This is unreal Steve. People do not go to Pro Tour Qualifiers to win Packs. They go to, and get this now, Qualify for the Pro Tour.
You have admitted to not playing PTQs, yet you are trying to fix PTQs. Why not actually attend one and see if the people are there to win packs or win the slot? You are making all of these assumptions with out dating to back you up.
And did you just compare the PTQ system to the housing market? Really? There are no mortgage rates with PTQs. Wow, I can't believe you did that honestly.
PTQs aren't there to attract or retain players. They are gateways to the Pro Tour.
And you said you didn't cross post? What is complaining about this on Starcity forums and then complaining about this on Salvation forums then? "Different forum posting?"
I would love to see your data to back up your claims that the system is broken or wrong, because saying a TO making $4k per event is "wrong" is not very good data.
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 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.
Kijin is speaking about me.
Yes, in this Magic General subforum, I commented on a Magic topic. I can perhaps be forgiven for thinking that when the OP posted an argument here that it was meant to convince any Magic player reader. If the intended audience is only PTQ attendees, he surely would have posted elsewhere.
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."
It would be cheapening to say that. I don't recall saying that though, even essentially. My essentialist statement would be closer to: "This isn't something that personally affects me, but having read your argument, I see why you're upset." and maybe also, "What I don't understand is the extreme vitriol this topic seems to generate."
This is unreal Steve. People do not go to Pro Tour Qualifiers to win Packs. They go to, and get this now, Qualify for the Pro Tour.
And, as I've said a hundred times, people go to PTQs for many reasons, not just one. While winning an invite is an important reason, it's reductionist to say its the only one.
As I've said:
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.
And from the first post:
Again, an individual person’s decision of whether to attend a PTQ is a cost/benefit decision, and all of the relevant factors fill that matrix, including job responsibilities, gas, expected prize earnings, etc. While it is likely the case for many players that the invite is the most important goal, it’s unbelievably reductionist to say that it’s the only factor to consider, since that’s logically untrue (as I proved above). It’s also reductionist to discount or minimize the other important reasons play, such as to hang out with friends, enjoy an afternoon, etc. For more on this particular aspect of the argument, read my free SCG article here: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/m..._the_Game.html
You have admitted to not playing PTQs, yet you are trying to fix PTQs. Why not actually attend one and see if the people are there to win packs or win the slot? You are making all of these assumptions with out dating to back you up.
I've offered plenty of facts and data to back up my claims. Instead of making ad hominems or attacking me, why don't you attack my arguments and facts, and show where they come up short?
And did you just compare the PTQ system to the housing market? Really? There are no mortgage rates with PTQs. Wow, I can't believe you did that honestly.
It's called an analogy. I also made an analogy to sports teams. I'm sorry you are shocked by the use of an analogy.
PTQs aren't there to attract or retain players. They are gateways to the Pro Tour.
Except that, as I said on page 5:
Only a tiny fraction of the players who play on PTQs can actually make it to the PT Level. Most people who want to compete at the highest level will have to do it at the GP/PTQ level, and the PTQ is the most accessible and widely played form of this for most people. Sure, people *hope* to win and get to the PT, but the PT exists to promote PTQs, which generates card sales.
And you said you didn't cross post? What is complaining about this on Starcity forums and then complaining about this on Salvation forums then? "Different forum posting?"
Cross posting is where you post the same thing in different forums. The post on page 1 is not cross-posted anywhere. The SCG thread was not about this issue, but about Glenn Goddard's article. I created a new thread here to discuss this, related, issue.
I would love to see your data to back up your claims that the system is broken or wrong, because saying a TO making $4k per event is "wrong" is not very good data.
For the hundredth time, I never said the system is broken (so please stop putting words in my mouth):
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.
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.
I haven't really read through this entire thread, but as far as I can tell this little bit is the crux of the entire arguement. I apologize if what I say here has already been said.
The only questions I really have about this issue are these:
Have you ever actually met anyone who has said straight out that they don't go to PTQs because of poor prize payout, but would attend if the prize payout was better?
If so, how many people have you met who have said this?
I haven't really read through this entire thread, but as far as I can tell this little bit is the crux of the entire arguement. I apologize if what I say here has already been said.
The only questions I really have about this issue are these:
Have you ever actually met anyone who has said straight out that they don't go to PTQs because of poor prize payout, but would attend if the prize payout was better?
It's not that people don't attend PTQs because of poor prize payout alone, but the poor prize payout, combined with the gas, combined with the travel time, etc, etc. Again, you are being reductionist on the other side. People express their decisions in terms of single factors, but that's not how decision making actually happens. It looks more like this:
I don't have to drive that far, but I'm in a similar place. The closest PTQs to me are almost 3 hours away. Even when I go with 3 friends to carpool, it's still gonna cost me 15-20 bucks for gas, money for food, possibly for a hotel, the entry fee, all that, is rarely worth how much I could have bought in packs/singles GUARANTEED, rather than a 'shot' at packs. I go for the gameplay and fun, possible trades/casual games, a chance at the invite, and mostly to test my mettle against other players. The prizes are nice, and they help me justify going, but they're icing, not cake.
I think Hoodoo has perfectly described the mix of relevant factors and represents more PTQ players than some people here are willing to admit. If prizes didn't matter, PTQ Tos wouldn't offer them. As I said before, PTQ TOs are profit maximizers, and wouldn't give away prizes they didn't need too. Prizes clearly matter.
The answer to your question is: yes, but it's not relevant if I have or if I haven't, as that would be merely anecdotal evidence.
I'm just going to say this. You are straight up not making an argument from free market principles. If people felt they were being exploited at ptqs they would not go. No one is coercing them in to going. If TO's thought they could make more money in the long run by increasing prize support, they would, because it would be in their best interests. If people thought that this "Monopolist" system of running ptqs was wrong they wouldn't play at high level magic events or they would play another game. Magic itself is competing with a large number of other games. Look at how many pros left to play poker.
If we're going to use free market principles use them. People vote with their wallets and they're voting for the current ptq system. You're basically asserting that people are stupid, TO's are stupid and that Wizards is stupid. I'm going to have to say that, while most people are dumb, they do pay attention when it comes to their money. And players think it works, so they go to ptqs. The TO's think it maximizes their profit, so they run them this way, and Wizards seems to be satisfied with the results, so they keep on doing it this way.
You're basically attempting to apply free market principles to something where is already is, and people decided, this system of ptqs is better than not ptqs. If you really think that your system would be better, convince a TO to try it and see what happens. If it works it works, and others will follow. If not then we know. In either case, making a very large public scene about this issue which only a subset of people care about and agree with you on is not the way to do it. It may have even harmed your chances of trying this idea out.
Somewhat relatedly, I don't really care about the non first place prize either. If I wanted packs, I would buy them. After spending x dollars on my deck, unless I'm getting something like 2 boxes of product for top 32 it's really not that important. I would be happy with better prizes, of course, but if I would go without it, why would they need to offer it?
A PTQ is a monopolistic tournament because it is the only tournament where you can obtain a blue envelop. As such the targeted audiance for a PTQ are the players who aspire to be on the Pro Tour. Of course there are exceptions but they do not play in PTQs on a regular basis and will not significanlty increase their PTQ attendance even if the prize support increases and is deemed to be reasonable.
