You think that the game of magic rides on PTQs and PTs?
What gives you that idea?
I never said any such thing because I don’t believe such a thing.
Your statement of PTs being the driving force behind singles sales is laughable to the point that it is just absurd.
The only thing that’s funny/absurd is the notion that I said such a thing. Please please please be careful when ascribing ideas to me that I do not support or have never expressed.
What I said was:
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.
I’m struggling to understand how my statement that the Pro Tour exists to sell cards means that the Pro Tour is the driving force behind single sales. Just because the Pro Tour’s purpose is to sell cards doesn’t mean that it is the ‘driving force’ behind single sales.
Casual magic is the driving force of the game, hence FNM is far more important than any PTQ or PT.
I am well aware of the importance of casual magic. I know, for instance, there are far more casual magic players than non-casual. However, there are a few important caveats to that. First of all, how we define casual is actually really messy. Some people define casual as basically any magic player that isn’t a PT/PTQer. I think that definition is too narrow. For example, dedicated Legacy of Vintage players I don’t consider to be casual. Secondly, while there are far more casual players than non-casual players, it’s my understanding that casual players do not purchase as many singles. I don’t have sales statistics in front of me, nor do I really care. But please, please please do not assume that I am underestimating the importance of casual magic players.
I never even referenced, talked about, or mentioned casual magic, so I’m really at a loss to understand why you even raise this point.
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.
Again, I don’t disagree with that. While I think the Pro Tour is very important to Magic, I also believe Magic, as a game, would survive in its absence. I think probably many people here would disagree with us.
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.
Not at all. You need to look at my argument again. Again, the prize payout should be what the market will bear. Clearly, TO’s would only award prizes that they could *afford* to give out. In the absence of competition, we don’t know what the market will bear. If it turns out that the current prize payout is what the market would actually bear, then so be it. But we need competition to discover that as an empirical fact.
This is where so many people get tripped up. Sam, and others keep asking me: what SHOULD TOs award? My point isn’t that I have the numerical answer, but that we need a mechanism to actually produce that answer, and that basic economic theory, that competition is good for consumers, is readily applicable.
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?
Again, you are mistaken. I don’t make any money on Meandeck Opens. I simply help organize them. The TO takes a 20% cut of the entry fees. I only ‘make money’ if I win the tournament or split top 4.
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.
You are being too reductionist. It’s clearly untrue that you play in the PTQs because you can afford it as well. It’s clear that you play it PTQs because you have time as well. Without time and entry fee money, you wouldn’t play. Again, the invite is one factor of many, including your ability to pay the entry fee and your available time.
People need to get out of this hyper reductionist mindset, and stop making such broad, provably false statements. It’s creating a lot of confusion.
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?
Have you secretly surveyed everyone in this room? There have been many voices, and not all have been expressly critical. Some have been merely questioning. Some of have been neutral. Let’s not make such sweeping statements.
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.
First of all, yes, people will stil attend the PTQ because of the invite, and not the prizes. But that doesn’t mean that more people won’t attend PTQs if prizes were better. In fact, I’ve shown that they would. An increase in prizes is an increase in value in the event. People make cost/benefit decisions to attend. Increased prizes is similar to a reduction in entry fee and will produce a similar effect.
But again, you are being reductionist. Not all people are there merely for the invite. Some people go because of the sum of reasons: possibility to win an invite, but also prizes, spending time with friends, enjoying tournament magic, etc. It may be the case, in many instances, that any one of those reasons would be insufficient.
In essence, what’s going on is that many people in this thread are transforming a contributing cause into a sufficient cause. While it is the case that being able to earn an invite is a contributing cause to attending a PTQ, it’s not, in virtually any case, sufficient. As I said, having time and money actually are necessary conditions that are far more important than the actual presence of a potential invite.
The prize payout is the absolute last thing on most players' minds.
Are you a mind reader? (Epistemlogically), How do you know this?
I’m reading lots of Pros coming here and saying: “the only reason that people attend PTQs is the invite.” Yet, that’s just solipsistic. That may be the case for you ,but, again, that’s clearly not the case for everyone. There has already been someone in this thread who said that prize support was a factor for them.
Let me break it down:
First of all, if the only thing that mattered was the invite, then PTQ Tos would not award other prizes. There would be no point. I think we can agree that in the main PTQ Tos are profit maximizers, and they wouldn’t lose money for nothing.
Secondly, even if the prize payout is – on the front end – the last thing on people’s minds, it doesn’t logically follow that other prizes are irrelevant. For example, if you make top 8, and lose, and walk away with nothing, that could very well create a bad experience, and make a player less likely to attend another PTQ. Thus, even if, following yours and Flores logic, players are either unaware or don’t care about prizes on the front end, that doesn’t mean that they don’t affect or color the overall experience of players at the backend, particularly where it matters, or at least, where I emphasize it matters: retention and retainment.
Third, again, like so many others, you are being reductionistic.
Let me put it this way. Let’s say that you are a PTQ grinder. Let’s just say that this Saturday there is a PTQ. You really want to qualify for the Pro Tour, and you think you have a good chance of doing so. What factors go into your decision to attend? 1) the presence of an invite, 2) the costs of entry, 3) your opportunity cost for the day/EV, 4) other time commitments/availability, 5) the amount of fun you may have, etc, etc. What happens is that in common communication, we tend to ignore all of the reasons and just reduce it to one or two. But the truth is that that’s just reductionist. All of these factors are contributing factors, yet we treat a few of them as if they are sufficient, when, as a matter of factual reality or hard logic, they aren’t. As I stated above, if the presence of an invite were sufficient, then the necessary conditions of having time and money to pay the entry fee would not actually be necessary conditions. Yet, they clearly are. There is a threshold in cost/benefit decision making where people feel they've crossed a threshold. Those factors all contribute to that determination.
That may all sound obvious, but the main point is that there are many other factors that weigh on an individual players decision matrix. And, too often in this thread, people are coming in and saying something like this:
“The only reason people play in PTQs is to win an invite.” When that’s just clearly untrue.
A person’s decision making process is actually very complicated, and much of it is not even conscious. Dozens of factors are at work, and the threshold question of whether to play or not is influenced by all of those factors. The presence of an invite is an important factor, but it’s far from the only one, and not likely to be determinative in almost any instance. Other factors matter, and prizes play a role in that. As does gas, distance, time, health, etc, etc.
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
I don’t think I’m ignoring this fact. I may be assigning a different weight of importance to it, but I explicitly mention this fact in the opening post:
1) The “They Provide a Quality Service” Argument.
A number of people have advanced this argument. It goes like this: these TOs have proven their ability to provide a quality service. They are well run, well organized, and experienced. Why risk letting inferior or bad TOs run PTQs?
The answer is several fold. First of all, just because they provide a quality service, and provide a smoothly run event doesn’t mean that they aren’t gouging players and hurting magic. In fact, it’s the fact that they do provide at least a minimally quality service that excuses the monopoly power.
Secondly, while they may be providing a quality service, isn’t that for the market to decide? The defense:"we provide a great service, we are experienced, we provide quality,” is what they say in every industry. And I'm sure it's true. I'm sure these TOs really do a great job. They make the trains run on time, so to speak. But that doesn’t mean they are providing the best service that the market can bear. Open up competition, take away monopoly power, and then see what people think. We’ve lived in the monopoly system for so long that we haven’t even experienced the alternative. The TO system exists because these TOs, by and large, have always had it this way. One judge said that they’d estimate that it would take 1-3 seasons for other TOs to ‘catch up.’ That’s an empirical question that can only be known by trying it. But everything we know about economics suggests that competition is the only way to know who provides the best service. Saying that these TOs provide great service is not an answer because a competitive market would likely provide a much better service, especially for consumers. Isn’t that the whole idea behind our economic system?
than it is by letting anyone bid for a PTQ slot for some economic ideal of competition.
Look I realize my arguments sound a lot in theory, but I am also a pragmatist. I believe that the current models are exploitative, and, frankly, ridiculous. I’m astounded that people apparently think that current PTQ prize payouts are acceptable. But, I understand why they do. The people who play in PTQs are in the upper left hand part of the demand curve, above the Pm line, and therefore they don’t consider themselves to be exploited. They are willing to pay the monopoly price.
But, since so many people are willing to do so, the only way to get them to see why/how they are being exploited is to show them the economic math, i.e. the monopoly pricing graph. The triangle of consumer deadweight loss is their loss.
But I also think that it's hurting retention. It's driving people away who might otherwise stay. The only reason the system is sustainable is because the people who drop out are replaced by new ones. But that's treating PTQ players like garbage, as disposable.
The point here is that I wouldn’t even be arguing this point if it were just theory: 1) I think that Magic is being prevented from reaching its maximum growth potential (and I see this as players age, how they could be retained or how re-entry could be more effective), and 2) I think that the current prize structures are just blatantly wrong. But how do you tell that to someone who’s individual demand curve is in the upper left hand part of the aggregate demand curve? You can’t. Thus, the reason I sound my argument (in part) in theory.
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?
This is speculative. We could make the same analogy to restaurants or any business. Sure, some business could come in and do a terrible job, but it would be closed. We still allow competition, even though it results in some bad apples. That’s how we know what the bad apples are. Currently, we have absolutely no way of knowing whehther Tos are actually good because there is no competition for a market to tell us what’s good. Things seem to be working well, so we say, they are doing a great job! B It’s a fundamental epistemological problem: in the absence of market mechanisms, we have no way of actually evaluating whether these Tos are, in fact, doing a good job. They may be just doing a serviceable job, and we would never know it.
