it. It would be a massive cost, and WOTC knows the average player will grumble and play along.
I think you are simply assuming the worst with no real evidence here. What happened with Jeremy is a completely different situation (and better not be discussed here).
WOTC is actually at a completely new and unique position, as no other online card game collection system ever costed as much as MTGO does to the players. Yes, people have previously invested in skins, game time, etc. but this is simply different.
If they would simply turn of the system one day, that would have a large impact not only to the MTGO players but to their whole player base. It will show that it is a company that doesn't care and give no outs to their player base. In addition, if we accept that magic is in a decline (I personally disagree), then getting SUCH a bad publicity would simply be the nail in the coffin.
I don't think wizards will ever stop the support for eternal formats. The market is just too big for them to do that. Maybe it will take time, maybe they will simply restructure how eternal formats work and what cards are allowed, but eventually something will come up, if the company continues to exist.
I don't think we should "plan" on something exactly, as you say. But, I think, we can be certain, that wizards will give some outs to the player base. Whether they will be good or bad remains to be seen, but there won't be a day where servers close with no notification and all players lose everything.
Always good to keep certain topics taboo, might interrupt someone's "safe space." Companies, especially game companies, make decisions all the time that adversely affect their playerbase. EA isn't bankrupt. As for eternal format support, I am simply referring to MTGO. If WOTC wanted to shut MTGO down in favor of Arena, they could. There is zero legal defense to it. Once it's over, it's over, and if you had $10K in assets when they pull the plug, oh well.
My point? Don't trust WOTC. They don't deserve it.
I think his point is a little bit more nuanced than what you’re addressing. Wotc/magic and EA are very different. Ea licenses games and continues to push out new ones, Magic is one game. Magic continues on and keeps on getting more sets and continues to exist as an actively played game. If wotc drops the curtains on mtgo those players aren’t then going to move on to the next wotc game, they’re going to stop playing magic and will no longer be customers of wotc. Doing so comes at a huge cost to wotc and if they were planning on doing that they will likely have some way of porting those players into different magic based product.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--> Modern <-- RBUSplinter Twin (RIP)/DelverRBU UUUMono U TronUUU GRGGR TronGRG GWURKnight FallGWUR
It would be a bad business decision, but they could. Microsoft could also end their support for Windows, Verizon could stop providing cell service, etc. Without getting too philosophical, any on-going relationship as a customer requires some level of confidence that a company values you for the future (or at least the revenue you bring).
WoTC could end MTGO without any recompense, but it would seem a poor decision unless the ensuing cost savings are significant enough to offset both the lost MTGO revenue and any customers who'd stop playing entirely after feeling "betrayed". My bet would be that they at least make a token effort along the lines others have mentioned, although that's hardly going to make someone with over $1K invested on MTGO feel much better.
Destiny did not port anything into Destiny 2 for its players.
Like what? Unless you paid money for a level 40 character, you weren't charged anything beyond the initial game and the DLC campaigns, and unless I'm mistaken, the Destiny servers are still open. It's a false equivalency.
About the only games that could remotely compare to the scenario are games with micro transactions that received sequels, and even then most, if not all, sequels are reworked from the ground up, making them similar but unique products. MTGO and MTG Arena are the same game with two different UIs
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
Indeed, its a different thing when you have something that can be played in Paper, and Online, create a new Online platform, but exclude what people already own.
Considering there is real cost for people here. I cannot imagine they are able to turn off the lights, without compensation.
Incorrect. Trading card games are discontinued all the time, and online games often eventually lose server access, effectively killing the game. Even if microtransactions are involved, even if there is an economy of items for the playerbase, the terms of service does not protect you from this. At the risk of getting flamed, the fact that WOTC could deactivate Jeremy's account without any sort of compensation for his collection is proof that WOTC is under zero obligation to do so with anyone.
WOTC could, out of the kindness of their hearts, absolutely. But you shouldn't plan on it. It would be a massive cost, and WOTC knows the average player will grumble and play along.
I think you are simply assuming the worst with no real evidence here. What happened with Jeremy is a completely different situation (and better not be discussed here).
WOTC is actually at a completely new and unique position, as no other online card game collection system ever costed as much as MTGO does to the players. Yes, people have previously invested in skins, game time, etc. but this is simply different.