The PTQ demand from this targeted audiance is inelastic because there are no other viable options for them to get on the Pro Tour. Pack prizes are viewed as consolation for "not getting there" as opposed to getting their money's worth.
If given a choice of a PTQ (similar distance and ease of access) with 300+ attendence but with awesome prize support vs a PTQ of 100 with no prize support you know and I know which tournament most of the PTQ regulars would choose.
I'm just going to say this. You are straight up not making an argument from free market principles. If people felt they were being exploited at ptqs they would not go. No one is coercing them in to going. If TO's thought they could make more money in the long run by increasing prize support, they would, because it would be in their best interests. If people thought that this "Monopolist" system of running ptqs was wrong they wouldn't play at high level magic events or they would play another game. Magic itself is competing with a large number of other games. Look at how many pros left to play poker.
You have it completely wrong because you don't understand the economic argument.
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 and more in most cases. 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. he other problem is that we’ve priced out everyone on the slope of the gray triangle here . 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.
I'm pointing out the PTQs serve a different function than non-qualifier tournaments, which is qualifying a person for Pro Tour instead of "paying out" to the winner/s (through store credit, sealed product, goods such as iPods and laptops, loose cards, and, at the top of this, cash). If the entire basis of your argument is that PTQs should serve as a cash, etc. paying events, you are asking for a fundamental change in the structure and purpose of the event you're commenting on and tournament price/organizer monopolization, free market, and most other arguments you've made on this topic (which I'm not even entirely sure what that is at this point, as it seems to vary between posts), when such events that meet your requirements already exist.
The Pro Tour Qualifier events are named as such because their function is to provide qualification for the Magic: the Gathering Pro Tour. If you think otherwise, that's very good for you, but you're using a function given as one thing for another purpose than the one it is expressly advertised as. As was stated in this thread -- the boosters or playmats or pins or whatever other trinkets you get are the icing on the qualification ticket cake.
At this point in the discussion, it seems you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. You didn't even bother to recognize I wasn't responding to you in part of the post you quoted and choose to separate individual sentence fragments out of the context of the greater post. And the one post where a European player specifically addressed your central argument? You've ignored it to launch into a semantic debate about my use of the word "collusion" and "cross-posting."
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 have learned to read for secondary emotional characteristics instead of simply primary ones. No, your individual commentary is not overemotional, or even particularly emotional (unless you feel emotions by using big words that you don't think a lot of people will understand, in which case we have a diagnosis!). However the aggregate sum of your responses... their vigor and the exacting detail you put into trying to tear apart each and every comment directed at you... I read as highly emotional, especially when you keep replying and replying and replying.
When they have you by your heart, then the troll wins. And it takes something special (and I don't mean in the good way) to treat Kibler like you did, which is why I see the vigor of your responses as emotional.
What I see as the arguments that are being dismissed is the idea that though there are inefficiencies in the system, they aren't terribly big ones... that the system as-is does a reasonable job of retaining *the players who want to play in PTQs*, and the multi-tiered system of Organized Play catches those who don't want to be as strictly competitive instead of having them wash out and stop being Magic players. That the system as-is actually does a good job and represents accurately the true costs of attending events (because to many of us, we're insensitive to event prices because travel costs at least equal and often exceed entry fees), because at the end of the day we'd rather have a well-run event and good judging staff than another box of prizes given away.
It seems to me that you're using economics on what may be a social, cultural issue as to why we are not seeing perfect retention. Economics can of course answer any question about prices and opportunity costs, but to do so it needs the exact data to compare and prove its point. So I ask the following: instead of the dead horse that seems to be getting beaten because you think you've proven your point and "they" seem to disagree, what sort of data would it take to provably display your hypothesis?
I'm pointing out the PTQs serve a different function than non-qualifier tournaments, which is qualifying a person for Pro Tour instead of "paying out" to the winner/s (through store credit, sealed product, goods such as iPods and laptops, loose cards, and, at the top of this, cash).
While that may be true from many player's perspective, this is not the reality.
The purpose of the PTQ is to generate card sales. As I've said many times now, the Pro Tour exists to serve PTQs, not the inverse. The Pro Tour exists to generate card sales, and it does this by creating a demand for cards at the PTQ level. While the individual players' rationale to attend is, in part, to qualify, that is certainly not their actual purpose. The purpose of other tournaments is the same: generate card sales.
If the entire basis of your argument is that PTQs should serve as a cash, etc. paying events,
False dichotomy. I'm sayint yes/and, not either/or.
you are asking for a fundamental change in the structure and purpose of the event you're commenting on and tournament price/organizer monopolization, free market, and most other arguments you've made on this topic (which I'm not even entirely sure what that is at this point, as it seems to vary between posts), when such events that meet your requirements already exist.
The Pro Tour Qualifier events are named as such because their function is to provide qualification for the Magic: the Gathering Pro Tour.[/quote]
Again, wrong. The purpose of PTQs is to generate card sales. The Pro Tour is an ingenius incentive to accomplish this end. As I said:
Only a tiny fraction of the players who play on PTQs can actually make it to the PT Level. Most people who want to compete at the highest level will have to do it at the GP/PTQ level, and the PTQ is the most accessible and widely played form of this for most people. Sure, people *hope* to win and get to the PT, but the PT exists to promote PTQs, which generates card sales.
If you think otherwise, that's very good for you, but you're using a function given as one thing for another purpose than the one it is expressly advertised as. [/quote]
Welcome to the wonderful world of marketing.
As was stated in this thread -- the boosters or playmats or pins or whatever other trinkets you get are the icing on the qualification ticket cake.
They are a contributing factor that influences the decision matrix of whether to attend.
Ultimately, you are still arguing a point that was long refuted: that you don't believe an increase in prizes would produce an increase in attendance. It's simpy untrue. An increase in prizes does affect attendance.
At this point in the discussion, it seems you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.
this isn't true. Unfortunately, what is true is that people are not actually reading the arguments I've advanced, and instead skimming over the original post, or glossing over it, and it's forcing me to reiterate or quote chunks of text that people didn't read.
Also, you made arguments like 1) my argument fails because packs can't be transfered into cash to buy a burger, 2) my argument fails because other tournaments offer bigger prizes, 3) That my argument fails because I don't grind in PTQs. I've basically explained or refuted each of those. That's not arguing for the sake of arguing, that's arguing to show that your points don't actually refute my contentions.
You didn't even bother to recognize I wasn't responding to you in part of the post you quoted
So? I'm not allowed to respond to arguments not directed at me?
and choose to separate individual sentence fragments out of the context of the greater post.
But that doesn't mean I straw manned your argument.
And the one post where a European player specifically addressed your central argument? You've ignored it
No, I didn't. I directly addressed it:
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?
to launch into a semantic debate about my use of the word "collusion" and "cross-posting."
When you say that I'm arguing against collusion, and I point out that this isn't true, that's not semantics. Also, when you say that I'm cross-posting, to imply that I'm simply arguing for the sake of arguing, and multipying the fora of this discussion to 'make my voice louder,' it's relevant to the issue at hand, and the ad hominem attacks, when I point out that this is not in fact what I've been doing.