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.
And, again, see my response to the ‘quality argument’ above. All of that applies.
you are attempting to fix something that is not broken.
I know it’s not broken. Magic is doing well. But isn’t that one of my main points? Haven’t I said over and over again that success breeds complacency? That flaws in a system are only exposed when its, frankly, too late? That as good as things are we should always be striving for better?
As I said on SCG:
Magic is doing phenomenally well right now. And that's great. But that's also a curse. Succeed breeds complacency and it doesn't force one to confront systemic flaws. Our housing bubble is a case in point. Only once housing prices started falling did the whole system (of adjustable rate mortgages, etc) collapse. We kept feeding the monster, even though it was structurally flawed. Same is true in sports. Only when you lose do you see the flaws and make adjustments. You could have a gaping weakness, but if it's not exposed, there is little incentive to address it.
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. One of the most important things that can be fixed is the PTQ system, which currently gouges players and treats them as if they are disposable. That's because, they are. But if we actually had a different system, driven by TO competition, with better prize payouts and better consumer services that wasn't structured by regional monopolies, the entire magic system would grow more rapidly.
I believe, rightly or wrongly, that I have insight. I see a structural flaw, and I’m trying to draw attention to it, not because I think that Magic will fail if we don’t fix it, but because it’s keeping magic from reaching it’s potential. I do think, though, that if Magic were to experience a downturn, then this structural flaw would manifest, and it could become a problem.
I think in life its very important to be able to see problems before they manifest. That’s part of what was confusing Tom Martell. He couldn’t understand why I think this is a problem. It’s not that I think Magic is going to fail if we don’t fix this, but I do think it’s holding Magic back from reaching its full growth potential, and from an opportunity cost POV, that’s a harm.
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.
And again, we don’t need hard data for every single factor. We have them for many, and can reasonably estimate them for the rest. As I said, “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.
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.
And again, I have real data. We know how much it costs to rent a hall. We know what judges get paid. We know what boxes cost. We know what overhead costs. None of these things are unknown.
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.
Exploitation is a pejorative term I used to describe my feelings about the issue. The problem is that you can’t actually prove to people whose demand curves are individually above the Monopoly price point that they are being exploited, because from their perspective, they aren’t. That’s why monopoly pricing works. If people felt that they were being exploited, monopolists couldn’t maximize profits in the same way. They simply take advantage of the different willingness to consume among consumers.
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.
You are arguing with the implementation, not the basic principles. There are many solutions to those problems.
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.
It does tell me something. In fact, I’ve learned a lot through this exercise. I discovered, for example, that people who immediately criticized me (Tom Martell for example) actually didn’t understand the arguments I was raising in the first place despite spelling them out in the first couple of posts. I told him all along that I wasn’t blaming ‘greedy’ Tos, but a system that produced harmful incentives. Only when we seriously engaged each other on the issues did I discover this fact. It’s a cautionary tale about how seriously to take people who claim that I have no idea what I’m talking about when, in reality, they don’t. Especially when, instead of actually offering up arguments, they just claim that you are wrong.
Moreover, I’ve also I discovered that trolling me contributed to a bandwagon / in-group/out-group dynamic. Studies in human psychology show that if you create in-groups and out-groups, people will more critically evaluate the outgroup and express preference for the ingroup, even if the groups are completely fabricated. Of course, I think some people genuinely disagree. But, if an objective, neutral observer were to come here and evaluate the arguments made by me and all of the arguments on the other side, I think they’d find my arguments at least somewhat meritorious. I’m not discounting the fact that many people legitimately disagree, but I also think a non-trivial number of people are simply engaging in group psychology. It takes a courageous person to vocally express their support of my position after the sheer amount of trolling this thread received in the first two pages. I’ve been on the unpopular side of arguments before (i.e. fixing Time Vault), and I’ve seen this effect before.
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.
Sam: this demonstrates that you actually don’t understand my economic arguments. Just the opposite is true. People who are being exploited are actually unlikely to know it. That’s the problem.
Let me try to explain: everyone has a demand curve for any given good. The curve represents the quantity of a good they’d be willing to pay at a given price. Adding all of those curves gives us aggregate demand.
Take a look at this graph:
Leeched image removed.
As you can see from the Demand curve, fewer and fewer people are willing to pay as the price goes up, and more and more people are willing to pay as the price goes down. The problem is that the monopolist prices their good at a point where only people already willing to pay at that price are sold. What those people don’t know is that if the market was competitive, they would have paying the competitive market price. That is, they would have a consumer surplus that was instead transferred to the monopolist. That’s the point: people who are being exploited don’t feel or know it because they are already willing, by definition, to pay the monopoly price. They are on the upper left of the aggregate demand curve.
The other problem is that we’ve priced out everyone on the slope of the gray triangle. And that’s where my main argument comes in: the monopolist isn’t maximizing attendance. In fact, they don’t want to, since doing so would prevent them from maximing their profits. And that’s what’s hurting Magic’s long term growth potential.
Mike Flores wrote:
Old system was TOs bid/bought slots. WotC allocating slots regionally actually increased attendance. So basically, you're wrong. It's quite clear you don't understand the application of the term "monopoly" in this case. Your thread is quite painful to read
I've now lost count of the number of times I've easily, and simply, dispatched of your overly broad statements. So, let me do it again. The fact that allocating slots regionally coincided with increased attendance does not prove causation, at most correlation. Moreover, that also doesn't prove that a competitive system like I described (not a bidding one) wouldn't result in increased attendance. Your conclusion doesn't logically following from its premises. Pretty much that simple Mike.
Just like earlier on you said:
For one thing it is quite clear that increasing prize payout has a minimal effect on attendance. This is easily proved.
When a very simple counterfactual disproved this overly broad, and patently ridiculous statement.
Maybe you should actually stop using the word "clear," since you are often wrong in the statement in which you use it.
What a mess! I saw this on SCG earlier and thought about it at length.
@OP: Here's a question: What motivates you to go to PTQ's or even just play Magic in general? If you ask the average PTQ player they'll say they go to the PTQ for the invites primarily and trading and networking after that. Product doesn't really matter to the PTQ player because it doesn't affect their DCI rating or get them closer to the PT. They already win alot of product from FNM and other local events anyway. Seriously, I know guys who come into a store with 40-50 packs in their backpack! So saying "Top 8 wins x number of boxes of [insert set name here]!" just makes them worry about how they'll get rid of the packs.
Am I saying that PTQ players don't like product? No but you have to offer something different from the standard stuff. If TO's offered prizes like uncut sheets(foil sheets are hot stuff!) or exclusive playmats I think that more players would be excited about the other prizes and maybe a player who wouldn't normally come to a PTQ will give it a try.
TO's who host PTQ's can certainly afford to supply more prize packs. Most TO's I know, the LGS kind, buy boxes for between $60 and $70 and sell them for between $100 and $110. But doing something just because you afford to seems a bit useless. I'd prefer they spend their money on things like Super FNM's or Win a(n) Laptop/X-Box 360/iPod type event to run along side the PTQ(I like to make a weekend out of stuff like that). Heck, I'd spring money for a Magic carnival, where you play carnival games to win awesome singles and prizes. You can win a goldfish and a Jace The Mind Sculptor!
Perhaps you should actually read and think about what other people write rather than assume what they write is the straw man you want to attack and then regurgitate graphs or theory at them.
Solipsistic? Give me a break.
I tried to respond fairly and rationally, but you did not do me the same in kind. I'm done.
Perhaps you should actually read and think about what other people write rather than assume what they write is the straw man you want to attack and then regurgitate graphs or theory at them.
Right, it couldn't possibly be that I took your post seriously, and gave a thoughtful reply?
Solipsistic? Give me a break.
That's exactly what's going on. A bunch of Pros are failing to understand why other prizes matter because, from their POV, they don't.
I tried to respond fairly and rationally, but you did not do me the same in kind. I'm done.
I did respond fairly and rationally. How did I treat your post unfairly? I'm sorry you felt otherwise.
I totally agree I remember last year I paid $35 finished some garbage like 3-3-1 and got 3 packs. But I feel things have already turned around (at least here in edmonton/calgary) When I pay $35 dollars (CAD too mind you) I get 6 packs before the tourney even starts. On top of which is I finished like that again I would probably pull and additional 6. 12 for $35 isn't that bad 35*3 (for a box) = 105 slightly less than what I pay for discounted retail boxes up here. Also IDK but aren't you forgetting the cost of air fair (from invite) or does wizards supply that?
Moreover, I’ve also I discovered that trolling me contributed to a bandwagon / in-group/out-group dynamic. Studies in human psychology show that if you create in-groups and out-groups, people will more critically evaluate the outgroup and express preference for the ingroup, even if the groups are completely fabricated. Of course, I think some people genuinely disagree. But, if an objective, neutral observer were to come here and evaluate the arguments made by me and all of the arguments on the other side, I think they’d find my arguments at least somewhat meritorious. I’m not discounting the fact that many people legitimately disagree, but I also think a non-trivial number of people are simply engaging in group psychology. It takes a courageous person to vocally express their support of my position after the sheer amount of trolling this thread received in the first two pages. I’ve been on the unpopular side of arguments before (i.e. fixing Time Vault), and I’ve seen this effect before.