If they would simply turn of the system one day, that would have a large impact not only to the MTGO players but to their whole player base. It will show that it is a company that doesn't care and give no outs to their player base. In addition, if we accept that magic is in a decline (I personally disagree), then getting SUCH a bad publicity would simply be the nail in the coffin.
I don't think wizards will ever stop the support for eternal formats. The market is just too big for them to do that. Maybe it will take time, maybe they will simply restructure how eternal formats work and what cards are allowed, but eventually something will come up, if the company continues to exist.
I don't think we should "plan" on something exactly, as you say. But, I think, we can be certain, that wizards will give some outs to the player base. Whether they will be good or bad remains to be seen, but there won't be a day where servers close with no notification and all players lose everything.
Always good to keep certain topics taboo, might interrupt someone's "safe space." Companies, especially game companies, make decisions all the time that adversely affect their playerbase. EA isn't bankrupt. As for eternal format support, I am simply referring to MTGO. If WOTC wanted to shut MTGO down in favor of Arena, they could. There is zero legal defense to it. Once it's over, it's over, and if you had $10K in assets when they pull the plug, oh well.
My point? Don't trust WOTC. They don't deserve it.
I am not sure why you are talking about "safe space". I, at absolutely no point, tried to defend Wizards and/or re-assure anyone or make anyone feel safe.
I am addressing a very specific issue related to eternal formats and the player-base of MTG (since we are at the modern subforum). EA and its policies have absolutely nothing to do with MTG. Of course companies make decisions that affect their playerbase. Saying that these decisions are "adversely all the time" sort of beats the point (and I am not claiming that they are doing out of their kind heart, everything is profit related).
Of course they can shut down MTGO. They can do a ton of things, like they can reprint reserved-list cards. That doesn't mean they will. Just because a company can do something it shouldn't mean we should expect them to do it. What is the point of discussion is to try to understand whether such a decision makes sense. And what I am saying, is that just doing it while they give nothing back to the community is an unsustainable decisions with very little profit. If they care about making their new platform sustainable and their future products sell-able, they have to retain a certain player-base. Otherwise new players won't invest.
Now, if they don't care about money, and they don't want to make Arena a place where all their player-base will eventually go to, then sure. But I don't see why a company wouldn't care about making its product profitable.
The only reason Arena might affect Modern seems to be
[1] Arena will be successful enough to replace MTGO; and
[2] Arena will not support Modern; so
[3] WotC will lose interest in Modern
[1] is not a given. Arena could easily fail before it threatens the existence of MTGO.
[2] is not a given either. Arena may support Modern before they close MTGO. If they doesn't support Modern, that is a good reason to keep MTGO alive for Modern and other eternal formats, even if it would be given less focus.
[3] is not a given either, as there is no reason to think that paper Modern will die.
Of cause, Arena could be so much of a success that WotC will lose interest in anything but Standard. But that is more of a issue of state of Magic in general, and quite a bit in the future.
I only play MTGO, and mostly Modern at that, so how Arena may or may not replace MTGO is of interest to me. If it does, I will really like them to support Modern and allow me to port my card collection over, even if I needed to pay some fee. However, I think the current discussion on Arena and future of MTGO is based on many layers of suppositions, and approaching the point of being off-topic.
I only play MTGO, and mostly Modern at that, so how Arena may or may not replace MTGO is of interest to me. If it does, I will really like them to support Modern and allow me to port my card collection over, even if I needed to pay some fee. However, I think the current discussion on Arena and future of MTGO is based on many layers of suppositions, and approaching the point of being off-topic.
This is a very present, pertinent issue in Modern. If Modern's online future appears jeopardized, this will hurt its popularity and long-term appeal. This is especially true if Modern is jeopardized because Wizards is trying to gain more control over the secondary market and/or non-rotating format profitability. If so, this means there's a long term plan to move away from stuff like Modern/Legacy/Vintage/EDH/Pauper/etc. and towards a more Arena-driven style of non-rotating gameplay. We already have worrisome anecdotal evidence to this effect, and although nothing definitive has emerged, the quotes from Wizards are not encouraging.