Quote from The Wizards of the Coast Magic: the Gathering Pro Tour Qualifier Page »
Earn an invitation to the Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour!
Winners receive airfare to the Pro Tour!*
Get involved in the local tournament scene!
Meet new players in your area!
Play the Game, See the World!
Qualifier tournaments are where the game really gets serious. The excitement level is high and the stakes are even higher. Players the world over converge with a common goal in mind -- an invitation to the Pro Tour, which could include an airplane ticket to the next Pro Tour location.
...
Prizes
Invitations and airfare to the next Pro Tour are awarded to the top finishers, with the exact number of invitations determined by tournament location. Some locations offer cash prizes instead of airfare. Additional prizes may be awarded at the discretion of the event organizers.
I am a casual Magic player. I have never been to a GP or a PTQ. Heck, I'm not even a very good player. But I understand that a Pro Tour Qualifier gets you an invite to the Pro Tour, and a Grand Prix gets you fabulous cash and prizes. I understand that there are two paths of tournament play. You seem to want to use the Duelist Kingdom model, where Maximillian Pegasus gives you both the Glory of the King's Hand and the Glory of the King's Opposite Hand. You appear to want to merge Pro Tour Qualifiers and Grand Prixes. Your argument is sound, but the problem is that you are assuming that tournament organizers act exclusively in the interests of perpetuating the existence of the game. As much as that appeals to my optimistic sensibilities, that is not how the world works. People go to different tournaments for different reasons. I play casual Magic because competitive Magic is not interesting to me. But that doesn't mean I think competitive Magic should be changed or abolished. Different types of play appeal to different people. If people want to win fabulous cash and prizes, then they know that a Pro Tour Qualifier probably isn't the event for them. As much of a scrub as I am at Magic, I understand this. You understand this. I know you do. You seem like a really smart guy with a really dumb idea.
As Kijin said in a completely different thread, sometimes you have to love your ideas enough to let them go.
I have learned to read for secondary emotional characteristics instead of simply primary ones. No, your individual commentary is not overemotional, or even particularly emotional (unless you feel emotions by using big words that you don't think a lot of people will understand, in which case we have a diagnosis!). However the aggregate sum of your responses... their vigor and the exacting detail you put into trying to tear apart each and every comment directed at you... I read as highly emotional, especially when you keep replying and replying and replying.
It goes to show that people filter information through their own lenses, particularly their own preconceptions regarding tone and emotional intent. Some think that I have asperger’s syndrome, so emotional tone are often lost on me, and I’m probably more literal than most people.
When they have you by your heart, then the troll wins. And it takes something special (and I don't mean in the good way) to treat Kibler like you did, which is why I see the vigor of your responses as emotional.
I get that you are implying that I treated Kibler “badly,” but that’s simply not the case. I gave him 1500 of words in response, fairly and clearly addressing each of the arguments he advanced. This, despite the fact that some of his arguments were actually ad hominems or merely repeating, verbatim, arguments that I had actually mentioned by name (see OP Counter Argumet #1), and then addressed there, without actually adding anything new to them.
For example, he opened his first post by asking if I even play in PTQs, which, as I said, 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.
I think I was totally fair, and gave his points their just consideration, despite the insinuation that if I don’t PTQ, my arguments are somehow less valid. His raising that issue actually caused others to parrot it, despite its logical irrelevance.
Moreover, each of the arguments he raised, I fully addressed: 1) The quality service argument, 2) the PTQ is for the invite argument, 3) the I'm being too theoretical argument, etc, I responded despite the fact that the first one was fully and centrally featured in the original post, and he raised nothing new to it. The second one was also fully addressed mid-thread. The (3) was new, but I was hardly dismissive or unfair. I fully answered it:
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.
What I see as the arguments that are being dismissed is the idea that though there are inefficiencies in the system, they aren't terribly big ones...
I’m not dismissing that argument, I’m addressing it. This is an empirical question that we can’t actually know the answer to without a competitive system/marketplace to tell us.
One of the criticisms of central planning and communism is that without markets, you can’t actually know how to price goods. That’s the same idea here. Your argument is that, well, there might be inefficiencies, but it’s pretty close to optimal. That’s mere speculation since we have actually no way of knowing that. It’s a fundamental epistemological problem t hat there is literally no way of knowing whether your point is true, and my point being that we can only know this if we have a market to show it.
that the system as-is does a reasonable job of retaining *the players who want to play in PTQs*,
I actually agree with this, by definition, but my argument is already premised on this. Since people who want to play in PTQs are already on the left side of the demand curve. The problem is that what people’s costs/benefit equation changes over time, and those people move to the other side of the demand curve, and instead of actually focusing on retention and retainment, we treat players as replaceable.
and the multi-tiered system of Organized Play catches those who don't want to be as strictly competitive instead of having them wash out and stop being Magic players. That the system as-is actually does a good job and represents accurately the true costs of attending events (because to many of us, we're insensitive to event prices because travel costs at least equal and often exceed entry fees), because at the end of the day we'd rather have a well-run event and good judging staff than another box of prizes given away.
False dichotomy. Under a more competitive system, we could have both.
It seems to me that you're using economics on what may be a social, cultural issue as to why we are not seeing perfect retention. Economics can of course answer any question about prices and opportunity costs, but to do so it needs the exact data to compare and prove its point.
I’m not sure you are understanding the monopoly pricing argument. We aren’t seeing maximium retention because, as I said, monopolistic pricing cuts out everyone on the slope of the gray triangle here . Over time, more and more poeple's demand curves shfit to the other side of that line. 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.
So I ask the following: instead of the dead horse that seems to be getting beaten because you think you've proven your point and "they" seem to disagree, what sort of data would it take to provably display your hypothesis?
Move to a competitive system, and see what pricing, value, benefits, etc. are created by competition.
As I said: welcome to the wonderful world of marketing. Businesses exist to make money. The Pro Tour exists not so that players can win all these cool prizes, but to make even more money for the business. A business markets its product to sell its product.
My sub argument is that increasing prizes will increase attendance. You, and others, are saying that this isn’t true because people don’t play for prizes, they play for the invite.
Yet, this clearly isn’t true. First of all, prizes are a cosideration for many players. Secondly, even if they aren't a front end consideration, making top 8 and walking away with nothing would be a deterrent to attending agai.
Third, If the prizes didn’t matter, PTQ TOs woudn’t offer them. The prizes do matter. They matter because they increase attendance.
Your counter argument is that this doesn’t matter because the purpose of a PTQ is to win an invite.
This argument fails because it’s untrue and it’s irrelevant. I’m showing you how it’s irrelevant because we are talking about a business perspective here. It's in Wizards interest to maximize attendance.
The purpose of PTQs is to generate card sales. The Pro Tour is an ingenius incentive to accomplish this end. Only a tiny fraction of the players who play on PTQs can actually make it to the PT Level. Most people who want to compete at the highest level will have to do it at the GP/PTQ level, and the PTQ is the most accessible and widely played form of this for most people. Sure, people *hope* to win and get to the PT, but the PT exists to promote PTQs, which generates card sales.
I got as far as Sam Stoddard telling smennen that nobody agrees with him, so I figured I'd post.