I got pointed here by Riki Hayashi (curse you!!!) and have been reading some of it over, and consider myself relatively neutral and strive towards objectivity. I don't have the economics degree but I do understand the core principles, and can say from my time working at putting together tournaments at all sorts of levels, from FNM's and JSSes and PTQs for Magic players to little-kid Pokemon leagues and Yu-Gi-Oh! tournies, that Magic events are subject to the idea that "the price is the price". (Price insensitivity, I believe Menendian referred to it at one point) You're limited by the noncompetitive factor where there are generally gentlemanly agreements between neighboring TOs not to compete for weekends doesn't help the concept of a monopoly, and the fact of the matter is, the price charged for a PTQ or other event is not the price that the market would bear if the market followed unhindered rules of supply and demand.
I do, however, think that the price is very close to the real price, because the people running events have good motivation to run as close to the real price as possible, because the player base is an informed populace and shares information reasonably well, so the fact that the Rockville, Maryland tournaments are the absolute pit-stains of the East Coast PTQ circuit is reasonably well-known and plenty of people will skip one even though there is no other PTQ that week and they want to PTQ. I sure have, and will again soon. TOs frequently approach the real price and don't try and gouge what is largely a captive buying group, because of the simple principle that you can fleece a sheep many times but only skin it once. Consumer response self-regulates in that regard, though I do wish there were stronger means for the players to interact with WotC to ensure some TOs are no longer able to run events when it is made clear that they do so poorly or gouge prize supports to get as much value as they can out of the tournament by cutting the only costs they can manipulate.
With the "major tournament circuit" becoming unhinged from WotC's direct oversight, I think we are going to finally end the era of the noncompetitive monopoly. The monopoly that you see hurting the game is not within the structure of tournament organizers arranging PTQs for Pro Tours but within Wizards of the Coasts themselves; with Star City Games, TCGPlayer.com, ChannelFireball and others now leading ahead to provide their own system of incentives to play in their branded tournament series, we can see the actual price begin to appear as well as greater necessity for fair play amongst tournament organizers that tamps down the other potential abuses besides the gray triangle that denotes the difference between the artificial price point of monopoly pricing and the actual price point of a supply-and-demand market.
Now for the criticism you aren't going to like, Steve. I see by the sheer volume of interaction you care about the subject, and I know you have some considerable tangential experience as well as the whole economist merit badge. But just because they disagree with you doesn't make them trolls; it is irrational to assume that you are right and they are wrong and dismiss all contradictions to your accepted viewpoint rather than take their input, weigh and measure it, and adjust your model of reality accordingly. Some of the other opinions are valid and worth considering, and I see you dismissing them out of hand and aggressively defending your points. In short: you believe you are being trolled instead of argued with, and are not being as rational and objective as you could be. You called me on it once recently, and it's my turn to tell you that the reason you think there is an "in" crowd who is picking on you as the "out" crowd is because you've been overemotional in your responses and "defending" or "arguing" instead of presenting the merit of your points.
Try reading my post again, don't assume I'm one of "a bunch of pros" you're trying to lump me in with, and maybe you'll see.
Like I said, I know what your main points are, and they are, by and large, points that have already been made in this thread at various points.
You made three main points: 1) The quality service argument, 2) the PTQ is for the invite argument, 3) the I'm being too theoretical argument, etc. The first was identified as one of the 'counter-arguments' in the original post. I thought I was very fair in responding to them. My point regarding the Pro POV was not that you subscribed to that POV, but that this is a common POV being advanced.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss my post because I used a fitting word that you think is, I dunno what.
Right, it couldn't possibly be that I took your post seriously, and gave a thoughtful reply?
That's exactly what's going on. A bunch of Pros are failing to understand why other prizes matter because, from their POV, they don't.
I did respond fairly and rationally. How did I treat your post unfairly? I'm sorry you felt otherwise.
Steve,
While I've thoroughly enjoyed the MMA-style brawl that's broken out between you and seemingly every one else that plays Magic, I think it's time you took a step back from the keyboard. At some point in the past few hours, you have crossed a line. Your argument is now falling on deaf ears, no matter how well reasoned it may be. You seem hellbent on proving how right you are while ignoring your audience's own opinions and views. You have crossed from passionate, reasoned (if flawed) argument to a bull-headed, close-minded, arrogant tantrum. I don't know what's going on in your life, but usually when I begin blindly lashing out like you have today, it's because of something wholly unrelated to whatever I attacked.
I think it's time you stopped, stepped back, and examine what you are trying to accomplish with your repeated posts and why you've been maintaining this fight across multiple websites and formats. Steve, right or wrong, you are beating a dead horse. At this point, you are doing more harm than good, both to the community and your reputation.
Take it easy, Champ. Maybe you should stop talking for awhile.
I got pointed here by Riki Hayashi (curse you!!!) and have been reading some of it over, and consider myself relatively neutral and strive towards objectivity. I don't have the economics degree but I do understand the core principles, and can say from my time working at putting together tournaments at all sorts of levels, from FNM's and JSSes and PTQs for Magic players to little-kid Pokemon leagues and Yu-Gi-Oh! tournies, that Magic events are subject to the idea that "the price is the price". (Price insensitivity, I believe Menendian referred to it at one point) You're limited by the noncompetitive factor where there are generally gentlemanly agreements between neighboring TOs not to compete for weekends doesn't help the concept of a monopoly, and the fact of the matter is, the price charged for a PTQ or other event is not the price that the market would bear if the market followed unhindered rules of supply and demand.
I do, however, think that the price is very close to the real price, because the people running events have good motivation to run as close to the real price as possible, because the player base is an informed populace and shares information reasonably well, so the fact that the Rockville, Maryland tournaments are the absolute pit-stains of the East Coast PTQ circuit is reasonably well-known and plenty of people will skip one even though there is no other PTQ that week and they want to PTQ. I sure have, and will again soon. TOs frequently approach the real price and don't try and gouge what is largely a captive buying group, because of the simple principle that you can fleece a sheep many times but only skin it once. Consumer response self-regulates in that regard,
The problem, and the main argument I've been driving at is that this is hurting Magic because it's not maximizing Magic's growth.
It's only sustainable so long as there are new player to replace the ones who quit. But what if those players didn't quit? We'd have more players than ever. Wizards needs to realize, as I realize, that the magic player is getting older and older. It won't be long before the mode age of the magic player is actually 30. We need a system that is built for this.
Also, it's not just that the sheep are getting fleeced for two reasons. First, they aren't actually getting fleeced because they are actually willing to pay the entry fee, and most are willing to pay more! That's the problem: they live in the upper left hand side of the demand curve.
Secondly, it's more dyanmic than that. The sheep don't start as sheep. It's that over time people change their cost/benefit equation. Students in college have more time and less responsibilities to PTQ and prepare for PTQs. Then, they shift to the other side of the demand curve. The cost equation changes later in life, and at different stages in life, such that, in the sum total of factors, it's not 'worth it.' Well, it could be 'worth it,' if prizes, amenities, and atmosphere was better.
though I do wish there were stronger means for the players to interact with WotC to ensure some TOs are no longer able to run events when it is made clear that they do so poorly or gouge prize supports to get as much value as they can out of the tournament by cutting the only costs they can manipulate.
With the "major tournament circuit" becoming unhinged from WotC's direct oversight, I think we are going to finally end the era of the noncompetitive monopoly. The monopoly that you see hurting the game is not within the structure of tournament organizers arranging PTQs for Pro Tours but within Wizards of the Coasts themselves; with Star City Games, TCGPlayer.com, ChannelFireball and others now leading ahead to provide their own system of incentives to play in their branded tournament series, we can see the actual price begin to appear as well as greater necessity for fair play amongst tournament organizers that tamps down the other potential abuses besides the gray triangle that denotes the difference between the artificial price point of monopoly pricing and the actual price point of a supply-and-demand market.
Now for the criticism you aren't going to like, Steve. I see by the sheer volume of interaction you care about the subject, and I know you have some considerable tangential experience as well as the whole economist merit badge. But just because they disagree with you doesn't make them trolls;
Trust me, I don't think that people who disagree are trolls. Tom, though, admitted that he was trolling at various times.
it is irrational to assume that you are right and they are wrong and dismiss all contradictions to your accepted viewpoint rather than take their input, weigh and measure it, and adjust your model of reality accordingly.
It is irrational to assume that I'm right without considering other people's arguments. On the other hand, I believe I have fairly weighed various arguments. Point me to an argument that you think I've unfairly dismissed, or haven't explained, and I'll reconsider it.
Finally, it's interesting that you read my arguments as emotion-laden, when, from my point of view, they are pretty much dispassionate. I think that goes to show you how difficult it can be to read tone on the internet.
I must admit i didnt read all theese 6 pages of incredibly long posts
But i can tell you we already have a "demonopolized" PTQ system over here in Europe (in Denmark atleast), and i would gladly trade it for even half-assed dedicated TO...
We have stores running them, and it can sometimes be a struggle to just get them to staff the event with enough judges, because they feel that judge-comp is just lost prizes/profit...
i would simply LOVE a proffesionel TO so that all our PTQ's doesnt just blend into GPT-likeness. Stores for some reason just dont have the motivation to run a large proffesional event, they dont rent a venue, they dont advertise their events, it just seems like "yet another store event" with attendence in the 50-65 range, i have even asked one of them why he doesnt advertise, his answer was that "well... i dont have anymore room anyway and renting a venue costs money..."