To be clear, I think paper Modern is doing great. I have absolutely no doom and gloom about it at all. It's the most popular format by views and attendance, the metagame is supremely healthy, and most players (plus Wizards itself) are thrilled with where it is. Sure, I think the PT is going to show that Modern secretly has a few top decks and all those 25+ other options are just worse versions of the best decks, but I doubt this will affect most other tournaments beyond the PT. I also don't think any one of those best decks will break out so much that it will result in a ban.
As a related topic, my bundle of MTGO cards has dropped 16% since the Arena economy update article. This bundle included a number of top-tier decks including UW and Jeskai Control, Gx Tron, E-Tron, Ad Nauseam, and various Modern staples. It's never a good thing when big-ticket bundles like this fall. I'll also remind everyone that when I sold this bundle in 09/2017, it has NEVER exceeded the sale value in those past 4-5 months. I sold that bundle the day of a major Arena announcement, and believe Arena is a major source of uncertainty for the MTGO economy that is going to continue affecting Moderners.
I think we're going to see MTGO stick around for awhile. Absent a major shift in how cards are distributed for Arena, there's just no other way to play Vintage and Legacy, especially that scales to the playerbase size.
I do agree that it makes little business sense to run two online clients, but I think the case can be made that Wizards has already been doing this for years with the Duels of the Planeswalkers series. I'm not too worried about MTGO right now, in fact I just recently made my first account and started buying cards on it for Modern/Legacy.
I think we're going to see MTGO stick around for awhile. Absent a major shift in how cards are distributed for Arena, there's just no other way to play Vintage and Legacy, especially that scales to the playerbase size.
I do agree that it makes little business sense to run two online clients, but I think the case can be made that Wizards has already been doing this for years with the Duels of the Planeswalkers series. I'm not too worried about MTGO right now, in fact I just recently made my first account and started buying cards on it for Modern/Legacy.
It's a good time to buy cards because prices are falling. My bundle fell 16% in the last 5 days, and the only major Modern/MTGO-related "news" that came out in this time period was the Arena economy announcement. If someone is buying into MTGO to just play the game, this is a good time and I expect it will continue to be a good time as prices keep falling. But if you have value in those cards that you expect to recuperate or grow, then this is a risky time for MTGO.
Hoping that anything digital would retain/gain value is a bit of a pipe dream anyway to me.
'Hey guys Snapcasters are too expensive'
'Add a Zero somewhere and we have X more in rotation'
'Cool'
Its never been 'real' to me.
Except MTGO never did that, outside of certain online only print runs. As a result, the online marketplace was significantly different from the offline one, with cards with only one printing that normally hold no value being absurdly expensive, while expensive staples being a lot cheaper as long as they have larger print runs. For a long time after Khans, fetches were cheaper online than Innistrad lands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
My predictions for the PT so they can be appropriately ridiculed when they don't materialize.
Decks that will see a lot more play than expected (if people do their homework) or a moderate amount but with awesome results (if they don't):
- Humans
- Tron
- Titanshift
Deck that will see very little play compared to what some people seem to be expecting:
- Jeskai
Decks that will see a good amount of play as expected:
- Your known good Modern decks (Storm, GDS)
I'd definitely agree on Jeskai. I don't think very many people at the pro tour are going to show up with it and it will just hit natural variance. The deck I am really expecting to surprise hit is Goryo's Vengeance.dek. It's doing powerful broken things and with GY shenanigans at an all time low it could be on its way to just dodging hate all the way to the top.
I don't know what happens with Eldrazi Tron. I never liked the deck, but consensus was it was great and now no one plays it and honestly I don't have a clue about why is that.
It seemed like it was a high-variance deck with a higher floor, but lower ceiling than traditional Tron. It doesn't fall apart as quickly or easily to aggro, but it also doesn't massively overpower everything with ridiculous bombs. Plus, with some of the tools traditional tron now has access to for dealing with quick aggro decks, the more powerful top end is probably just more enticing.
I don't know what happens with Eldrazi Tron. I never liked the deck, but consensus was it was great and now no one plays it and honestly I don't have a clue about why is that.
It seemed like it was a high-variance deck with a higher floor, but lower ceiling than traditional Tron. It doesn't fall apart as quickly or easily to aggro, but it also doesn't massively overpower everything with ridiculous bombs. Plus, with some of the tools traditional tron now has access to for dealing with quick aggro decks, the more powerful top end is probably just more enticing.