I completely agree with Menendian here. There is a system of regional monopolies, not only for PTQs, but for things like pre-releases too. Even certain fiat-money products like From the Vault: whatever, are sold exclusively to certain shops.
Smennen's counterfactual of the $1,000,000 prize PTQ hasn't been refuted, that I've seen. The notion that more prizes would increase attendance seems undeniable to me, yet many deny it.
I know Glen Goddard personally. He has a vested interest in this argument. You can't expect a TO with a monopoly on a region's PTQs to speak objectively about this, can you? Glen's a great guy, but we're not debating Glen or Pete Hoefling's (Or whoever's) personal virtue, we're talking about reforming the PTQ system to try an increase attendance.
Now I know this discussion's gone pretty steeply down the "prizes" rabbit hole. My initial reaction to Glen's article was different.
As someone who has played magic since the very early Legends days, back when I was like 14 years old, I've gone through a lot of transitions. When I graduated college, and lived as a bachelor, I bought playsets of every set that came out so I could compete in Standard. Now I have two kids, a wife, and a mortgage.
The #1 cost prohibiting me from continuing to play competitive magic is not the cost of travel, but the cost of the cards.
I personally blame mythic rares for this, and would love to hear anyone else's thoughts on this matter.
If mythic rares were abandoned as just another honest mistake, like banding or interrupts or pre-6th / pre-10th rules, I think the game would benefit.
I simply can't afford to keep even a single deck up and running for Standard, particularly when dominant decks tend to use 2-5 mythic rare playsets.
The cost of a deck has increased sharply. So I'm relegated to limited play and increasingly underpowered legacy (as crap like Jace The Mind Sculptor keep coming out, costing $80 while they're in-print).
So anyway, does anyone share this feeling? And more importantly, does anyone have an argument to the contrary? I'd love to hear thoughts on mythics and their effect on the turnout at competitive events.
I'm a case study of a person who was long a PTQ competitor, striving to make the PT, but eventually giving in to the prohibitive cost of acquiring cards.
EDIT - also, I loved the argument against Smennen that "you're too long winded"... that because he's loquacious, he must be wrong. A nice anti-rationalist, no-nothing, Luddite sentiment, IMO. If you can't say something in one sentence, it's wrong? WTF? Thanks for keeping the faith, smennen... I know the pain as a fellow "loquacian" haha.
I got as far as Sam Stoddard telling smennen that nobody agrees with him, so I figured I'd post.
I completely agree with Menendian here.
Thank you. As I said, it takes courage to go against the popular grain.
On a unrelated note, I'm not the only one who sees that the purpose of hte Pro Tour is to sell cards, and that it does this by selling PTQs, which in turn sell cards.
Peter Jahn, [url=
[URL]http://puremtgo.com/articles/ten-reasons-why-playing-pro-tour-online-bad-idea?page=1[/URL]] here [/url], wrote:
The Pro Tour Exists to Sell Cards
The purpose of the Pro Tour is to promote the playing and sale of Magic cards. Over the years, the Pro Tour has built leading players into celebrities, in much the same way that professional sports turns players into celebrities. The Pro Tour has also pushed the slogan “play the game, see the world.” Finally, the Pro Tour is the apex of the organized play pyramid, which starts with local TOs, like me, running non-rated casual tournaments, up through FNM, GPTs, PTQs, GPs and up to the Pro Tours. That pyramid exists, to a large extent, to promote tournament play at local stores.
Watching pros play on computers may not promote local tournament play quite as well as watching them play with cards, on tables, just like at the store.
I don’t have access to the marketing data that Wizards collects, but I have met and talked to many of the WotC people at brand, organized play and so forth. I’m pretty comfortable with this conclusion.
I go for the gameplay and fun, possible trades/casual games, a chance at the invite, and mostly to test my mettle against other players. The prizes are nice, and they help me justify going, but they're icing, not cake.
Lets say there are 2 tournaments the same day. One awards 2 PT invites but no product. The other awards 5x the product usually given at a PTQ but no invite. Same entry cost.
With my eyes closed I will attend the one with the PT invites. As many people have posted, product prize is the icing, not the cake.
You beat me to making this very point. Invites are a finite, non substitutable good. If anything, I question why TOs waste even a single pack on prize support. The MTGO PTQs certainly don't (something like 16 packs for 5th place in a 500! person tournament) and clearly the market forces are reinforcing that valuation of the first prize.
4) The OP claims that it is "undeniable" that PTQ demand is elastic with regard to prize support. This is an assumption of the model, not a conclusion. With no data whatsoever, it's just an assumption.
Do you even play in PTQs Steve? The prize payout is the absolute last thing on most players' minds. They're there to win an invite or to have a fun, competitive day of Magic.
@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.
I'm not the only one who sees that the purpose of hte Pro Tour is to sell cards, and that it does this by selling PTQs, which in turn sell cards.
Peter Jahn, [URL="http://%3cbr%20/%3E[URL"]http://puremtgo.com/articles/ten-reasons-why-playing-pro-tour-online-bad-idea?page=1[/URL]] here [/url], wrote:
The Pro Tour Exists to Sell Cards The purpose of the Pro Tour is to promote the playing and sale of Magic cards. Over the years, the Pro Tour has built leading players into celebrities, in much the same way that professional sports turns players into celebrities. The Pro Tour has also pushed the slogan “play the game, see the world.” Finally, the Pro Tour is the apex of the organized play pyramid, which starts with local TOs, like me, running non-rated casual tournaments, up through FNM, GPTs, PTQs, GPs and up to the Pro Tours. That pyramid exists, to a large extent, to promote tournament play at local stores. Watching pros play on computers may not promote local tournament play quite as well as watching them play with cards, on tables, just like at the store. I don’t have access to the marketing data that Wizards collects, but I have met and talked to many of the WotC people at brand, organized play and so forth. I’m pretty comfortable with this conclusion.
Back with my take on the bidding issue and why it isn't feasible on a large scale.
In a competitive business its logical and expected to have people bid for the right to provide you with services. But what isn't obvious is that not every business of the same type is on the same level. My LGS, Adventure Cards and Comics, is a Premier Tournament Organizer and so is Millineum Games in Rochester but one is a small business and the other is an enormous gaming center with computers and arcade games in addition to cards. Should Adventure be able to bid on hosting a PTQ just because its a PTO(I consider being a PTO the basest requirement for hosting a PTQ)? No, they have no experience with large events whatsoever. I think that higher caliber businesses should be able to host PTQ's but I also think there needs to be a base standard for PTQ's that everyone, veteran and noob alike, has to adhere to.
I have played in 3 PTQs and I'm-not-sure-I-remember-how-many JSS Qualifier events over my Magic playing career. Over the course of every single one of those events, not once did I think, "Man, I hope I can win this next round so I can walk away with a box or possibly more than a box of MAGIC: THE GATHERING trading card game product!"
You are the only person who has overtly stated incentive for PTQs is anything more than the Qualification to the Pro Tour. Every other person has said that, to the contrary, they only play to make it to the larger event.
Whether or not this allows Wizards to move more product is irrelevant because the very basis of your argument is based on the assumption that players at a Pro Tour Qualifier are there for something more than to qualify for the Pro Tour. The entire pool of those responding to this thread in regard to that qualifying statement disagree with you. By definition, that makes your statement an (unqualified) opinion.