PTO's are a blessing not a curse, and if any of them wants to move/expand to europe i will treat you right :tongue:;)
Smmenen seems to have prepared (by teh internets standards) an absurdly well thought out position. I don't go to PTQs and don't particularly care one way or the other about this, but Smmenen's points seem well argued and thoughtfully defended- it doesn't at all seem to warrant the ad hominem attacks he's receiving.
Smmenen seems to have prepared (by teh internets standards) an absurdly well thought out position. I don't go to PTQs and don't particularly care one way or the other about this, but Smmenen's points seem well argued and thoughtfully defended-
Thank you
It's much easier to criticize than to defend someone.
You seem hellbent on proving how right you are while ignoring your audience's own opinions and views. You have crossed from passionate, reasoned (if flawed) argument to a bull-headed, close-minded, arrogant tantrum.
Have you not seen Menendian in action before? This is a fairly regular occurence for him. I honestly don't know where he finds the time.
Honestly I don't get it. I mean in your costs, you don't show anywhere where the TO has to effectively pay for the ticket, but rather you're just assuming that the TO gets to run the ptq'es for free from WOTC which isn't true. Furthermore you're basing your ptq numbers at 200 which is on the high end. For example 11 of the 70 ptq'es reported >200 people (admittedly 3 did not report numbers). 3 of those didn't crack 210 either. I'm not going to continue to reply on everything considering some of the basic things in your first post were wrong. Also I do admit, I would like better prizes however I also believe the best way for that, would be to raise the prizes $5 and give out $4 in prizes at WOTC wholesale rate.
@OP: Personally I agree with your logic. It is very thought out on the theory end of the deal. On the other hand I feel what is lacking is the "Human Variable". Like what has been posted multiple times throughout this thread, many different people show up to PTQ's for reasons of their own. I do believe that if more prizes were handed out in PTQ's, different TO's ran said events, or both that there would be more attendance. The problem is convincing said TO's to give up their time from normal life (i.e. family, real job) to produce a quality event. Just like communism, the theory is quite sound. In the end, its the "Human variable" in the equation that will never pan out.
I must admit i didnt read all theese 6 pages of incredibly long posts
But i can tell you we already have a "demonopolized" PTQ system over here in Europe (in Denmark atleast), and i would gladly trade it for even half-assed dedicated TO...
We have stores running them, and it can sometimes be a struggle to just get them to staff the event with enough judges, because they feel that judge-comp is just lost prizes/profit...
i would simply LOVE a proffesionel TO so that all our PTQ's doesnt just blend into GPT-likeness. Stores for some reason just dont have the motivation to run a large proffesional event, they dont rent a venue, they dont advertise their events, it just seems like "yet another store event" with attendence in the 50-65 range, i have even asked one of them why he doesnt advertise, his answer was that "well... i dont have anymore room anyway and renting a venue costs money..."
PTO's are a blessing not a curse, and if any of them wants to move/expand to europe i will treat you right :tongue:;)
I've often wondered why attendance in European PTQs is so much lower when their GPs are insanely big. Meanwhile, all of said GPs are run by the central WotC Europe office, another monopoly...
Smmenen seems to have prepared (by teh internets standards) an absurdly well thought out position. I don't go to PTQs and don't particularly care one way or the other about this, but Smmenen's points seem well argued and thoughtfully defended- it doesn't at all seem to warrant the ad hominem attacks he's receiving.
Disagree. I have no horse in this race, but I'm finding what he's saying convincing.
You say you don't go to PTQs but you support what he says. I have to question you on what you actually do know in this situation then. As for the attacks, he has basically attacked several people, such as Kibler and Goddard on SCG forums because their views aren't "up to par" with his.
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.
Right here you are saying PTs are key way to sell cards, so apparently I transcribed correctly and you choose to forget which the words were used against you.
I never even referenced, talked about, or mentioned casual magic, so I’m really at a loss to understand why you even raise this point.
That is because this is something very important for you to consider when you are making all of these remarks on the competitive scene of the game. It applies to a very small select group of players.
You are trying to make this sweeping notion that the PTQ system is broken to begin with. You don't even know if there are financial reasons why wizards doesn't want to add any more PTQs or change the TOs. You are making all of these assumptions on spotty information.
Kibler was right in asking if you play PTQs, when was the last one you played in? I sure don't ever see you in the Ohio Valley PTQs. PTQ in 2002 is far different than PTQ in 2010.
You say you don't go to PTQs but you support what he says. I have to question you on what you actually do know in this situation then.
Yeah, you should question what I 'actually' know in this situation, because all I know about this topic is what I've read in this thread. My word is not law- I'm not saying 'Behold, I find his arguments convincing, so silence mortals!'. I'm saying, I find them convincing. If I'm wrong to, I must have missed the stirring rebuttal that would convince me otherwise.
The problem, as I've gotten from Steven's post is that the PTQ system doesn't retain players as well as its should. Arguments about TO's profit margins all seem tertiary to that main point.
The PTQ system doesn't do a good job of retaining players. Alot of them burn out and stop going to PTQs. A large part of this is that the rewards of the PTQ system beyond the first place prize are not enough to provide value to most PTQ players.
I don't think I'm off base with those statements, nor do I think I'm misinterpretting Steven when he says thats the problem.
I don't think that is a problem.
The PTQ system doesn't do a good job of rewarding and retaining players, but it doesn't have to. Organized Play does an excellent job of rewarding and retaining players. Between Grand Prixs, PreReleases, Release parties, Game Days and FNMs, there are tons of valuable enjoyable and rewarding Organized Play events that do an excellent job of rewarding and retaining players. Those events are what Organized Play uses to do what Steven wants (at least as I am reading it) and they do a good job. Also, the 3rd party 5K's also do an excellent job.
The PTQ system doesn't need to grow the playerbase. There are other tools for that. The PTQ system needs to support the Pro Tour and keep it functional as the marketing tool that Wizards wants it to be. I think it accomplishes that goal.
Framing the argument as one of economics seems a little counterproductive. It seems a lot more like an argument that says "this screwdriver does a poor job of opening this can of vegetables" which while true, isn't the screwdrivers intended purpose.
I'm not sure what the purpose of raising prize support for PTQs serves when they are, barring localized FNM-style events, almost entirely the ONLY Magic tournament where the financial aspect of the prize is not the concern at the end of the event. Obviously every player's reasons for attending any event are entirely their own, but compared to grinding side events at a PTQ, GPs, $#k events, the primary endpoint of a PTQ is to Q for the PT. This is why PTQs are not titled "Pro Tour Subevents" or something of the like.
Steve, it is very clear you are passionate about this subject and have spent a lot of time thinking about this subject, enough so that you're willing to risk your good standing and credibility to publicly and loudly voice your opinion. However, one fundamental flaw of this whole, mostly circular, argument is that if what you're looking for first and foremost as a tournament player is prize support and large payouts at the end of the day, grinding PTQs, at best, gets you packs which, last I have checked, I cannot use to pay for the bacon double cheeseburger I grab on the drive home after playing 8+ rounds of Magic. Additionally, it's not like there aren't events that serve that purpose specifically -- Grand Prix events pay entirely in cash, $#k events occur at rates similar to PTQs, and it is entirely possible to grind through side events at the same PTQ you are "playing in for profit" and earn more packs than you would have had you spent the entire day playing in the main event, and, of course, the Pro Tour itself, which is mostly the point of playing to win a Pro Tour Qualifier.
Your point about collusion and monopolies that exist in the tournament circuit I can't argue against because, based on the only evidence we have from a PTQ player who does not have such price fixing going on, there's nothing good going on with a free-market system, but it is only from a single source that we have any idea about an open market. However, numbers are probably more indicative of what this means than anything else (Re: why European PTQs are so small but GPs are huge).
Finally, I don't know what cross-posting on a forum accomplished for your goal, no matter how well thought out, how concise or wordy, how multilayered and laid out. Based on response in this thread not related to those who followed you over from SCG, players are NOT dissatisfied with tournament structure of PTQ events, players play in PTQs almost entirely (based on self report ITT) for the chance to play on the Pro Tour, and I am not entirely sure I agree with you that TOs should earn LESS money based on your opinion that players are ENTITLED to a bigger cut of the money going into the event, when they are the ones who reap the complete rewards of how a tournament is structured and run (whether an event is good or bad, it is your money at work that helps make it so). If you think the very foundation is rotten, talk to someone at the source -- Wizards -- and compile a report based on what information or discussions you can get out of them. Do not come onto a website half-cocked and dragging your drama from another site behind you. It undermines your argument in many ways and causes you to come off like an entitled brat when I know, at least based on your writing, you can do so much better than that.
Yeah, you should question what I 'actually' know in this situation, because all I know about this topic is what I've read in this thread. My word is not law- I'm not saying 'Behold, I find his arguments convincing, so silence mortals!'. I'm saying, I find them convincing. If I'm wrong to, I must have missed the stirring rebuttal that would convince me otherwise.
I think the point of this, being a Magic General subforum on a Magic: the Gathering Trading Card Game News and Rumors website, is that by admittedly not playing the game (within the context of a PTQ), your opinions and views on who is arguing better are completely invalid because you are unaware of what the parties involved are actually discussing. You're cheapening the vantage point Steve is arguing from, whether you or even he realizes it, by reading his detailed summary of the faults in tournament structure and telling him, essentially, "I don't know why people would be upset about that, you used such nice words."
Kibler was right in asking if you play PTQs, when was the last one you played in? I sure don't ever see you in the Ohio Valley PTQs. PTQ in 2002 is far different than PTQ in 2010.
Whether I've played in PTQs recently or not is logically irrelevant to the issues I've presented.