I think pretty much this. Big Tron also is more consistent due to eggs and Sylvan Scrying. The payoffs are much more devastating and often they just need 1-2 of them to win. Chalice of the Void is still a super strong card, but I don't think it's been the knockout punch that it had been months ago.
I kind of hope that Grishoalbrand doesn't do too well at the Pro Tour. I have picked up the deck again and have been 16-6 (0-2 vs. Shadow this time around) with it so far. A friend has been something like 25-2 (both losses were Burn) with it, not counting IDs so far. He has kind of been my inspiration to restart, lol.
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Re: Tron
This seems like such an obvious choice for the PT that I will be shocked if people aren't prepared for it. It's fallen off on MTGO for this very reason, and I think the pros will identify this. I also think h0ly's scenario about Tron is possible, where only a few people bring it but it ends up doing well in their hands vs. en masse.
Re: Grishoalbrand
I don't know where this newfound fear comes from. I think it's partially from Hoogland's posts on Twitter and Reddit, but it's hard to really take him too seriously. I just don't understand why anyone would play no-result Grishoalbrand when you can just play Storm. You lose a turn of speed and in exchange you play a deck that is so much more resilient, still capable of T3 kills, less synergy-reliant, and doesn't just defeat itself. Also, if you think a tournament is GY-hate light, why bring this when you can bring Dredge, an actual, proven performer in no-GY-hate metagames?
Re: Jeskai
Some good players will bring this deck, but I doubt it's a major player from a percentage standpoint. Too many pros don't have a lot of Modern experience, and I think many of them still view the format as a high variance matchup lottery because it's not Temur Energy mirrors. Because of this, many will probably go to a deck with free wins instead of a deck that is stuck in the 50/50 band with many matchups that are closer to 40/60 and few that are better than 60/40.
Re: Tron
This seems like such an obvious choice for the PT that I will be shocked if people aren't prepared for it. It's fallen off on MTGO for this very reason, and I think the pros will identify this. I also think h0ly's scenario about Tron is possible, where only a few people bring it but it ends up doing well in their hands vs. en masse.
Re: Grishoalbrand
I don't know where this newfound fear comes from. I think it's partially from Hoogland's posts on Twitter and Reddit, but it's hard to really take him too seriously. I just don't understand why anyone would play no-result Grishoalbrand when you can just play Storm. You lose a turn of speed and in exchange you play a deck that is so much more resilient, still capable of T3 kills, less synergy-reliant, and doesn't just defeat itself. Also, if you think a tournament is GY-hate light, why bring this when you can bring Dredge, an actual, proven performer in no-GY-hate metagames?
Re: Jeskai
Some good players will bring this deck, but I doubt it's a major player from a percentage standpoint. Too many pros don't have a lot of Modern experience, and I think many of them still view the format as a high variance matchup lottery because it's not Temur Energy mirrors. Because of this, many will probably go to a deck with free wins instead of a deck that is stuck in the 50/50 band with many matchups that are closer to 40/60 and few that are better than 60/40.
I only pick Grishoalbrand because it's a powerful deck that no one is currently playing which makes it reasonable as a surprise deck. Storm is definitely better, but can't pick the top deck in the format as a surprise newcomer.
Re: Grishoalbrand
I don't know where this newfound fear comes from. I think it's partially from Hoogland's posts on Twitter and Reddit, but it's hard to really take him too seriously. I just don't understand why anyone would play no-result Grishoalbrand when you can just play Storm. You lose a turn of speed and in exchange you play a deck that is so much more resilient, still capable of T3 kills, less synergy-reliant, and doesn't just defeat itself. Also, if you think a tournament is GY-hate light, why bring this when you can bring Dredge, an actual, proven performer in no-GY-hate metagames?
For me at least, it's because I've seen what the deck can do in "small bursts." During the Path to Exile FNM Promo month, when I started playing Grishoalbrand, I was 24-1, not counting IDs. For someone who was just learning the deck, it is scary to see its raw power. A couple of months later, I had a month where my W/L was 50%. So, I've seen the other side. Still, all it really takes is one tournament. Remember, in Modern, it can be just one tournament and boom, your beloved deck is gone. I would hate to see it happen because I love the deck so much.
These are the words of a friend at my LGS, who has been something close to 25-2, not counting IDs since restarting, "Wizards didn't want me to play fair Magic with Golgari Grave-Troll, so I'm back to turn 2ing people." If that's something that doesn't scare you about a deck being banned, then I don't know what will.