Now you're just being ridiculous. Are you saying that 99% of Pro Tour Qualifier players are under some bizarre delusion about what a Pro Tour Qualifier is? Did you not get the invitation box with the Star Glove and the Star Chips? I did. Mine even had a spooky videotape. Seriously, though, the purpose of a Pro Tour Qualifier is to qualify for the Pro Tour. That in and of itself is enough reason to go. And yes, it does perpetuate the buying of cards, because to play on the Pro Tour, my budget Omnath Commander deck isn't gonna cut it.
Hahaha. Awesome quote. But don't forget that the MTGSalvation forum isn't necessarily a representative sampling of PTQ attendees.
Obviously (OBVIOUSLY) you go to a Pro Tour QUALIFIER, to try and qualify. That's obviously goal #1.
But there are tons of players, like me, who understand that our own chances of being #1 that day are slim. And the majority of PTQ attendees are in this boat. We have to ask ourselves whether playing "for the competition" or whatever, is worth it.
Now, if hefty prizes went down to 16th place, it stands to reason more folks like me would show up, since hey, even if I don't win, I can still walk away with some packs.
Consider this: why must the TO lose their (allegedly) slim profit margin to support these hypothetical increased prizes we're talking about? Imagine that WotC sent an additional case of product solely for use as bonus prizes to each PTQ? What then? Would you still contend that this would have no effect on attendance?
It seem that the people arguing that more prizes wouldn't mean better attendance are taking this (IMO illogical) stance mostly because they want to defend the TOs against what they perceive as Smennen's unfair attack on their monopoly.
So remove the TO from the equation. Yeah, Smennen has argued that competition would be better, and this is free market capitalist economic dogma... it's hard to deny Adam Smith. (For the record, I'm not sure that there's enough potential competitors, at least in my area, Albuquerque NM, to fill the void, even if competition were allowed... Glen Goddard is pretty much the only show in town, and entry into that market is pretty high... you have to buy tons of product to get competitive wholesale pricing, etc...) But for the moment, ignore the TOs. Let's assume the Godfather here, WotC, would be responsible for the extra prizes. What then? Still think more prizes wouldn't mean better turnout?
I think it's interesting that there are these incentives to artificially control the supply of Magic cards. Once a set is designed, magic cards are like coca-cola... they cost pennies to manufacture. But who is served by keeping the supply so low? What would it hurt for WotC to allow another ten cases per PTQ of each set to be printed, and to simply give them away as excess prizes to increase attendance? At some point, it would lower card sales...
I guess I'm trying to beat around the WotC bush. Why are we focused on the TOs, but willing to give Hasbro a pass? They've come to the conclusion that their profits are maximized by controlling the supply and allowing the TOs to decide on prize structure (and to make TOs pay for all the prize product)...
Furthermore, all the economic discussion that may or may not apply to a TO like Glen (does he find the intersection between his supply and demand curves? Who the hell knows, but probably not!) certainly apply to a corporation like Hasbro. They're definitely looking at how to maximize profits... indeed, they're legally bound to do so, right? So what enters into their calculus?
Seems to me that WotC might be the better place to start, rather than these TOs, who, if Glen Goddard is any indication, are just random comic-shop owners doing this on the side for some extra cash... most of them probably like Magic, and want to see it succeed, beyond their own financial interest. But WotC has a very clear mandate to max out their profitability. If the PTQs are really in a state of crisis (again, I haven't played in them since roughly the moment mythic rares first appeared), then what can WotC do about it, and what are they / aren't they doing?
Also... mythics? Anyone? Man, I can't stand Mythic Rares. Ruined Magic for me... at least until the economy improves significantly.
But there are tons of players, like me, who understand that our own chances of being #1 that day are slim. And the majority of PTQ attendees are in this boat. We have to ask ourselves whether playing "for the competition" or whatever, is worth it.
Now, if hefty prizes went down to 16th place, it stands to reason more folks like me would show up, since hey, even if I don't win, I can still walk away with some packs.
Magic Online forgoes any overhead costs (aside from servers and maintaining [digital] product), etc., yet online PTQs generate up to 500 attendees and, as quoted, prize support is dwarfed by real-world prize support.
I am not saying MODO and IRL events are the same thing, but as an idealized example where we can ignore most all extraneous costs, dealers tables, side events, paying judges, travel, hotel, computer, paper, ink, so on and so forth expenses, and get down to bare-bones "cost, player, prizes" in a PTQ, MODO numbers still exceed IRL numbers just because that qualification prize exists.
Obviously, OBVIOUSLY Wizards of the Coast wants to sell product. That has no bearing on prize structure or why players attend a PTQ, except to serve as an example of a successful business model for selling those cards.
The answer to your question is: yes, but it's not relevant if I have or if I haven't, as that would be merely anecdotal evidence.
Your whole arguement is that offering better prizes will increase attendance at PTQs. But I don't see any evidence that attendance is being kept down by poor prize support.
Yes, TOs can make a ton of money running PTQs - which could be used to offer better prize support. And yes, the amount of prize that is being offered can factor into someone's decision to go. But is there data to show the correlation between the amount of prize support and the number of attendees?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You have admitted to not playing PTQs, yet you are trying to fix PTQs. Why not actually attend one and see if the people are there to win packs or win the slot? You are making all of these assumptions with out dating to back you up.
And did you just compare the PTQ system to the housing market? Really? There are no mortgage rates with PTQs. Wow, I can't believe you did that honestly.
PTQs aren't there to attract or retain players. They are gateways to the Pro Tour.
And you said you didn't cross post? What is complaining about this on Starcity forums and then complaining about this on Salvation forums then? "Different forum posting?"
I would love to see your data to back up your claims that the system is broken or wrong, because saying a TO making $4k per event is "wrong" is not very good data.
Kijin is speaking about me.
Yes, in this Magic General subforum, I commented on a Magic topic. I can perhaps be forgiven for thinking that when the OP posted an argument here that it was meant to convince any Magic player reader. If the intended audience is only PTQ attendees, he surely would have posted elsewhere.
It would be cheapening to say that. I don't recall saying that though, even essentially. My essentialist statement would be closer to: "This isn't something that personally affects me, but having read your argument, I see why you're upset." and maybe also, "What I don't understand is the extreme vitriol this topic seems to generate."
And, as I've said a hundred times, people go to PTQs for many reasons, not just one. While winning an invite is an important reason, it's reductionist to say its the only one.
As I've said:
And from the first post:
I've offered plenty of facts and data to back up my claims. Instead of making ad hominems or attacking me, why don't you attack my arguments and facts, and show where they come up short?
It's called an analogy. I also made an analogy to sports teams. I'm sorry you are shocked by the use of an analogy.
Except that, as I said on page 5:
Cross posting is where you post the same thing in different forums. The post on page 1 is not cross-posted anywhere. The SCG thread was not about this issue, but about Glenn Goddard's article. I created a new thread here to discuss this, related, issue.
For the hundredth time, I never said the system is broken (so please stop putting words in my mouth):
I haven't really read through this entire thread, but as far as I can tell this little bit is the crux of the entire arguement. I apologize if what I say here has already been said.