It's only raised as a way of casting doubt on the author's knowledge, but it's not an actual logical argument. If the facts I presented are wrong, then prove so, but deal with them on their own terms rather than trying to make an argument by undermining the author. That's simply a logical fallacy.
Right here you are saying PTs are key way to sell cards, so apparently I transcribed correctly and you choose to forget which the words were used against you.
PTQs are an important (i.e. key) generator of card sales. That doesn't mean they are the main source of card sales. Again, not saying they aren't, but I never said they were the 'driving force' behind card sales, as you thought I did.
That is because this is something very important for you to consider when you are making all of these remarks on the competitive scene of the game. It applies to a very small select group of players.
And? What's the relevance of this? How does it bear on the primary issues?
You are trying to make this sweeping notion that the PTQ system is broken to begin with.
If you read this thread, instead of scan it, you'll see that nothing could be further from the truth.
As I said on page 6:
I know it’s not broken. Magic is doing well. But isn’t that one of my main points? Haven’t I said over and over again that success breeds complacency? That flaws in a system are only exposed when its, frankly, too late? That as good as things are we should always be striving for better?
As I said on SCG:
Magic is doing phenomenally well right now. And that's great. But that's also a curse. Succeed breeds complacency and it doesn't force one to confront systemic flaws. Our housing bubble is a case in point. Only once housing prices started falling did the whole system (of adjustable rate mortgages, etc) collapse. We kept feeding the monster, even though it was structurally flawed. Same is true in sports. Only when you lose do you see the flaws and make adjustments. You could have a gaping weakness, but if it's not exposed, there is little incentive to address it.
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. One of the most important things that can be fixed is the PTQ system, which currently gouges players and treats them as if they are disposable. That's because, they are. But if we actually had a different system, driven by TO competition, with better prize payouts and better consumer services that wasn't structured by regional monopolies, the entire magic system would grow more rapidly.
I see a structural flaw, and I’m trying to draw attention to it, not because I think that Magic will fail if we don’t fix it, but because it’s keeping magic from reaching it’s potential. I do think, though, that if Magic were to experience a downturn, then this structural flaw would manifest, and it could become a problem.
I think in life its very important to be able to see problems before they manifest. That’s part of what was confusing Tom Martell. He couldn’t understand why I think this is a problem. It’s not that I think Magic is going to fail if we don’t fix this, but I do think it’s holding Magic back from reaching its full growth potential, and from an opportunity cost POV, that’s a harm.
You don't even know if there are financial reasons why wizards doesn't want to add any more PTQs or change the TOs. You are making all of these assumptions on spotty information.
Where did I say anything about adding more PTQs? Are you even reading the posts in the thread? What information is spotty? Saying my information is spotty does not make it so. To make it so, you have to actually point out which information is spotty or incorrect. The entire first page is the argument as to why Wizards would want to create competition between TOs, so I'll direct your attention there.
You say you don't go to PTQs but you support what he says. I have to question you on what you actually do know in this situation then. As for the attacks, he has basically attacked several people, such as Kibler and Goddard on SCG forums because their views aren't "up to par" with his.
Almost all of this is untrue. I criticized Goddard on SCG for saying that increasing prizes won't increase attendance. When I pointed it out, he refused to actually back up his claims, because it wasn't that increasing prizes won't increase attendance, but that it wasn't worth it for him to do that. That's not an 'attack.' That was a logical critique. It was not personal.
Nor is it saying that his 'views aren't up to par.' That's simply a mischaracterization. In addition, Kibler didn't even post on the SCG thread. Get your facts straight before you smear someone for saying they attacked folks they either didn't attack or weren't involved in the conversation.
On the other hand, Martell immediately began trolling me for 'jests,' by his own admissions. That is personal. The only person being attacked was me.
Like, I think, the vast majority of players, I don't care about PTQ prizes because I hope but I don't expect to win any; the cost is modest, and I go whenever distance are reasonable.
I'm not sure what the purpose of raising prize support for PTQs serves when they are, barring localized FNM-style events, almost entirely the ONLY Magic tournament where the financial aspect of the prize is not the concern at the end of the event. Obviously every player's reasons for attending any event are entirely their own, but compared to grinding side events at a PTQ, GPs, $#k events, the primary endpoint of a PTQ is to Q for the PT. This is why PTQs are not titled "Pro Tour Subevents" or something of the like.
Again, that doesn't prove that prizes don't matter.
However, one fundamental flaw of this whole, mostly circular, argument is that if what you're looking for first and foremost as a tournament player is prize support and large payouts at the end of the day, grinding PTQs, at best, gets you packs which, last I have checked, I cannot use to pay for the bacon double cheeseburger I grab on the drive home after playing 8+ rounds of Magic.
Packs can be sold or opened for cards which can be sold.
Additionally, it's not like there aren't events that serve that purpose specifically -- Grand Prix events pay entirely in cash, $#k events occur at rates similar to PTQs, and it is entirely possible to grind through side events at the same PTQ you are "playing in for profit" and earn more packs than you would have had you spent the entire day playing in the main event, and, of course, the Pro Tour itself, which is mostly the point of playing to win a Pro Tour Qualifier.
And, how does this bear on my arguments?
Your point about collusion
I never made a point about collusion. Not sure where you are getting this.
and monopolies that exist in the tournament circuit I can't argue against because, based on the only evidence we have from a PTQ player who does not have such price fixing going on, there's nothing good going on with a free-market system, but it is only from a single source that we have any idea about an open market.
This statement is incoherent.
However, numbers are probably more indicative of what this means than anything else (Re: why European PTQs are so small but GPs are huge).
Economic theory suggests that competition is better for consumers, and that's been proven true time and again. Did it every occur to you that something else may be going on in Europe?
Finally, I don't know what cross-posting on a forum accomplished for your goal,
Cross-posting? What are you talking about. I didn't cross-post this thread anywhere. You are confused or mistaken.
I think the point of this, being a Magic General subforum on a Magic: the Gathering Trading Card Game News and Rumors website, is that by admittedly not playing the game (within the context of a PTQ), your opinions and views on who is arguing better is completely invalid because you are unaware of what the parties involved are actually discussing.
Again, this is a logical fallacy and basically an ad hominem. Deal with the facts and arguments I've presented in their own terms. if they are wrong, then prove them wrong. Saying that I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't PTQ sounds nice, but it's not a logical argument.
The problem, as I've gotten from Steven's post is that the PTQ system doesn't retain players as well as its should. Arguments about TO's profit margins all seem tertiary to that main point.
They are very germane, since I'm trying to show how profit maximizing behavior under the current system is not even designed nor intended to maximize attendance. See the OP.
The PTQ system doesn't do a good job of retaining players. Alot of them burn out and stop going to PTQs. A large part of this is that the rewards of the PTQ system beyond the first place prize are not enough to provide value to most PTQ players.
I don't think I'm off base with those statements, nor do I think I'm misinterpretting Steven when he says thats the problem.
I don't think that is a problem.
It depends on how you define 'problem.' Is it going to kill magic? No. But I never said it would. My argument is that it's preventing Magic from reaching its maximum growth potential.
The PTQ system doesn't do a good job of rewarding and retaining players, but it doesn't have to.
Of course not, but it could.
Organized Play does an excellent job of rewarding and retaining players.
I wouldn't say "an excellent" job. It does a serviceable job.
Between Grand Prixs, PreReleases, Release parties, Game Days and FNMs, there are tons of valuable enjoyable and rewarding Organized Play events that do an excellent job of rewarding and retaining players. Those events are what Organized Play uses to do what Steven wants (at least as I am reading it) and they do a good job. Also, the 3rd party 5K's also do an excellent job.
The PTQ system doesn't need to grow the playerbase.
Again, it doesn't need to, but it could. Instead, it treats players as disposable and replaceable.
There are other tools for that. The PTQ system needs to support the Pro Tour and keep it functional as the marketing tool that Wizards wants it to be. I think it accomplishes that goal.
And wouldn't maximzing PTQ attendance actually serve that goal even more?
What gives you that idea?
I never said any such thing because I don’t believe such a thing.
The only thing that’s funny/absurd is the notion that I said such a thing. Please please please be careful when ascribing ideas to me that I do not support or have never expressed.
What I said was:
I’m struggling to understand how my statement that the Pro Tour exists to sell cards means that the Pro Tour is the driving force behind single sales. Just because the Pro Tour’s purpose is to sell cards doesn’t mean that it is the ‘driving force’ behind single sales.
I am well aware of the importance of casual magic. I know, for instance, there are far more casual magic players than non-casual. However, there are a few important caveats to that. First of all, how we define casual is actually really messy. Some people define casual as basically any magic player that isn’t a PT/PTQer. I think that definition is too narrow. For example, dedicated Legacy of Vintage players I don’t consider to be casual. Secondly, while there are far more casual players than non-casual players, it’s my understanding that casual players do not purchase as many singles. I don’t have sales statistics in front of me, nor do I really care. But please, please please do not assume that I am underestimating the importance of casual magic players.
I never even referenced, talked about, or mentioned casual magic, so I’m really at a loss to understand why you even raise this point.
Again, I don’t disagree with that. While I think the Pro Tour is very important to Magic, I also believe Magic, as a game, would survive in its absence. I think probably many people here would disagree with us.
Not at all. You need to look at my argument again. Again, the prize payout should be what the market will bear. Clearly, TO’s would only award prizes that they could *afford* to give out. In the absence of competition, we don’t know what the market will bear. If it turns out that the current prize payout is what the market would actually bear, then so be it. But we need competition to discover that as an empirical fact.