*For what it's worth, when I went 3-1 at my last FNM, I had zero turn 2 kills. I did have 2 turn 3 kills though. My loss was to a 4 Color Shadow player who played double Thoughtseize, Street Wraiths, and a Shadow with Temur Battle Rage by turns 3 and 4 in both games, while I didn't draw a non-Desperate Ritual mana source in game 1. I want to clear up some misconceptions about the deck. It's not all "I'm going to win on turn 2 if I get it, oh snap, Grafdigger's Cage, I scoop." Players have played around cards like this for a while and even side out some number of Goryo's Vengeance. I beat Humans that FNM after they played a Thalia, Guardian of Thraben. I would say that most of my game 2 wins came because of the SB cards of Bontu's Last Reckoning, Anger of the Gods, and to a lesser extent, Shattering Spree and Engineered Explosives. Why play this deck over another deck? Because sometimes the best "defense" in this format is having the potentially best offense and some players are looking to spike a tournament. They would rather be 11-4 or 4-11 than 8-7.
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Spirits
Incorrect. Trading card games are discontinued all the time, and online games often eventually lose server access, effectively killing the game. Even if microtransactions are involved, even if there is an economy of items for the playerbase, the terms of service does not protect you from this.
WOTC could, out of the kindness of their hearts, absolutely. But you shouldn't plan on it. It would be a massive cost, and WOTC knows the average player will grumble and play along.
Spirits
WOTC is actually at a completely new and unique position, as no other online card game collection system ever costed as much as MTGO does to the players. Yes, people have previously invested in skins, game time, etc. but this is simply different.
If they would simply turn of the system one day, that would have a large impact not only to the MTGO players but to their whole player base. It will show that it is a company that doesn't care and give no outs to their player base. In addition, if we accept that magic is in a decline (I personally disagree), then getting SUCH a bad publicity would simply be the nail in the coffin.
I don't think wizards will ever stop the support for eternal formats. The market is just too big for them to do that. Maybe it will take time, maybe they will simply restructure how eternal formats work and what cards are allowed, but eventually something will come up, if the company continues to exist.
I don't think we should "plan" on something exactly, as you say. But, I think, we can be certain, that wizards will give some outs to the player base. Whether they will be good or bad remains to be seen, but there won't be a day where servers close with no notification and all players lose everything.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Always good to keep certain topics taboo, might interrupt someone's "safe space." Companies, especially game companies, make decisions all the time that adversely affect their playerbase. EA isn't bankrupt. As for eternal format support, I am simply referring to MTGO. If WOTC wanted to shut MTGO down in favor of Arena, they could. There is zero legal defense to it. Once it's over, it's over, and if you had $10K in assets when they pull the plug, oh well.
My point? Don't trust WOTC. They don't deserve it.
I think his point is a little bit more nuanced than what you’re addressing. Wotc/magic and EA are very different. Ea licenses games and continues to push out new ones, Magic is one game. Magic continues on and keeps on getting more sets and continues to exist as an actively played game. If wotc drops the curtains on mtgo those players aren’t then going to move on to the next wotc game, they’re going to stop playing magic and will no longer be customers of wotc. Doing so comes at a huge cost to wotc and if they were planning on doing that they will likely have some way of porting those players into different magic based product.
RBU
Splinter Twin (RIP)/DelverRBUUUUMono U TronUUU
GRGGR TronGRG
GWURKnight FallGWUR
Legacy
GWBDark MaverickGWB
--> EDH <--
BWUErtai, the CorruptedBWU
WoTC could end MTGO without any recompense, but it would seem a poor decision unless the ensuing cost savings are significant enough to offset both the lost MTGO revenue and any customers who'd stop playing entirely after feeling "betrayed". My bet would be that they at least make a token effort along the lines others have mentioned, although that's hardly going to make someone with over $1K invested on MTGO feel much better.
About the only games that could remotely compare to the scenario are games with micro transactions that received sequels, and even then most, if not all, sequels are reworked from the ground up, making them similar but unique products. MTGO and MTG Arena are the same game with two different UIs
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
Spirits
I am addressing a very specific issue related to eternal formats and the player-base of MTG (since we are at the modern subforum). EA and its policies have absolutely nothing to do with MTG. Of course companies make decisions that affect their playerbase. Saying that these decisions are "adversely all the time" sort of beats the point (and I am not claiming that they are doing out of their kind heart, everything is profit related).