The only questions I really have about this issue are these:
Have you ever actually met anyone who has said straight out that they don't go to PTQs because of poor prize payout, but would attend if the prize payout was better?
If so, how many people have you met who have said this?
It's not that people don't attend PTQs because of poor prize payout alone, but the poor prize payout, combined with the gas, combined with the travel time, etc, etc. Again, you are being reductionist on the other side. People express their decisions in terms of single factors, but that's not how decision making actually happens. It looks more like this:
I think Hoodoo has perfectly described the mix of relevant factors and represents more PTQ players than some people here are willing to admit. If prizes didn't matter, PTQ Tos wouldn't offer them. As I said before, PTQ TOs are profit maximizers, and wouldn't give away prizes they didn't need too. Prizes clearly matter.
The answer to your question is: yes, but it's not relevant if I have or if I haven't, as that would be merely anecdotal evidence.
If we're going to use free market principles use them. People vote with their wallets and they're voting for the current ptq system. You're basically asserting that people are stupid, TO's are stupid and that Wizards is stupid. I'm going to have to say that, while most people are dumb, they do pay attention when it comes to their money. And players think it works, so they go to ptqs. The TO's think it maximizes their profit, so they run them this way, and Wizards seems to be satisfied with the results, so they keep on doing it this way.
You're basically attempting to apply free market principles to something where is already is, and people decided, this system of ptqs is better than not ptqs. If you really think that your system would be better, convince a TO to try it and see what happens. If it works it works, and others will follow. If not then we know. In either case, making a very large public scene about this issue which only a subset of people care about and agree with you on is not the way to do it. It may have even harmed your chances of trying this idea out.
Somewhat relatedly, I don't really care about the non first place prize either. If I wanted packs, I would buy them. After spending x dollars on my deck, unless I'm getting something like 2 boxes of product for top 32 it's really not that important. I would be happy with better prizes, of course, but if I would go without it, why would they need to offer it?
The PTQ demand from this targeted audiance is inelastic because there are no other viable options for them to get on the Pro Tour. Pack prizes are viewed as consolation for "not getting there" as opposed to getting their money's worth.
If given a choice of a PTQ (similar distance and ease of access) with 300+ attendence but with awesome prize support vs a PTQ of 100 with no prize support you know and I know which tournament most of the PTQ regulars would choose.
You have it completely wrong because you don't understand the economic argument.
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 and more in most cases. 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. he other problem is that we’ve priced out everyone on the slope of the gray triangle here . 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.
The Pro Tour Qualifier events are named as such because their function is to provide qualification for the Magic: the Gathering Pro Tour. If you think otherwise, that's very good for you, but you're using a function given as one thing for another purpose than the one it is expressly advertised as. As was stated in this thread -- the boosters or playmats or pins or whatever other trinkets you get are the icing on the qualification ticket cake.
At this point in the discussion, it seems you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. You didn't even bother to recognize I wasn't responding to you in part of the post you quoted and choose to separate individual sentence fragments out of the context of the greater post. And the one post where a European player specifically addressed your central argument? You've ignored it to launch into a semantic debate about my use of the word "collusion" and "cross-posting."
Good luck with your crusade, Steve.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
When they have you by your heart, then the troll wins. And it takes something special (and I don't mean in the good way) to treat Kibler like you did, which is why I see the vigor of your responses as emotional.
What I see as the arguments that are being dismissed is the idea that though there are inefficiencies in the system, they aren't terribly big ones... that the system as-is does a reasonable job of retaining *the players who want to play in PTQs*, and the multi-tiered system of Organized Play catches those who don't want to be as strictly competitive instead of having them wash out and stop being Magic players. That the system as-is actually does a good job and represents accurately the true costs of attending events (because to many of us, we're insensitive to event prices because travel costs at least equal and often exceed entry fees), because at the end of the day we'd rather have a well-run event and good judging staff than another box of prizes given away.
It seems to me that you're using economics on what may be a social, cultural issue as to why we are not seeing perfect retention. Economics can of course answer any question about prices and opportunity costs, but to do so it needs the exact data to compare and prove its point. So I ask the following: instead of the dead horse that seems to be getting beaten because you think you've proven your point and "they" seem to disagree, what sort of data would it take to provably display your hypothesis?
While that may be true from many player's perspective, this is not the reality.
The purpose of the PTQ is to generate card sales. As I've said many times now, the Pro Tour exists to serve PTQs, not the inverse. The Pro Tour exists to generate card sales, and it does this by creating a demand for cards at the PTQ level. While the individual players' rationale to attend is, in part, to qualify, that is certainly not their actual purpose. The purpose of other tournaments is the same: generate card sales.
False dichotomy. I'm sayint yes/and, not either/or.
The Pro Tour Qualifier events are named as such because their function is to provide qualification for the Magic: the Gathering Pro Tour.[/quote]
Again, wrong. The purpose of PTQs is to generate card sales. The Pro Tour is an ingenius incentive to accomplish this end. As I said:
If you think otherwise, that's very good for you, but you're using a function given as one thing for another purpose than the one it is expressly advertised as. [/quote]
Welcome to the wonderful world of marketing.
They are a contributing factor that influences the decision matrix of whether to attend.
Ultimately, you are still arguing a point that was long refuted: that you don't believe an increase in prizes would produce an increase in attendance. It's simpy untrue. An increase in prizes does affect attendance.
this isn't true. Unfortunately, what is true is that people are not actually reading the arguments I've advanced, and instead skimming over the original post, or glossing over it, and it's forcing me to reiterate or quote chunks of text that people didn't read.
Also, you made arguments like 1) my argument fails because packs can't be transfered into cash to buy a burger, 2) my argument fails because other tournaments offer bigger prizes, 3) That my argument fails because I don't grind in PTQs. I've basically explained or refuted each of those. That's not arguing for the sake of arguing, that's arguing to show that your points don't actually refute my contentions.
So? I'm not allowed to respond to arguments not directed at me?
But that doesn't mean I straw manned your argument.
No, I didn't. I directly addressed it:
When you say that I'm arguing against collusion, and I point out that this isn't true, that's not semantics. Also, when you say that I'm cross-posting, to imply that I'm simply arguing for the sake of arguing, and multipying the fora of this discussion to 'make my voice louder,' it's relevant to the issue at hand, and the ad hominem attacks, when I point out that this is not in fact what I've been doing.
http://shadow.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/events/ptq
Okay.
Good luck.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
I am a casual Magic player. I have never been to a GP or a PTQ. Heck, I'm not even a very good player. But I understand that a Pro Tour Qualifier gets you an invite to the Pro Tour, and a Grand Prix gets you fabulous cash and prizes. I understand that there are two paths of tournament play. You seem to want to use the Duelist Kingdom model, where Maximillian Pegasus gives you both the Glory of the King's Hand and the Glory of the King's Opposite Hand. You appear to want to merge Pro Tour Qualifiers and Grand Prixes. Your argument is sound, but the problem is that you are assuming that tournament organizers act exclusively in the interests of perpetuating the existence of the game. As much as that appeals to my optimistic sensibilities, that is not how the world works. People go to different tournaments for different reasons. I play casual Magic because competitive Magic is not interesting to me. But that doesn't mean I think competitive Magic should be changed or abolished. Different types of play appeal to different people. If people want to win fabulous cash and prizes, then they know that a Pro Tour Qualifier probably isn't the event for them. As much of a scrub as I am at Magic, I understand this. You understand this. I know you do. You seem like a really smart guy with a really dumb idea.