This is where so many people get tripped up. Sam, and others keep asking me: what SHOULD TOs award? My point isn’t that I have the numerical answer, but that we need a mechanism to actually produce that answer, and that basic economic theory, that competition is good for consumers, is readily applicable.
Again, you are mistaken. I don’t make any money on Meandeck Opens. I simply help organize them. The TO takes a 20% cut of the entry fees. I only ‘make money’ if I win the tournament or split top 4.
You are being too reductionist. It’s clearly untrue that you play in the PTQs because you can afford it as well. It’s clear that you play it PTQs because you have time as well. Without time and entry fee money, you wouldn’t play. Again, the invite is one factor of many, including your ability to pay the entry fee and your available time.
People need to get out of this hyper reductionist mindset, and stop making such broad, provably false statements. It’s creating a lot of confusion.
Have you secretly surveyed everyone in this room? There have been many voices, and not all have been expressly critical. Some have been merely questioning. Some of have been neutral. Let’s not make such sweeping statements.
First of all, yes, people will stil attend the PTQ because of the invite, and not the prizes. But that doesn’t mean that more people won’t attend PTQs if prizes were better. In fact, I’ve shown that they would. An increase in prizes is an increase in value in the event. People make cost/benefit decisions to attend. Increased prizes is similar to a reduction in entry fee and will produce a similar effect.
But again, you are being reductionist. Not all people are there merely for the invite. Some people go because of the sum of reasons: possibility to win an invite, but also prizes, spending time with friends, enjoying tournament magic, etc. It may be the case, in many instances, that any one of those reasons would be insufficient.
In essence, what’s going on is that many people in this thread are transforming a contributing cause into a sufficient cause. While it is the case that being able to earn an invite is a contributing cause to attending a PTQ, it’s not, in virtually any case, sufficient. As I said, having time and money actually are necessary conditions that are far more important than the actual presence of a potential invite.
Have I? Yes. Do I currently? No.
Are you a mind reader? (Epistemlogically), How do you know this?
I’m reading lots of Pros coming here and saying: “the only reason that people attend PTQs is the invite.” Yet, that’s just solipsistic. That may be the case for you ,but, again, that’s clearly not the case for everyone. There has already been someone in this thread who said that prize support was a factor for them.
Let me break it down:
First of all, if the only thing that mattered was the invite, then PTQ Tos would not award other prizes. There would be no point. I think we can agree that in the main PTQ Tos are profit maximizers, and they wouldn’t lose money for nothing.
Secondly, even if the prize payout is – on the front end – the last thing on people’s minds, it doesn’t logically follow that other prizes are irrelevant. For example, if you make top 8, and lose, and walk away with nothing, that could very well create a bad experience, and make a player less likely to attend another PTQ. Thus, even if, following yours and Flores logic, players are either unaware or don’t care about prizes on the front end, that doesn’t mean that they don’t affect or color the overall experience of players at the backend, particularly where it matters, or at least, where I emphasize it matters: retention and retainment.
Third, again, like so many others, you are being reductionistic.
Let me put it this way. Let’s say that you are a PTQ grinder. Let’s just say that this Saturday there is a PTQ. You really want to qualify for the Pro Tour, and you think you have a good chance of doing so. What factors go into your decision to attend? 1) the presence of an invite, 2) the costs of entry, 3) your opportunity cost for the day/EV, 4) other time commitments/availability, 5) the amount of fun you may have, etc, etc. What happens is that in common communication, we tend to ignore all of the reasons and just reduce it to one or two. But the truth is that that’s just reductionist. All of these factors are contributing factors, yet we treat a few of them as if they are sufficient, when, as a matter of factual reality or hard logic, they aren’t. As I stated above, if the presence of an invite were sufficient, then the necessary conditions of having time and money to pay the entry fee would not actually be necessary conditions. Yet, they clearly are. There is a threshold in cost/benefit decision making where people feel they've crossed a threshold. Those factors all contribute to that determination.
That may all sound obvious, but the main point is that there are many other factors that weigh on an individual players decision matrix. And, too often in this thread, people are coming in and saying something like this:
“The only reason people play in PTQs is to win an invite.” When that’s just clearly untrue.
A person’s decision making process is actually very complicated, and much of it is not even conscious. Dozens of factors are at work, and the threshold question of whether to play or not is influenced by all of those factors. The presence of an invite is an important factor, but it’s far from the only one, and not likely to be determinative in almost any instance. Other factors matter, and prizes play a role in that. As does gas, distance, time, health, etc, etc.
I don’t think I’m ignoring this fact. I may be assigning a different weight of importance to it, but I explicitly mention this fact in the opening post:
Look I realize my arguments sound a lot in theory, but I am also a pragmatist. I believe that the current models are exploitative, and, frankly, ridiculous. I’m astounded that people apparently think that current PTQ prize payouts are acceptable. But, I understand why they do. The people who play in PTQs are in the upper left hand part of the demand curve, above the Pm line, and therefore they don’t consider themselves to be exploited. They are willing to pay the monopoly price.
But, since so many people are willing to do so, the only way to get them to see why/how they are being exploited is to show them the economic math, i.e. the monopoly pricing graph. The triangle of consumer deadweight loss is their loss.
But I also think that it's hurting retention. It's driving people away who might otherwise stay. The only reason the system is sustainable is because the people who drop out are replaced by new ones. But that's treating PTQ players like garbage, as disposable.
The point here is that I wouldn’t even be arguing this point if it were just theory: 1) I think that Magic is being prevented from reaching its maximum growth potential (and I see this as players age, how they could be retained or how re-entry could be more effective), and 2) I think that the current prize structures are just blatantly wrong. But how do you tell that to someone who’s individual demand curve is in the upper left hand part of the aggregate demand curve? You can’t. Thus, the reason I sound my argument (in part) in theory.
This is speculative. We could make the same analogy to restaurants or any business. Sure, some business could come in and do a terrible job, but it would be closed. We still allow competition, even though it results in some bad apples. That’s how we know what the bad apples are. Currently, we have absolutely no way of knowing whehther Tos are actually good because there is no competition for a market to tell us what’s good. Things seem to be working well, so we say, they are doing a great job! B It’s a fundamental epistemological problem: in the absence of market mechanisms, we have no way of actually evaluating whether these Tos are, in fact, doing a good job. They may be just doing a serviceable job, and we would never know it.
And, again, see my response to the ‘quality argument’ above. All of that applies.
I know it’s not broken. Magic is doing well. But isn’t that one of my main points? Haven’t I said over and over again that success breeds complacency? That flaws in a system are only exposed when its, frankly, too late? That as good as things are we should always be striving for better?
As I said on SCG:
I believe, rightly or wrongly, that I have insight. I see a structural flaw, and I’m trying to draw attention to it, not because I think that Magic will fail if we don’t fix it, but because it’s keeping magic from reaching it’s potential. I do think, though, that if Magic were to experience a downturn, then this structural flaw would manifest, and it could become a problem.
I think in life its very important to be able to see problems before they manifest. That’s part of what was confusing Tom Martell. He couldn’t understand why I think this is a problem. It’s not that I think Magic is going to fail if we don’t fix this, but I do think it’s holding Magic back from reaching its full growth potential, and from an opportunity cost POV, that’s a harm.
And again, we don’t need hard data for every single factor. We have them for many, and can reasonably estimate them for the rest. As I said, “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.
And again, I have real data. We know how much it costs to rent a hall. We know what judges get paid. We know what boxes cost. We know what overhead costs. None of these things are unknown.
Exploitation is a pejorative term I used to describe my feelings about the issue. The problem is that you can’t actually prove to people whose demand curves are individually above the Monopoly price point that they are being exploited, because from their perspective, they aren’t. That’s why monopoly pricing works. If people felt that they were being exploited, monopolists couldn’t maximize profits in the same way. They simply take advantage of the different willingness to consume among consumers.
You are arguing with the implementation, not the basic principles. There are many solutions to those problems.
It does tell me something. In fact, I’ve learned a lot through this exercise. I discovered, for example, that people who immediately criticized me (Tom Martell for example) actually didn’t understand the arguments I was raising in the first place despite spelling them out in the first couple of posts. I told him all along that I wasn’t blaming ‘greedy’ Tos, but a system that produced harmful incentives. Only when we seriously engaged each other on the issues did I discover this fact. It’s a cautionary tale about how seriously to take people who claim that I have no idea what I’m talking about when, in reality, they don’t. Especially when, instead of actually offering up arguments, they just claim that you are wrong.
Moreover, I’ve also I discovered that trolling me contributed to a bandwagon / in-group/out-group dynamic. Studies in human psychology show that if you create in-groups and out-groups, people will more critically evaluate the outgroup and express preference for the ingroup, even if the groups are completely fabricated. Of course, I think some people genuinely disagree. But, if an objective, neutral observer were to come here and evaluate the arguments made by me and all of the arguments on the other side, I think they’d find my arguments at least somewhat meritorious. I’m not discounting the fact that many people legitimately disagree, but I also think a non-trivial number of people are simply engaging in group psychology. It takes a courageous person to vocally express their support of my position after the sheer amount of trolling this thread received in the first two pages. I’ve been on the unpopular side of arguments before (i.e. fixing Time Vault), and I’ve seen this effect before.
Sam: this demonstrates that you actually don’t understand my economic arguments. Just the opposite is true. People who are being exploited are actually unlikely to know it. That’s the problem.