Of course they can shut down MTGO. They can do a ton of things, like they can reprint reserved-list cards. That doesn't mean they will. Just because a company can do something it shouldn't mean we should expect them to do it. What is the point of discussion is to try to understand whether such a decision makes sense. And what I am saying, is that just doing it while they give nothing back to the community is an unsustainable decisions with very little profit. If they care about making their new platform sustainable and their future products sell-able, they have to retain a certain player-base. Otherwise new players won't invest.
Now, if they don't care about money, and they don't want to make Arena a place where all their player-base will eventually go to, then sure. But I don't see why a company wouldn't care about making its product profitable.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
[1] Arena will be successful enough to replace MTGO; and
[2] Arena will not support Modern; so
[3] WotC will lose interest in Modern
[1] is not a given. Arena could easily fail before it threatens the existence of MTGO.
[2] is not a given either. Arena may support Modern before they close MTGO. If they doesn't support Modern, that is a good reason to keep MTGO alive for Modern and other eternal formats, even if it would be given less focus.
[3] is not a given either, as there is no reason to think that paper Modern will die.
Of cause, Arena could be so much of a success that WotC will lose interest in anything but Standard. But that is more of a issue of state of Magic in general, and quite a bit in the future.
I only play MTGO, and mostly Modern at that, so how Arena may or may not replace MTGO is of interest to me. If it does, I will really like them to support Modern and allow me to port my card collection over, even if I needed to pay some fee. However, I think the current discussion on Arena and future of MTGO is based on many layers of suppositions, and approaching the point of being off-topic.
This is a very present, pertinent issue in Modern. If Modern's online future appears jeopardized, this will hurt its popularity and long-term appeal. This is especially true if Modern is jeopardized because Wizards is trying to gain more control over the secondary market and/or non-rotating format profitability. If so, this means there's a long term plan to move away from stuff like Modern/Legacy/Vintage/EDH/Pauper/etc. and towards a more Arena-driven style of non-rotating gameplay. We already have worrisome anecdotal evidence to this effect, and although nothing definitive has emerged, the quotes from Wizards are not encouraging.
To be clear, I think paper Modern is doing great. I have absolutely no doom and gloom about it at all. It's the most popular format by views and attendance, the metagame is supremely healthy, and most players (plus Wizards itself) are thrilled with where it is. Sure, I think the PT is going to show that Modern secretly has a few top decks and all those 25+ other options are just worse versions of the best decks, but I doubt this will affect most other tournaments beyond the PT. I also don't think any one of those best decks will break out so much that it will result in a ban.
As a related topic, my bundle of MTGO cards has dropped 16% since the Arena economy update article. This bundle included a number of top-tier decks including UW and Jeskai Control, Gx Tron, E-Tron, Ad Nauseam, and various Modern staples. It's never a good thing when big-ticket bundles like this fall. I'll also remind everyone that when I sold this bundle in 09/2017, it has NEVER exceeded the sale value in those past 4-5 months. I sold that bundle the day of a major Arena announcement, and believe Arena is a major source of uncertainty for the MTGO economy that is going to continue affecting Moderners.
I do agree that it makes little business sense to run two online clients, but I think the case can be made that Wizards has already been doing this for years with the Duels of the Planeswalkers series. I'm not too worried about MTGO right now, in fact I just recently made my first account and started buying cards on it for Modern/Legacy.
It's a good time to buy cards because prices are falling. My bundle fell 16% in the last 5 days, and the only major Modern/MTGO-related "news" that came out in this time period was the Arena economy announcement. If someone is buying into MTGO to just play the game, this is a good time and I expect it will continue to be a good time as prices keep falling. But if you have value in those cards that you expect to recuperate or grow, then this is a risky time for MTGO.
'Hey guys Snapcasters are too expensive'
'Add a Zero somewhere and we have X more in rotation'
'Cool'
Its never been 'real' to me.