As Kijin said in a completely different thread, sometimes you have to love your ideas enough to let them go.
It goes to show that people filter information through their own lenses, particularly their own preconceptions regarding tone and emotional intent. Some think that I have asperger’s syndrome, so emotional tone are often lost on me, and I’m probably more literal than most people.
I get that you are implying that I treated Kibler “badly,” but that’s simply not the case. I gave him 1500 of words in response, fairly and clearly addressing each of the arguments he advanced. This, despite the fact that some of his arguments were actually ad hominems or merely repeating, verbatim, arguments that I had actually mentioned by name (see OP Counter Argumet #1), and then addressed there, without actually adding anything new to them.
For example, he opened his first post by asking if I even play in PTQs, which, as I said, 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.
I think I was totally fair, and gave his points their just consideration, despite the insinuation that if I don’t PTQ, my arguments are somehow less valid. His raising that issue actually caused others to parrot it, despite its logical irrelevance.
Moreover, each of the arguments he raised, I fully addressed: 1) The quality service argument, 2) the PTQ is for the invite argument, 3) the I'm being too theoretical argument, etc, I responded despite the fact that the first one was fully and centrally featured in the original post, and he raised nothing new to it. The second one was also fully addressed mid-thread. The (3) was new, but I was hardly dismissive or unfair. I fully answered it:
I’m not dismissing that argument, I’m addressing it. This is an empirical question that we can’t actually know the answer to without a competitive system/marketplace to tell us.
One of the criticisms of central planning and communism is that without markets, you can’t actually know how to price goods. That’s the same idea here. Your argument is that, well, there might be inefficiencies, but it’s pretty close to optimal. That’s mere speculation since we have actually no way of knowing that. It’s a fundamental epistemological problem t hat there is literally no way of knowing whether your point is true, and my point being that we can only know this if we have a market to show it.
I actually agree with this, by definition, but my argument is already premised on this. Since people who want to play in PTQs are already on the left side of the demand curve. The problem is that what people’s costs/benefit equation changes over time, and those people move to the other side of the demand curve, and instead of actually focusing on retention and retainment, we treat players as replaceable.
False dichotomy. Under a more competitive system, we could have both.
I’m not sure you are understanding the monopoly pricing argument. We aren’t seeing maximium retention because, as I said, monopolistic pricing cuts out everyone on the slope of the gray triangle here . Over time, more and more poeple's demand curves shfit to the other side of that line. 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.
Move to a competitive system, and see what pricing, value, benefits, etc. are created by competition.
As I said: welcome to the wonderful world of marketing. Businesses exist to make money. The Pro Tour exists not so that players can win all these cool prizes, but to make even more money for the business. A business markets its product to sell its product.
My sub argument is that increasing prizes will increase attendance. You, and others, are saying that this isn’t true because people don’t play for prizes, they play for the invite.
Yet, this clearly isn’t true. First of all, prizes are a cosideration for many players. Secondly, even if they aren't a front end consideration, making top 8 and walking away with nothing would be a deterrent to attending agai.
Third, If the prizes didn’t matter, PTQ TOs woudn’t offer them. The prizes do matter. They matter because they increase attendance.
Your counter argument is that this doesn’t matter because the purpose of a PTQ is to win an invite.
This argument fails because it’s untrue and it’s irrelevant. I’m showing you how it’s irrelevant because we are talking about a business perspective here. It's in Wizards interest to maximize attendance.
The purpose of PTQs is to generate card sales. The Pro Tour is an ingenius incentive to accomplish this end. Only a tiny fraction of the players who play on PTQs can actually make it to the PT Level. Most people who want to compete at the highest level will have to do it at the GP/PTQ level, and the PTQ is the most accessible and widely played form of this for most people. Sure, people *hope* to win and get to the PT, but the PT exists to promote PTQs, which generates card sales.
I completely agree with Menendian here. There is a system of regional monopolies, not only for PTQs, but for things like pre-releases too. Even certain fiat-money products like From the Vault: whatever, are sold exclusively to certain shops.
Smennen's counterfactual of the $1,000,000 prize PTQ hasn't been refuted, that I've seen. The notion that more prizes would increase attendance seems undeniable to me, yet many deny it.
I know Glen Goddard personally. He has a vested interest in this argument. You can't expect a TO with a monopoly on a region's PTQs to speak objectively about this, can you? Glen's a great guy, but we're not debating Glen or Pete Hoefling's (Or whoever's) personal virtue, we're talking about reforming the PTQ system to try an increase attendance.
Now I know this discussion's gone pretty steeply down the "prizes" rabbit hole. My initial reaction to Glen's article was different.
As someone who has played magic since the very early Legends days, back when I was like 14 years old, I've gone through a lot of transitions. When I graduated college, and lived as a bachelor, I bought playsets of every set that came out so I could compete in Standard. Now I have two kids, a wife, and a mortgage.
The #1 cost prohibiting me from continuing to play competitive magic is not the cost of travel, but the cost of the cards.
I personally blame mythic rares for this, and would love to hear anyone else's thoughts on this matter.
If mythic rares were abandoned as just another honest mistake, like banding or interrupts or pre-6th / pre-10th rules, I think the game would benefit.
I simply can't afford to keep even a single deck up and running for Standard, particularly when dominant decks tend to use 2-5 mythic rare playsets.
The cost of a deck has increased sharply. So I'm relegated to limited play and increasingly underpowered legacy (as crap like Jace The Mind Sculptor keep coming out, costing $80 while they're in-print).
So anyway, does anyone share this feeling? And more importantly, does anyone have an argument to the contrary? I'd love to hear thoughts on mythics and their effect on the turnout at competitive events.
I'm a case study of a person who was long a PTQ competitor, striving to make the PT, but eventually giving in to the prohibitive cost of acquiring cards.
EDIT - also, I loved the argument against Smennen that "you're too long winded"... that because he's loquacious, he must be wrong. A nice anti-rationalist, no-nothing, Luddite sentiment, IMO. If you can't say something in one sentence, it's wrong? WTF? Thanks for keeping the faith, smennen... I know the pain as a fellow "loquacian" haha.
Check out the blog too.
Thank you. As I said, it takes courage to go against the popular grain.
On a unrelated note, I'm not the only one who sees that the purpose of hte Pro Tour is to sell cards, and that it does this by selling PTQs, which in turn sell cards.
Peter Jahn, [url=
[URL]http://puremtgo.com/articles/ten-reasons-why-playing-pro-tour-online-bad-idea?page=1[/URL]] here [/url], wrote:
The Pro Tour Exists to Sell Cards
The purpose of the Pro Tour is to promote the playing and sale of Magic cards. Over the years, the Pro Tour has built leading players into celebrities, in much the same way that professional sports turns players into celebrities. The Pro Tour has also pushed the slogan “play the game, see the world.” Finally, the Pro Tour is the apex of the organized play pyramid, which starts with local TOs, like me, running non-rated casual tournaments, up through FNM, GPTs, PTQs, GPs and up to the Pro Tours. That pyramid exists, to a large extent, to promote tournament play at local stores.