Let me try to explain: everyone has a demand curve for any given good. The curve represents the quantity of a good they’d be willing to pay at a given price. Adding all of those curves gives us aggregate demand.
Take a look at this graph:
Leeched image removed.
As you can see from the Demand curve, fewer and fewer people are willing to pay as the price goes up, and more and more people are willing to pay as the price goes down. The problem is that the monopolist prices their good at a point where only people already willing to pay at that price are sold. What those people don’t know is that if the market was competitive, they would have paying the competitive market price. That is, they would have a consumer surplus that was instead transferred to the monopolist. That’s the point: people who are being exploited don’t feel or know it because they are already willing, by definition, to pay the monopoly price. They are on the upper left of the aggregate demand curve.
The other problem is that we’ve priced out everyone on the slope of the gray triangle. And that’s where my main argument comes in: the monopolist isn’t maximizing attendance. In fact, they don’t want to, since doing so would prevent them from maximing their profits. And that’s what’s hurting Magic’s long term growth potential.
Mike Flores wrote:
I've now lost count of the number of times I've easily, and simply, dispatched of your overly broad statements. So, let me do it again. The fact that allocating slots regionally coincided with increased attendance does not prove causation, at most correlation. Moreover, that also doesn't prove that a competitive system like I described (not a bidding one) wouldn't result in increased attendance. Your conclusion doesn't logically following from its premises. Pretty much that simple Mike.
Just like earlier on you said:
When a very simple counterfactual disproved this overly broad, and patently ridiculous statement.
Maybe you should actually stop using the word "clear," since you are often wrong in the statement in which you use it.
@OP: Here's a question: What motivates you to go to PTQ's or even just play Magic in general? If you ask the average PTQ player they'll say they go to the PTQ for the invites primarily and trading and networking after that. Product doesn't really matter to the PTQ player because it doesn't affect their DCI rating or get them closer to the PT. They already win alot of product from FNM and other local events anyway. Seriously, I know guys who come into a store with 40-50 packs in their backpack!
Am I saying that PTQ players don't like product? No but you have to offer something different from the standard stuff. If TO's offered prizes like uncut sheets(foil sheets are hot stuff!) or exclusive playmats I think that more players would be excited about the other prizes and maybe a player who wouldn't normally come to a PTQ will give it a try.
TO's who host PTQ's can certainly afford to supply more prize packs. Most TO's I know, the LGS kind, buy boxes for between $60 and $70 and sell them for between $100 and $110. But doing something just because you afford to seems a bit useless. I'd prefer they spend their money on things like Super FNM's or Win a(n) Laptop/X-Box 360/iPod type event to run along side the PTQ(I like to make a weekend out of stuff like that). Heck, I'd spring money for a Magic carnival, where you play carnival games to win awesome singles and prizes. You can win a goldfish and a Jace The Mind Sculptor!
more on the bidding issue in the morning!
Solipsistic? Give me a break.
I tried to respond fairly and rationally, but you did not do me the same in kind. I'm done.
Right, it couldn't possibly be that I took your post seriously, and gave a thoughtful reply?
That's exactly what's going on. A bunch of Pros are failing to understand why other prizes matter because, from their POV, they don't.
I did respond fairly and rationally. How did I treat your post unfairly? I'm sorry you felt otherwise.
Try reading my post again, don't assume I'm one of "a bunch of pros" you're trying to lump me in with, and maybe you'll see.
I got pointed here by Riki Hayashi (curse you!!!) and have been reading some of it over, and consider myself relatively neutral and strive towards objectivity. I don't have the economics degree but I do understand the core principles, and can say from my time working at putting together tournaments at all sorts of levels, from FNM's and JSSes and PTQs for Magic players to little-kid Pokemon leagues and Yu-Gi-Oh! tournies, that Magic events are subject to the idea that "the price is the price". (Price insensitivity, I believe Menendian referred to it at one point) You're limited by the noncompetitive factor where there are generally gentlemanly agreements between neighboring TOs not to compete for weekends doesn't help the concept of a monopoly, and the fact of the matter is, the price charged for a PTQ or other event is not the price that the market would bear if the market followed unhindered rules of supply and demand.
I do, however, think that the price is very close to the real price, because the people running events have good motivation to run as close to the real price as possible, because the player base is an informed populace and shares information reasonably well, so the fact that the Rockville, Maryland tournaments are the absolute pit-stains of the East Coast PTQ circuit is reasonably well-known and plenty of people will skip one even though there is no other PTQ that week and they want to PTQ. I sure have, and will again soon. TOs frequently approach the real price and don't try and gouge what is largely a captive buying group, because of the simple principle that you can fleece a sheep many times but only skin it once. Consumer response self-regulates in that regard, though I do wish there were stronger means for the players to interact with WotC to ensure some TOs are no longer able to run events when it is made clear that they do so poorly or gouge prize supports to get as much value as they can out of the tournament by cutting the only costs they can manipulate.
With the "major tournament circuit" becoming unhinged from WotC's direct oversight, I think we are going to finally end the era of the noncompetitive monopoly. The monopoly that you see hurting the game is not within the structure of tournament organizers arranging PTQs for Pro Tours but within Wizards of the Coasts themselves; with Star City Games, TCGPlayer.com, ChannelFireball and others now leading ahead to provide their own system of incentives to play in their branded tournament series, we can see the actual price begin to appear as well as greater necessity for fair play amongst tournament organizers that tamps down the other potential abuses besides the gray triangle that denotes the difference between the artificial price point of monopoly pricing and the actual price point of a supply-and-demand market.
Now for the criticism you aren't going to like, Steve. I see by the sheer volume of interaction you care about the subject, and I know you have some considerable tangential experience as well as the whole economist merit badge. But just because they disagree with you doesn't make them trolls; it is irrational to assume that you are right and they are wrong and dismiss all contradictions to your accepted viewpoint rather than take their input, weigh and measure it, and adjust your model of reality accordingly. Some of the other opinions are valid and worth considering, and I see you dismissing them out of hand and aggressively defending your points. In short: you believe you are being trolled instead of argued with, and are not being as rational and objective as you could be. You called me on it once recently, and it's my turn to tell you that the reason you think there is an "in" crowd who is picking on you as the "out" crowd is because you've been overemotional in your responses and "defending" or "arguing" instead of presenting the merit of your points.
Like I said, I know what your main points are, and they are, by and large, points that have already been made in this thread at various points.
You made three main points: 1) The quality service argument, 2) the PTQ is for the invite argument, 3) the I'm being too theoretical argument, etc. The first was identified as one of the 'counter-arguments' in the original post. I thought I was very fair in responding to them. My point regarding the Pro POV was not that you subscribed to that POV, but that this is a common POV being advanced.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss my post because I used a fitting word that you think is, I dunno what.
Steve,
While I've thoroughly enjoyed the MMA-style brawl that's broken out between you and seemingly every one else that plays Magic, I think it's time you took a step back from the keyboard. At some point in the past few hours, you have crossed a line. Your argument is now falling on deaf ears, no matter how well reasoned it may be. You seem hellbent on proving how right you are while ignoring your audience's own opinions and views. You have crossed from passionate, reasoned (if flawed) argument to a bull-headed, close-minded, arrogant tantrum. I don't know what's going on in your life, but usually when I begin blindly lashing out like you have today, it's because of something wholly unrelated to whatever I attacked.
I think it's time you stopped, stepped back, and examine what you are trying to accomplish with your repeated posts and why you've been maintaining this fight across multiple websites and formats. Steve, right or wrong, you are beating a dead horse. At this point, you are doing more harm than good, both to the community and your reputation.
Take it easy, Champ. Maybe you should stop talking for awhile.
The problem, and the main argument I've been driving at is that this is hurting Magic because it's not maximizing Magic's growth.
It's only sustainable so long as there are new player to replace the ones who quit. But what if those players didn't quit? We'd have more players than ever. Wizards needs to realize, as I realize, that the magic player is getting older and older. It won't be long before the mode age of the magic player is actually 30. We need a system that is built for this.
Also, it's not just that the sheep are getting fleeced for two reasons. First, they aren't actually getting fleeced because they are actually willing to pay the entry fee, and most are willing to pay more! That's the problem: they live in the upper left hand side of the demand curve.
Secondly, it's more dyanmic than that. The sheep don't start as sheep. It's that over time people change their cost/benefit equation. Students in college have more time and less responsibilities to PTQ and prepare for PTQs. Then, they shift to the other side of the demand curve. The cost equation changes later in life, and at different stages in life, such that, in the sum total of factors, it's not 'worth it.' Well, it could be 'worth it,' if prizes, amenities, and atmosphere was better.
Trust me, I don't think that people who disagree are trolls. Tom, though, admitted that he was trolling at various times.
It is irrational to assume that I'm right without considering other people's arguments. On the other hand, I believe I have fairly weighed various arguments. Point me to an argument that you think I've unfairly dismissed, or haven't explained, and I'll reconsider it.
Finally, it's interesting that you read my arguments as emotion-laden, when, from my point of view, they are pretty much dispassionate. I think that goes to show you how difficult it can be to read tone on the internet.
But i can tell you we already have a "demonopolized" PTQ system over here in Europe (in Denmark atleast), and i would gladly trade it for even half-assed dedicated TO...