Spirits
Except MTGO never did that, outside of certain online only print runs. As a result, the online marketplace was significantly different from the offline one, with cards with only one printing that normally hold no value being absurdly expensive, while expensive staples being a lot cheaper as long as they have larger print runs. For a long time after Khans, fetches were cheaper online than Innistrad lands.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I'd definitely agree on Jeskai. I don't think very many people at the pro tour are going to show up with it and it will just hit natural variance. The deck I am really expecting to surprise hit is Goryo's Vengeance.dek. It's doing powerful broken things and with GY shenanigans at an all time low it could be on its way to just dodging hate all the way to the top.
UWR is too fair to cut through the filth.
Would love to be wrong, because honestly I could watch UWR all day.
Spirits
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I think pretty much this. Big Tron also is more consistent due to eggs and Sylvan Scrying. The payoffs are much more devastating and often they just need 1-2 of them to win. Chalice of the Void is still a super strong card, but I don't think it's been the knockout punch that it had been months ago.
I kind of hope that Grishoalbrand doesn't do too well at the Pro Tour. I have picked up the deck again and have been 16-6 (0-2 vs. Shadow this time around) with it so far. A friend has been something like 25-2 (both losses were Burn) with it, not counting IDs so far. He has kind of been my inspiration to restart, lol.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)This seems like such an obvious choice for the PT that I will be shocked if people aren't prepared for it. It's fallen off on MTGO for this very reason, and I think the pros will identify this. I also think h0ly's scenario about Tron is possible, where only a few people bring it but it ends up doing well in their hands vs. en masse.
Re: Grishoalbrand
I don't know where this newfound fear comes from. I think it's partially from Hoogland's posts on Twitter and Reddit, but it's hard to really take him too seriously. I just don't understand why anyone would play no-result Grishoalbrand when you can just play Storm. You lose a turn of speed and in exchange you play a deck that is so much more resilient, still capable of T3 kills, less synergy-reliant, and doesn't just defeat itself. Also, if you think a tournament is GY-hate light, why bring this when you can bring Dredge, an actual, proven performer in no-GY-hate metagames?
Re: Jeskai
Some good players will bring this deck, but I doubt it's a major player from a percentage standpoint. Too many pros don't have a lot of Modern experience, and I think many of them still view the format as a high variance matchup lottery because it's not Temur Energy mirrors. Because of this, many will probably go to a deck with free wins instead of a deck that is stuck in the 50/50 band with many matchups that are closer to 40/60 and few that are better than 60/40.
I only pick Grishoalbrand because it's a powerful deck that no one is currently playing which makes it reasonable as a surprise deck. Storm is definitely better, but can't pick the top deck in the format as a surprise newcomer.
For me at least, it's because I've seen what the deck can do in "small bursts." During the Path to Exile FNM Promo month, when I started playing Grishoalbrand, I was 24-1, not counting IDs. For someone who was just learning the deck, it is scary to see its raw power. A couple of months later, I had a month where my W/L was 50%. So, I've seen the other side. Still, all it really takes is one tournament. Remember, in Modern, it can be just one tournament and boom, your beloved deck is gone. I would hate to see it happen because I love the deck so much.
These are the words of a friend at my LGS, who has been something close to 25-2, not counting IDs since restarting, "Wizards didn't want me to play fair Magic with Golgari Grave-Troll, so I'm back to turn 2ing people." If that's something that doesn't scare you about a deck being banned, then I don't know what will.
*For what it's worth, when I went 3-1 at my last FNM, I had zero turn 2 kills. I did have 2 turn 3 kills though. My loss was to a 4 Color Shadow player who played double Thoughtseize, Street Wraiths, and a Shadow with Temur Battle Rage by turns 3 and 4 in both games, while I didn't draw a non-Desperate Ritual mana source in game 1. I want to clear up some misconceptions about the deck. It's not all "I'm going to win on turn 2 if I get it, oh snap, Grafdigger's Cage, I scoop." Players have played around cards like this for a while and even side out some number of Goryo's Vengeance. I beat Humans that FNM after they played a Thalia, Guardian of Thraben. I would say that most of my game 2 wins came because of the SB cards of Bontu's Last Reckoning, Anger of the Gods, and to a lesser extent, Shattering Spree and Engineered Explosives. Why play this deck over another deck? Because sometimes the best "defense" in this format is having the potentially best offense and some players are looking to spike a tournament. They would rather be 11-4 or 4-11 than 8-7.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)