Watching pros play on computers may not promote local tournament play quite as well as watching them play with cards, on tables, just like at the store.
I don’t have access to the marketing data that Wizards collects, but I have met and talked to many of the WotC people at brand, organized play and so forth. I’m pretty comfortable with this conclusion.
Wrote:
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
Steven, dude, I'm trying to defend you here, but you're making it really, really hard to do so.
No, it's not.
I'm not the only one who sees that the purpose of hte Pro Tour is to sell cards, and that it does this by selling PTQs, which in turn sell cards.
Peter Jahn, [URL="http://%3cbr%20/%3E[URL"]http://puremtgo.com/articles/ten-reasons-why-playing-pro-tour-online-bad-idea?page=1[/URL]] here [/url], wrote:
The Pro Tour Exists to Sell Cards
The purpose of the Pro Tour is to promote the playing and sale of Magic cards. Over the years, the Pro Tour has built leading players into celebrities, in much the same way that professional sports turns players into celebrities. The Pro Tour has also pushed the slogan “play the game, see the world.” Finally, the Pro Tour is the apex of the organized play pyramid, which starts with local TOs, like me, running non-rated casual tournaments, up through FNM, GPTs, PTQs, GPs and up to the Pro Tours. That pyramid exists, to a large extent, to promote tournament play at local stores.
Watching pros play on computers may not promote local tournament play quite as well as watching them play with cards, on tables, just like at the store.
I don’t have access to the marketing data that Wizards collects, but I have met and talked to many of the WotC people at brand, organized play and so forth. I’m pretty comfortable with this conclusion.
In a competitive business its logical and expected to have people bid for the right to provide you with services. But what isn't obvious is that not every business of the same type is on the same level. My LGS, Adventure Cards and Comics, is a Premier Tournament Organizer and so is Millineum Games in Rochester but one is a small business and the other is an enormous gaming center with computers and arcade games in addition to cards. Should Adventure be able to bid on hosting a PTQ just because its a PTO(I consider being a PTO the basest requirement for hosting a PTQ)? No, they have no experience with large events whatsoever. I think that higher caliber businesses should be able to host PTQ's but I also think there needs to be a base standard for PTQ's that everyone, veteran and noob alike, has to adhere to.
Yes, it is.
I have played in 3 PTQs and I'm-not-sure-I-remember-how-many JSS Qualifier events over my Magic playing career. Over the course of every single one of those events, not once did I think, "Man, I hope I can win this next round so I can walk away with a box or possibly more than a box of MAGIC: THE GATHERING trading card game product!"
You are the only person who has overtly stated incentive for PTQs is anything more than the Qualification to the Pro Tour. Every other person has said that, to the contrary, they only play to make it to the larger event.
Whether or not this allows Wizards to move more product is irrelevant because the very basis of your argument is based on the assumption that players at a Pro Tour Qualifier are there for something more than to qualify for the Pro Tour. The entire pool of those responding to this thread in regard to that qualifying statement disagree with you. By definition, that makes your statement an (unqualified) opinion.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
Dude, let it go. Seriously.
Hahaha. Awesome quote. But don't forget that the MTGSalvation forum isn't necessarily a representative sampling of PTQ attendees.
Obviously (OBVIOUSLY) you go to a Pro Tour QUALIFIER, to try and qualify. That's obviously goal #1.
But there are tons of players, like me, who understand that our own chances of being #1 that day are slim. And the majority of PTQ attendees are in this boat. We have to ask ourselves whether playing "for the competition" or whatever, is worth it.
Now, if hefty prizes went down to 16th place, it stands to reason more folks like me would show up, since hey, even if I don't win, I can still walk away with some packs.
Consider this: why must the TO lose their (allegedly) slim profit margin to support these hypothetical increased prizes we're talking about? Imagine that WotC sent an additional case of product solely for use as bonus prizes to each PTQ? What then? Would you still contend that this would have no effect on attendance?
It seem that the people arguing that more prizes wouldn't mean better attendance are taking this (IMO illogical) stance mostly because they want to defend the TOs against what they perceive as Smennen's unfair attack on their monopoly.
So remove the TO from the equation. Yeah, Smennen has argued that competition would be better, and this is free market capitalist economic dogma... it's hard to deny Adam Smith. (For the record, I'm not sure that there's enough potential competitors, at least in my area, Albuquerque NM, to fill the void, even if competition were allowed... Glen Goddard is pretty much the only show in town, and entry into that market is pretty high... you have to buy tons of product to get competitive wholesale pricing, etc...) But for the moment, ignore the TOs. Let's assume the Godfather here, WotC, would be responsible for the extra prizes. What then? Still think more prizes wouldn't mean better turnout?
I think it's interesting that there are these incentives to artificially control the supply of Magic cards. Once a set is designed, magic cards are like coca-cola... they cost pennies to manufacture. But who is served by keeping the supply so low? What would it hurt for WotC to allow another ten cases per PTQ of each set to be printed, and to simply give them away as excess prizes to increase attendance? At some point, it would lower card sales...
I guess I'm trying to beat around the WotC bush. Why are we focused on the TOs, but willing to give Hasbro a pass? They've come to the conclusion that their profits are maximized by controlling the supply and allowing the TOs to decide on prize structure (and to make TOs pay for all the prize product)...
Furthermore, all the economic discussion that may or may not apply to a TO like Glen (does he find the intersection between his supply and demand curves? Who the hell knows, but probably not!) certainly apply to a corporation like Hasbro. They're definitely looking at how to maximize profits... indeed, they're legally bound to do so, right? So what enters into their calculus?
Seems to me that WotC might be the better place to start, rather than these TOs, who, if Glen Goddard is any indication, are just random comic-shop owners doing this on the side for some extra cash... most of them probably like Magic, and want to see it succeed, beyond their own financial interest. But WotC has a very clear mandate to max out their profitability. If the PTQs are really in a state of crisis (again, I haven't played in them since roughly the moment mythic rares first appeared), then what can WotC do about it, and what are they / aren't they doing?
Also... mythics? Anyone?
Check out the blog too.
Magic Online forgoes any overhead costs (aside from servers and maintaining [digital] product), etc., yet online PTQs generate up to 500 attendees and, as quoted, prize support is dwarfed by real-world prize support.
I am not saying MODO and IRL events are the same thing, but as an idealized example where we can ignore most all extraneous costs, dealers tables, side events, paying judges, travel, hotel, computer, paper, ink, so on and so forth expenses, and get down to bare-bones "cost, player, prizes" in a PTQ, MODO numbers still exceed IRL numbers just because that qualification prize exists.
Obviously, OBVIOUSLY Wizards of the Coast wants to sell product. That has no bearing on prize structure or why players attend a PTQ, except to serve as an example of a successful business model for selling those cards.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
Your whole arguement is that offering better prizes will increase attendance at PTQs. But I don't see any evidence that attendance is being kept down by poor prize support.
Yes, TOs can make a ton of money running PTQs - which could be used to offer better prize support. And yes, the amount of prize that is being offered can factor into someone's decision to go. But is there data to show the correlation between the amount of prize support and the number of attendees?