We have stores running them, and it can sometimes be a struggle to just get them to staff the event with enough judges, because they feel that judge-comp is just lost prizes/profit...
i would simply LOVE a proffesionel TO so that all our PTQ's doesnt just blend into GPT-likeness. Stores for some reason just dont have the motivation to run a large proffesional event, they dont rent a venue, they dont advertise their events, it just seems like "yet another store event" with attendence in the 50-65 range, i have even asked one of them why he doesnt advertise, his answer was that "well... i dont have anymore room anyway and renting a venue costs money..."
PTO's are a blessing not a curse, and if any of them wants to move/expand to europe i will treat you right :tongue:;)
Smmenen seems to have prepared (by teh internets standards) an absurdly well thought out position. I don't go to PTQs and don't particularly care one way or the other about this, but Smmenen's points seem well argued and thoughtfully defended- it doesn't at all seem to warrant the ad hominem attacks he's receiving.
Disagree. I have no horse in this race, but I'm finding what he's saying convincing.
Thank you
It's much easier to criticize than to defend someone.
Have you not seen Menendian in action before? This is a fairly regular occurence for him. I honestly don't know where he finds the time.
Thank you for your time and patience.
Current Capt. of Team "Ju"
I play this:
Rotation is coming...
Modern: GGGSTOMPY
ZOO (Goyf-less)
Legacy:
Brewing
EDH:
Too many to name.
Well, that's something that you have in common with the OP. Meanwhile, direct testimony from someone who has experienced the other side of the fence:
I've often wondered why attendance in European PTQs is so much lower when their GPs are insanely big. Meanwhile, all of said GPs are run by the central WotC Europe office, another monopoly...
You say you don't go to PTQs but you support what he says. I have to question you on what you actually do know in this situation then. As for the attacks, he has basically attacked several people, such as Kibler and Goddard on SCG forums because their views aren't "up to par" with his.
Right here you are saying PTs are key way to sell cards, so apparently I transcribed correctly and you choose to forget which the words were used against you.
That is because this is something very important for you to consider when you are making all of these remarks on the competitive scene of the game. It applies to a very small select group of players.
You are trying to make this sweeping notion that the PTQ system is broken to begin with. You don't even know if there are financial reasons why wizards doesn't want to add any more PTQs or change the TOs. You are making all of these assumptions on spotty information.
Kibler was right in asking if you play PTQs, when was the last one you played in? I sure don't ever see you in the Ohio Valley PTQs. PTQ in 2002 is far different than PTQ in 2010.
Yeah, you should question what I 'actually' know in this situation, because all I know about this topic is what I've read in this thread. My word is not law- I'm not saying 'Behold, I find his arguments convincing, so silence mortals!'. I'm saying, I find them convincing. If I'm wrong to, I must have missed the stirring rebuttal that would convince me otherwise.
The problem, as I've gotten from Steven's post is that the PTQ system doesn't retain players as well as its should. Arguments about TO's profit margins all seem tertiary to that main point.
The PTQ system doesn't do a good job of retaining players. Alot of them burn out and stop going to PTQs. A large part of this is that the rewards of the PTQ system beyond the first place prize are not enough to provide value to most PTQ players.
I don't think I'm off base with those statements, nor do I think I'm misinterpretting Steven when he says thats the problem.
I don't think that is a problem.
The PTQ system doesn't do a good job of rewarding and retaining players, but it doesn't have to. Organized Play does an excellent job of rewarding and retaining players. Between Grand Prixs, PreReleases, Release parties, Game Days and FNMs, there are tons of valuable enjoyable and rewarding Organized Play events that do an excellent job of rewarding and retaining players. Those events are what Organized Play uses to do what Steven wants (at least as I am reading it) and they do a good job. Also, the 3rd party 5K's also do an excellent job.
The PTQ system doesn't need to grow the playerbase. There are other tools for that. The PTQ system needs to support the Pro Tour and keep it functional as the marketing tool that Wizards wants it to be. I think it accomplishes that goal.
Framing the argument as one of economics seems a little counterproductive. It seems a lot more like an argument that says "this screwdriver does a poor job of opening this can of vegetables" which while true, isn't the screwdrivers intended purpose.
Of course, I could be way off.
Steve, it is very clear you are passionate about this subject and have spent a lot of time thinking about this subject, enough so that you're willing to risk your good standing and credibility to publicly and loudly voice your opinion. However, one fundamental flaw of this whole, mostly circular, argument is that if what you're looking for first and foremost as a tournament player is prize support and large payouts at the end of the day, grinding PTQs, at best, gets you packs which, last I have checked, I cannot use to pay for the bacon double cheeseburger I grab on the drive home after playing 8+ rounds of Magic. Additionally, it's not like there aren't events that serve that purpose specifically -- Grand Prix events pay entirely in cash, $#k events occur at rates similar to PTQs, and it is entirely possible to grind through side events at the same PTQ you are "playing in for profit" and earn more packs than you would have had you spent the entire day playing in the main event, and, of course, the Pro Tour itself, which is mostly the point of playing to win a Pro Tour Qualifier.
Your point about collusion and monopolies that exist in the tournament circuit I can't argue against because, based on the only evidence we have from a PTQ player who does not have such price fixing going on, there's nothing good going on with a free-market system, but it is only from a single source that we have any idea about an open market. However, numbers are probably more indicative of what this means than anything else (Re: why European PTQs are so small but GPs are huge).
Finally, I don't know what cross-posting on a forum accomplished for your goal, no matter how well thought out, how concise or wordy, how multilayered and laid out. Based on response in this thread not related to those who followed you over from SCG, players are NOT dissatisfied with tournament structure of PTQ events, players play in PTQs almost entirely (based on self report ITT) for the chance to play on the Pro Tour, and I am not entirely sure I agree with you that TOs should earn LESS money based on your opinion that players are ENTITLED to a bigger cut of the money going into the event, when they are the ones who reap the complete rewards of how a tournament is structured and run (whether an event is good or bad, it is your money at work that helps make it so). If you think the very foundation is rotten, talk to someone at the source -- Wizards -- and compile a report based on what information or discussions you can get out of them. Do not come onto a website half-cocked and dragging your drama from another site behind you. It undermines your argument in many ways and causes you to come off like an entitled brat when I know, at least based on your writing, you can do so much better than that.
I think the point of this, being a Magic General subforum on a Magic: the Gathering Trading Card Game News and Rumors website, is that by admittedly not playing the game (within the context of a PTQ), your opinions and views on who is arguing better are completely invalid because you are unaware of what the parties involved are actually discussing. You're cheapening the vantage point Steve is arguing from, whether you or even he realizes it, by reading his detailed summary of the faults in tournament structure and telling him, essentially, "I don't know why people would be upset about that, you used such nice words."
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
Whether I've played in PTQs recently or not is logically irrelevant to the issues I've presented.
It's only raised as a way of casting doubt on the author's knowledge, but it's not an actual logical argument. If the facts I presented are wrong, then prove so, but deal with them on their own terms rather than trying to make an argument by undermining the author. That's simply a logical fallacy.
PTQs are an important (i.e. key) generator of card sales. That doesn't mean they are the main source of card sales. Again, not saying they aren't, but I never said they were the 'driving force' behind card sales, as you thought I did.
And? What's the relevance of this? How does it bear on the primary issues?
If you read this thread, instead of scan it, you'll see that nothing could be further from the truth.
As I said on page 6:
Where did I say anything about adding more PTQs? Are you even reading the posts in the thread? What information is spotty? Saying my information is spotty does not make it so. To make it so, you have to actually point out which information is spotty or incorrect. The entire first page is the argument as to why Wizards would want to create competition between TOs, so I'll direct your attention there.
Almost all of this is untrue. I criticized Goddard on SCG for saying that increasing prizes won't increase attendance. When I pointed it out, he refused to actually back up his claims, because it wasn't that increasing prizes won't increase attendance, but that it wasn't worth it for him to do that. That's not an 'attack.' That was a logical critique. It was not personal.
Nor is it saying that his 'views aren't up to par.' That's simply a mischaracterization. In addition, Kibler didn't even post on the SCG thread. Get your facts straight before you smear someone for saying they attacked folks they either didn't attack or weren't involved in the conversation.
On the other hand, Martell immediately began trolling me for 'jests,' by his own admissions. That is personal. The only person being attacked was me.
Current Capt. of Team "Ju"
I play this:
Rotation is coming...
Modern: GGGSTOMPY
ZOO (Goyf-less)
Legacy:
Brewing
EDH:
Too many to name.
Again, that doesn't prove that prizes don't matter.
Packs can be sold or opened for cards which can be sold.
And, how does this bear on my arguments?
I never made a point about collusion. Not sure where you are getting this.
This statement is incoherent.
Economic theory suggests that competition is better for consumers, and that's been proven true time and again. Did it every occur to you that something else may be going on in Europe?
Cross-posting? What are you talking about. I didn't cross-post this thread anywhere. You are confused or mistaken.
Again, this is a logical fallacy and basically an ad hominem. Deal with the facts and arguments I've presented in their own terms. if they are wrong, then prove them wrong. Saying that I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't PTQ sounds nice, but it's not a logical argument.
They are very germane, since I'm trying to show how profit maximizing behavior under the current system is not even designed nor intended to maximize attendance. See the OP.
It depends on how you define 'problem.' Is it going to kill magic? No. But I never said it would. My argument is that it's preventing Magic from reaching its maximum growth potential.
Of course not, but it could.
I wouldn't say "an excellent" job. It does a serviceable job.
Again, it doesn't need to, but it could. Instead, it treats players as disposable and replaceable.
And wouldn't maximzing PTQ attendance actually serve that goal even more?